Press Alt + R to read the document text or Alt + P to download or print.

No preview available

The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutCable Correspondence (1996-2007) ,, trid • ‘`+ CITY OF RENT() 0 0 PAGE •1 • 4:14 . -' 1055 S. GRADY WAY Fg"................................................................... g:::::Mpoli$................................. R8NTON, WA 98055 02/28/02 2120031 VENDOR: 040001 SHIP TO: JW TEL-TRONICS INC PO BOX 1282 BOTHELL, WA 98041-1282 FOB Point: Req.No.: Terms: net 30 Dept.: FINANCE DEPARTMENT Req. Del. Date: Contact: LOMBARD, SUZANN Special Inst: Confirming? N 0.44.6fitii:'::::,OunkeR .ig.::.i ',.::•::.:i:::i::::.:•:':.::::!i':::,:. :1::i--.;.i.;g.:.iggRi.:::::.::.!iniin.E•ti:4..6.iii:tti;ii.i::M.i::::,:i.:::.::Iii.ibMai::i•:. ...i.:Mg.t]:-..i:.:•.;•:::;'.:Mni.:::::::::.: E] '.0iiitPricegi'i.; 0::::M: gti.#.ita:M:ii.:0 itimgigiRragiggmr.JP2mgIgiagiggEiggeogINANgingiwiroMagifigiguomigiIINIegrimEinginguguii I.i.m!!;.,ii!si:.:;, .i.i:!iiiiii,:::::.Eir. im,iimilgv... *.P-b+.1.m.i.teitd&J.:...,Ae-ilikig:ig:9i.iiii:/iRloii-::-:.p:ii!iiiiiii!iiiii!!inia:Is .:.:.:.:.:.:.:.::.:.:.,..:,.:.:.:...:.:.:.:.:.:.......................................... ....................................................................................................,..:.,.:......................................................,„...___...:.,:......,....,...,.,.,..............„.„:„.,....„......„.....:.,.:,.,.........,...............„:„.„.„.„:„.:.,.,.::.:..„.,......,.,.........:.:.,.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:„.„.,.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.,:.:.:.....:.,::.,,,.. .................................................____„ ..„:„.„,...„_.„„....„„,._„,....,...______________„„.„,...„„:„„„.„:„...„,,,,,„_„...:„:„„,,„....,„ ...................................................________„............................................„..................................................... ............................................................__________________............................__........................................._____________________..__. __. _.__._._._._____. ___________________________.__________________. ____.____._________._____ _. __,.....,..........................,..............................................................................„.. ''....::::::::-.:.::::::::::.:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: :::::: ................ ........................................____,... ...............,..............................____. .................................„.........................._........,. SEIMU.:.0 :.i:iiiFT'''Ita2HENMEW'MIB:giE4111BABW9EEEi66ai8EENB8F8EAKIOgNEIEVW181EMBEMr; iggiWOti 4gommiNgm :givf..giw. .ggmmggmmmmmmag.ogmmmagisma.smv,igwmanagmv&vmmwaaguliuqxRgmI SUBTOTAL 276.24 mu To:Ci ty of Renton TAX .00 1055 S GRADY WAY FREIGHT • .0 0 RENTON, WA 98055-3232 TOTAL 276.24 .40..0+...a*t.40000t.:::gi,:i:;ti,;,;;::::,simc:i.t.!iNE,:p.:., !mt:i:1,:i.::.;ii;iimm::.;*40(:00jko.0:00.:0040,j4§ffinaiig,..otii$imaii:teA00.04-tiNiAii.:.:•:::?,g.iii 276.24 ) 7i 0000,00, 0 ek-t. ----/(0, 0010. 14V,,00 .0 0 0 ORIGINAL/FILE COPY Authorized Signature PINK WHITE Authorized Signature DATE DESCRIPTION VENDOR P.O.# EXPENDITURE 3/12/2007 MX-70 Rewired for DVD recorder JW Tel-Tronics, Inc 12/0001367 1577.6 4/9/2007 Eiki Projector Lamp Troxell Communications, Inc. 12/0001390 314.44 6/11/2007 Sony Scan Converter Repair JW Tel-Tronics, Inc 12/0001435 " 2815.07 :•;;••,,.,.....:•,...,..i,,,,:Ado.ffity4,14447R; ';-7. .7.tiiiNee44471'!":4447-1.0,1 .;..f,r'i'„i'M"'N'Af.7.4,..."-V.',141:4: .4?",,..'fr..1314t-i.‘--40146••• tkitra".,,,,,111,111,.•: NW.:‘,.: ' ..:::'.T•is-::4-.0tilic;;tra‘,11q1,:-W: . ,Ar-,a,4•It : ',-/,'.- 1;;Pi,.,,',i,4iiV.4_,Ike:WA11,4*TO...,4,,,,,-.•0.‘14„,,-.:twelPT-Z141SIA'.,*"04.410011720.A:41,4-1,1Thav-)2,::i t ,,:_,_,I, ..,,._,,,„,, , ,A.k,protzerft,"1..1.;: ,,,,,,:. ,,,e,ffl- ;,,,!.f,l.f. .W.1,.•,,-,,,,.,,W,V.404'tfai,p,,.:!.-i,1,42'k..kg'4.;,4'g'',/,hk4_Igtg,ig,,Wi,'igNA4'g,.; PLEASE RE A-0. ,_Tii-A,:,,..w..,.., ,,k t trVaT%.14.1.:4:7;714.'''' ' :'VIIVilgi*VPHfrPtif:WAVVr.0.4*.tASNW MIT .I; PAYMENT,., TO: - •, • • ,: 711 1233-120th AVENUE•A N.E., BELLEVUE WA 98005 ,!,,•,,,• Mk (206) 451-1999 FAX (206) 637-9558 . ',...i.Vt-'. ,,,,,m,,,,,,,,ov„3.0,...x.4,,,,-ovx,.-,n,v,,,z,,,w,fk,, ,,,,4,v,,:z42,,,,xow.%;;:,5m,Kie:Asoz-?-: 44240,145mixi0.4.1M610-0:.i:5ii*:',;i1,3106,1*,:40,1A-41.3%00, , ,„:4V2NP4',i.VRM.Ykm,i±g.vp- :;.I., i.44,,wzo>4)::,,N•s:,,,i>40,.>,:t;s ::.,,,4,1iY.J.v,:',:-, ,,!wn-, ITY OF RENTON . 4iptITY OF RENTON-MUNICI BCD :', ile.i4P11- 79.*ACCOUNTS PAYABLE 'OATTN: MARILYN PERERSON AP ony CiF RENTON 14 41,sr,4. 200 MILL AVENUE SOUTH MRK FOR : VIDEO VISION ....,..., I V tY,Aft::.jONgATTN: JOE PEREZ : t. N'rjt 200 MILL AVENUE SOUTH g,i •-,re0,7,i.W.,, , i,'Z'-'4,4e; `;'-:; `i 6 1996 'kr§.. -•..1.;-:. li.Kg'Ci: 1M,*RENT ON WA 98055 t '" ' R E N T ON WA 980 5 5:Ak,,, W ,t,,,,,,.,•:•W*:',:kk-nzvivi,y.,,,,, , e,s,,-;v;;m;v,,-4,:z.,;0.,-„,m,..;,,,,;.,,;.6?A:•„,,,f,,-.,,,,111,-11-.:,A-,;.e Mak;:•;',Ne,'.::,..'.1.i.c: i.4*'7-1;r:va',v,P,r4',,''',5-14,;,f4.114"ift's;A:4-WkWtti.f:W6i;,;:151044;',V444Ci440'1, S,0,7!,,.v. tr,,,,..,-. .,„.g.,,,,44,,,g,...,,,t;.,,,,,,,,,..,,,f.,,,,,,tr. '%!,,F,;,,,,,--,"..'a4 k 1 ref i',.',4.,4,..,..1,?,C.A.,:tile:.' ',iW.r 6,•,!,.7,1 , ,Oa :. ,:--,;,,,.,•.:,,,,,44:‘,i0..•:"..,•...,..,•.,,,,,, - -, •.,.- .....•• •,,••,-.,•..-,1,02 PURCHASE ORDER NO. ORDER DATE ,SALES ORDER NO. INVOICE DATE INVOICE NUMBER. . 6-3-1 10 1 0 -12-- 1/24/96 00780022 2/02/96 - 780022 AiS, • - : DATE SHIPPED . SHIP VIA TERMS SALES REP . .,REGION 1/26/96 UPS/DEST NET SO DAYS MARGARET SPENCE 1O ii,f•:: , ZiniR4PRIMP,MekiRAW5:-AtIAIIISMO-Z4440AggagAgWkggOAUSE-gbAlfaiViRilaatI4;W1M-0 N,• OTY p9o' : . . ' MODEL NO. •.: D OTY B O DESCRIPTION • CITY.SHP'D UNIT PRICE ` AMOUNT ..:W NOTE: PROLINE HOLDS TITLE TO THE BELOW LISTED MERCHANDISE ITEMS UNTIL THIS INVOICE HAS BEER PAID IN FULL. TITLE FOR MERCHANDISE .-..,,,?:... ITEMS (EXCLUDING RENTAL ITEMS) MILL PASS TO THE PARTY LISTED -YW IN THE "BILL-To' SECTION ABOVE ONCE ALL FUNDS HAVE CLEAREE THE APPROPRIATE FINANCIAL INSTITUTION(S). AT NO TIME WILL TITLE OF RENTAL PENS DE PASSED TO "BILL-TO" LISTING UNLESS SPECIFICALLY ,,..‘,. • STATED. .,„. NOTE: THESE ITEMS HAVE BEEN ORDERED SPECIFICALLY FOR YOU. THEY **** ARE HOT RETURNABLE. IF ITEMS ARE DEFECTIVE THE MANUFACTURER'S STANDARD WARRANTY WILL GOVERN THE REPAIR/REPLACEMENT OF ITEM(S). .., •2.;:::, 2 PRPA LEIGHTRONIXINC. 2 9500 190.00 •:•:.:' 34 PIN VCR CONTROL INTERFACE ..,... . FREIGHT PROLINE INDUSTRIES, INC. 1 .00 .00 .,..)- ',,:g: FREIGHT • . ••••'.;;':: %. . 14 SALES TAX WA 15.58 .-,•i . . ''.- 'a.:,.. • . • . . •,:;'..T• • -•:•i . ••,•:;': .1•,.?„, TOTAL AMOUNT DUE 205.58 'W ,••...,`::: :, 4'!'4;• ,',:!•: ,z';;;,? .• • . . • • ..,-..,,,, ..,-.:. • • . l' ':•:' : ;., . • . ,..:,:!7,•,,, .,i _ . • At•.* qk. ,'..?:`4 • tOii*. :,.;t•• In, Doomo, poi4,6110, o-oroiiii.o00170 , info ;•:-1:k ;.t,T45i ;i..,!•.', VrtA 0c23 0 0 Pg lot o 3 2- . . • ,,,r,... ,,,', • ••,,,,,,t4., ...., ,..__:„..,... :.:,..._ , . ... .. g PLEASE SEE REVERSE FOR TERMS&CONDITIONS OF SALE gpm.mok Qi4cigwv,f7r .,,i ,,,f4 .-:',.], ?>- ,. ,,,ff.:vi,,.,,,. ,.- w<4..,- . . • .-f.-.. ''..•-..',:..'.,.,. , ..,-•.,.. - ,'.:o.---wrs.,:tk-..w-.1,.:,,, ,;,.:';. .,..::..•-;.. •:...-..,... ..,:...,,,- ..' ., :,,,: .,,,,..,e, ,,,.:f---z,.:.t:..:5; 3:.,:,::!QA.:;.: .-....:1.4,,,7:::;:.':-:"..%::.,_;:.;„',.. • -:..s.:.;•;:. .;,.•.:::;; •.;,,,'' • '•:- ' .:'-:' -'--•'...?-'',i'', .'':!.:-':.--,,-:`,:''..S-,i:',=,'- -1.C;:'!,:r:'!:.:''-'"- ''' '-'.; , ':'' '.':',--.; :''': .;:,' '',•;.:-:- :-';.:..;•.:-,..".c.,:.... ;-!_---.-,:„, „.:;%:',,, ,•:,T.,..-:_;,...-:,,:i.,,,',!:•-; ;,::.:;::, . -..-.;:,: . •',,,'..-..-,.,';: - ... ,2.',.•..,.•,...._....,.. ....,,- -.„';;.:,,;„, •-:.,i....,-,,, ,..;m,i,mi,,,•1;-.. ..,,;i,--,..v,w,, ...:-;..,?.1....?. ...:.• ,.:,,,•,,,...',..-::•!i'..;.,--:.-...-,..,:p-;:'`,;-,: .4_-',"_.•••,..-.,"-. .,•-.-.''-,, ,, ;,.;:lif,!r.:-,:.-.. ..!Ni..,c,k'.0.;;. ....--: ,..4.fi:;•::'....',3,47,n.f,'.:„;-:;‘-:::...!.. .•-• ORIC;11,1A1 • 063690 PROLINE INDUSTRIES INC 096629 02/16/96 DEPARTMENT FILE COPY PO No. <c<:>::::»PD:Date : .::>:: j © Chapter116,Laws of 1965 CITY OF RENTON Purchase Order City of Renton Certification I, the undersigned, do hereby certify under penalty of perjury, that the materials have been furnished, the services rendered, or the labor performed as described herein, and that the claim is a just, due and PROLINE INDUSTRIES INC unpaid obligation against the City of Renton, and that I am authorized to 1233 - 120TH AV NE authenticate and certify to said claim: BELLEVUE, WA 98005 Signed FINANCE DEPARTMENT STEPHENS, LISA .>: >:::Desc y .... . r.P .on....:.......:: ::.:::.::.:. :.Urnt:Pnce.:<:::::>::>:Est.;:Amount::;;:>::;;:;;:..::::.;::.;::.:...:....::: . :::: :::;;;:;:•.;;;:.;:.;:,:.;:.;.::::;::::::.:..:::::.. 1 ea Sharp Video Projector 4,580.00 4,580.00 E 127.000000.004.5940.0071.64.000084 4,580.00 . • 1 ea sales taxi 375.56 375.56 E 127.000000.004.5940.0071.64.000084 375.56 • • • Authorized By 4,955.56 4,955.56 1 • Accounts Payable Div.•200 Mill Ave.S.•Renton,WA 98055•Phone(206)235-2618•Fax(206)235-2513 . DP 3119 11/94 1 � INVOICE I PLEASE REMIT PROLINE INDUSTRIES, INC. • PAYMENT TO: - 1233-120th AVENUE N.E., BELLEVUE WA 98005 (206) 451-1999 FAX (206),637-955: _h �.q_0 843 ..0 L/ s r, ']...'..a<. ;.t.ry.- 'q: +.+"•.✓t'.t..x aa:�. ::.k.x...:••..t,.i^.':}:'.,.;,.y—,, •:': _ 1�r.7 V vT.7 V V 0: yr_'j+ ::.J�.�: �,i.{}'77'� �•J•.r �A... � ^�«.a .�4'.>w. Y" W,. y' ..Y - :�' • ..ip .t. ..�51,•: 'tr.r.�r,�.'....•.4i ,�` '• { .f. t. !^:x nwtti.. • �At', F.- �ti:`J' .♦S+, eV'�n`6!a. ...a11.. ..�rn. wl�r'':�'•^t..,'..:. `Tit- {tr + '^ WW `"e K+.i� i -Y�+.-..: ,-?5y5.'S-;:7ia:.,i,•�r__fig. < ... •.... , ' .:•,:,.. . ':1f`'•t...\T..eY�i•H ;�'''•<-ia�C Ss-..a_ '.Yti.f._.Ll�«: l ..M... ..•�Y-... ... .•k:T YJ:� .. 4. ' LTY OF' RENTON s''CITY OF RENTON ;,,y,.eiLLTO _ ACCOUNTS PAYABLE :;ITY;%1 Vit I' ON -H. 4078 148TH AVENUE NE .:-�' '`.1:"' - -> ;x 200 MILL AVENUE SOUTH • . • - • R: VISION-VIDEO/TIM RASMUSS :,..-'.': - < ATTN: JOE PEREZ `14 REDMOND WA 9805 ' - RENTON WA 98055 1. 6. 1996 r'.i'.t.. .k.' :ti.i :.it '1.'rS" .-.ti.:_ :Y'.;;5.;- - 'ti. ,::c_ „ "¢Es" ar'J'.. t'�k^. C" i� r .�'• ....._r.1a's..�}'» .x`��->>�''�2'R'.c. ,... .,=e.�i PURCHASE ORDER NO. ,: ORDER DATE : SALES ORDER NO. INVOICE DATE i INVOIr.E:UMBER :ir. 96629 - 2/06/96- • 00779503PA - 2/06/96 779503PA DATE SHIPPED • !. SHIP VIA '' TERMS • SALES REP. ! REGION 2/06/96 RICE ADJUSTMENT CREDIT MEMO MARGARET SPENC 1 ' rr r. 'trig`. :`' .. .- - :. ''i•. ,. - a•''�9':r�ti?�•rt»'•Y,,.. •,.x,a,,., ..:'$�af:. „ :.s:"_. ':::.a s.`•: OTY'ORD'D OTY B.O. i M0bEL NO. • DESCRIPTION QTY.SHP'D UNIT PRICE AMOUNT i,it • Ale • ** THANK YOU-FOR THIS ORDER!!! ** .. -** id, • ** SO THAT HE CAN BETTER ASSIST YOU ** ** PLEASE REVIEM THE "TERNS AND ** • ** CONDITIONS" PRINTED ON THE BACK ** , • ** OF THIS-INVOICE. ** • ** • CUSTO R MAS CHARGED INCORRECTLY ON ORIGINAL INVOI E. UKIT PRICE SHOULD HAVE BEEN 84580.00. THIS DJUSTMENT HIIL CORRECT INVOICE #779503 - • TO RE ECT CORRECT NWT. APPLY 0 INVOICE# 779503. • • (TU 1— XGE65O11KII • SHARP ELECTRONICS CORP-810444 1— 4,895.00 4,895.00— .;. • . **SEE MODEL:XGE65OUB ** 1 XCE65011KII SHARP ELECTRONICS CORP-810444 1 4,580.00 4,580,00 • **SEE MODEL XGE650UB ** • • SALES TAX••' MA - - 25.83— :. • TOTAL AMOUNT DUE • 340.83— • CREDIT t1EMO • • PLEASE SEE REVERSE FOR TERMS&CONDITIONS OF SALE ORIGINAL , . : • . Order No. -38;2,992_1 /_1410.4-: I i.':'. '' -' ' '.111.,_ IT - IL-44 DIVISION OF TOWER PRODUCTS INCORPORATED : L 4 High Street:.Box 397•Saugerties,NY 12477 PO# —NONE— • Date: VIDEO SUPPLY Telephone:(914)246-3036 Fax:(914)246-1757 P r(..)Ce: :: Sold to: • . Ship to: b-,-- CITY OF RENTON Ms. or Wood i • ,/,--- -,- . Rentony Municipal Building CITY OF RENTON' - -DL.ERK".F.; OFFICE ' ..------ 00 Mill Ayenue South Renton Municdpal Building / ! Renton, WA 98055 • 200 Mill Avenue .South clie Renton, .ND :.98055 . 163856 EN T G1 . CHK 555.00 ,i:',:.: isi.: :.:': ;:ii:::.:'.' ,: ::]"::? :ii: ::i,j .:;-'fk..'Ji'..'.:',',•:''i:Eielb0:',`;%•'.!c':•! :.:-',',' ::,:'",.*hoi'it iN140iiiiiii::;':-..?,:4,',. .i:::-,?i'Atiiti=9:cif:Alti511 ,.,0i.ef: •141.610 -Ship Via ...:.:.:.:.:•:.:.:•:•:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:•:•:•:.:•:•:.:.:.:.::::.:•:•:•:::.:::::::::: - :::::•:::.:::.:.:.:.:•:.:.:.:.x.x.:•:.:•:.:.:.:.:•:•:•:::::::.:::::::::.:•::::: . • . 206, 235.7-2500 3 - ' 2 • UP S ' : :::::::: :::::::::: :: ::::::::: ::::::::-:::.:::.;.:::::.:•: Message: B Amertca's Broadcast Supply HOUSe.TM ENI:FT T FROM OUR MEGA,INVENTORY RAPID-FIRE- DELIVERY 11 ' - . • , INTENSE TECH SUPPORT BOTH BEFORE 'i.3, AFTER THE SALE. ! ! • - . • • ., . WE VALUE 6 APPRECIATE YOUR BUSINESS '.. !•... : - .• I . • w0 ,04/29/971025 Ot.Ni,;:'g';'":-::':.:' ''':-':•::VT,'''11001•44i:Ini:::4•IiME•: ',.-UP4';:MK:14T,It;.,riaii:“,eilljilo ::::'i'-;:;:::::,•%:417WFA': • Ncht zi.040:i:,:,:. :,2705if-:-.d:4fM,1,1,,,w::;,:-;,: eieii,iiiie--g-i / • .//' 1,-4•„;;Ikia. i7 ,,i§„giw1P7- m4r,41.411:-T„--; 4V,-):1:-.1c.. . 1: ,,,,-, „ ,„ „:„..,,.,.„.,,,M94„,„,,,,,,,,,.,...!:',5?.,-;0':- ,40,;,::, ,,,-,:z.m1::::;, .::::'..!,=',,,:,<:? .'f'r,Ti:12,k,E*:2:-.-;sa:"1'Citi:Si.:,':',,,,'::; -''',,V, ,,'; ',;(1,1 0 0 MENO-Zgi.LIL'.02g2rEINikrbkTai7IWY.5,:-ESIZ.23S.7.8.7.f.UP1:1;231MAN M g'21Mg:ITE:M2Ratiqc,TEn ilitiaTEan7YMENEMEMiniffirgiNETARE.,'ZWIRMITRUal 22E RACEELM-"ggPrigni";:1;',',ViNa7a t'L.,1k;;InI.IIT.:8.3? - li:•.:IiikEII':gj: ;:',''',I:I''Ll•I;E'.. .1iIPIIIEt;'''3;I:':'kr., .!i,j.I.&'•:,a:.'4Z4I':.:-;Fitf,:::;.;;I',,i•:;V:., I•I.;.W,•.Tr',4L'41ke.'..;.ti:TtI.P.ilV•II,:23,i. Lfg.',.",!-;II .::::';'2,taI, Lit:: :;:.:),.. ;'',,.q,',:',',:.:',.:Y:. :•.:•;,:;•";$ 51,7,,,WifagNalliiIaLI::;',I1-,,aNithIi.ILWN,k;k., .R.iik,II,F,:,&.04::':5:.K.'jj,P.,: i.AI:n,Viii•LiaIZI,Incti42,;I,kelidInt.MWARagr&igiI:La: :::;':::'IU:3) fraZgli3.3:771;0. ;Y: M:niga7477iNT.I5W-"INIT.-9,7E''' ,55•?;;V:::-. 7s.:;t-i?,tgtg.1:!;0-':i1;3:''''.21:;:q,217:75ggaI3701171N F;;;;.',-7,',47,;:',7,0T, A;',0'!1'':„'i;:i=7,3f,9,--7T-j-':':;-`0.7• 771-M-fii"7, 7,2"Rer , 7-„'5,:-.7,:,7,--",:,,,:;7;::',,;],7:i:'7,:;',,!•,':!n!OWA-0,7 77-74-7-7,7:':',7,',,',-:,:, F:,37MPA77: ::77;77'Vtf,-".;77:75',W,MI :,,,:r?-:,: .-'ef:,::':':;.,,,,:':'.'',-,at:,:-.i',,.,:;;::'„-z,:l.:7,',-;.,, j:T:-.,Y'-,-:,L,,s:-:-1'.:'n,'5',i",:,5-:iW,:&g.N''&&-::L'r.;L.:;;':---;•',-,,';:It':..r.i.';-=,''',.'Z:;nl'-z-:,i:':::: :::,,:;,-,k;;;=-,4'fa-i'A-'y-',:t''.:„,c...,:-:,:f::,:1,-JA;:a,fg,V,,,i..k -,75,,: -:-L'z'.4.,t'f:i--;:.•,;:i:,, ,:',:: :,:11f,',',-,-:',:,'„:-:--4 ,...., ., _,.., ..,,,,r-e ..,•, .. ......,..... .,..,,-., -,,..... *V. • ' 7 . . • Gross • . Misc/ . • - .Discount • • - Sales Tax• . • Shipping . Order Total . Deposit Chg.AiiAialbue. ACTUAL SHIPPING . • .549..00 . 0.0 C 0,.00 AND/OR COD '..)5.0.00 1c c0(' 55C O: YOUR CREDIT CARD BILL • - OR COD PKG.TAGS , .......... .. .. . ._ ... ._ . .- - . . _ .. .. _•.. .. _.._._... ._ .... ... . _ MARNERTEK . 1 -. . I, MARNERTEK • f• High Street VIDEO SUPPLY -; 41-1IghStreei WDEOSUPPLY baugertles, ' .1 Saugerties, New York(USA).12477 New Y9r1c(USA)12477 ..,r. UPS SHIPPER NUMBER *j *. UPS SHIPPER NUMBER America's Broadcast * N Y 226—a S4 * I America's Broadcast - * Ny 826-0'54. Supply House TM 3.* P K Ci I O:0 382992. *HI • uppy House. CI •.• 7 TM P K G I,....,.# .....c,,... .. ,,.. , . *******:i,:********it:***:: *I *****-**********:*:***;r.:x.•.::' . Via:: UPS GROUND Zone: 8 .. Yiaz UPS GROUND Zolic:.E .1111111.11111111111111111111.11111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111 1 Ship.to: 111111111111111111111111111 iP to: 4-31111 h 011.111111111111111111111V 11111 01111011C11111131111111111111 - I 11111111111J111111111111111111111111111 :.Lot . W04— - ... ' - Lori Wood. CITY "OF .RENTON - CLERM'S, OFFICE . . 1 CITY OF RENTON , CLERK'S OFICE. on hun-7:cipal Buildinc 1 Renton Municipal Building .1 ' 200 Mill Avenue Sout Re I,,to n,., wA (:;-;:;0 55 +.i. Phi 206 23 .-.72500 : •.iCITY055s.OGRFADRyEINNATY ON PAGE 1 ., :..- . .,.„... . ....„.„...„..„.„._ ..„.„._ . ...... ........... :::;:f.i'g.•••:::::?:::::::,:•:Date.„..„,„„,...„,„,......, ,....,„,.....P0..Number.„..„„:„.„ RENTON, WA 98055 11/17/00 0120196 VENDOR: . SHIP TO: TROXELL COMMUNICATIONS, INC. 79$1 168th Ave. NE Redmond, WA 98052 FOB Point: . .. Req..No.: Terms: net term Dept: CITY CLERK DIVISION Req.Del.Date: •-• • Contact: LORI WOOD ' Special Inst: . Confirming? • • ....... .............. „.........„ „ ..._..................................„.........,.................................................„..... .,.„ . . . .. .. •::R.:1:: 4atififW::'::;;',i'::.Pijit:•.i.:.•••.i'.::::. •••:•i•ig•:•:::::•:.0:::00::isii.'•„..i.::•::::.:::c:...:,ii::::.::.M.:•::.i:.;]:::::::::.:...E'.. ......:i••::::::.Miiiii:.....p.:,.D.OsCriptiotti.:::::iiiii:::iil'ilYiii:.iiiii::::iiiaiiii:•i:ii:iniii:::::::?.::::::;Z:ii'•;iiiii::.:':inii:ii.:iii. .:.0.::.',:::'..:....iiiiiiii•::::i..:::iiia,..Uriit:::PriCk....?.i.. .*:::::::::iiiiiiif.*:•.E)it':.PriCei,:::::....f::::iiiiiii•i;?::. 1 Projector Lamp . 279.00 279.00 ......................... ...,,,,........, . ,,,,,,........:-., ..,... -..---..- - --. . --„----------------...........„-----,......,----„--....,....,--,- 6 . =1:- ............................................................................................................................................ „:„.:„.......:„:„...„...„..._ ::„.:,...........,....:.:....,....:.............„...„:„.„.:„.,....,.....................„........................................„............................................................,............................................................................................. .... . -...:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::,::::::::-.::.:::::_:::-:::::::::•:::::-:-.:::::::::::::::::,::::.:-...::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::%:::::::::::::::::.::::::::::::::::::::::::.:-.:::::::::•••::::::::::-....,:::::::::::::::::::::::,„.•:::::„:„.::,............:::::•:::::::::::::-....--,-........:::::::.::::::::::.:::.::::-..::::::,:::,::-.................,:::::::::::::::::::::.:,.::::::-....,,,,,,,,,,......:.....--.....-:-::::::,,,................,-..-:-:-..,--.,........... :-,,,,,,,,..-:::,.........„,.....,„:„...........:_:::: li:i:ii.,.:-MO.,:i.jiii,..i...:II.:,:.:"..ii:...5.X.:.:...W.A.::::::i'.:i!ii:::-Ili:::ii:!:-..;,..iiiiin.'-::::.iiiiniii.:INE::::.ilifirnisiffiiiiii..!....T.001 .1:::..i!iiiiiiiiiini!iii'egia.-15-3E;i!iiiiifEai,..i,:!Militireag::::keiVii!...Iii.niiiiiga.T-!,i Taja:-.Taiiiiii:::::;.-:::!::ig.:..;iq......iiii..i:iii.:-.. ..-0:::::0MR::.::::::::::,:.::?•,i .........,:...„..„....„...:::::::.„.,....:......:::::. ....„.::::„.....„,„...„...:..,.......„,......„...„....„:„...„:„.........:„........„........„.„..„..„:„.„.....„....:„„:„:„,...:„.„..„:„.„:„,„:„.„.„:„...:„.„:„.„...„...„._................................„..............................................„...„......„...............„......................,..._,...........................................„.„................................ „.:.:...„................:„...„....:.:.:........:.......,...:_.:.:_........:....:.:......„:„......,............„....„.:„.:.:.......:„......„....:„....„,.:.:„.„....„.............:.:......,....:.:.:.:.........,,...„.,......„.„:„....„........:........„:„.....:.......„:„::::::„.,:„::::::„......:::::-..„„„„:„.••::::::::::::,::::::::::::::,,„:„:::::::::::::::::::...„.„::„:„..,..,•„„,...„::::::::::_,............,.......:....„..........-„,...„............,::::,,::::::::x:„:: -- --------------------- • - - •••----• -----•••••••••••••••••••••••—_—_•••••••-•---- -----•-•-•--------•-----_•-•----••••.-.-.--.---------------------..--.- ----------------------------___ .................................„._.................................................................................................................................. „.........,.................,..........„.:.:.::-.......................:.:......„-..........„.„-..........„........................,........„..........................„..„.................................,..........................................................................,...„...........„....................................„...........„........................... ............................ ...........................................___ .:,...:....„,.;.:....„......„...............:,.....„.„.,........,:.:,:.:.:....:,....:.,.....,....„:„....:.:.„...:.:„...:.:„....,...„..„:„......:.:.:....:.:.:„....:.:.:.:„....:.:„.......:....:„....„........„:„....„:„.:.:.:.:„.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:....„.:.:....:.:.:.:.:.:.:....:.:.:.:„...:„.„.:.:„.„:„.„:„.:....:.:.......„..,....,.......:.,.:„.:.:.:.:„.:,...,...,,....„.„,.:.:...,.:.:„.:....„..:,....„:„.......,.,....:,....,.:.:.:.:....:.:...„.....,........:..„.:.:.......„:„...................................„ 7..fn!!!77.::.!!! :::.;:f:727::::.:177:: !7!7! =777r7 :7777-777:777777777777777:777T77.17:777:7777777 .............................................„ .................................................„...................................„..........................................................„.........................................................................................................................................................................„.....................................,................„......................................,............................................................................................................ !:rT!nr::!!7!nT!!!! !!!!nTTT!T!T,! !T!9M!::!::!:ERg2Pn!TnPO,RgPF;MMP41gINI,VFWREIENHAgqlgWRgaggggi Ilgumwmgggmggmaggamlig§agammIgggommalppm„„mg„u„ gs„„ugoomownEHgggmmsimmm&gk SUBTOTAL 279.00 BILTo:City of Renton TAX 23.99 - - 1055 S GRADY WAY FREIGHT 16.0-0 RENTON, WA 98055-3232 TOTAL 318.99 15i.:...:iiii.s..i.i.s.-::::::fig.:::::.0.:.::ii.g:,::::i:: :..itc..d.iisuiit.Nue.iiiiii6mmiio.i ... ..:,.:;•..::i..,:z.:::.......,......c.:-.....g..:Atii.olicit:.A.::::.:-...;a:- ........B..??...::.i.i::::::..--?..RER.f.......i...:•:::::_:::_AbiLiiitAviiiiibiiig...iga::-.:.i .0::.N.::::......-.g....: : . . ORIGINAL/FILE COPY ut orized Signature PINK WHITE Authorized Signature l CITY OF RENlF�� PAGE- - 1U553. GRADYWAY RENTON' VVA88055 02/0I/01 I120003 PN Vsmmmm: 029860 oo|pTO: GLAZER'3 CAMERA SUPPLY CO INC PO DUX C'I0088 SEATTLE. WA 98I09 Foopnbt: non.mv.: Twnnn' net 30 ooru.: FINANCE DEPARTMENT Req. Del. Date: Contact: LOMBARD. SUZANN Special Inn : Confirming? N ; 11111MI MORE 1'1�' '�� ~ '`~p SUBTOTAL 153. I3 BILL TO:City of Renton TAX .00 1055 3 GRADY WAY FR88HT .00 RENTON. WA 98055-3232 TOTAL 153. 13 c 127, 000000.00*.5/10.0010.31.000000 / I53.13 ORIGINAL/FILE COPY Authorized Signature PINK wm/rE Authorized Signature _...____. ........_ ..: ---_,._.----...__.-• ________-_,._._;.-:_-___.-.-.- . - _ .._ -- •-• - • _ . ,. • , NG),5, ... Glazer's�(�� Ccimera Supply, 1 Inc.c' D L, TERMS:NET 10 EOM (Due in full by the 10th of the month following date of purchase) 430 8th Ave.North - PO Box 19088 Seattle,WA 98109 GLAZER' S CAMERA SUPPLY 206-o24-1100- fax62480o5 430 8TH AVE N - STORE 1 www.glcaPrscamera.com SEATTLE, WA 98109 CITY OF RENTON 206-624-1100 ATTN:LORI WOOD RO#1120003 1055 S. GRADY WAY RENTON WA 98055 INVOICE# 263528 DATE01/12/01 TIME13.52 425-430-6573 C:;_ . \r&r - �q'(/ ACCT.# 1316 SALES 24 REG. 98 MISG O CITY ST 00001Z1 . -._. . .. ::/- t (27, bo0a0B . Gb ' 5710. I)00 • 3i. Oaodoo ITEM DESCRIPTION SERIAL-BAG NO. LIST QTY. NET TOTAL EX. '0758 3063. Mini :.Fl.u-i d Head.::w/QRP, :':....: . . 180. 00 • 1 135. 00 • 135. 00 1.00 UPS -GROUND SHIPPING 1 6. 00 6. 00 * CNTCT:FAX -..ORDER:LORI WOOD * 425-430-6573 - -._. ... . * PILL TO: CITY OF RENTON * ATTN:ACNTS PAYABLE * 1055 'GRADY WAY * RENTON, WA 98055-3232 •ransaction Amount. . . . Change Sub-Total 141. 00 • ;tore Charge $153. 13 Sales Tax 12. 13 • • - Total 153. 13 • • • ORIGINAL • IANK •YOU FOR SHOP'P'ING AT GLAZER' S CAMERA SUPPLY - - • • =' r - D r,ri rms and conditions on the back of this Invoice are made part of it,as though fully here set forth,and are accepted by Customer and Glazer's Camera Supply,Inc. # 1 1202103 SIGNATURE • • + CITY OF RENTOP. PAGE 1 1055 S. GRADY WAY .................................. Y RENTON, WA 98055 02/16/01 1120002 . - VENDOR: 082979 SHIP TO: TROXELL COMMUNICATIONS INC 4830 S 38TH ST PHOENIX , AZ 85040 FOB Point: Req. No.: Terms: net 30 Dept.: FINANCE DEPARTMENT Req. Del. Date: Contact: WALTON, BONNIE Special lnst: Confirming? N Quantity Unit Description Unit Price xt .............................. WORi!...-RT2Lk:OnSq11A0VOtg.R..t0j#0t#rgiAltM%Ttil....,:i5al$q4!7aWOgggXgggiONNIFIgNgVg4gV9'5Wanlg9 ................................................................................................................................................... SUBTOTAL 303.00 BILLTO:City of Renton TAX .00 1055 S GRADY WAY FREIGHT .00 RENTON, WA 98055-3232 TOTAL 303.00 Account Number Work Order Fupotion Number Amount E 127. 000000.004.5710. 0010.31 . 000000 303.00 ORIGINAL/FILE COPY Authorized Signature PINK WHITE Authorized Signature \v PLEASE REMIT TO: , • INVOICE T RO COMMUNICATIONS, INC. ' 0 Audo-Video•Sales•Design•Service•Installation --_ No. 587838 4830 S.38TH STREET Date 02/06/2001 PHOENIX,ARIZONA 85040 Page 1 (602)437-7240 1-800-352-7912 FAX (602)437-7265 - • • •. Customer 21416 N TIN #86-07161 14 #i f 1 a 00002 Sold To: Ship To: O� Ver)dor # 0 fa 979 CITY OF RENTON 4 q6°k CITY OF RENTON 1055 S. GRADY WAY ) - ��/� 1055 S. GRADY WAY RENTON WA 98055-3232 " RENTON WA 98055-3232 RA /a7, 000, 0 67/0• /D, 3/ 000 ..''::i ici.� . ..:.:. ... .... . :;. ��>:�>:�>:��:>:: .:: �:»� .i.... »:;;�>;<l .:>Control:N.o2:_;::.>::•>>:;Order.:Date :: ;:<Customer:P-.O::No:`::.:;::;�;Sales:,:>:..:.. Terms. .: :::-::.. :::•> :;;; . .: $hlp Vra.. .:.:: .�• .:.:. Date:$h pped Net 30 United Parcel Servic . l 02/06/2001 102255 CS 101/15/2001 1120002 4601 . :.::.':??ii:'1`' 1:-::''J.`: isi`.J•.•::::: ••:;a;+iaiVi :i :,•,: :;•.. iii :'.:':., >,,.:si:iiii: :1::: i :..:>a::'. ... - .. ..,.:,::....::: ::.. .. .....: .:.::. . .srp ;:;-.::;:i»ii:>i:> :?::<:;:; " ;?3;:;;:s r.. •r -.••• •- - ed.:•:•--- ::8/0 ••••Price%Per Ez- A:•---•-- Item::N•umber: bescr• tlon::<•;:- • • • •;;:; .a.. • SEP 610-283-5175 LAMP FOR PLC-9000N 1 1 0 279.00 279.00 • • MEMO: • NET SALES CONDITIONS OF SALE NT: 279.00 •'AMOUNT All claims arising out of or connected with the AFinance Charge at the periodic rate of •SALES TAX 24.00 • above listed items must be made within five days 1 1/2% with an Annual Percentage Rate after delivery. No returns accepted unless of 18% will be charged on all accounts . accompanied by this document. Merchandise returned unpaid after the last day of the for credit shall be subject to 25% handling following month. FREIGHT charges. Seller reserves title to these goods .. until paid for in full. This invoice is due on or before 03/08/2001 AMOUNT 303.00 I PLEASE REFERENCE THIS INVOICE NO. 587838 ON YOUR REMITTANCE DUE L CITY OF RENT( ' PAGEl 1O55S. GRADYWAY RENTON' VVA98O55 10/02/01 1I20I79 Vsmoon: O83050 mmpTo: UNITY COMMUNICATIONS 12720 68TH AVE W EDMONDS, NA 98026 FOB Point: noq.mo^: Tonna: net term Dept.: FINANCE DEPARTMENT Req. Del. Date: contact: WALT0N. BONNIE mp*cia|mst: mvnnnnmer N ` SUBTOTAL I9.092.22 enLLno:City of Renton TAX .OU 1055 3 GRADY WAY FREIGHT .00 RENTON. NA 98056'3232 TOTAL 10.002.22 E 12/ . 000000.00*.5940.00/1.64.000084 19.092.22 gkp ,, , fill pojt // o/7c1 Ueml r# OP36S4 . . i ' InvoiceOMmu, Invoice#:092601-01 Invoice bate: September 26, 2001 Customer ID: City of Renton Bill To: City of Renton Ship To: City of Renton 1055 South Grady Way 1055 South Grady Way Renton, WA 98055 Renton, WA 98055 CC /al: tA0000. oeS! S9410, AO y/. 6fi. odeor9 Date Your Order# Our Order# Sales Rep. FOB Ship Via Terms Tax ID Sept.26,2001 Marilyn Petersen 092601-01 Monte Stroh! Delivered Net 15 91-21108749 1 Quan- Item Units Description Discount Taxable Unit Price Total 1 IC200 M 1 InfoChannel 200 Master Server Yes 3,200 3,200 1 IC200MS 1 InfoChannel 200 Master Software Yes 3,500_ 3,500 1 IC200 PRM 1 InfoChannel 200 Rack Mounted Player Yes 3,900 3,900 1 IC200 PS 1 InfoChannel player Software Yes 1,500 1,500 1 IC200 DIA 1 IC 200 Deck IX Yes 599 599 1 IC200 SEX 1 IC 200 Switcher EX Yes 299 299 1 Cables 1 Cabling for player&Deck Configuration Yes 200 200 1 WPM AV 1 Tview Pro AV Scan Converter Yes 1,850 1,850 1 UnityTR 1 InfoChannel Training Yes 1,000 1,000 1 Unity IN 1 Installation, Yes 1,000 1,000 1 Unity SPT 1 1 yr phone support,2 yr Hrdware Yes 500 500 Subtotal 17,548 Tax 1,544.22 Shipping 0 Miscellaneous 0 Balance Due 19,092.22 REMITTANCE Customer ID: City of Renton Unity Communications Date: 13720 68th Ave. W Amount Due: Edmonds,WA 98026 Amount Enclosed: Phone: 425,742.7051 Fax: 209.882.5038 Email: mstrohl@unitycommunications.net ' eg- �y CITY OF RENTC PAGE ED ML 1055S. GRADYWAY '&rvoll-�YRENTON' VVA98055 02/28/02 2120031 VENDOR: 0400UI SH|pTo: JW T[L-TRONICS INC P0 80X 1282 B0THELL. WA 98041 l282 FOB Point: Req.No.: Tonnn: net 30 Dept.: FINANCE DEPARTMENT Req.Del. Date: Contact: LOM8ARD. 5UZANN enncm||mt: connnnmer N nuaTOnxL 276.24 o|LLnm:City of Renton TAX .0O 1055 S GRADY WAY Fnom*T .00 RENTON WA 98O66 3232 ' . TOTAL 276.24 276.24 �0m000\ 004. �--710^ 01 L,0c ORIGINAL/FILE COPY P.O.BOX 1282 BOTHELL,WA 98041-1282 PH(425)485-4739 FAX(425)481-0703 Numummt ,. . : Invoice t q71-1 s i . T E L T R O N I C S 10 DATE INVOICE# 4ide ?/��(/ 2/22/2002 101850 BILL TO ,✓�, / )Z7 DPO,dT V /D, /D,„3/. owe° merillippetmsea 1-0K1 Woo City of Renton CITY OF RENTON 1055 S Grady Way Renton WA 98055 • F E B 2 5 2002 RECEIVED • CITY CLERK'S OFFICE • • P.O.NO. TERMS DUE DATE VENDOR ID# Net 30 3/24/2002 • ITEM REPAIR ID# AMOUNT Equip Repair 14854 • 2•53.90T r� � Sales Tax • 22.34 s �:k • • • • • • • Total $276.24 Payment is due upon receipt. Interest of 1.5% per month will be added to overdue accounts. We now accept VISA and MASTERCARD. • Broadcast Engineering • Consulting,Maintenance and Repair Equipment Repair City of Renton Invoice #: 101850 1055 S Grady Way Renton,WA 98055 Repair#: 14854 Contact: Lori Wood Purchase Order#: Group #: EQUIPMENT INFORMATION Description: VCP, S-VHS ID#: 7528 Received: 1/16/2002 2:48:26 Completed: 2/6/2002 Make: Panasonic Model: AG-7150-P Serial: F4TC00061 Operate Hours: Drum Hours: 4532 Capstan Hours: Thread Count: Symptom: Ask John. Service: Replaced parts listed below. Pressure cleaned chassis. Completely cleaned upper and lower head drum assembly, stationary heads, roller guides, capstan shaft and all other tape path assembly. Adjusted alignment as needed for good RF tracking. Checked all functions-OK. • LABOR Technician Description Date Hours Hourly Rate Total Conrad Farrell Evaluation. 1/24/2002 I 1 $70.00 I $70.00 Conrad Farrell Repair. 2/6/2002 1.25 $70.00 I $87.50 Labor Total: $157.50 PARTS USED ID# Qty U/M Description Mfr Part# Freight Unit Cost Total 5958' 1 Each IC Module VCR0320 I $0.00 I $70.40 $70.40 6099 1 Each Ground Brush VXA3980 $0.00 $7.76 j $7.76 2154 1 Each Pinch Roller VXL1892 $0.00 $12.92 $12.92 44591 1 Each Cleaning Roller Pad VMT0321 I $0.00 ! $2.61 I $2.61 3957 1 Each Belt VDV0228 I $0.00 $2.71 $2.71 Parts Total: $96.40 Terms: Net 30 Pre-Tax Grand Total: $253.90 DO NOT PAY FROM THIS SHEET Printed On: 2/22/2002 1.11111JW J.W. Tel-Tronics Inc. TEL -T n o x,C s 17701 17th Ave W. - Lynnwood, WA (425)745-9544 �"J14 PAGE � CITY OF RENTOI.- 1O55S. GRADYWAY ` RENTON' VVA98O55 05/09/02 2120082 Vsmomn: 068843 SHIP TO: RUBB SCHARBAU R0BB'S REPAIR 12815 NE 124TH 3T 5TE J KIRKLAND' WA 98034 FOB Point: nvo.mv.: Terms: net term 000n FINANCEMEPARTMENT neq Del.Date: contact: C0RNEJU. RITA mpecia|Inst: Cpnnmnmor N �10U A 06t��VON OCR 8:!�i i i i i i i i , SUBTOTAL 254.59 BILnO:C1ty of Renton TAX .00 1055 3 GKADY WAY FREIGHT .00 RENTON. WA 98055-3232 TOTAL 254.59 c 12/ .000000.004.5/10.0010.*8. 000000 254.59 ' ORIGIN L/FILE cnp� AuthorizedSignatureze�Signaturea PINK wwnE Authorized oio"=, ,° NOT VALID AS CUSTOMER RECEIPT IN CALIFORNIA V/WARRANTY C}tSFr, a- ( (L .5 0 NARDA,INC.!NASD 1992 . R 0 LAB WARRANTY 0 PARTS WARRANTYNO WARRANTY CLAIM NO. BRAND 050`1A&-' i)�- e t A14 . 53387HB- 9 (PLEASE PRINT) SERVICE CENTER NO. CUSTOMER'S NAME (LAST _ME FIRST) 1V FI S NAME I I I I I I I I In �7 bF- ', ; 'mN 1 ,\ Kief VNCe MODEL NO. X05 i co.Cka:3\fQ 0..,1/4,1,- /011-1 i .1 ls I i -I� l r I PI I I I ► I C-Y STATE ZIP CODE R' CODE PHONE NUMBER S RIAL NO. CUSTOMER'S COMPLAINT I LIU I EFECT ODE v ' 6`II ! I v I 04 I�CrI I I I OD /p1.), Ir.) V Ir"/1-1,4kg,/+true-40t., I D Cot-►,/„ Mr.r le_((LIP LoosE7 / Cic , , qz. I I L I I I I I I I I I DEALER'S NAME CITY DATE PURCHASED 0 V O ��/d7, ��"* 7/&©//O .&86'OO DAY YR. SERVICE PERFORMED(CHECK AND DESCRIBE BELOW) DATE SERVICE REQUESTEDI R. ❑ ALIGNMENTS S OR ElLOOSE CONNECTIONS 11 PART(S)REPLACED ❑ OTHER MO_ j I /VDAY I 6(1— . EXPLANATION OF SERVICE PERFORMED MFG.CODE/REF. DATE SERVICE COMPLETED MO. DAY YR. Replaced below listed parts and realignment 04 129 I 02 CHECK PRODUCT WORKED ON Clean relube adjust and tested TV STEREO OTHER TIME STARTED TIME COMPLETED TIME ON JOB COLOR El CIM QTY. PART NO./REF.NO. PART DESCRIPTION B/W ID ❑ 'i ' I CHECK REPAIR CATEGORY 1 VXR0355 C/n. � MINOR INTER. MAJOR Supply rPt'1 �� I55 CARRY INSERV. El El El1 VXR0356 .b R�`/r A Take up reel 21155 87 1 �' ON SITE SERV. El El El1 VOJ0414 Q ? ` , Mic jack 5150 CENTER SERVICE El ID1 VJJ0363 Cp.?. 'C' (00� Phone jack 5150 e4r, r v CRT REPLACE. ❑ El 0, '^ I STOCK MERCH. 0 ❑ ❑ SERVICE WAS SATISFACTORILY COMPLE`f'�Ep t.sk Dr�V� TOTAL LABOR CHARGE e Q� d-�04 6-02Pe �4 180.00 cnCUSTOMER'S SIGNATURE NICIAN'S NATURE TOTAL PARTS CHARGE (A) SERVICE CENTER I _ DISTRIBUTOR INFORMATION (( 5 .I.00 (A) OTHER (. 12815 N.E. 124th St,#�J PLEASE REMIT FROM THIS SALES TAX = o • Kirkland,WA 98034 COPY BY 05 13 Q L C�2 20. 9 0� i (425) 820-1200GRAND TOTAL t0 _ 254. 9 ORIGINAL-MAIL TO MANUFACTURER — I ' . � Page 1 CITY OF RENTON . 1055G' GRADYWAY RENTON, VVA38O55 6/7/02 12/0000016 VsNoon; 040001 SHIP TO: JVVTELTRON|CSINC P[) BOX 1282 BOTHELL.\NA9BO41-12B2 FOB Point: Req.No.: Terms: net 30 Dept-: FINANCE DEPARTMENT Req.Del.Date: Contact: CORNEJ[). R|TA pre-AssignedpO#?: No Spevio|mst/ SVHS Deck#7 354.20 ' � SUBTOTAL 354.20 BILL TO; TAX 0.00 FREIGHT 0.00 TOTAL 354.20 E127.000008.004.5710.0010.48.000000 354.20 . � PO4( Z) Z° I ©c, P.O.BOX 1282 BOTHELL,WA 98041-1282 PH(425)485-4739 FAX(425)481-0703 Ven0r 0171000/ aCI< /27 0,0000, 57/0, 0 60 ,Q 0D0000 � 00000j� Invoice 7'0 T E L T R ONICS DATE INVOICE# faY 5/9/2002 102080 BILL TO Lori Wood 4(47 City of Renton , b In CITY OF RENTON 1055 S Grady Way Renton WA 98055 MAY 1 0 2002 RECEIVED CITY CLERKS OFFICE P.O.NO. TERMS DUE DATE VENDOR ID# Net 30 6/8/2002 040001 ITEM REPAIR ID# AMOUNT Equip Repair 15206 325.55T Sales Tax 28.65 We've Moved! Please remit to the address above. Total $354.20 Payment is due upon receipt. Interest of 1.5% per month will be added to overdue accounts. We now accept VISA and MASTERCARD. Broadcast'Engineering • Consulting,Maintenance and Repair Equipment Repair City of Renton Invoice #: 102080 1055 S Grady Way Repair #: 15206 Renton, WA 98055 Contact: Lori Wood Purchase Order#: Group #: • EQUIPMENT INFORMATION ' Description: VCR, S-VHS ID#: 5285 Received: 4/23/2002 3:31:20 Completed: 5/1/2002 Make: Panasonic Model: AG-7750 Serial: L3TC00220 Operate Hours: Drum Hours: 4865 Capstan Hours: 4012 Thread Count: Symptom: Play button doesn't work. Audio recordings slightly hot. Service: Pressure cleaned chassis. Replaced the PLAY switch to restore normal operation. Replaced the pinch roller and completely cleaned the tape path. Checked audio levels, ok. Checked video levels, ok. Checked functions, ok. Remarks: Made a service call to Renton to check out the machine. Determined that it did indeed have a problem that couldn't' be repaired on location so I returned the machine to our shop for repair. I wired up the production rack so an adjacent machine could perform the duties of the machine out for repairs. I returned and reinstalled the machine after it was repaired. LABOR ` Technician Description _ Date Hours Hourly Rate Total John Weist Service call and Pick Up 4/23/2002 1 1 $80.00 $80.00 • Dave Pinney Diagnostics— — 4/27/2002 I 0.5 $70.00 $35.00 Dave Pinney Repair 5/1/2002 ' 1.5 $70.00 $105.00 John Weist —Service call and delivery 5/2/2002 ? 1 $80.00 $80.00 Labor Total: $300.00 PARTS USED ID# Qty U/M Description Mfr Part# Freight Unit Cost Total 6156 1 Each Switch VSP0193 �j $0.00 ; $12.63 $12.63 215411 Each Pinch Roller VXL1892 I — —;— i $0.00 $12.92 $12.92 Parts Total: $25.55 Terms: Net 30 Pre-Tax Grand Total: $325.55 DO NOT PAY FROM THIS SHEET • Printed On: 5/9/2002 aSijk) J.W. Tel-Tronics Inc. • TEL -T R O e I C S 17701 17th Ave W. - Lynnwood, WA (425)745-9544 . . •.; . Page 1 1 -ON. - '' • CITY OF RENTON 6 4=0 4 i'.;.',18.'4ihAVAIM;4',60g 3,2Fil04.140Mta'efttliZA+ +. . 1055 S. GRADY WAY- ,..ii - • • yt— . - RENTON, WA 98055 6/7/2002 12/0000020 c- Nrc0 VENDOR: 082979 SHIP TO: TROXELL COMMUNICATIONS INC 4830 S 38TH ST PHOENIX, AZ 85040 FOB Point: Req.No.: Terms: net 30 Dept.: FINANCE DEPARTMENT Req.Del.Date: Contact: CORNEJO, RITA Pre-Assigned PO#?: No Special Inst: THIS IS A REVISED PURCHASE ORDER ZW,tglifill ttgRl7.Y!qiljti:il:iejIRYjgtgtZirfi.T*IR*Ij.Ria3gTP*S7E,Mrigf':'r.iPe:.iil'OY',TF:11:i::P.%Till",iTgraffigcg 2113T5).470,7097414 #697277 'in.zi':-':,'.'4,':.:;:ir'VPg3.7.,Z7k-,4."4.7i.5,EIT,I=7,:„Nwill,gpis,75,;-figzkT4T.70,:i.:7-3-'7;r,',,pv :-:;.;„','•.'...r.c,T-;'=';-::::i)-.7z.,...7 w..6.s,e'tL,,fea'it,,,*1':,int-tti':?!:',.:-,.-2. -1,i-t,N,J.-,?:-..,',-,,,s..- ,,F,:.'q,`,.:7.,a,:.;";.3,3.;f:LIT0cia...,4:::.' s'L-&;ff:,,,;;;:x...'Z':k,„edN'ia.e.al•t:,'!!"(zi'w 77';.,„,r-,,,,T.,..YIT:1-:,-;--c-4,YrPFZirci,','"`-;•*'Zi-,:i-iisi,:::::;Z:SAP:?,2,•7-;!"..W2,7,::::,%7•M''',1,c,k7-KgTAIWYWrif,Zif:iZ,ak7;:rerii15;,,I,S:-'7:-?-,T.T?V'','IFX,:::i'•,;,',N.::'::,.s.-0-''',;:',‘'f- %.;F:.W.1. q;75f.,7;,-Y',:', ;;:'„,',:;";•?•:;%<'2WiT',Z;;;;..F,,trfr,:,,:'1,7,p::::7; ?i'ifikiti*'"deigM-;'X;,.':::: ':i:';',';:i: ::,;:D',Ix";1:,,«.,Sti:!3:11,:ja-:-!::•::;:"';''..,:i.:P.f.:4'gf:Leg,‘: :'1',,Y,'6,e2T;fN%W.-,T41.U.',11,.-S..-2,'AT--,::,A":,5:n.:;:!...Y.i'l:'-.'..'i',:,'..;.:..:',:k-z':',_z ';e7e:::::'L':;.;.,:-IeJ.I4E-,‘A.:fi:,if.t. :,t1;. ...Z.fM:,,:sLI.;;e1::.:°7,12. ,.,„T.,.,-,-,,,,,. .;,T.-m;f,-gt:;;:,-;;.,:''.---,: i '-'''7,',V>-..1,3,4VI.A.;-'47),:i7P:,','.7.=.'f:Fil-Y4';',"-TT.T;,'"Alin.iW:'In7,77,:2,Y-5;vgi',q'.,,:-!siv.::::::,',.:;';,-`il'P'-' Fi';':".':-.':,,;'‘R-v-j-''',.t-F,;•Z',:g.P...-v-7,-",i..,-;-:-. .,:;,,,?''',-,:":";,V'4'g,', W47.'XW..7-7.«.-A,W1- -7-; 6.::,13i7.20,Is....%',!::(:..-'-g.4 t':'4i.F,Y,A:.-.:',1::;4:g.',.',..,;:-:.:e:2W-r..-7,1-,i?..`a z.,ke:,-:.V l',,'"::.i',4,}J,Z.,,.°,,i;)44,,,a:e,-,',;',2'',:,',V:;,51.1,1::14i.:.*:,,!:,Lv..'.'.'.4"'',..'..'..:.,;•A,,-.--;;.'.'0,''..:'A•5..z.-:3_.-:.-,,if','.,,,:i;':-!ia Z,::*:,,..-. ::,,z;,:%-gi t',,,„:2,-„•,,,:41:.,;--g.a.1,;:;t:ta,!:.,,c-ii,:- , ' ,rt•-,,,,,',:e,,,zr,z7-7-:74,,,:,:f,1 F7,''x', tz v:'"-;•1•;.-'.,'',:ii:-'ximif,•,'.?;'',: ',•.•Y:,',Yi -';.3,e'''''','"lig"'"."-Vi.74*..,;!.'''.:::'Nk.: '''',:;%<''3;70Ti.,r47,1,47;";W:'"17':'57,74'ff:,7;:,':A7:ZT•:;:,::!.;',VA:'::',';':-,,L';',,:„'.:::;::::''''.*Tr:i'6;:-.;:'::' ''''W.;..512'-':'.:-1:3':21q,:i ,''''''''','''':',,'''''','0',•,''';' .114.<11',filA,:;.:4't'.i::::&,':',tijiiZt;‘;:', ';:'.:1f. ..1..;i 4:..-;;;.i,'S',':::"ai;;;':::,I;;;3,,,:"<='.1:i..c.S',..P.'2,tf,:. 42:&.,.:,..!'Z;:;; ;&"1%an-::: :',.,...,:e.,,,*`,.,.",'',..:::SX,'1 ,-;•:-;.7...!a';','A'.2.,°,'„f,A.',&.,:',- -ig,'-•,;;;P,,,,::-;:it ,',,,f-4 g',":1..Lii;;,:licl.:;-,,,:i',,,,,. ;,,.7..fi:;',:',;:,, 2::4,47,q,',T-7. -?-7,'-if.,,,„'i`; -W'.5`:•4)',.i",'-'::-.,,"::1,c.'.'''z,', .•,;.:--..,:' ,<•,.g.i.(-2k):,:,-Z,A" ,;i:,,,'Tiql!47,-,74'i,VM13,.t..4t,i,"MftIZNyzi,,,,,A:,,,,:.;7:::(;;.?,c...-;;;.;,-,,T:,„:z,,,,,3:::,-,1::::;-y.,-,',.n.,;Fc,Dza.,:.:.;;;,-.17„v:,::,-;, ,,,ci,F,;,-5„.7!..0173-iz;‘,753:33.N.,;:,,g,,e,yA:. . :',,,:,-.-klettgk';':gil?'-",:fL,;',;:','-';':I'''.',4', , ,-. . ,: z7E7T. .--71'. -"gvg_47,17---3"-. , ,-:',. .F..:,:z;:n'., 7:,--,:,,-;::(':q:;1 ',172.511:g17.--,J:r..s7/4"ea,'17,i,:".ft, ',•--1;,'&1:s,;-&-e.'n:';',.:,." Cii. 2::22 e:''4:::x--i'-xi;',t-:::-,.',:ii.54.3,t2-''.2:5;. gA :-;-::7.316sfiv,":14.6.,...-X4t.":4 ',-;•".:‘" .:i•- ;,.":-''.. ~,-x,:"..Y,,,,,:;.t:;':,,:,7:,,."..),: ::: :,::---....','.Sil::::;,::;1',f1-::-.--st',.:!,..k,'',,;','.-!:&,•iriS'`,",',,,"-P:5';`,.,.. .'?:,.; -i,5,-,.'.4.7',:;,,,,,,ag'ilig 1-,-,,,,,; .,, ,,,;:;-,,,„:c.,,Exi*i.::,....6y;lqx4,,,AV3',..',,,,,e.;•;, :alk.s..'iz:::',\4',"-NV:=."-:;;;.: 1;:a7;g1-:-'4A-"gM,:i.:-..:4:i':';:',.,A,kii'c'i.'3'.g.:':i: :-; ,;,=:'-vi-,,,.:i.-',A'''. .'','., '.',::,-,::':.-.?-;:r.Y59$;!47-3{;',': W,";',;riN:-V74:P:Oli.j';': .:'' ',I.Y.,::Lz.,',Ve.-;,*':',A;..:-.;:c..,,§,:f. ,?:,':".:,g,':'.,'''le,''$:',P.,.• ,"'.:•:,,. 1:,-"-,V.Xa,;',',,eP,t-P, k%!:;',S.f"&„Wiej-iP t<rt,:,,7"::-24V>.,%:1:,'',:,,*es.:, -":::;";:: :::':.".f.Yia‘‘'...',.ii.i ..e.i'.',3,..',,?-:;a,,c'ff:::t.,' si.,-,°,r.,0",,,:adg,i;',0,1,!,:,:„,:a:,L,.,1,:z ".ish.',:,:.6.,ars';',X4°.:f.f.`..i,Z;24, i:,,S.TT1,;":;:iiN&a,11,f7P Txmgs,ZIVVR.e.n 'Zvf,,,,,i'.. .,,-;&,,,,',.;',':'':1°::::,:.:a;.O.U!..:,,..-,,i;i.:,:i::;.:',Qa',."4.J.g,',I,KI:a.,:-,if•:,,,,,A,'''e!,;641,0,?.?:,:,::&VI-V:.:•j.iaaa.14-6g..1,1 ,-ii:::;&;,t.:',T.,:.11,.4,11.,, ,WW4... :: :::•;';;C•,:':,":211iZt,.;-:;,',a,," %- ,-,::',`;'..c- ,,,,;;Z;Zig'n:F , -!;;;').:,:,,,:i,..;L. P7',17;:i. 7471,:trilif,-.T4•9:97.:."';'?:-,;; T. ,-TaT1',M;` 7-11V-1.t;:gF,T:?.5.'i,..,I5i,'AiriFfitTiiil,,,,,7,1:f..i.,T, '!"PVR,R.:','n'T,'"-7.,i7i,"1 ::::,:";tL,'1,1-1:1,!,:,*•jr.:„.:W,1-?;,-:Nr.:(a'-i,Riar.." " 'SY-!:Y.f.,' f'.. :i,'''';',,,-.. .,%:.:7:.;',-X'.-L:4.f.'t-..:',.;.,';::::,,,14.-2,•.,Y.f:;:<:..1-5.,',.k.,4, '.11:`-..l'1,-:&,-,i'itfiankt'i.021,.)AiS.i,r,'.1 IikinitiEgIC:g0;4?JiKliFtl!titgl'Ital,;f:fitis NtifFiagilEige`,,::,:',;;...SEEFil- Mg-§EPItii' FEI;PErlallaSiTfiEgin. NEE, :.:: ig ;/,';'':'';'e'!'St'''N-TiPtlEti'g-r?ta:Tit54gCqtlPt:"-4''.t.'PH9NftV.o,=.1i'g4:?S1'f..I.-qfTJ':;;',?-Eig:.:g.tfg':W,.fi,;rzae 7i.,194,,S,10.,..73v1T,41,114:71tfii,ii SUBTOTAL 270.92 BILL TO: TAX 0.00 FREIGHT 0.00 TOTAL 270.92 E 127.000000.004.5710.0010.48.000000 270.92 • • InkrjA7 --711.-C4411. .• )d01/.4t,i.g.)/- Z(latte,4-1 Authorized Signature Authorized Signature SE REMIT T0: Vendor Ogg / 7 ow 00 INVOICE` TRO$E COMMUNICATIONS, INC. �Op�000002No. 697277 4830 S.38TH STREET Date 04/30/2002 PHOENIX,ARIZONA 85040 (602)437-7240 1 800-352 7912 FA• .02)437-7265 f`/� Page 1 Customer 21416 N TIN #86-071611 �� Sold To: S 'a To: MAY 0 7 Z00Z CITY OF RENTON ''.CITY OF RENTON 1055 S. GRADY WAY 1055 S. GRADY WAY CITY CLERK'S E EIVCFFICP RENTON WA 98055-3232 • • RENTON WA 98055-3232 .::::....: ::>:<�:.>:::.::::::.e.. .::.....:..... :•...................... .p....... ....... ......; Pp ,..:....... ...tro Ng......:::::.....Order.Date.... .. .ustamer...P ...... o :. ::.;;:.;:Sales.;:.;:;.;..:;:.:. Net 30 United Parcel Servic 04/30/2002 222629 CS 04/24/2002 2120081 4605 SEP SEP6102907698 LAMP FOR PLC-9000N 1 1 0 249.00 249.00 UPS 1Z8718930312131874 RECErvED MAY 0 6 2002 city 0f Renton Accounts MEMO: ................... < T$AEES 249.00 CONDITIONS OF SALE i1tVlf11iT<:<__ ?> AU claims arising out of or connected with the AFinance Charge at the periodic rate of 21.9 2 above listed items must be made within five days 1 1/2% with an Annual Percentage Rate after delivery. No returns accepted unless of 18% will be charged on all accounts accompanied by this document. Merchandise returned unpaid after the last day of the for credit shall be subject to 25% handling following month. �� `>`'': charges. Seller reserves title to these goods until paid for in full. This invoice is due on or before 05/30/2002 AMOUNT 270.92 PLEASE REFERENCE THIS INVOICE NO. 697277 ON YOUR REMITTANCE • PLEASE REMIT TO: INVOICE • T Rp E COMMUNICATIONS, INC. Audio•Video•Sales-Design-Service-Installation No. 697277 , --/ ' 4830 S.38TH STREET Date 04/30/2002 • PHOENIX,ARIZONA 85040 Page 1 (602)437-7240 1-800-352-7912 FAX (602)437-7265 Customer 21416 N • TIN # 86-0716114 Sold To: Ship To: CITY OF RENTON CITY OF RENTON 1055 S. GRADY WAY 1055 S. GRADY WAY RENTON WA 98055-3232 RENTON WA 98055-3232 s.....:...:....:... ..................Shi ::V�a::>:.>: :::<:>::::>::::::>:: :Date::Shi ;:,:>::>.;:.;:.;:.;:.;. <:::»>:::. ;:.:.;;:.;:.;:.;: ;:<.;:;:..:::: .........................................R............................. gped......:.;:.::.:;:.;:Confrolltlq<:>i::»::::.;:.;:Order:::Date.....:..Custarner::.P�O:>1Va,:..:.:::::::::ales.:::::::. Net 30 United Parcel Servic 04/30/2002 222629 CS 04/24/2002 2120081 4605 .. ............ ...... :...... :. em: :;trii.:;.;i:;:; :::.::::`.: .:.•: ::::.i>:: iii*.I::::crip0iii :'::::: "::. :1�:: ek.: ; [ : ::::.ipped :I: ' /:`` :- ;: i00-/P : `< xt mo uMi:::>:::::..::.te.:. .umber . Clasen tt;on ;:.:::::.: . :::::.:..:.:::D,t'cler..ed>.;•: . .$hti .ed:::::..�:::8 0: ::::::::: :::::Price/Per.. :::::::..:.Ext.:Amount:::: SEP SEP6102907698 LAMP FOR PLC-9000N 1 1 0 249.00 249.00 UPS 1Z8718930312131874 RECEIVED MAY 0 6 2002 • City of Renton Accounts Payable • • MEMO: .NgrisA $:»> • 249.00 CONDITIONS OF SALE A:lv1:OUNT ' All claims arising out of or.connected with the AFinance Charge at the periodic rate of .....................: �4Xzl{�a`:`:C:17C 21.92 above listed items must be made within five days 1 1/2%with an Annual Percentage Rate after delivery. No returns accepted unless of 18% will be charged on all accounts accompanied by this document. Merchandise returned unpaid after the last day of the for credit shall be subject to 25% handling following month. FREIGHTKN charges. Seller reserves title to these goods until paid for in full. ' This invoice is due on or before 05/30/2002 sAMOUNT 270.92 PLEASE REFERENCE `: > IUE<` <`; ER NCE THIS INVOICE NO. 697277 ON YOUR REMITTANCE Page 1 1 CITY OF RENTON cm, + 1055 S. GRADY WAY mIL RENTON, WA 98055 6/7/02 12/0000020 - 1\jr,c0 VENDOR: 082979 SHIP TO: TROXELL COMMUNICATIONS INC 4830 S 38TH ST PHOENIX, AZ 85040 FOB Point: Req.No.: Terms: net 30 Dept.: FINANCE DEPARTMENT Req.Del.Date: Contact: CORNEJO, RITA Pre-Assigned PO#?: No Special Inst: Quantity Unit Oscr4ption „ Unit Price xt Price ' Bulb for Projector-Chambers mv. 270.92 #697277 - , - , , ".• -- • •,• „, 7: -; C;•: 7,;" 72;11=3: " " ' • — • '';;; ' ' „" • '!" 2:•:71'7;: , `-; ;:‘r:S• !'f 7'.'"'11; • ; -• ,„ , - • •' ' 7 •- ,„ „ • tr,•-°-• 7;7; ":7 : • „ • , " .e — „ SUBTOTAL 270.92 BILL TO: TAX 0.00 FREIGHT 0.00 TOTAL 270.92 Account Number „ Work Order Function Number;!: „' Amount E 127.000000.004.5710.0010.81-.000000 270.92 --?(\„L,uvvy1„4.7yk.,-N, Authorized Signature Ai ithnri7Pri Rinnati Ira '• Page 1 1 fc-Y- 0 C.).S-a '"'t CITY OF RENTON i n "i i; !:, 4.k...„ , + 1055 S. GRADY WAY i!OV:7.:',',DAT.4p,,1:::,•;•b•,•ii:‘,J, TiTc3.4?:tyNci-foota:;:',..;,. .,,'. •elp,— RENTON, WA 98055 6/7/02 12/000002 t VENDOR: 090294 SHIP TO: WENDI FISCHER ENTERPRISES LLC PO BOX 733 REDMOND, WA 98073 FOB Point: Req.No.: Terms: net term Dept.: FINANCE DEPARTMENT Req.Del.Date: Contact: CORNEJO, RITA Pre-Assigned PO#?: No Special Inst: ,:,`:gill.:,4'0,fififiii:Di';2'tirill:f1::'::,,i,'i;:i::: :,':";::;.:?: ::,;: :;: :;:' :,:..,:'f,f,.':;±,,,N,.;5-':::',',:•:',,,,:,:;:-:;;,5,'',F3%:'f:V:0':,6''U:S:i'6iiii:iti::;:idigi;'f ;'"'I';',':'''; ".Ri:}:T,'::i:!q";;:?:i.;,:gi::i::Y,:';:4 ii.: tiiiii7.0016,-;..?. .7-'i;,•'14'‘.;4`..tif.tiOlii4ila'''.:. Reimbursement for Digital Juice Library , _ _ _ .: , _ __ 423.00,,,,,, 53:.T.f:,,,,...71,7,-,-;:,.,i,7,i,T,i,,,,,,,,,,..:.:7,?,::::::,,,,f4:,F,,, ,-2,;,:.7,...,?.p.,,,,,,,,:::,c,.;.;;;.5vc:7;Fi.:T:::::F.172;,:n;:i'iZQ''::,I''','F','4:7f,:;:',i';',::::',':':.,i'.2'.:7,23:',7,3.-R,:r.,-;,,;:'.;;Fi.:',i;77:':aW-1.':''.Ts,". .Mr.",.,•.J.1'2:?;„'.',,:q'zI;17,:,,';,,!i-',.;-,..,.7.,.ir'.7,F,7.5,i.-7,,:..fl:ii,v.,,,':7;..r.',.:,74'f7,;17,,. ;3-,,k14,,g, ,f,fii.;!,:.-;i;-,.,,,:,,,::',;.',.,,,,-.;,-..?:.;.;,L.::g.:n.:;.:,.:.:‘;-1,t'.'..„-;.:',-,:::;-.th?:.,:;'.',f';';ai'::::::',..;.i...,.?,':-..z.?!.'.;::::',Z.).:•::I.:2:;.i;=:;,;,,;1-2,-:,:,.;:.;'.:..,.:g;'''th`.r.-2',.',..L,.:2,:':.LTSii.4.;:,',.:',Y:',:,.. ;..;.,11.1:`.:'1;,'..e5'... .-.':."^:{1':',".:;i:":7,>., :^;';;;;-..'Z',:?.`'',.il.,.,i'Zi.'. .,L',Iii,s,a'..14,-.,tilf21::L:;'1', .:2..I Pii.E71777:?.:7:;i:3:;:1:: :- .17:1.,:-.,1iJ.,'-:,;3ij21:'':F',::F:3:Si'1:::Zi3ii';T*75-?Kg'';-i-'. ;'.:3FI-i:a5f:2;::i- 5iYE;12!':?:.:':l5S.::.T.?'S'Yi''FT:'3::'1);Sg;ITT'Si::::7J:5:7::if;::;'7i;:::Fi3Dg:S:1:°Ef?;gZ;!. wgr.irm:7••••:".e::.2••',..'•::',:i'...,',Y.•.F.'•-'3,:.r.,.:...i‘:-..,Ti-;.7.:•.x.'..7.,-•':..,z.::'-.•.':','-::!1•.',...' -r:-...,'....7.rg',',•..:7.7:g....,7::,7,..z..:;:fg-zii',7,57,..•:- ';',1;•!-:',:2:•;,:zn,,,im':‘, ,,r7:...7.7'•:-,',.T.A.r.--:r?,.-•'•-,f.f.....,7'.i.7,-,:,:f...w.:-.7F,&7.'.:,.:7;.7.,',7:::::,,,...,61,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,;,,,, ,,,-...t.L.•',07:•-',„:,..lif....'s.:,....1;?:..:1-:,-,:::!. .:!:...::::.••:;,!::--,-,i„L',..;:i.,,.....P,:',-L,..,L'-,,...ki.:1•,,,,!:.,-av-,:','''.2.2.,..-PITI,Ej:::,,..•::::::1:;:.• :-Y,v.k:::',3p•.1.,..,,,2.qi,..',?.•:••:::::::-.::,1•:..,:li;5,s••, ;•tf:,•z,2.3-; fi,,,i;.??2:;P:t12'7,?.:::::i.z..,,j.•2...-:-,fe,z,:',::;:;•Iz,•'Y,T:-:•-.=3t, .. . _• ,,,,,,,,„•: ::•,..,,,,,,,,r...;•,,,:•.,,,i,,,-.-,,-,,,,77j.,:',-•!•-,:i......",?-:':15:4,7.,q,13,::,17.,T17:7;:,:n;•.:7::,,,-,,,,,,,F,,,,-,,, ..?:::',7,-,z."'.::::,,,...,:?'•,,•:,717-7..,r,?7,;.!,,,?7,7,,,7.7,7.,:,,,,,7:-..,:.,r, ''''':..'"'.::' . .Z:'',..t;t:-',;•:;.::?''..Y,',:'Xq,-:,':',;!,.",: :::'.f.itY,':,'.;L':::;','i*I'l'iLrisaiiii,:', -,::-L,'''. :';';',t`ZS.',.':-;:l.,'.?".;',.=::?;..:'.7t.',A':',',:::':.', I.:;,:::;',:-:::,;',.,1:',.;:j. .i.'•''Si..";i:i':':.:;;:t'gtR:1,S,"1:.'.?::71...;',Vii',;', 7;:'''' ::: .''''.1 ,.''S::_-:',..!7',;..,3,-3,77, ; . ..,-,77-K,';'-il:•:.:-.:7':', ,737, .-77,5 '73::::;717.0'•7)CPi7:'' -tr :"P' 71 .7';:% "'', 2' : ',. .'AiZz3:-.2.;;:::,'2,14' :;:. i-7-..1 '' i7'.' " :iall.a-.1.:•.1` : ;.: 'L:ii .,.i..' ',:::..i:.*..e.i...t.'"'f.';'....ie.,.:-.;:a...,,: 5 :, '':;:; Act-A-;,,F-.-:::.;',7'.f?"-:';:-':,,, ?::.,T.---'2,,,1,7;:::: .','.•,;.:-..:::.75..:::.7.,i,..„7-.2:-..7-77;,,7:',-.,-,; ;;T:‘,q7,::,..T,f.;;;:7-,,?,77,-,,,'..T...7,7,..751.!;'.;%1•:'.*:::-;7:.:27:7;,'.f=k7-Tr:".:.'!:.."-.:74',"7:37-N77-.!.';;'24.5--77.n77-jxa-:47.70..'!,. ,-T.-:;-:0...;;,,m6.7.:=7.';',77 n'5„.77,-;;.;;:',':,7,-,i7,',7,..:477:4-t4: 17. all.:LI:i:t".z,;:.:;:.14'.E)..f, -.',t)::;, -;::...;.1 .;,,Z.';:th'i";'A-1.'.:-.:: :4,1',::`;":,&:.,:!:,(=If: ',S2t,,,,:.•,:.:i2i'::','..,.?:.;.,ii:';A:6'..,:.0'JN'!",,L=,,,'";,-'::."'.:•-..,!:.: a;4.,';:":,';.::::,:&•`..,.,:'.:'%‘::::;`.:,:::<'!-L-:W'2,:.,4',..,:iA"'i.:.;-,;.:?.?:1; .-,-U':-.',"',Dzi,2:.>,..;'','.2.0,,i..,:',;:',`,.12,'.:z,"0.:,,,'2 ::!;•". .";.=,,i.:f.;;iet:', ":21,',Z:Se, ;14Zt . ,:FR;17,:‘,15.E. - 2;17 : , 71',171.iii7sT77:1!-V4,-.117§,-P1,15.EIN::;;IR., ..7g7:f:, i4,)1,,:,3,6 17,75772FF;!,757;;77.;;;',,:cF,n:7,1;j7:::;::•q;u2,,,,-;r:,y..5,:7;7,,,r7ri.,,-7{-117i7:7-;;(77\577:7:::7:7:igr,i,P7177,114:7,777.'",3:7,7713: ,5'7,71M- : at,t;L::•:3,::.ii'',. ::;:ri::;,::,-.'S-':1"::<1•g:Zii ‘t.:,Yi:.:;',.::..-; :;', :;',...',,-::.Y..121d,..,if: ::152, 1'.:i.'21z..-e:?1,111 .0::i1::,,Z1,111:":11'-f::*:i;:11.:-Zi,Z;42i'' Fi!L,;Leilal.V.:,!•12;:f-L'',il. .,; ,,..,,,i,,-:..:::,:-.:,,,,,;.!,,--..:.:, .1.itz,1-3.,.:4:s• L:;.i::::.;4'4.!:,:',',":22'.L :,.:"z-2:, ,,,Y:-':::4i-;',Z.,:-.Z.:,.,2,4.1',, .,..;:fL.7,01.::.;:-.A4;INI;S:.i..z-:.:11,-;;' ,,, LI:: ,,.t. ,,-I::tf,-,,-;.;-, .,...!,..;.I1--:'1,::,.:,111,.11.f:alis44,3-..ioi il21;,,,, ,„ ,'Ii•I':;;V:gi--;.:,: F-:0' . ' 7,n=5,Z.17.7...F:-174%7F,Tf,q:; , ,TfFif;N7;Tr4F7:M;17i7Fz-7-7.S7Ti?.TrP,!'qZ.;:'177,-7'6:,f,,7-5Tqi„;V7:77,';-g;fiF,77,97-,71:C'27:-.72,:f<7 4447 ::::...:da?1,.;,..::::'.‘;.-,,::'(,:j11:4;...i...-,.;;:tfoii.s.i,` - zArd:Tf!...a' '}- .:1' '- ',.,' -... -z?-2,-:1.33', :i' ?,-..'zi..4.1'.,:i:&;L::::aii=3L-A.i.11=6•,:l.e-i g.:-.15:ii::: ,;::12':,;',-Z,"47,.',.. --;?q,":,'.1 SUBTOTAL 423.00 BILL TO: TAX . 0.00 FREIGHT 0.00 TOTAL 423.00 '..4,:;,:fic.,;:.-..i:!)-.:7;i0,.!'„';',1i,•ig;IAI'A-.4:6100).tifo-iii":4*ee.;.,:;;;;:k,:::,:::gpf.,:-..,',-,,-;,4';:?!ti,.',..;j,',..1.,,,,...,-.?,-.1.i,i',,6:C.1:;',?:',V.Fig.'''181:6:.!1k0.f..i.ri...07!6:i'i6.i.t4tiAcki.ii,420.A‘1,:,-4.::.:/;;tilitAi;: i:',1•J''',,if;:.',.. ;.;::Ssf55`I'!.4i..c..*6:011#5...0.).;;'-!J E 127.000000.004.5710.0010.31.000000 423.00 6011A4%-e- - leialf-07'') Authorized Signature Authorized Signature . Digital Juice, Inc. 2_ a°/ � ,� � j . 1736 NE 25th Avenue Ocala, FL 34470-4854 Invoice Customer Service 800.525.2203 Order Date: 03/20/2002 Business Relations 352.369.0930 Invoice Number: 361306 FAX 352.368.6091 Customer 52878 Online www.digitaljuice.com Shipped via: FedEx 2day 1 N Bill To: Ship To: Wendi Fischer Enterprises, LLC Wendi Fischer Enterprises, LLC Wendi Fischer Wendi Fischer PO Box 733 22625 NE 98th PL Redmond,WA 98073 Redmond,WA 98053 425.785.2513 Quanity Product ID Product Description Unit Price Total 1 BTX.BTX BackTraxx Music Library 399.00 399.00 Notes Sub Total 399.00 Paid in full with VISA Shipping&Handling 24.00 TOTAL $423.00 Thank you for your order. „F iatr v 7v<1 �lCG /27.000©O0 00�. 57/O .O;` >, /. 0e20Po0 >e 0 46-70000 -1 CITY OF RENTON JUN 0 5 Z002 O iffid RECEIVED CITY CLERK'S OFFICE Wendi Fischer Enterprises, LLC INVOICE P.O. Box 733 Redmond, WA 98073 EIN: 91-2110301 Invoice Number: F00102 Invoice Date: 06.01.02 SOLD TO: REMIT TO: Bonnie Walton Wendi Fischer Enterprises, LLC City of Renton P.O. Box 733 1055 Grady Way Redmond, WA 98073 Renton, WA 98055 ITEMS DESCRIPTION AMOUNT DUE 1 Reimbursement for Digital Juice Audio Library $423.00 TOTAL DUE UPON RECEIPT: $423.00 If you have any questions concerning this invoice, call: Wendi Fischer 425,785.2513 • • • • Page 1 1 C.) CITY OF RENTON 6 fm, + 1055 S. GRADY WAY RENTON, WA 98055 6/21/2002 , 12/0000024 . ./vrc0 VENDOR: 007201 SHIP TO: B & H PHOTO VIDEO 420 9TH AVE NEW YORK, NY 10001 FOB Point: Req.No.: Terms: net term Dept.: FINANCE DEPARTMENT Req. Del.Date: Contact: CORNEJO, RITA Pre-Assigned PO#?: NO Special lnst: _ THIS IS A REVISED PURCHASE ORDER 76030670-8738558 YildiAtik:10,411:01kr*IRM: Invoice#76030670-8770588 1-;IPATIREIR V7,,,,77.P?..77;k :Fgr/z`:"•.° 7i#,R7.57;iNi717 F;70:;I:;,374:71:5 V;;;;55:4140 1!7:':::;R;:;.iPg::;grZ:::F:?:::::-.:!,74'.iF,:IF:tf?.i.,VbR7agn'j -ZFZ;,„;:-F;;;':"i:Ft';• ',177113F;T;57;73,1:73'-':F47:'',;1,'Fig:TIV:::Fi:i.e':70. ;,;:::f 76g2RP, ;SFEN-17:WAIM; ;:-.7•Kcxg,p7m?.. 9! SUBTOTAL 557.35 BILL TO: TAX 0.00 FREIGHT 0.00 TOTAL 557.35 E 127.000000.004.5710.0010.48.000000 557.35 cc,:ii,(rirrv-- AD, 41-:,•-&-L.0249 cz1 . • ..S.. <SY 0 CITY OF RENTON Page 1 1 gl CD + + 1055 S. GRADY WAY IA 1. .... .e. RENTON,WA 98055 `-. Ivrv0 6/21/2002 L 12/0000024 VENDOR: 007201 . SHIP TO: B&H PHOTO VIDEO 420 9TH AVE NEW YORK, NY 10001 FOB Point: Req.No.: Terms: net term Dept.: FINANCE DEPARTMENT Req.Del.Date: Contact: CORNEJO, RITA Pre-Assigned PO#?: No Special Inst:- 0ii,ai .'3,,'-.0n,il,-,.:;i:;:!..,1:;,,,i`j,‘i,, =,;:,,,,..;;,7;;.-2„',;-:,:-:,.'Ve. .,',,Y;;;;;,:ir.::',,:j,:.3,',:,';':..14`;;;r,i'kj)'0":il'OritjttIOti!':iIt'•'; ,!:'..::::: ::,:;.,-..::-,....,,-.;0....,.:',...,;,,.:-.,,'..'„-,,,,,,1::?•,';-.-..%:.4,Inl.t.r.:41PP,:i.::-.„ ,...,;,..,.., , ..„..„ ..,,,,.,..... Camera Batteries/Wireless Mic/Gaffer 557.35 -,-.--„---.--7,-,---,,,,--,-,-,,,,,,,p,-K,:::-., , , -7,,,:!4::--..-;--777: :77.) :77f:77,,i' '7"-7 '",-,7-,7''':''','*;••7,7,'' 3. 7°;;;,7:'2,:kr,7 7 ,:r.'A7,, ::-.:;;:;;;',77,:',477:::: --,,,':,:',si.':',:`;'. .':,';',,"'--- -:-',t;,,:',•:''',',“,-,,-''':'iTaije-':-.;:"'';''''.';',''i.'',:.'':.',.;,':::'`.-:.."•,-.1-.:::.:.::',-.,';',..'?,,,i':4,':',.:8; -•."-;"''".,'::?fs,. .::.;,;,,,i,., .'v-,, .;-',i-J,e,?..',.:;,,:,::?:.:.',:-,',.... :.;.::::,,,,,:;,...z:1,..-!...,,;.;',`L'.a.;,1:..1',.-,,,...-.1:-.'.7..,:=2,,,,,3 '..-,,: :::',Z3,-;::::'.',,),;:::.:;::i,,,:-.:,,,..f.:',4fl; • Inv.#'s 76030670-8738558& , .‘ ,,___,_ ,,,,,,__, ,,,,_,,,,,,_ ,.....-..- ,,,,,,,.....r,,,,,.-,,,..,,,,';''''."'"%Xr', •",•:'''','",',,,W',1:':777,,•4';'"v,,,';.-:;-,T,'•;',;"'",',K,`,‘",',•''''''.7-''''.,,''‘',-'"''',::':',',;',:"•.'-ff';,'''S-':^•';'',,,,;,':7-7:,-,:::‘,-,';',:',,'„,,-,,';`C,'':':'4,',`,'.t,',7,7,,,.:2,'" ,,,,':.:!;"•,,,, :,,,',i,,i'Ll4:,,,',,,‘,4;',.,'.. ::;;':,:::;C54';;:•:,:::;!T:';';'''',''.',.. ':''''''''''''''''''''I'''''''''''''''''7,600670'8710588*',''''''"''''''i,'"`"'",".1k.'?' ;',"-; .-,'.-%'-::-'-'.--,4"il,'''•,',';*',:',,'?:;',:',i,.',I!'"1"C,',,'',:i""'L''',,,,'‘''',,,',4•j'z:P.';4",;(.--li•it:';'416'a,„:t,,,L„,..'::L.f:';.:•,4,4:3;f4.'44:::.r,:;,•,r,;2•1:';,•.:4,4.,..;,%‘:',4:', --,,,--,,,,,T,‘.-,•---,"-,••=4„z-,',77,-,t,4,-?",,..",1,,,,7.4.;,',7-,4:::::,-,:yr,,,:',-,,,,,,,‘":7,s4'4,,,;t•e,,,:;-,1,74•-,';',N,-c?•:,t,"";,-,"!•,7",7::E`•-.'"47,%-:'•„:',^,.:',7,(7,,r:::;:::;;,,Ti,";T:.-,:,,t;:4;;;"r4,',,,'''',':7,,,;;::;',•,,;',,,;,,l'",,,•.!,.:,,,'",77,:.,..,i7-,7,:s..,:,.:-7-77:.!:,:-r:-.'.;',7:7,:,',.,Y,r,r;:,-,--7,7;:--,77-.7:::::::::-,..,7!;:-.-.>‘,,,?:,,.:.z:-.,,,:-.:„ ''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''':'''''''.''''''''','.'"'"'''-;''""I'''''';',.;'''''''''''"r''';''''''.-'''-'--''-';.--,,,/,'!--!",,',',-'--:,-c.',,,', --...--'',i',,''',., `,.--'--‘,--,•-•'!- .'--.--,---.,',-,,,,,,-,.:,,,::),,,,:v.•,.1,..4-:-:,!-- L -,-----..'-',:v,7c..7,..',";',, ,-;",:','," •:r.r:';'-'"• -"';';' ''''' -•,--'',...;'''-'-'',7047.i.IFF'-'7,;;',-.7.•`.-:4;Z-',7•,".•;3.7.:,„7,777,17.,,,n,,,, '- , 7, ;,;"":4"';"•'.:1%:if.,7,:,-,,,:,...f.:,:,,;',,7,.;Fr,,,:7;;;-.":71:1";7';':-7M777-47.77,77737,777:..?;:-'',.7...i:7.;,,V,:t.,'..-'-3.r. , .. ""-"-,"'I"'•••"''."!..,'"',-,••"'"'" s•,;,,,,,,,r" '1,"•,";',,,V!3'..'n...,,‘,','}.%•.!•P;..•r5.7,',''.7.;:,:r-"'.:',;?...7.:i';'t:Z;','Z;Tc7'.'::'!'',:•'','<':..•'''''''''''''' '''•''':',''''.Cfi''‘:!'',''''.."3:.:',n7.::•-"i*,:'‘,::.'.::„.•.:''):5.'-:.::,,T;f:'1;•,7:',ZI''!',;)T,-77",:',';',;;;!.1.,:ci:;772:3.7., , -::::::::7.,:. -,:-.,-,<-:-,,t;,,,,-K•%;•...,,,i.„••.. ,....,,r.,,,,,,,..,,,z,•,.•,•,,,„i.:,•,,,,,,,,,„,.,-. ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,.„- ,,,,,:.,0,•,•„•,,:;-,,,,,,,:•,,,. •..6-,:',•,1- ..,,•...,•• ,•...'..,4,;;.:.,..z.k.,,-;,•,;.,-A;,;;2.,.••••,-,,:::;.',V,','...''•!',,•."•°;,•,>.=:',"',"f.••;..":•r:6',',V,:. ,•.ii.,.,....-,•," ';',;•,-,,,-,c,r4;,•,...,,>',„;'1::":,,,,r'4',J,'',''",';`-,,-, ': :-...--,,,,,,,,,;;;.;;.=.4-,-,,,-;•:-',,•,-'',.';',,•"4•:•-''''''';`)`',;','''-II-'‘i'l-PX:',3:7<c"-',"r"7,.:::,,,;.<"i•-•.';:-(;f::::', ;,:,;•,- ;.:57.2iz..`,7"?:2,,..:,,•";:',','....71..•:',:',.',,71.7.:'7"7:::7•••,:••"r""2:••7•I'z''.•4;:•'•:'?..,:!:::„:"!.7;:r•it'''..::•Y•.7::•.:',';;;,..; -..4.;'.'1.:t..7.',-7,7'1,.-...'c":3".c:',.:',.!':;'''.;i'2%:',"':Z;',,,:F:.,-',1.7;!'„,:p11:,i3':.r:;:•;;;;.',;1:-...,',<4.":; .;.:.,::',.77 ,,:;,..-.,......-4-..,,,,,,..,.....,,T,,,„,,,-,,:---.„..:,.„,,..•,: .-.F....,,-,,,,..,-:-.,..,„•'..,•,,,.:',is,-,:,:,.-,-;(.::,•2::::".:,'):•,',. ...,..,o 4•,,44,...,,,,,,4,..,::-,•,,..,,.1-‘,..f4,-..;' ,,•:,,I,..:.-:,.;.... ..k.•::`..,,..-?!.-.,.:-•.••- , ,,,-5-4.„''i,,,,;;4:,:,..,,,,,,,;,,,, ,..,,„;,,,,••,,-•:.,,,:y..z.,)..:.,:„•••%.::, ---n-•.5-r-,-7,---.7,-:-.7.-:---:-•,7:77,' ;,,F•'''- ., ,-,:-,,'74.'r,17, , ,-,',-,,.,,, ,7ri'J.7, ,, ; ,77'77f,7,7,.47'7, ,, , , ::7;:F'!.‘7,5.,'7,';.:::',;:;',:Z7j,73.7, ;77-7,7,7•;f:MQ!p.5):::':.•7..;ii'!:;.•'k*:-;,?;7.'';:i`:;":7:-'''.•;;27:-:.'.:1:;;•-:;'7;'•:•?' ;,•:.•,,,s,,,,,,,,,,,,,.,r.,,,,,,,,,,,y,,, ,,,,,;•:,.Ae,:•);,,,A,;; ;',,:-.., ..,•,.-.:°•,• • •... .., .'„,. ••,,,.,i,,,,,-.,**; •:•••••.-1,•"•;:•,:y".,:?...!....r.';',..;...?,ii'.:`... .. ,,, .,;::.•::''''... ..•;,'''.'..::.::,:•;../..;.. •••:...*•*,:'•`'.%...-- ''..:',,-.,....''',..•' ' • '• • ; " '',1'-',7`.'",s'7-i,';'," '.,.`: !'• •f"-,-;:, ,: -....,!:.5: 77..,111•.V".',%.,'s,:.;',..,5z;,'.7'':',.::;;;':'',..'; '::'''5W:,^''',,,',,,,,,'''':"7,''''',77:, :27, : : ,:.t;,;., ;;C.:;;;T:',7;,,,.1,7,,,;:::7:7;;,,77:;:, ,74Y,,;1:1%1•4',,, ,:,:,7.,;:::::'`7•7J:'.,r..', , ...,. ,,,„'7,,;7:;,..'';',•:': '.. ''",,,:,,,,,,‘;,',,i':',,',',"^,-;!, .•;•.7,..,-..:•••.k"-:;,,,,,::,.."?.''•- :-/•-•.:1,.:-'•:'••,-,:',`:,::• •::••••,••••!;:.••....L:.:.•-,,--,,•-:::1•4,'•'e,•,'-'1,,..4',"..',..-..• .-•....;..,;,::..;,.•••+,•..z,&41.,.4',.;•.,;•',4,:.'„›i',.....4,....;,A,:,:,:',...,:.!,,,;....,,„cl„,„4!••.,,..„.„,„.z.i.,....;›,A.....,:,,,,,,,,,.., • •-•,••-•,-,,,,,-.• -,•,,,::-',.",'Lr",.--,7,- -4,-•,7,,"4:7,7,,,,,,,f FC47,f,"..,',7:7,-.,'77-',”;•'',',-,-'''''';',',:",;:77777,71.,"::,:',77" •;:',7-,':',7,',".7T,`,•;;;C";"-r4,',..:7:17;777 , -1--•-".1-7-77.`V":7:.•n7•T'-',",."-;",J,„.,.,...7.."7-,‘,.;';',,,,,,•T".7.--,',,._.-P.,,"'";;;;,,,,,,"r•,,,,,,,,,,,',„?..71:7;-•II,7,7,-,,,r.::',....7,T.,,,,7,-.,.7,;;Ti;',7, '',i-',r",,••2•Vi,"•.:•.f`,•••• ' '-:,,,,,-',,• ---,;,,,,L','''',1.,:2',,,,"-",',,,,,,,,,,,:':',','',44,,,,,'"!..:',/,'',, ',„ ',',,-":=4'.,";,"...','..1,,,,,,,i,',;";),:4:-,':]'•,^'••••,,,„,,,',,,•,,,',4•4:1'";' :',;,',.•-.2,.:•,,,A ,',..';',,",!"''',,!',',,--•,,,,,,, ,`•,-.,.!,; ‘,,,t",-,:;':;)`•-,,',,,4":"t':::;;,,,,,i.,,,,•,,,s,!:',.., ,,,,4`,,,,,,,I;;,,,,,,%::::;,;.,,,,;:, ..,-,),.f: -----"'--''''''"''''''"''''''''''''-''''''''''..";"' ''',-;'''.",'-',:,'"-"'-'', :"'•' 7%. ,r;••,,,:•,,--,•",-..---:',"7.77..y,'7.;v:.:7'.z.0'';',...-''- •,, ^2.;;;•'-•••t'14';'';',',,7s,'„',4.,17,',472,,,p'ir4-1-,-,°,7-,-,1-,';;:',/:;,:i;',:i"',;":,,,z5`;','4,:C4'.'!4,:,:,,,,,,?,;',,:„:,•,,.•,:',, ii'g;!?,:1';''''',';';','"1:''':',;','''''';‘"::',''',Cq''''',..L;,•;,:j :',...FAI'''2,''21,-,%'-',';3,4i i',' 4,,i4;,;;;•.4,4',.,,;,,,,,:,:',;.',^4,.,:',7^,g4L',N:;;,,,;,.„`,.44,..„"A.:,!14:,-‘,4,-,,z.•,.,4,',.,'4,,';r1',z,, 4'...',',,,:,;,: .;?,,•,:'z,".„.4,,:,,,,:Z“':;,„.4,,,i.::,-•,:,.,,,,,,,,,.-...:,..u,:::,-,,,,„,,,,,,,,,,,-:,-, - -,,- ,.., -^-',--,'',r^, 4,-,,-,•-,7:,,,g:,,',.,::',,',-,,,i4'4,--",'77.,,,:,;•:.•4:• .2-,, r••••.-•.!;•:',.r.;s7,:,:,7„%..!..7-;-;;- -;,'7'''.•M'73.',i,1,7 707,..-.4.7% '•::',.•;•;..,. •":',`-','" • ••.•..7iT',r 7:::';',`7,,-;•;',;'g.:7:•::::::7,( 7:,.!-.rF..7.,73;,•° - ''''''','••<;,:.`"•'''.•!'i'••':',"..,•:.,:::•:',,,::;:::,..,.....,:.•41.•t,.%.4,2.C:`,...1•2.,i.,,,,..,,,..'..;,'.2:.,,.•„..,..•...,:.,:..,,,:,:...,.;-.,.4.-.:.:•.:.,..:-•..„:::.,;.‘tes..,...,..:.•.. c.,,,,,,te,,,L,...,,,...:••••A:.:.-::...,.x...........,., .:•.,,,...4,...•1. .•..,..... „.-.-.,,,,......,...,,...... ,... .... :k.-41.1,...- -,,,,,--— - -.7-,,,,,v:,,r,,,,,,,,,,,,"-,•;-,-•"---!,:n-,4',-',•^7,-4,,-;•-,r'w-,',-,7,:',7,F;--•,:•:-;','",:'7":1"'",-!T7,7"'5';',"77,,k`r,r7,"m...74•47:-.4-'77.-M7, r:',-,,,•;',., '','•-",,•'' ''''''''''''''.'--;','"7''-•'''',- ''Z', 7•.P7.' ;• ''': V,T:','-f,''''',17-i„,,',$'7'7,7,`;', ',•-',7,,-„,,,:4, 7;,.?,!!':,V-', ' 71;,:: ','; 7S7•7", ..:77.?7,777;77M,T;;77:4737-,;',;,77,7::?,;77,-.7:7-:,,i;;;;I:.--7, ,4,/, p:.,:ii,,,;::,.,1,,,,:i,;:,,,.....::;:.-,':c,2::,.,:- - ,-.-..--,,,,,,k''",,'',"`",,Z,"--1,1r,•>7";":"••-•;',;`r4.;',77,-,4,;,,•"77,',7",'1',,r."'„r;',r;'Y;;;'rr';`," 7,:,,:nn,,,r,,,,'Di:ril'"',.'-,:--:'X'''77A.'"'";''';'''' ''''''7'';?!.• ••`'•.i,..-7i,-,:.;,-:';'''''',7,''''',',47e,'':1:.'1,f,'',.,-;:';',.1,-,';'.'1771.7:::".:-::E:7;•::E,f.-,!..;',',:,'"^•:',Ti::17;'::,:::::-':;-::::':::::74:;',:g747:7;',:::::,;-•." :.;''''.,. :, :,"''',,,-,-,%..7,-,1.),.1..,---- ,,',.. ,:,.... ,.,1i,:,e:: SuB7 557.35 BILL TO: 4F0T:: ' 0.00 EIGHT 0.00 557.35, •,,,,,,•:::,,,,,,I.R.;.,,,•?;;;.;.e.,(;,•'.'7"••:•:.i''''''':"A66'61.1^iitsiiiiiii6iry:rti;?!...'S'i'kl•;•;'.i.i.::";:''3'....:?:;.'",l'''.?:.,;:',,,:::iii,-;:,'f,i,i:::i,„-.,,,i,if,.,•:INtiric;0410rf tg,t,di oftMti ti-tbet,-,.:,..,...::,:i.:::;:::-.4..,,,,;.,,,,',„•:,,,',,:i::.f..,;:?.,,,0,0,2 7...,;,,,At...,,,q,,,-„..„, ,„ „,;-,-,,;,,,,-,,.:I E 127.000000.004.5710.0010.48.000000 557.35 )//1,/4//1.11,4—71..e.e..e/ill-6Eit.4•\_ 6/74,14,61 .J. idattiy•-, Authorized Sianature Authorized Signature ^ 6 'y _ , Page 1 ' C ! CITY OF RENTON ' �* ~~ + 1055S. {�RAOYVVAY - 'AT ....... ~'°~^'`.~~~�,�^w RENTON WA. 6/21/2002 12/0000024 vswoon: 007281 SHIP TO: B & H PHOTO VIDEO 420 9TH AVE NEW YORK. NY10OO1 FOB Point: Req.No.: ronna: net term Dept.: FINANCE DEPARTMENT Req.Del.Date: Contact: CDRNEJO. R|TA Pre-Assigned Po#r: Nn Special mst-- G Batt han8N/ | k8i 557.35 "'~#" '""3"","'8,""""ou 3. —` -' ` SUBTOTAL 557.35/ BILL TO: TAX 0.00 pns|mHT 0.00 TOTAL 557.35 YT E127.000000.004.5710.0010.48.000000 557.35 - PHOTO■ • — r'VIDEO & IMAGING PRO E 10 ■:'N ORDER INQUIRY Tel 212-444-6600 Tel Tel 212-444-5070 Tel 212-239-7765 800-947-9950 800-947-9910 800-615-2999 800-221-5743 s 212-239-7770 212-444-5001 212-444-5001 212-239-7549 N PHOTO-VIDEO-PRO AUDIO Fax: 800-94f7008 Fax: 800-947-9003 Fax: 800-947-9003 Fax 800-947-2215 °'oti V.1 a 01 h. . vtd..0 .c. .. ... : ...::: ..::: .. Invoice No.: 76030670 - 8738558 • Sold To: Ship To: CITY OF RENTON CITY OF RENTON Accounts Payable 1055 S GRADY WAY 1055 S GRADY WAY TTH FL CITY CLERKS OFFICE RENTON,WA 98055 RENTON,WA 98055 Bill Phone: (425)430-6573 • Y wo ce.Date:::Cinstom�r:�ucfe .a��:Ot...�x..l'+unit'„?e...�. :.::::,..:.:.:. ::::::::-:.:.::..}�p.:.:;!::::::::::::::.::.::::.::..:::::.. 05/20/02 15416727 05/09/02 212009 • N7 FED EX SAVER 3 i;;::•:�•i�:::isisSi • ;<;i:';:;i::`.:i:i:E:;:<i ;, hi tlt:;Ska::<:>`>:<: >::::»�:`::::>:::::<::<:><:<:::::::C Q ..D�san t►an�:>::<::»::;:;>:<:::>:::<>:«:::::::<:;>:.::<<•;;: ;>:>:;:?::::.:;::>::::;:>:::;:::...........................:....,. .It.. ..I�.i....:..,.:::::.A.�l�?..::::•::::. 1 1 SONY WCS-999 900 MHZ WIRELESS SYSTEM SOWCS999 119.95 119.95 1 1 GB GAFFER CLOTH TAPE(2"X60-YD) BLK MATTE GBGT6OB 23.95 23.95 RECEIVE® • MAY 2 8 2Uue City of Renton Accounts Payable • • Sub-Total: 143.90 Discount: Shipping: 10.75 COD Charge: .00 Tax: .00 • Customer Copy Page 1 « PHOTO- ' -' VIDEO & IMAGING ii"ill C) 'PRO A. 0� i <Ii ,ORDER INQUIRY I' 212-444-6600 212-444-5000 iii. 212-444-5070 212-239-7765 Tel 800-947-9950 ;'; Tel 800-947-9910 < Tel 800-615-2999 >` Tel 800-221-5743 :': s 212-239-7770 ' 212-444-5001 212-444-5001 212-239-7549 N PHOTO-VIDE()-P J AUDIO Fax: 800-947-7008 Fax: 800-947-9003 Fax: 800-947-9003 Fax: 800-947-2215 't�UV(dea. . �!i:9 .....420;;.Ninth>A,,:enu:.::.:.;:.::..::.:::::;:. .�::::x.::::::.. .::.:.::.>::::..::..;:.<:.;::.;;.;:.;::.::.: ::.::..:::.: ::::.�:.:: ::::: :.:.....................................................LL The Professional's Source ..::::: ;: ::. ::;;::, .: ::...... ..................................................... Invoice No.: 76030670 - 8770588 CITY OF RENTON6 Shi To: . Sold To: P CITY OF RENTON CITY OF RENTON�� Accounts Payable JUN 0 6 200z 1055 S GRADY WAY 1055 S GRADY WAY U °\ TTH FL CITY CLERKS OFFICE RENTON,WA 98055 RECEIVED U RENTON,WA 98055 CITY CLERK'S OFFICE ` ),0". Bill Phone: (425)430-6573 n , .. ;::: .;Code:.;:. ;;:.;;�.::er O.rl ;• er::..;:.:3 a .. >i»STi,p:,'.�t&a::>:<.:«:�>:.>::>:>:<>:_>:.;':;i:: e...Costa er............ . .........'I'....�s::>::>:<:>::><:::;Urtler;::�gt�;:: :>Fuxche�e. :r e><'��1.�r�?.::.::::. ... .�i�e�svu�>::::« <>:<::<<:::;:>:.:«;.:...... 05/24/02 15416727 05/09/02 21200' • N7 FED EX SAVER `.':..icy:`:s :: :Am :ri:»i> .'�:F�:>::;.:;:;;;::;i8'%:;:;i:;::::ii$i::iiS;;>sy:is�y: y:`iC`isasi:>;•>i ::: :i:?;i >:i::::;::;:•;S:isii:::;;<:;:;::: i, .»;�;:.;;:•;;'•;:;:;•;:::�;:.;;:: ;.;:_ :>:;: : :::>s: :»:•:•:;>:::.>:.»:<>::>::>;::..::::::.: ..... 0 ::»;:::« . :.:: ......:::::::L>:<:s:.>:%;<»::»:.;::;:.>•<;:>::..... .U�G:;:::»::;:i;:::>:;;;:::>;;::tiEiS.tyY.......... .. ..............tlt>:;:;. ,f.�ty drtl Qty ship..,. Y.. :.;>:.;:.: :;.::... . ,.... .....:.:. p.....::::.:........... ..................................., 4 4 PANASONIC AG-BP15 1.25 AH BATTERY PACK(125 PAAGBPI5 99.95 399.80 • _ 5 .4�14 --- ._. ' ' of Ftento0e �°,Ills Y • P Sub-Total: 399.80 Discount: Shipping: 2.90 COD Charge: .00 Tax: .00 •Total• ` x` r;402.70. • a. . , PHOTO -VIDEO & IMAGING- NENNIN PRO A 0 ORDER INQUIRY w'mq 3 0 212-444-6600 212-444-5000 212-444-5070 212-239-7765 IP 0 Tel Tel Tel Tel• 800-947-9950 800-947-9910 800-615-2999 800-221-5743 212-444-5001 212-444-5001 Fax 212-239-7549 PHOTO VIDEO 7,PRO AUDIO Fax 212-239-7770 Fax: 800-947-7008 . 800-947-9003 t Fax 800-947-9003 800-947-2215 8 )40.0-66i5itim The Professional's Source Invoice No.: 76030670 - 8770588 Sold To: Ship To: CITY OF RENTON CITY OF RENTON Accounts Payable 1055 S GRADY WAY 1055 S GRADY WAY 7TH FL CITY CLERKS OFFICE RENTON,WA 98055 RENTON,WA 98055 Bill Phone: (425)430-6573 05/24/02 15416727 05/09/02 212009. N7 FED EX SAVER 4 4 PANASONIC AG-BP15 1.25 Ali BATTERY PACK(125 PAAGBP15 99.95 399.80 • • • • Sub-Total: 399.80 Discount: Shipping: 2.90 COD Charge: .00 • Tax: .00 , . z Customer Coov Page 1 7 June 2002 B&H 420 Ninth Avenue New York, NY 10001 Subject: Accounts Payable W-9 Vendor Form re: B&H Invoice#76030670-8738558 In order for us to process the referenced invoice, we are requesting that you complete the enclosed W-9 Vendor Form and return it to us as soon as possible. You may fax it to Tracy Schuld at 425-430-6855 or mail it to: City of Renton Accounts Payable 1055 South Grady Way Renton WA 98055-3232 If you have and questions, you can reach Tracy at (425) 430-6918 or email at tschuld@ci.renton.wa.us Thank you very much. Enc. (1) ' Page 1 . - CITY OF RENTON 1O55S. GRADYWAY RENTON' VVA98O55 7/3/2002 12/0000023 vsmoon: 007201 SHIP TO: B & H PHOTO VIDEO 4209THAVE NEW YORK. NY1OUO1 FOB Point: Req.No.: Terms: net term oept.; FINANCE DEPARTMENT Req.Del.Date: Contact: LOM8ARD. SUZANN preAooignouPO#r: Yes epevia|mxt: 4��t�$ � BOSH CHAMELEON KIT INV. 84J0 71 .' SUBTOTAL 84.70 BILL TO: TAX 0.00 FREIGHT 0.00 TOTAL 84.70 z� E127.000800.004.5710'0010.31.000000 84.70 • i',<.-] Uxiif.:ggf-W :::- WW..,:X,W.W'f.,-: ::--.::::---:,-,--q,i 'MR :.*::::::f...-.0:mig:',..::::.:-:.;::::::-,-,:,'.::::*...::-.. .:.,-..--i .-..:.X.,:i ---..::-:-.. :.:-.:.,... .,.:.='.....,k--,----:- ..,,. .....-.c...,. : PH 07'-‘ i!::::•VIDEO & IMAGING•ii P" ' AUDIO il'.11BORDER INQUIRY int • . • 0 .;;ii . 212-4... .-6600 ,:i: 212-444-5000 ii 2.i 2-444-5070 :i: 212-239-7765 • Tel- -.: • 800-947-9950 qi Tel: 800-947-9910 I Tel: 800-615-2999 li;i Tel 800-221-5743 ili T. ... 0 -• . ' .i;::. 212-239-7770 ,:i, 212-444-5001 i: 212-444-5001 S. 212-239-7549 PHOTO-VIDEO-PRO AUDIO Fax 800-947-7008 Fax: 800-947-9003 Fax 800-947-9003 i .i Fax: 800-947-2215 kv ... The Professional's Source .. ..... .i:4•0?::;;Niiltilii:AVOtt(46,i'neWi;:::Y:dileY:VY10..00..Tiiii::i:,i:::::iiiii::i,ii::0:017464VeiliiiiNWW...-b.iiiiSh.OtoNi.1.00.01t0t7.Wi'z Invoice No.: 80043380 - 8952029 Sold To: Ship To: CITY OF RENTON CITY OF RENTON Accounts Payable ' 1055 S GRADY WAY 1055 S GRADY WAY 7TH FL CITY CLERKS OFFICE RENTON,WA 98055 RENTON,WA 98055 ' Bill Phone: (425)430-6573 • Iii4.ii•niaIiii:( iii0:0.0.)i.W.:Pi.dgrA:::gi:iiii.iii.T0.400.0iiiai;;Oi.dCtOnai:;:i];ivAil':•e. .i*O.d0,::Nti.040iiii ig$;0)000.iiwic eine:::;a:i:. :M.gthiNjkiggiNiggaiggii 06/19/02 15416727 30 DAY 06/19/02 120000023- 93 ' • FED'Ex ECONOMY ].- .,.:. ., ,..; :w:m.., ,,,,...,, .mwimwimg .qt i:1401--gtt 441(.40-:is!smgimimumuimmi:INR:]ygpcflp.Pprk;; ;:i;:i::::n:i;::::i:i::i!i:!:!::: :!:!! ! ,i5R;! ?iwft-i:Dii:::::::: :!::3,::],iiil'emi:itfrApp•miigm9pfr);tm 1 1 BOSH 42" REFLECTOR CHAMELEON KIT 15-IN-11 PHRCK42 69.95 69.95 . . • . . : ' • . „ . ' . . .• • . . . . • Sub-Total: 69.95 • Discount: Shipping: 14.75 COD Charge: .00 Tax: .00 Total: • 84.70 's, I Customer Copy Page 1 Page 1 1 IR) p — CITY OF RENTON + + 1055 S. GRADY WAY RENTON, WA 98055 9/12/2002 12/0000022 VENDOR: 068843 SHIP TO: ROBB'S REPAIR 12815 NE 124TH ST SUITE J KIRKLAND, WA 98034 FOB Point: Req.No.: Terms: net term Dept.: FINANCE DEPARTMENT Req.Del.Date: Contact: LOMBARD, SUZANN Pre-Assigned PO#?: Yes Special Inst: CAMERA REPAIR-PANASONIC-7/11/02 70.72 7:• •.!:-`,"VA'F574-,271r;',.!7n177..fFA:',: "'• 14 - • ; 244 ‘.;• • j;I:1 :Y{ 'J.14; :44:4 .............................................................................................................................................. SUBTOTAL 70.72 BILL TO: TAX 0.00 FREIGHT 0.00 TOTAL 70.72 E 127.000000.004.5710.0010.48.000000 70.72 • --flutideTAim,(/)A-4/114 _ p5i51-14,14x,t‘a. Wa_etiy R 16 DER FRr IARDA,INC./NASD,P.O. 717.MEC w:U o,PA 170r CALL TOLL FREE 1.800-242$678 FAX 1.717-687.709 NOT VALID AS CUSTOMER KcCEIPT IN CALIFORNIA IfCASE - HCA rrio..3' S - CA%VI-2 o NARDA.INC.I NASD 0 LABOR WARRANTY ❑ PAR S WARRANTY IEKNO WARRANTY CLAIM NO. BRAND Vayiasp > >c, 52971HB®0 (PLEASE PRINT) L -% L11h11 SERVICE CENTER NO. CUSTOMER'S NAME(LAST FIRST) G ` y 4� �?Q� I FIRST NAME I l 1 J L 1 I I III ADDR MODEL NO. G j A CITY STATE ZIP CODE COD PHONE NUMBER E IAL NO. y l ) I Il l I V ` CUSTOMER'S COMPLAINT Il � Q + � � 4 NI 11 0l ®1 C I -� 1 L 1 ° DEFECT CODE ` V C-k (r.C. A v"D,a Co i s`69 B Lrz s \rpikC1.1 (UMp� 1 1 I 1 1 I 1 I I 1 D 'S NAME t� 9. CITY DATE PURCHASED I I a 0 COO D. MO. DAY YR. SERVICE ERFORMED CHt p DESCRIBEBELOW) I I ( � � DATE SERVICE REQUESTED ❑ ALIGNMENTS S OR ❑ LOOSE CONNECTIONS ❑ PART(S)REPLACED 0 OTHER MO(0 I YI I 0 t- EXPLANATION OF SERVICE PERFORMED MFG.CODE I REF. DATE SERVICE COMPLETED MO. DAY YR. (•7 I 01 I 02 S , Clean relube adjust and tested CHECK PRODUCT WORKED ON w TV STEREO OTHER TIME STARTEDTIME COMPLETED TIME ON JOB COLOR ❑ O OTY. PART NO./REF.NO. PART DESCRIPTION ` B/W ❑ ❑ ❑ Q I CHECK REPAIR CATEGORY © I MINOR INTER. MA. CARRY IN SERV. ❑ 0 C I ON SITE SERV. [1 ❑ [ I CENTER SERVICE ❑ 0 C 0 - I CRT REPLACE ❑ 0 C A.. -%( C,C-,C)i1 C.f..,- I STOCK MERCH. 0 0 C SERVICE AS TI ,0-> ! _ ' ® 17 1 L. TOTAL CHARGE O X i 1 :' r..,.:T," • • IIII 65.00 cri TECHNIC SIGNATURE I 0 TOTAL PARTS CHARGE (•Qt SERVICE CENTER DISTRIBUTOR INFORMATION I CO __._._ • OTHER W) F. s ROBB'S REPAIR . NAME SALES T 12815 NE 124TH ST.,SUITE J CC) 1" KIRKLAND,WA 48034 d.72 I 0 426-820-1200 FAX 425-825-8 T b9 CODE GRAND TOTAL . 701.72 Z COPY 1 c COPY 2 QI COPY 4 O — c)\11T0'. COPY 6 O ........04.a..... ".".,w--'-`...1. "mow+ Met"1?&ID. ri AMA Ntl Y : gas )50-4.S00 EVx 4,32-GSP-s./ua TOTAL P.01 - -(SY CITY OF RENTON • .• Page 1 1 (4- - + 1055 S. GRADY WAY PNUM •ep, RENTON, WA 98055 10/24/2002 12/0000041 VENDOR: 068843 • SHIP TO: ROBB'S REPAIR 12815 NE 124TH ST SUITE J KIRKLAND, WA 98034 • FOB Point: Req.No.: Terms: net term Dept.: FINANCE DEPARTMENT Req.Del.Date: Contact: CORNEJO, RITA Pre-Assigned PO#?: Yes Special lnst: ., rce„.„.„ „xt Price„ Audio Repair for Camera (videe), . •• 174.08 P7.77.-;;•775;:71; • '''''''''''''''''''''''''''' , • _ . 'F.7! • • ;;;;., ' - • • ' SUBTOTAL 174.08 BILL TO: TAX 0.00 FREIGHT 0.00 • TOTAL 174.08 E 127.000000.004.5710.0010.48.000000 • 174.08 407114.6‘.4. rthnri-yari qinnati Ira Atithnri7pri ianattire OCT-23-2002 09:47 FROM ROBB'S REPAIR UUWXY TO 1425430E516 P.01 FORM ' ORDER FROM:NARDA.INC.,I NASD.10 EAST 22"0STREET, TARO,ILLINOIS 60148(312)(63.8950 L.) /c A s l% i C A QrAe`'-lei',NasD Imo 0 LABOR WARRANTY D. PARTS WARRANTY I 1 NO WARRANTY • BRAND /4 A ` C]It:1 ' C t,.lo 7 1'4' r / CLAIM NO. (PLEASE PRINT) rQo._ . � 2 rJ r �- F62744G-2 CUSTOMER'S NAME(LAST NAME FIRST) FIRST NAME SERVICE CENTER NO. O7� 6 , ADDRESS . 1 1�r 1 t I •t i 1 t 1 t t i p L-Q jQ.l wQOO� •` MODEL NO. 1�,[/, . CITY .. STATE . •- IP'COOE ''AREAR CQOE /H'�ONf=f�fJUMB R Aµ v 1 l. - 14I 30 V ! 1 ,G1 LEI t,1 I t 1 . 1 1 t - •CUSTOMER'S COMPLAINT DEFECT CODE SERIAL NO. i' �' .,Yf o �+�� o � �o��ra s . • Ft(p.K o101 Y1�1E5 1 O _ DATE PURCHASED DEALER'S ME. _41 CITY MO. DAY YR. I %,c.) SERVICE ERFORMED(CHECK AND DESCRIBE BELOW) DATE SERVICE REQUESTED MO. DAY YR. ADJUSTMENTS.OR Y) Q . 0 ALIGNMENTS 0 LOOSE CONNECTIONS ❑ PART(S)REPLACED 0 OTHER ' Q—) 1 1 1. I O 2 EXPLANATION OF SERVICE PERFORMED MFG,CODE/REF. DATE SERVICE COMPLETED No c) ' . MO. • DAY YR. 5 c3 'Rep l aced 'bel QW l i d. parts and real unman CH QK PRODUCT WORKED ON? N.; Clean relube adjus and tested TV STEREO OTHER N TIME STARTED I TIME COMPLETED -TIME ON JOB COLOR ❑ 0 ❑ Ll t B I W 0 c3'A -AOTY. PART NO./REF.NO. PART DESCRIPTION ' ' I CHECK REPAIR CATEGORY MINOR INTER. MA. C _1 Mir jack 51 an CARRY IN sERY. 0 ❑ C ' I ? Headphone jack • 5100 oN SITE SERv, ❑ ❑ C O i CENTER SERVICE 0 ❑ L is • Xi Q Z • 1 STOCK MERCH. ❑ 0 C ' SERVICE WAS TI A 0.•IL •', PLETED • TOTAL LABOR CHARGE --g 1 I . 150.00 USTOMER'S SIGNATURE TECHNI IA GNATURE TOTAL PARTS CHARGE • CP SERVICE CENTER DISTRIBUTOR INFORMATION 10 100 N . OTHER •� I .ram Alattaiti�W NAME SALES TAX MCL425 824.1200 FAX 425.82E4109 14 108 1 . CODE GRAND TOTAL N . 74 }08 COPY 2 I Ht UkF'UJI Ito NHUYtH I Y IS 1J I.l NU I I__I INSUMtU 011 PHU I tI:I tU IV I lit AMOUNT OF THE ACTUAL CASH VALUE AGAINST LOSS OCCASIONED BY THEFT,FIRE OR VANDALISM. ESTIMATES INCLUDE ALL PARTS. LABOR AND HANDLING ESTIMATE $ • UPON CLOSER ANALYSIS,THIS ESTIMATE MUST BE REVIt YOU WILL BE CONTACTED FOR APPROVAL TO PROCEED. • RECEIVED BY DATE TIME REVISED.ESTIMATE $ 0 I I • A DIAGNOSIS/HANDLING CHARGE OF$ WILL BE MADE IF EQUIPMENT INVOICE PREPARED BY: IS RETURNED AT CUSTOMER REQUEST'BEFORE SERVICE IS PERFORMED PLEASE SEF REVERSE-SIPS P (� EQUIPMENT RECEIVED BY I HEREBY ACKNOWLED4E RECEIPT OF THIS ESTIMATE r/ 5° X • - N` / `c.1 DATE • • (1� 1, TflTOI P RI Page 1 1 ~‘S IC 0 • � CITY OF RENTON • + e `� + 1055 S. GRADY WAY 5 �„",<r ry v'g • : `1 h 'e>,:ATirF s^rx~ <rz � 6}' tJ1Bix a' RENTON,WA 98055 12/6/2002 12/0000177 VENDOR: 063685 SHIP TO: PROFESSIONAL VIDEO&TAPE INC PO BOX 23967 • TIGARD, OR 97281 FOB Point: Req.No.: Terms: net term Dept.: CITY CLERK Req.Del.Date: Contact: CORNEJO, RITA Pre-Assigned PO#?: No Special Inst: `i.»' ."Ms' .q' u�e"'•>t>'7'rx _D-(tt�•' -:�„'z . �. .}iiU:° .qt•s::t"s:r ^'•t' )i,i` 'ate=' "^'`o�`si5ew.>;�:�<.�aa�< c="vx2'ys•a'•:{'3ad �'Y?�<2 eN'1 :'£t«>Si'. u`<.£.9 :h$ ':,`„ij'v: •�,r.a. ',r1;�. k`,its T:"aa''.j,,sw.k4;tl(3b'`9` t<Vf^,>t'• ' ,, S;;h `5- . pa ,'�i_•.Jp, j�,` �p,•x`;n�,,aq`^�, ,•, �'bts-''tS� KK."<,h m w„fi:-3l"} ';4u.: `w:.Z'v,^>t."•'`.,a.->�.$.'.'a,,�,r ,,,5 {�s;<.<`?,=k;+>_ "v,,'.A,;'4T:a' ;'<i�i C441�11�°'Fs'm', `)i��'- iN,v's X ��'1 ? F�. aa�;=�..:,rah,�L�a�"u.:F�>�„�,;.,s<,..N,...a`�Z��z,.<�:a�a�:'�.sy..c.� =.,��',�eSC�iptl..ORa><:,-=?��°�"�"' �,w�.<,.a,<.�,,<.r,��,-T:`��-gym g;,a_z �., >_:., a> a ��••. ,�<'�'.>!_!'S,i ?..� THIS IS A REVISED PURCHASE ORDER ^•wt:^.•-•. rrS^:`x>:.y 'r^„W':tG°°'S:v.•r .:.�Sx'1"�'.?4.:r..=:;r'�x:^ rM:^^7ro,.2"•^" _ •'"=:;fie "<:'�'�.• :G•*..,a•... <.5."tg"^,8'Yog."'i.�, r:.r..<,.rn4nr:aX�'y':u�"�^4`,*�,^t,�"._p,,:f;+'p :x..;:c,:*Y:m.:.�drr" .r �^:"":"=>fi+•:t,;T'r \','�✓"�°`"` ,r,N>`,, r:`.•'F: .;r €i'.4i.;i"; ..a-`.ps?^��°*.�"",}".-:'•t. .4-$::• �, =<",' .\,�.y " "Y,- >t.v <s .r<•yr<';r ..:�i� „✓D?,: .fi :k,py,s>,,,•,•t;;Y:<�'c�2..<.s Y°3`:"`:i}�,z:�:,. ..P£•ro:. .-'r,.,.�e Sr,;<Ti'.• ra,;: ...RY=.•F4-<^? '"�' .l•1'r'<'.rJ'"... :,<S'> ",�.4.,.��'�,ti r �3 --hv�,b'�,.,.�a; .'k..l<'.�:<. �: .a'`. e`� >r .',y•<.Yi%' P,.�-,�: �J •!x `a^e'..•.,>z-:, E+;C'"^:;«rre: :';{>a. J'�Y=K. >£.. ^,.O.tj :_<>_.� <SO]�:y)Y.�/'j�.AIVIC%(3FtDE,{:•��, '.A�:GES'S, iNV;�y�,y)r/�3'16�`., �..a ;�"�.,�.;,. �, +S�- ;�8>�27.:,07�a�.�.�;�£�.-�. 52:7U�'.<�� :a".t.u...'�#tC.�.w,.,>,e>"�="<.r`s+.vast«,.,w.>,.,a3,.'<..,«..<>�.,..5�.•u>.<t<�i.✓:.m.e,.V.�.SIG':��L.,.,.ewa....u..s..>..X.e1...<„.,�«<lKvko•Au^.uf.Tr>a.et.�w,:...,:-.3..w'aiVS�.�'0di.sa.'{,..L::.>`,'h,zY.u."`�Yk'.'.ik:a'x:aw.1�F'4tx'.i.�iO .'w..[In<c..a�1.>'.-..«>.5cz�xu. we� a.s fit,. s-nTzr,°..."yr.; 3; .g ' '�'g<"r'„rxr "�?.'° Sa.` ,.v"''k>G y^;'• , :ar'�rv,.?_. r.Cs. .Te, rW,t.r�c..r<'�'�=a'rc?' .5,.s. :°,:+.. •c'a� '.asrx.+77tW.t.`<'-T ,at ';`°aa. .w,_,>,'-�:�`4 .;3 ^• ',-:rY:?)` `',y v.'e< :` -,s„ :Y.w xg� - yr'<=.G. a.•fr ;C' °".?v^ < :'£.. s+s -.F,;....€t, i....e-<At.•�k,i° A"'; _g_<:=!••.$<s.-">'r-'r`':N'�t'i.,✓.'- .>.Ya°C i va;ra. '`, x>su,•>.sa ,+':,,di�%-� -�k s->.�:�i7;^w.�g`'•u '.<^"`ac� u;<'"<t��`' '� c•:?� �s ?3 }a�}�•,�`. `<, ss,�d^.r�.,<;e r .Rt:'+u" ,cr' •��n�ia:. '',t. `�', - "'?g�)',x' x t ',�;3'°sb•T°T«.`�F'a ``^. `�'t,>a•7'v` �' »`'<< , .�`v'<.>:k` k £,"�', i';:.' s<';u<<'3a. ��;. .^.v, rEri.<<'w ^^,, '<-^^ 'n,.-�i ,;*crr1•; "^>- rv,..;�1._ ','>4', b•."eM a :4 v?"fi:'T"1,.E, ';5:11air < :oa'" .'7a rzli.4`jac'F„ y._r"t ..^T£"-`-�v;;••�.,��-`5' <.a.. ..z.;"•~"e:: ,::"`..,.< .::��i=.°<K,�> x<-°'""_:?.}•<t�;?^. .:!TQ:��J'.<.. •s.<..1" �..a :z4'-`.`'... .e .<. <r•,-... �i,;?F"a'>,.,".•';�i✓.i'S`'c`':":<'3 t'2£;'%�=is%:-"•.<:sz..,, J. '.s 5. ,.a,>.r>; ,„.F. ...,y.;>. .n`'-__ � �lz- A'.as- `��"?.:.,: °"rz`�.F:v;. r,S�:Su`;'�'`t.'.r., r.<-.k.. ..� ..tc w\, Frp:dam, .:Z. F,.,.. ..E>tn'"*' •.u'...•i. v, C ..r .:G': <✓. eL`: � a F .r, tf:.`?.e;?"Ai: ..rr'�`^ :� .>:a•`. '.,':P< <+,r..,,A.s•.. f'xf3s>_ ^. .. "� �-�':ti& -5�3 ^.�'�£''., rr 'n,... ix?._,' �.,�+iisr�o-..a::§a�un�;•�». >.�,€i'M��a� :a ,.'x.I>»r:-ze~s�;,;~<�.,a%>,�,;,_.,.,r<,"�i= `=:s<xm` `.�:�M ',vaa:.ec:�a'm:.�v �sS.€aa,�`.;:::;� i`;>..am<�5#�<»bvn�.;za,�v: .s..a..�; a . . '»*�.;�'::s�.,dk,�:�".�b�: > __F::g:.,.,.`s;tl%w--, :r>•:+3;.-v 74;147.-,....,.., - .,.'k?d iSPrf,:".<,,3a AI ;,.,r...::-s"^_F^cln.:kk.se;>I ,7 „-9•';S.Y.-?3". ..."_ ,,,fii :'..«... ,.....: ..e..c-`.',y"?,=�.'vM.-.<...:.�,n.,'-<:-r o. ..:.'a':ti''-i��'•^2"=->^,+-R�':`^",rl-^ �''�<,'x""�'"z`.,iz:-„^>;,'a :,:�.',. �:-:".-`-=a:'"rr:,3;:'t'3,''.b.;�. ra '�*., ,'z:v .�. `"ink;'-.,a °:.a�:f.. ey,.=,.....>,^ ..t.,, .,:t3�°'p':k•:...-, :^�'"' ,.. :-:� .,.�?:.-:,...,-'::...a.>�;<.>.�,,:. ' :z....> ,>. �:<,`.. :,u-.=.=< .._� ^><...',...�'�� .tea ,�'�"r•s-y'^y:;: _ •.�<;� �r� . . a<,. .„:i,...L. r; ...�,v?> ...<. ,_>,r< ..-.,r ,r.s:s,...,.,....s4'":•'.. .�,.,,.,�ur.Gr >-..,e�`L¢ .,r,a -:21L:h9 ::.t'- •a<p-.. n�y;`,`' .x3£xv`� r .r", -£4-, .'3= ..•r'.-- ,�.,. ;:,�,'w ��t>w' ;.�'� �,ri, t'�S"K,-r.:;>r,'�a!: a >..y., .C..:t .a'.�...,�;;�^:i.��i'��'i:'h;�::;�.�-.K,.c..v:;ry�u'sS;.#.<,.V,,.•.a,''',. ','�,..a�;f�<i'.a>a >�.a� ::y«<..._.'.'aia�:;:'s�._.a,.z>;�`''�s�.,,�Siw`:a;.�>,e�:s �xi•�..:a:..,l:k�y:* ,..f'c�."m.-_c�,.......:,�"�»^"''-`"�o-a'�.i'%v',-t�:s:�""`: _, ' '.v,,. ..._;... >r»,,.. .._,.-.__r,.a,,y•::r.",:.a .,.„„_, ».,,_"«.:;.;,.�.,".,;T:: 'a?;':+.r.-. .>, m•M:a.T-.,,«..r a•xa>.'itr ,"x"T.;- .'i'7.'k;. wr. . .•,_a rs.Cr'.r:- "„E.t<.'?.'?".^,�;>LpaS:,''' s .'•�. �. ro ..'i.., w� "s5. ^Z,�.""i'" `',"pfir:>��`. t'`.:ca_.. �xi;L;:+, 5'i9f`: hSt �. , { p .Zs. ,�. .,yy..``gv"; o"t ,tit. .�` ..q. '`.�,, ilk''. .;x.,, r,E ..........;.%iJ`M1:ai+:`�»£�'+ ..a::.xuis:.M:ei;..:.'�tz.`;;6<.ki•:a,.=,n...;�::I::.,a,ii.:zG;✓.''�i3a",s.�z;�.�.s':a53`":>acmtl:'7,_-a..v:�;�'�ats3;:�:isa�..r:.s., :�;,..,w.<�.<:t�1.aka'�<:.>.�,«a..,>s,4w.•,-.s;�.,:»q:`',�ksvw=x..^".w ",.'.".'W :..r�.<re`_`�.>R:s-,..a,:�<. ..., yC:•v n..-.C:'u>v wf"`S Y', ::. .74 r,m; c ,+tI ,:. ..:,c.:,:. ,.n. .=:1 .>:^..<�.-,.,.�'.i •,...»^, ra.•:;r.: S:4k `9.. ...1'n`"..v f.:. n-'3s ri' aa..r y c "' ,ice. •_:;r a.,..,, ,,.y,„.'>.^', " ,,. s,. st;:: :'r- ."s:.>�"�"�:"�s�s;.x.v`µai�.:<,..�_,,.s;:,:z�.:� k `„ :i:s;r''»>�.,,,,,.,K..,c<.'�._...=u�°,:C.S:•i::€;,.....a...„. ..":d'�.., ...,....,....„<:.:�.�.'� w.. .,»-,«ai ...."?`:% r;'•aw. -»�.a:..'h'w�, , -5-::;.,...4 �7 5....:<:':.: "'+,;,"'"" ,.b:'. :. ^.psi `"y<;'r;>: .�.. �d A`>Y . Y^r ;Lyw kw„w'.`' ''� 4?iue5..».nn.i:.si:w"curta".ikfv7�:<r,mv?.�s.<:`w-`.«.a•�-.vzlLd<{i.:*.;.et.e'"s',$>+:a��1 b;..w.i<L�i.:...,..w_v,...-�wv,,,.�s,.a.w'<2'a..e �c<. .,wx.n....�.. ...vrsse 'e5,.e ^,">7=?-< - .{r`<•;[>v.,,.Y'a Yr:?^"�.;.:;:^<`.- <TJT,^^e;"'.^2rc-t^.s+31:.^' -n.:,;6, ^' 1;72g-TA-S',g::<'vi"c'e`o<o.(41 _ `a'=a'F^ .51: "" v;:l_. - i t Y,. Ya.:rr - ". "'van •s.,.._v::• ;.�"'''""�`"`<'`�n"ma �',_ "ice tiT-� •;.s`^,. -h- - c : "r` ',:•t.'O: ,,;-...r...�X"' ,iE::�;.ua- :,�i`i'.F;;..:.,,..:.�«:.::.?.r„<,,..,...,:'„>.: l;,. � «.,,s..,........... '<...�„Sx4Fw:^b?�:':...+,-;.c,.....a..a<�...w...wv:sas'�>:.+::<.f;�a...�._v.,..::G.i.�.' ...,�:',...,�<.•...,.n''� ..t<....•.t�;:s' -.�,y .-x' mom::;w. -F=t-•.. .,... .1 .:s>:<;K.::«R „v:.. .art a `,a. '£?'•-" � v3 ,--inn f>`- ':w � xt' �-1.''. ", ,:,.o Yt-<S. •�'�w•«,.:��.,:.U...s�"Lai.:<:::.:::z't.<.�.��.w..aa:,''H• 4a<� ::.:,'�'�s:'.w'.:�i 'ir4as_. ` t..s�s,""w�<z:�: :5::ma' :ar.F -.:.x='• .>-;.vi"y":+e- 5;y^< k, <,:l"<r:'w+- n '0+.>� ` 'n:R :.5"F"5'a7'?'r:a ';:^'ffi';S: ."`y"°!%r;'Y`^,viY,.'(t.,,Kv'?u'."hcw?' ,+<'>::> ,.-.+wx>+,,;.,;.q�.;r?„PP.. ''^."°,<':•�'S%T. ...:;-...��.>,.,,.'e<.s;mn1,-'sr, ,y _ k.':.:,t,i.;,.k.,.a E r0r.;,,. .-F".. �ys'vd-;.�t,.^J,�.r�,>2"wv :'La�h.v...-Ji„<+k$si.t"ia�$2"v -'.2� .l;`i�^„;vat: :c< �i,•,. %�^�i,',:,<4 _5,;.:.•: .,2.; ,5_ i"f<�x.. 1•^ .r<rLa.'s..,,. •-.. •L':.t a:=�.w'-�:�� .d.l,<^,z;a';4...�, h.:^?+a< �'r.. <, .t'.•:,, rFi� _ '",^,"x. x 2 s'` .<y- •..ix* .uric n...!'4' .,.4 ..�'s ..;C• 4..eta., a.v, ti:: - :+=�5\'i' va k�=a3," t l .'7�„',_.F.a.�:=• ,><.�"7:��,Mt,,A::K:�a.%:`';>::G:a:i.«,.s:.iE.a''..a�...ca�a.>_...K..z��iw....+.�',a�G':w^.c>:u:', iai�`czs>3s' �Z�:�a%�.'.Z:�'�:re;,o .;.i..:�.�<;, .rs:as`S.:aS'r,:.�a.•rs,;;5..:.-.:w'w .a�i'. i;�"a_::'r..;;:�::�z:'$,�....o-t�*.•<,a:.;,w'�''«3,�.'�:;;'�::�xs.�,=.'�.::xl�ta�:`�.:s ,�"; `.;:�:�':s:;-.id <„-r^:,,.r><>.---<:w M rrr^:z r.^:r-.^_`^ h' r .;':74'r,-r+ ,r,^-`7.:!1:w.�<r,-'^:,.•;r «, -.— .'zr.,:^K,r<.T :`R ;aT--'•a,a:'an^'tcir,"*;rD:::3'`*>{'x:', : cr ,n,..,- I r,,,ma"'y�'.. :"'"f'. ^n:'C�''='.;,.n�:^ "'r.,t .t. �`�"'r..'as:n .i». •rz^'v',=rxr'„n,_,> 5 .im '3r-<>• ..r v.I..:& .""-<i".'�i, > :"n> _£.�:<f. .>rs'n`: >,f {<;�.. ,.K-.: she •h:.':"::.. ..q d:< } ^fr• 4a.<!<.gii.0 'rl"-i y�i'..;.::<� .':.'�;:.....'s�,„�--::s:.tia:w:w<Y:<atw:�.w..„....<w,�'>w>ad:.�x:::6'kt;:r��e.<�"-a:wxz.>`'.:}$.c:.u.r..,_:,.....x.,..-�<a_..'.`iS:m.'<spksY.�:let»S."�e"":<isa:".-..,.,:�.:.'^<.k..i..:G."Ou�53: :»e'r;-:.r�.•`�-?;"°s,La'�;�.._,>.eY�`°�5.";`J...,«.s wr'i":.:�,kZ.".,'ssa`L.>kr4ttw...w�`:;sd-�....,_a9,-�sn� .».a.,a�>rfiu.e�s�u.,b .;c•,me:a:r.:-n', ::>mx"w:,,.-'rr,<»a..-;r•.;r..,.»£-,,.,rep-<sxrc.:,•r>...<,<=•;x.:.<-ryx:';nw•:sm�...r:;r,r:•<ar,.,rs _ •;m<..�:'^ a?',. cs ;a>'=„ »�•n+r'^..,r>. :•k+.,,-,.e,'.;,rR°::..W,:t3-• Tub\�' 4 ":,:°'t t u .. ,.«•, vux,^ "t<tw '.$.. 9xi:3'�%^" d�','.-<':''_:G«.-...aau'u 'C'.r,b wh.. ,:»kt.-.:a'ti..�:'S.....,,..>u,..,..?f.:'.u'$~.•.E:.:.tXi;,"+->�'~^%" ..e.... r.<...,.«.,a.s...za..w._-,...tY-..• ......s. .as.......«,St,`?�.�k.'<<sY'�esE:"u<+:� u ...... <do r.:; .Y<. >.s"av ^•r^rx'rt^'?-...,?•;':,<,:£':t"::>.�..<.,<>."T•:,s-.m.?m.^aJ ......-<. '">;'R raS _ __ , .alv,'....'y^v4�Ty�^',^Tl^.2.. Cj�".x'f^5,;:�j^*':.a - •''�`�'.' <yr�',v^,'Z;v< • ,3T' .,�Y� '("`...>. z l:� Rr ?. .4k.C+-. A.)1...1 tr >t=•��'c,f-�?i�•C rf'".9'>e'.' . �t'•+$�S'+��t .�`r`.\. "`N,K•L Z Oar ;r,t'�"},, '<t^,'a<''�i�,`>`'.++:! dN'"-"Ni ,F - �i` r..�,„M1 �L;, _,;.. ya}'b....�.ra» ��:.y...�.:v.,..s.,_. _<a..#..._:'vzk'ii:- ii'�uwSu.<.Fx....> e•�xns'.:a�'�vi .,.5,:�:Yti:i:<,.... �yi;;,:y:.:.' _.F .,;=:�'aa_,et•.x,. .,`Y.ctis:,'�"•�a'.<4cr• >1:�.iw`�" +'>< `�u�.i � r�k7��U''^e>�'S:� <f,.tg":a;rns •,..7,,,Tn:3-V7:?5,,,:>,•7,1P�-,..77 .2;'•••a:;b?:�5r.•-x,::. .�3"` 7,:<...>;ea"-,.,`£—,7?,Y -".''vr,;sssrr•�3,.,,<...<�<.y7•r__,..;>,_... ,fi"':rr;g,£x.. wa<,•yN.3•;:,�';•<i.>;.? .,.fx'�„'.. „k^^ -.�. eM !rSSo`�>sk<: "''r.�".<,a "'a'.�'.w-r , 3` ,r.`'>>`fv.2�"" �"`::r ;?;y: :'�=.. ...:,1;,''•�`.. ..9, - ��.,.;t.�.. %�,� .'�C �.,a+ q>a: s.r ,-�1:t,' `:a;i',' G -ter'%>.r,,.; ��q a,.. ,..D+ .n:ia 'r`..N`r:9'r,e.£;�c..<,. .. ,.., Y,N,:"•i.f..t aa<'7s,. .. .. :�:->. , ..f.`ry n�i•a.,s.. SUBTOTAL 8,527.07 BILL TO: TAX 0.00 • FREIGHT 0.00 TOTAL 8,527.07 y.g E 000.000000.012.5140.0030.48.000000 4,263.54 E 127.000000.004.5710.0010.48.000000 4,263.53 • • • Authorized Sianature Aut orized Sianature • • PO )1,/tioad/i7 . CITY OF RENTON I nvo 0 ce N.• PROFESSIONAL VfDEki&TAPE,RC ® ' 10110S.W.NIMBUS AVE DEC 3 1 2002 • rt• ! TIGARD SUITE B11 OR 4061 Q*F nn i r }r1 Julf,F /I,f / P K(503_9 0142 RECEIVED 12,37/2002 W23105 • ,.0 CITY CLERICS OFFICE }'cG� s : �2 r ts00. 060. oii.. S/s,t), 36. Lty, 66bo0o 'z G3r14 III 1( Hil i.City afRadag T MA728 /l - fzi7. ouo. 06 Lf.r-t u,/u. q.p. 000 0.0 yZ/o 3 5-'3 1055 South andyW y Renton,WA gloss Attu:Bonnie Walton Ve rt. 2A r 4' 0 (0 3 (o '( . P().',1Ih31-11,•It ` : 11 FtMi .• ref r. r ri4P •' •VI1k.:; I •:) Il • pcg-t11 f:l i 1 I Ye:blll 1 NEt 30 7ft 12R712002 1 UPS Dort i 1. (.HIAIJIIF ..III M (1(I4 `- 4)I -rI rut'IIojl t '4 • I'j,t i F A(.(I PMOUNT: .... . •:, btio,. , •• ye(idil Dstithi_ r•• ' :•. +..., ; : ..... . • 3.' 36.00.. •. . '7,i1it r 1 .2, _ 185,00. ,1: 0'a 1._ . ... La .... �"�;'�?!!t C!� .. ......... ._.... .� .,. , �; .,:. 1' 9�.$p r 4904T . ... l:; ' r A:' .. . ads AO' Iiit eser ' ,: : •; .: . , , ' .•_ •. . .. I I{CY615 I ' j : 0A0 40.o0T r '• ' � 9 �Q; 180T I • Fagg + toi 20.00 20.00 , ; . ,. ,1. . : . .. . 4.80% I • •.68&07 I • ... •• ' '• . . .• •... . •• ,•' . ,, : :.• . • ._ ... `.., , .•,. :;,.si; .. .1:. , : :REMIT:TV. p _.; •.. ;.. • ; .. .. . :.: .. . .:. • : . . . 1 'OR 97281 - --' •. - I ' 1 i , . ..... , ,`I' •1 :,' • 1•',• r•h.f•. r "fi! ..:1' Yr. ..., .. • i--. 1 SI atoms I (lselBem W Rotm dlteam. , TOTAL $11,527.07 i ' Page 1 1 Y 0 C.) CITY OF RENTON A cm + + 1055 S. GRADY WAY «<<r $ f 1ATE;':s'`a < r `Pi ti "id lzl ``. RENTON, WA 98055 12/31/2002 12/0000186 VENDOR: 040001 SHIP TO: JW TEL-TRONICS INC PO BOX 1282 BOTHELL,WA 98041-1282 FOB Point: Req.No.: Terms: due in 30 days Dept.: FINANCE DEPARTMENT Req.Del.Date: Contact: LOMBARD, SUZANN Pre-Assigned PO#?: No Special Inst: >.�..;,:.: -:,^:.••= ism :��•�s'" �<�r_ .<c;.: ^:,,y,,, ,�"i �^'�":v>� 'S{"��:;Ar. Fo ';^ dx`FR"`.it. ,,.7 •.':.s':v {?.*"wx Kww•. <,,;,.. F•'!"w'a<-.�`^ ' r}a<.,n �'Y'< <`�T"'., .:l ��,°C`a'.y,, ;��<-. - :5, x,Gaan: 1n,"-J.�-ir. .-;, ,S G " .»'•`,: 5v r_:�;<,.<,.,i'r• ..P,v-v1•e,,,. .x3:-3'r�'�a _<,,•.��t;<'",��:=`��' n,,��,.,, a�` �;.. .?t 'y..^ ..l� Y,:v .s+:+s-.-r�< .`+^;`atx.«,<.,ug<.�,,�'<,n.:. ,�..g`,�1tva., vk,a.. ;,rr .i..e»,. �Q<antitN �•�..U":�it,:� ;, +.3 ��-e§ 'i'""'tion:>; _. :.� <,..�n , z , .� �� < .l�lilt�Rt'!<e,„; �. < %Bi',c - -:i, .,.�.,.._r,.�•-.a .<,ta> fl.,.,,. , ,;`k'T^'�k;�v'sz;e:�«.<�.. ._...,>....e�.cS`:.''•r.v.?a^5>:,>.,.."-3.�,...C�.I�..,., .o<., <,.d•F��:rs>w „._,.,M,.a,.,.-r� r`.__. .s�!Jdnt. w.a_ ., . .n.l .. .,<„`a. �&�.��+<._« .,...>�z` SERVICE-REMOTE CTRL-CHAMBERS-INV. 102666 -�x•� _'=:7':,:'y,^•, '�,,.jr"tii:s a'�S"'".",�F.m'•,."�`,,`;y,r..<<,'M..:,iv<„'cCn:•N�::»f..:<.,„.,x h<�•-,.«a..,,4a:�'�wwPfa�.a.�-,.,.:;�,<,:.r:.;rY<s„..,>:.«..yx,s�:><°a.<.�<<:»'�{>'u5'.:;.�,.r;%<,t•.,.,,::s�:e: 'b.�,sxa.a,.�a�,...�.n<a:,'a.u..�,.w,�_<�.�t,'<�-,.�3<�:.<5.^. 326.40 26.40 ' NNi:X .�" i , R,Y-e s� bt fsryGv a'LY Y^4°.Y.Y _ww ti» fi<"S nL.� Y = fY 'tr„ 3:?;'r t0 a .,";-4>,tF,k`<r4 ,+n,,. ..,,s...,..r:•:.-,- .z-s, .,� ,... >=.a;>ta:�.:<. 3H;"«ra:,,;' - r"i-:e.?r,•' .v;..,- ' .x* ".P:..='a"I t',. a^ K t•'-'�.. '2�`�: aTS=: `i�,:"".',• v_:".,o :a;' >•L,':>t.`s:'A.:�" err .'7.�"�•.93 :;"w .t .# +.`,C,:c?-,<`":s%�•a< �:ij^ _...3r,,,< nn :xaw "".=y:-o:.,„:A,a -i�ar."'• .mom `��:w<.. ",-e <ras... c�a �,. �i C'� :.�`• _ `p:Ftt' W[%•': �'A. ^l• :'4ea, S':1•"N c,�r,,. ji'sY^.•, lw'?u.hz >£: ,�%:;.t:r�: :vim-<<.f-:,." <,�§ ew i. n.<,<s.;`y:�,,':^<yy �f :.ri`'.:vi•,r is ' �"" ?'.> t n.. <x,..e�Scvbv,.2,.:,:?� ?ca^ .<3.°.,.;.ar,;s''__>k°•-.sfJ�..'m�t-.<-o....:.'u,£,k<,w_.:-�� .>n.�.>::::;l�x"f...,_,,....w,.,;i4,?•s::a':S»�u::;:.::ti':%w .:...._.._,N.'.•a,,.£m;.;z..a�.,.,w.a.";xi��ti^:;.<�_x.,r:iY�F.i�:cciz��.<v.'s.••x•,s;<.w._.°v,<.;-<,;.u....°ia'A c:.-:'< �.�:a• .s�•w~x�... s. h '-+,t'•r1"'.^, e;T:l,"i ^^s^`°,i,"•s•�,?"<.m`• f;r � -sr••,�q'S±:<z-�":'i,: w^--:•P.'--aw.`. «e'C.< 'r�x.">"*"<i"'�:5':Y::_ <3;"7 "t9"-"°.z.,ry '75 ,-'Y$'tr` " „ .<...... !:•<. ., :sw 'a.•"<�,.,J3i,..v.x•,,,<. ,.,.e:•.,,-t',_n.-.::':::.^.•,,,i,•a•:.•`.e'•a�:e<'.,< ;;��'' 3>-�`t,4...s.., xr't..a �>.9:'�e ,.a,y<S,;,a ,id,<af;?1 ,:>'¢^g'x <.:;..;" -..,,•,a <z < y} <.._ ..o<at s„ „t ., ." ._\ ..., .,«n,.-.. _,. `,`1"z•�3''yi;: .4,-=•'e"�"i-v;, \.y {i'; :' ,; ;,,^ .f.N!i >sx ,,,: .L. . . ;ar n.a' <�rt*•: <r° ti - ,rd•`,�i'::va{:•w:i ', .L.,�nn, :+a. .,l..r •��'`"w�.w 4,. .n. ,.,,,•<.:<%;.v.`:,.3.,^,-k. a'<a1Y ST,'`iT "`!.f/, n 'L':v�^�y ,'�.a'.x F.u:•.-ca ;afa,,,.a..�> :.:. ..w,.:,,_...«„^:�%�....w.r,...;;x_...�-...�uf�x`::..n'.:w�......a,µ.,,..,,,....,._<�»wig'`.":i�,.;>,.�:...�.'�.`� a-,a:{.'�..�a.....M�:�i:.`.�"'=:t.�xyr:.�_£% �•-«::;::?.',,.axaz*vtay.<r,�:G.:t:.x•a<':.:s�s .<..a».aa.�<.r.�c�;.��`,�.,.a-<.,�..>� :r=: r,,..< < ,> .,tt -s. >.,,, a. ,. �-. ., 'r ,<:<�,..: .-r->:.'c;: .'=z;- ';;;s•-'v o-asx `?✓a ..'i.F',">' .-.;h'r,<�. .s '.+'!`: �{�:4;s;r"' �;S:Cv',T; -.=:Nr,.--:. <-:.q?k,. .., v<:.l> \ ,...r,/l-'Gi`yi,., :ey.,,�',y�<'x,. v-+.�::2 �,-'s'fi:E.' {t e.., ,<.'•F�S< :ia;v:'io:%.,,rwt;:.:?:,.�:.<-- mac, -'v.;; :•:�',< °-a`3 .�4!.%.vat. ..,y i,..1 S `'}' nrv_.xrniG:ml2 a,._,C,`a1vi'`.,n-ri`if-......._,..•.......<:...�21...a',�.�•:<..�.•'F< <.,.,..,�.....,_.a_a..-,aa,.._<....»�,t�.:3_�a{a'k'..w...<.;:,:e�i.•,_....<o.,,.;.;2:3%<».z`•�.�.,.,..,,, .+.<:....,..,.a<.�'',',.<.cb:��..._.,:.:•r'�,'>� , a ".M<. '<.q<fYC:s ...�aV,.,. `l'.gn C•. -.> .'l.r';"'.Ila•X-':;!i; g.�.y#..'•^ ::\b„•.'^. 'L'Fti`% t xk..h5 t.;is.,'b,.,-^, -, t ,''4,r v, <,:.i _v :'aGi"<:.........m.»[,•.Ai,YL:x"34....... ::<Y'-''�v�-S"�'fa.<.t.., .,..,t v ..,,:<.....s,cY:f.., e.aw✓'<.aS':.:nC:ki.,aw.,,,,.a:.t-t.xv„a..�` .,,t,x' ,<-<..,.«�....'4-•"s,uCa'.9.• >r..._,.�_,n<.....<,.<......<,,,.v��>-u�-,s....'-rf.,.....a`�::.<,.... <x ,., ,.,,<. ,M<><, -,- .. , .-TN ,K.,�<' -;y'r;"; e:`.r.. 9ax: :a ,.tsx`.-a_sMz..::.-rv<::i.s....As,>...ssa.,3.,;a ,'„xs�.s..:va,:u......,ct<.x:..,<.:.a;..,x:..<.•a,'x��.::<�L-:<.:.e.....✓<....<a.z<s:�;i:.._»...y........._.`t;-...:•<..,."'.°'b;.:..�:<.>��1,'�.a,>%<et'�::.;_,�_.,..,<.!'y':.-,,>_yz5a�4t.�;>::v.,.,.....<a,....::.=is'.:. ... a.,,»,« wR.a'os<a.�`'^G.»;1'.�'�^:Si;:.,. ��. ^r?;<x- mc-y„--tY• »,:S 5:;, <;,F6«-::.'Li-' \2 ` nv - _•ate 7-,.h:;r :gm .ax":r-r-.;.t.v, ,MT;,: ;::_-,... :--:. �„.�.;,•>% •:'tsS %f;:.,r .-a..S:,-?S v'"- ":� <n` <.4En ,:,`,v: •F<-.. F,°3„�` .:.?x.. .F.,w ::'Js.�..°<...rai:.a:._.,.•.,:t£>«xa<..<,..w,_ ».»....a.:.:;:,,:n...->..-<.S.:�a:.a•�..:..r.<:;.a..<ok� ! ..��:�=;::1x;�a:;,::m,:»€5...<.�::�H�'::;:�y„x�.s.�,av+.<.-a.,.,r,,...<`.'�.ao.�:Aze,<:a�<{:<r 2',�:-R`�ea',:_re",;. ><<;�';,>.,..>:t-.,s::_<,..��,,,<.a.�'.iv,..x..�,:-: �w,,..r_._..a ..asxa'+;" a�:,<o.• -'<-:a•., >rm�'• a-.zn: -...:�.,x• Ma:,,.;.<r<:->„^,.z.�' ::4:'.v>- <' ,,•;,,.,.vS",., ,t<..a:,.;.:.a...a...;..,- `1 x:e:' ,�„+ „r,°• rr `:;rr=,5»'n?' 3 r ,,, ,,,,,,,�„. .< .< _ ,.a... >.-.. .., ..,....✓_:� .m>.ri..w.a..;: , ,.`<... . . . .. ,;� .,a.,ng;•' •<�`�.''n'<:... .r �.3 4,�<.. .,fit;«r:» ..,<b. '.., .Ir<, .ky. a.G �5.a3tiJ,F,:<�<,..,;T.t ::.9 ,ya,q e V �:%'% '^FRS'', ,y ,,,� yY-ty<.`."w: ,->.:,_ �',<tt.. ,,.£. <....,..F,r:..:<..•..t<Sb:. •,,. .,5+ <:<3w �.` �C, _ a,l'> %. ,, ,T.:',e .. .s n ..: .. .. _._...�, .._.. .,. ....a.", ..,:r. , .<...,.-,..::�J bC'•,E v'Ya,:t. ,v+-. ^v',,ty-.•:.,n .»0.eL,�''' .:.is.,<.'zc,,,:.:xa.>. «�:�.<,:r �",;,cw`,..<,,.:t'._,..<,>.�_>.w<:a«„�.>:..o,,<......_a.»xJ»v,•ia`,i:,,^..<n<...`�`'�.."..x:.�+z 2��;'-t�.yY:�.:`:ia.Ww.,,«;<rs'�e36w,tr,,,,...xrr;.G...w.�:.:,L'.<.F� w��- i':::i:w=<-;'w:...-c„<v.a ait:w:>,..,.>,.,:�;at.-e.•.,,'x`a�'a-._<s�:.u`i5 R. er ..,:s^, .>.�•xa r,^ .:>rc ....; .,..s'-t:r�- .w'.;7z, r';.. -,:.✓-- ;x,a^ =:R: •^a'<�g�, .v:_>.-W= y�S .sm"�".'c,3'i. ZdAa„eT.,nx,.xrk,.,<.,..<.,�):<.i.,-kwrv.°;,�:. �'^,%:..._.n.,."�.xa:;1a '..«�a:.unr:-vi:�„�C•.:................w........isa_„e,,.<Yaaa:::�.�,.-a ..w M �.a,' �,.. , -,+,^. < sY.-x,.x... .s.><., v.. v .., ..< ,.. ... .-,zF rn�,',: �, J, '^<;.:ry`., ,>:,ei-C 4`�y>^q• 7�'�,,w •A$'i"::: ^,(<I•;tr1K,",,1<^• cn•"�:. '%=i:ti'0:: d`KR ..d'd.h' ..:X.^�. ,rah X t":x, n'`ns,•.,,< <3".< ,Y..<,- :x: .7< <F... ,•'^a•:` •„F. -;ax -,a�. vi ,gv, ,.... S. , <*'�+' :•'i'<. a s Ft.:'•Tiziai+'.�+�.- aY<n%'Ef.M1;:„;k:.=:,A'3i<�' .esS:a�<':ti�<,�,:.,.z>'"'�t.s.,..<-........c.+�.,�a"`*%.>avu...x-k�,`::a�<.t'z•:a1.uF>'i:<,�..u.lw....,xt.rcc!<.�+w:?x�.'`...«'ri>av<5ea* ..,e d"..,.a-�.�:wih'i✓raan.«''�:C.Y✓xrE»rN.9,£Fe 3-717:ten:!� t ,aw,•3II`l y Slj'.'n .-_a-<.___....a�_.....w,o,.�;>a,,t�`a Side:�<:'.;�•�"�'�^h"�•^t*" ^„r• ,.c,<. Yae+ m^hfi:n, i^ •_..,. '•S..•,.w:<.,,.,s >"'I:w�`.z:•y,. . # ,Mv-<y<Y."�>..,,*a..-...,,«...,e,..... .,,.,,,t.,a<a. _,e<..«._.<.Mi.:'>`a:1°+;r.:.t'.w_.., ..._ <a.;�:T•a;i.,._^w^e, _.xa ,,.,...<....x..i 1»a@t,.,».. d Mc:m::,va•.arru'.,;m;:,;rx -•;;„s...;x 17.;,,.,.,.s..<.,,�:&'q 4>eZ,,-F>='-`� :d"`1.^ „^-'<.,rrsT'. ^ mr.:: , ..a.. :�,>�,F.^ $:x .,'�:K...:,,'z2's<=a:r,:':Is ry:'. <�ma .,,. .-.s-:,'' .<.: vr+<'F'u':s""-,:',fi?:"°'.<t'.•m.:v>K;ssr;3;^•f�rrr'��i+'=+�>'. �.Fh' - ^ <t,.. �;- a:.t. •.<;r:wa,P-.,.;,; ...�'u. -"_., ..-.,a=...:F «v<.v,•,'',<"r.,,,�.'",;` ae,�<.,s .ti,,.,>,at..;,,;,Rxz..„r. ..r.�•.- ,.�<`�:•"-`-x'��"�",2•-<�y,'..,s< .,,, ,�4'F<5.«:r7::n. "<:s"�<.e:.S:a'...°=c.`-C`v.,wnF�:i Y :.'Y., t,�r�rv..a<....<.,,%,t...'.°..�.�_.i",a,.<;;;s-r.<;i�,: ,`S;.<', ...y M'�,et, m.� .aF.,,;,�. ,..a b,+'«,..,.,., .,r-�, .cr xi ::.as .• .,,4 .<.. .wa;, .x: ,•L.'it,, ,d- z.,,„,z:. =>a, '- .:a:'••,�.� "'Ran<Y".�.e';:sw. ,{o'•t..a•, :x"w,,..^srn'•". ;Y,i, ie ,n, •_.s. " " a«<�.„ ..,;`rv''e," s.., :'•,.. < :__$.Y.^.:�.:.,<>.. "2'•;v<>•;•:,. .:A,_,.:-r r., ,rY• <.,, cc'S.x. �:3 ). •`az<. <k,." :"<;., .a +,:;a:F <,a.. .rY=,�,.;>..: .�..�,.',. '.";:,>ai,t;`�. ..§$i-, -.c-.;.-au.ya,r:�<a -,^'!a%L^. .:twsT;�,.:nv �.r. zc,ti� �n::•?,_.,__...vt.��,.,�:�;,,..-..,,_ait»>....,,..ss�,�-, :a^s::n. .,;�:i�:�c; .�,,rta��.x..,.. 4>a-�va,<,w"a'rt�>Ar..... n+,n...';va.,,..�,�.1�':sz:':'`..,;,'irt.,:z.'<s:�::<>rs<cidS>,..a.<•4't;.E<,,.v_!,,,,1_.na^,3?aa,a�;,�.a.:2 _,a_>.<..daam,.'kz«.; 3.n '�:Y4'.�.,� �"z<•- <:at, r:•:v."," .tom°'^= t�"<<�t%� ='s7' t-' »' >s,. .,�,..,..,,..-,.�.,,».<.._...:,,..a_r.�;r'^:h^ N° ..-a<`^.". ""'xc�. .c.., ..h=,. .,,<>:..,z mac...: •'. > <:- :•,. .a+ii'... .r<v�<, ��y�� 1< :a�"`' .. ,.<. n a..... ........ -. ,. ..<._a.a:^�<-._ ,v._„ h �.v..x<. ..,_<, a._<.,<. •c,.C`•:;:z."k."e7; "k%� h--n< dl e^,�.... ,.J .:h �',. 'ri.a -<''<'3a:;::.,SKY• %,..<s'�'i l' .�J.:i,"' <':<i'v `t;r -3:.•;.•m,,.r•': ir': 'v:•nTiY✓ 'x:� r,�••"3'::,�:<^9 .5..: %�, •�:::'?��.$'. <:;w„-.a.,':.c.. :'.. ;<:,y�nn.,,{,�:,..I'< <.<,,,P < t,.,.<.. ., >,...<.s....__-,.n. ,-, ..a .......,<✓,.. .., t .3.._x-.,�a, t.< ,4�. ^..,> .�.",. �„ r. ...,. .. ".. <,...,...F3 ., ,. r< SUBTOTAL 326.40 BILL TO: TAX 0.00 FREIGHT 0.00 TOTAL 326.40 +•,r,'<.° .x<, `s. .�,:r ~? ..:. -;a,>; .;3n•,<: f,.akzc° .r�.,.Eys..:v:,< ,<s,r:aai,,.-�:si<` ��7:"•ti'r +;:ci.. 'c r ra..., <,a-:_ ,•ai,..< =,ass" ..,�'"'::r`.<€...:.-n,r'�'a?" :•sx„✓s"'v.. " ',- �.;.; s5<.''<,�"hS`a•.. ;,'r°:.. ,z.�aY�s `�', ,o�i'`a -s5`,�..A•5 y".`�•? :.'•`.A�„a. 5 ;'��:-< .,t. <.4'o Q:' ,HBO�n" nrk'Ord'r,� ic�ion°`�irnUer. �,��-.�.. .-a a•t�.< t.x<�9;.n;,,y«.•i�; xr,.`.-,,-.. _. .< .a 'G• ... ..=�<- ,�'`�;��, ,^,. ..,Y,<,G��:i`s1.x.�. .,_<-, .< ..>< .. . <,_.....t. ..pr.., .. ,<, .. ,->n,...;>..<a...•..a.u<,r. :->U ., �nv;'T,+`�:,.,"'�<,n,, .,i�«.-:51,�.«,� E 127.000000.004.5710.0010.48.000000 326.40 c,H.u.'j bJa 1 Authorized Signature Authorized Signature Ver -nor uyouvi wow' 12:/ 0000li'b 111!!!!!thla P.O.BOX 1282 BOTHELL,WA 98041-12b, PH(425)485-4739 FAX(425)481-0703 fl7+0 Invoice JW TEL TRONICS, INC. DATE INVOICE# 12/18/2002 102666 BILL TO - d O. Lori Wood Y / City of Renton 1055 S Grady Way Renton WA 98055 1941 7xj7L f• S►2�p. D • D i v y0 �0000'0 ►2�, 00000D1. Coy, 99 P.O. NO. TERMS DUE DATE VENDOR ID# Net 30 1/17/2003 040001 ITEM REPAIR ID# AMOUNT Service Call 1151 300.00T Sales Tax 26.40 • Total $326.40 Payment is due upon receipt. Interest of 1.5% per month will be added to overdue accounts. We now accept VISA and MASTERCARD. • Broadcast Engineering • Design • Support P.O.BOX 1282 BOTHELL,WA 98041-126.. PH(425)485-4739 FAX(425)481-0703 in Invoice JW TEL TRONICS. INC. `.\6 DATE INVOICE# IC61.)JIV 12/18/2002 102666 BILL TO Lori Wood �000 O �.8(0 City of Renton 1055 S Grady Way Vle,n S d r 0 t f 00 O 1 Renton WA 98055 'T ' (2 7. U00. 00 '16. . 00 I u, `(p. O0 o o o o P.O.NO. TERMS DUE DATE VENDOR ID# Net 30 1/17/2003 '/ y ITEM REPAIR ID# AMOUNT • Service Call 1151 300.00T Sales Tax 26k40 Total $326.40 Payment is due upon receipt. Interest of 1.5% per month will be added to overdue accounts. We now accept VISA and MASTERCARD. • Broadcast Engineering • Design • Support Service Call/ Installation City of Renton Invoice #: 102666 1055 S Grady Way Renton,WA 98055 ID #: 1151 Contact: Lori Wood Purchase Order#: Scheduled For: 12/17/2002 11:15:00 AM Symptom: Remote control systems aren't working properly. One remote control has lost its programming. Service: Discovered that the remote transducer that is normally on the front of the Sony Scan Converter was missing. I located the unit, hanging down inside the rack, and reattached it to the front of the converter. We repositioned the IR receivers in the Council Chambers, reprogrammed the remote that had lost its brains, and then tested all operational functions. Look good. Remarks: The flourescent lighting in the chambers has a tendency to"WASH"the IR receivers with enough IR light that they don't respond as well.as they should. We could install a system that isn't bothered nearly as much by<tffe•lighting-. This system would be hardwired with the wiring run in the ceiling, and no visible devices showing to the audience. Something of that sort would run around $1000.00. If you are interested we can work up a more accurate quote and equipment list for you. LABOR Technician Description Date Hours Hourly Rate Total John Waist 12/17/2002. 2.25. $100.00 $225.00 Labor Total: $225.00 SERVICE CHARGES Charge For Description Date Cost Travel Time 12/17/2002 $75.00 Service Charges Total: $75.00 Terms: Net 30 Pre-Tax Grand Total: $300.00 DO NOT PAY FROM THIS SHEET Printed On: 12/19/2002 Ingaik) JW Tel-Tronics Inc. TEL -TRONICS 18823 Beardslee Blvd. - Bothell,WA (425)485-4739 • Page 1 1 Y 0 �•ft CITY OF RENTON + 1055 S. GRADY WAY , t l :,` i o'r l "nnB RC ' ��N�o� RENTON, WA 98055 1/17/2003 12/0000209 • VENDOR: 082979 SHIP TO: TROXELL COMMUNICATIONS INC 4830 S 38TH ST PHOENIX,AZ 85040 FOB Point: Req.No.: Terms: due in 30 days Dept.: FINANCE DEPARTMENT Req.Del.Date: Contact: CORNEJO, RITA Pre-Assigned PO#?: No Special Inst: ,;�°<.:�..<e"�'r.: :.a.<{%^= _ ^.4`T t..t.... _ v>,-,,..^<-?�`e5;+• P';,h:"x "'h ioii sy. .9 .EC;�• S'. „`bx'.'d'a� i^, r:�tk.�' ,I'.".'T:;�'':' i':G:;G"�-�.'3. n :�' $...»'CS Se. °:�s, tw�.W^r..,;,�«t�,:,{�:e'2,v.- �>ia!u-t-, .....�-E.,4:g t. :L..5§';,°^ :ia'. •,.y,'',''uoe"..� '�&•':k"�''a'�'';+' ,,.5: .�+.`�`r'�:s+ `e'x ,a•; t'x€":Pr�.<•�St:o-,,.;,,,� .,fiti C�'d tt [��:'� .:p�_; „k=~<zzY-,n"�TMaa�€:.�f- '4�:.x�=�.§,<,r'x" ,s3`',s�'`°`eS' I Orl"'.`a , ?. '°•,=k,2`. ,w„ '''�,�� v;<„-3?n�,_.,�_-�:'�k.'`r.��r.� ^ri�5;ca?a�..z.-,�,:>--<,,., s<.:°x.,�,>z,�.x>_.a?wG,^.,ti�."'..u:..`u�,,...�e�.�...,..ta��e'r�.`t�s`?d"�.-�..,...a.e.��'<:4s,>a�s:��5a�°�'?<,`u°,,aC», t.!>3tii3it;�r.G@�:�r.•sa�%;:`,wsavi�7Ct,`:��IC��'`,.+'��++ Projector Bulb for Chambers Inv.#758193 270.92 <"'RCr' s-�-x+..7,.,..;;£': ?3±° ^e'r` .;.y,x =nYy+''�.vs44-i,':'f, ,rr'n^F<., ".ar.,:L+. ?r'Li-w sa�,<s, 7 ••,•. ..r+.•:e', so- eY `tC�`%v 's>fi-,y�::°,"'x'is'. w!t"4i.....5 ,� ,fii'�� ;"�;.' v.„� .-�:Tx'K+x r<�p:,d,"` .w'< z: .; i x<. ^v�z`z.,r,.,., r,a.�.mw,a5 e °r`�� <�` ?,. "{�-�3„N,`.`s,`'.`� x> �t s:':?:,. °° �f:;�>: fie;-:er �� <�w.'`'�.:. '�•�. �-�'�;�>. <.�,+,,, ,`N;�: .��"�+'�< >,�: •�. ��.. � ��`�:��' `e;�„F•�-�i;�`^ .``��:;_ i�«%':63. -'s'.Ya ,a a• ,dtr.v. , „ r°e^,.. ,i. '.y '; ,°•s+ ti £`��..T,,.;,cS'. .iti.' -x :"✓vrK,.<... ,?. .a� .1<• ''"0:3.�<. .4w,'4, v ,3 r.%S E`rtEt a ._;a a>•� ;a:?.:. .�:•tx..:�e,,`A r'�•, > E�„..�<.,";�.•�,.,,�ar-<<.,..,.,. .. ,rt..,.<.�.a.s:.�<,a,�,,.,°>.��++<.�„�<:k,�.a.au':�7�s:��i:'zi��c.�,:,.,,�r«�,r,s,,{�>",.r�.e^^e�,a��,�.',a.:x �,,..,uAs'�,.,�:z:�:«�.-.�*�`"�`�_:.�,�.+.<a•.+�,r.,�:a'�'iiM.<.,.,.�� ,��a�''t,sr4:.':�:':.... "^r�",?•;^„°},`-Y'. ."'"HF:»rx `h r:'• +e;`2;y:.x?V'+,'x�' -j.�{r<a.",T':Z::f"' £�"^;M'v°-t n^}:-a. :a°t":i`C':§:+.e.+`R":.-:v.+t•�.,w`t• �{<,("'v,A. .Y-`;:e+`�-`T..^^e"++v .>raT:" ..�,."°`: iR. '@_"%:, h tT..` .Ft°� +'q fn -:•rK .<<'i+,'r::i ?.°"x e e<,,t I` +°' 'tom, `?..''l+>+l:-':eJ.k.."Ss+, _3,,. ''v,,=�z• ''W .7,CA%�,x T a.- r••,S. s t. t'k i'.;?•: �Pt1c"r;4, •J`E.;�t,y x':'S.. •",'.,`,-'k-�3,' 'erLi•'x: i' �,�d ,�*" 4 `':d„ <�l`4.t-`� ..'y .', C,.i. ....a .K^� ' :.1..k'`%, .3G ;:.a°<z- x '�. .,�,"a,;,..< .s µy». b;. .,,t aa,..r. 'v�.'Yr:^' .x. ` „as`. •5'*'+'`%•�%., z:�0.,`''. .•:v.rt•`a,ca -,k,,v:s:'"*i,, _.,a' '• .�: a 4 4.'xVx^?,?.a .�ts`3$r xiTT, '�;., +`C N:^,r� <:J ':,yy..• v;�','� 'z£;r;.•< ;,,�ia.w. ,g' -� `<-. ^`�5.3fi„�e�,•,,,� .,,•'�`.. .f�>°'.`.:, �':�t�k�•x• °.� �3n�.,n' .�:✓'+�,fx`5`•,�'"�'nu,,:•xak•: s,,,k,`w::,:�.a.,.:sa.+_�a_..>.a:c..:�'.,.�..`�"i,<_.v.w.tx:.s�,<...,.,.,."...;,...r.�.,.�a.+.:.5.�s;,?-'M � ` .,,;F53;=x�.,u.Jas!�.,x:.�.,...'us,>•,.,>.:.;:{.;,r�ati„+�i,.�d"S,.,u.,..•...:�i' aMa�a ,.:z.. ?r*r.-e:`s b_ :"•T-a°Y<+'�K>n%1 x'..;^<. n,.•xcy, 'dL.. IA,RII .;t' C g• yd._ .•sv.,,:r 'x.,;;aY,r>;;.«. .«§,Lr;•s:,tml:r..f:","..•>ru;• R^'-- ,.oic'f '<?' .� "":•fir:`,"Cv'"" ^'`?e,�,`r,-, 5>r,-. 'w;,C"• ::'�:, fe<�°^,n.^:""'R.a .:'ti:'-'•`1� t" R t '.;i .l.>• v: .+x'°k, :ra`i,r i•a°�''�`•`*� .k`q �5'rt'{�r:€. rr y.+' +2=�'' ,:,:a'•" r�;< -.a^e:,c`"=:F'>. viv�<. ...,<%,e•^:8< wtr:,_t= ?.r�?'"°a>'�,`•�:'u.-a . ..7tC,t"s-t t...:�.`:. :;.i:"?c2 `'ii; �"c, k�F^- `.;:tea :E�'C-r;.:�.``:.•..Y,;: .�,^' d;Er .'�'-.'-�r, ..',,.a ,�iv.. ,a r�' f tea.`..a '•�'•.'� :,r.<,• :_,`+�'�``•" .r<^y 'W� .,�;5;z:`;:_::�'f-'Y,� .'::'c�ui..:`'A s s .4,o- u;''�' ,T re::" �w2.,o ,;'�•< �'°w.F`v Y•:`i' .:%' >;.. ;;At "��S'alit ,.c,. M.•S'!•3'a9k.:r.. :;ir." st..t '.:tt:2 r '--jev3R`-u. '.>.�^;•i>>., s.<�°a'nt.-..�§ ^.�_'�._ :!=_4.• ��iz`S'^"' '.•'`rt"�'''; t.�,<' _..r,,, a»' .,e'T.�•'^.'" .s.a: _4:��.`.;: a<Sh '':�:.^. 2.`'i... > ,.rw-.. .r,:�:< „r.:k:.:-.:�..+ a?i:.��':�L;;,.=�,.'.aaxw.,aar.;sf,':,:ta."k.'.'°�;:tr,�;xrm...a:�•�:.�°`.�?7;` a,.k•�;�+�w.z�N:.d::t«.^.z •��3� '� ;�`,�.:.•�'�%s"�a:;�:, �.` :� � ��€+:> ',2'"^>,•4'tr e5-.C;st':_::.,,q ::T<° r•�,fr,,TP'xv::v;!';5:,»;«<iS,!.::1z; 1? Fo ��V.;e<F:asc-1. ,T.^T.'E;' ?`fi• `7-;. .;o ^'a:i:&'F3}:aher.-:'C•• 'b'Y„ ti;:'Si ��~�ib�w,l�'.Re_�, �.:',:.'Y".`.:A,`i"•.,.- ,.;2,<�:-, r,<^V�."'.r;u i�S��" ,,.,�+�,x;`, -Ri .§.§,.r ,3�-f�>-0,=v;',-4ae,,<,h'rF,r�r.,a 3?.-.n °�.'<'i.' i�7-«,, ts., .+?' .ss,.,P.�''a'yy k<•c�.; ,xc°L�:::�•::s->+>. .:� .,-.. ;� S�" ''fie, '.`.:,,,:�.t�v.`•-=..,a,:.,,'v F•+b"�'„w-','l4; 't;r ..t a,e ,4: -i`:?Y.�' =,;>Y:. •�8T <?-l�`}-`EStY ..:�aN'. :<.<'S,c .Y^4:u�«.�^Y k.N,%.L• .,4% ,.�Y<§v rx.;; bbC Fi .?y;>;��.bw �i, .i_# ^<t' .°.•dt °z•„at. _:�+::�= ��` ":aa•`t'..ritt=:r '-.,sr�.`" =?tr-.,�.. '��:• .:^c .". :t `•';.�.:,�.�''',+.,<...� a-h S p"." :+^,.s.,•.+.:'.: S,ca�`'t'«' ;� X ,�s� ?«s��, �..�:,}�:TM�.. �t.. .� �.m>C +>..,�s,.•,,,�?tba;.��_2.."„^'.::$.: �.`s'''"..'5+:��,.�v's..` %�.�.. �S```rEn-.� �'r'6�Z'.�Y•'.'-G°w� -a^s'.`,r""::>,. "",Y•9^>`,'^,lT".:g,r"•'• 5,f,'.Q. ,: :4l kV •c,:.y,Y..:`i.,,.`, _ .,:,. -:'?r.r`sC`e` $:'".S,l 't i0 k'.Y•37.5nf•, n.Y s ;1:!C--t' `fir "i,. ,.va,• nSu ,r!•,an• ;o ,a' ''E':,, .;r...:s- ,"�€'"_>",,....4=i°"';<......s t '.,a <. `x<<:. `."�^- r. ,.�..,�.3na '�"r+rr ', i�.ry 1Fu .+.°y,..v+ w'Fxe!`��?',^ 'i1:x M3< `+":, .-`t ,y , .e.�..:_•..,«?.E. ,'^L �, '.� 4'3h'} ,ff+?'°.tra..-:.� +.�:.a•5 Yi••.+Y qq•: 9�x :i 44,�.,,�5 rC'°' .tX�•... a'' ..^ 'S^+- n'.•�:" e.t..'' <=^'+>(i`•`.`5.,< '.r ...F i ':l ..c.'`: �',`'x�i ::z?i:`e� �;'�:•..,...+«...-�:5�`.fi.:.�.i*,•kM°.. �M'M:`a':3,r:'a^s,•,:,��5" �.ii."w+<`^at`:Si4+z�.vk.._,�4,v,�,,�-a',Sks:.4..`:kz��„�,r«.»�r:roe^'.a'd�-aS�'�,b;•cr.-�i.k«.'aii.,:..ra�.,`N:.w« �'akra-..�,.,.a,.,,�:•.w."2:".,x`,`yv�dS'a�'� z:': e'^.n,., sl ,. .,. r-c,y., ..t.<. .•_K'-: «e%`.r ,,Sz's,,. .=;�� ,gip .x...a...Y:Y,x...,.-a°.,'i.-.'rif'r,.a._r.....xm.✓4,r.Y.;S'c'.'�x, -,._,...'�'._..a,., ^, _ ..o, .: .,, �.�.!-.."a£:°:z."3:•iis,:Y.a-.€.,>Sa"^�eir....S3'r,,:.r�S'>�a-�<.w...azFea''?�^:``=�.;iv.=R'�--?:zi•§5�...a,:&,«„+.:+r..,aM1ste-;a»:r.a.a.-.nSt r....,`?'t«.<.i-a,"�i.:,:rYi.'`a�'sy,.t.,`.`v'.>e x•{+xc.n .�:,E.r+--^•y,:r..x _ z,y.-. :gy,•> n,ym« ,�,":z: <:-, v .x. .�,,,,.... �>'.,r s;".. _ ., ,. ....i"..n, <a., > ; ,.: ...f ,.... ,ytr•::.<.-<a�;. ...^,--:,e,:°',::,t,:,'Y«, w<;i E:.';`i^,.<;C3�d.'Yaa .�'. 15„7A- .i,., ,••`:T'.,`P,'t, .a...<n-,<,41':r`. -..., .;;. ... �,..i•,<..t.r,„•r6 :.5.; nJ,((_:,..,: ,>..:,.., re'°✓i::s�'._.., 4•.,< ;,itJ.. _ �'.�,+$, AL E,4-�' '-.:^`'�-li� �'N' `„-�+,,4va>! �e it x4� +oA_, ;i i •,,!3 �? `^ k'•t"' :'N• FL 'is;.,:...,a.,..<.r,�,4s;'£;.'..._.w...�a.:��:...-:fr!ri;:'d;ark:�a...,,�:`.rF.•:.'".<..uµ..<:if':a:.:;m?isid:ea.:..,.,.e,..�:-*�`'.c'<:,.eaa:r`d,.....,x:t:,r,.,....A,..�.:o:.,':ia«r�?.x��..�"�••::G��.;.a:9.a,.5»v.:>4�+s`:,,.,:em:a::ic,z�.,,....:2r:>;�vr t^-a.„•.�,...e,aaekNe.:,:,�sr.,�.u''aci�.,=ts;.�a.^>.':�<..�w:�",mx .'�> '�:)G"„mY,,;:C1 C'•;l`,r•5�?'e,tr,y,rn,r )'zr.',='N;",r(.e.r 3^x.�rjs�crxK'.•^sn-�..n .ya.q,'r:• g�p,,,..i 2::..o;ne_ � .m'sL•:�,` <,+n:`-aq?--,n. 'J'Ys^.'v �s.;is "'c-zw':�.rr,' "';:J'v. 2;r;'r.=e ii-- m.r ;:<m �:�t;1`x""ht:t>;>s.•n:.. RIT .,r<;a ( ..^a::: ,.\ � ae•, ,e< -t.a;„:fie�'.....r% ,,.;,, ..£zc `•:4v:5-t^a V`. - 'A.. �"dx;�°t 4:,'.%:;.'+. .t ,d,t'^., � ..i}ag ,3,?�;••y'ti •..n;v%•Fr x,j.. 3_lx ik>:,:.ii5�--:<il:.< Y .':�::sW,wi:.'>�::+;^a.''-,i.:a-;:na„res�c>w,,.>.M.�.r.u_,..�,k°Y3'..kaa.,,.-...,._s?S'<a£5.'4,x::e,3._ah-,....w..tt„:u"✓�..<5-.-.._r.:s.�.a�+vra..i..,'vet�:•--.-�k�.v^._::tis,L>a<r..:avai,< �:t%+xxi:z.<.ta':'S...,»+,....S,rr...,,.+�:.:v^::;H:i:<-�:e.-,w_sh,.<a,;.<,°.>...,aC.a:»<,. ,.."c;r..e',:�r.":°G�; sk.� .57Z40-•-s>: :e^ ,f•'".= ..'R:ar<. '<;'n •.>a`_^-- `{Tyti73.'u^17,4 5,T,::';r-;v�-:;"t7:*,vv:f7M t"°44 ., . ::,7,0,a:y7• :,a�",vxw.<:... �-a,t+"z[�c�-•:'- ,:>-,:-.r-+. �`_`.��`�._ :.w<,�°,,,ez:: >1;., .'^,Ted >`�i2,t'•?.. °+ar`•. :C", 3,�., i�'�., X`"-. ...`:��£•>- ,<t,LT "T-a:,_ .:x. _`i�i :'--v:'tk,Y,":.< _,v?,''§''^�'Ai^;.<`�.:. <;-, �..,, %�-�d�'.^�� .ttr� Fes. ;"�:'.��` ,t.�urTlns da" 6._ .4.b'f. :� ,k,.'- _.4..-F, r1 tiiR?"-„y ^„�''>r.{.:�`F,��GS''•< "''3'�. ::iil�:`�' yN.rvn, t`t, `+. "'f i^ €.v,k., T' hs y: `.:�;...Ry`3 ;fir ✓.ti< r'.:.:.z,.,�,`?>i'v2�.'.v,:� 3:>:uo�``-�.'?.w�.��ce =�"S;:vr,.sir'i`3.v"..:.`d'a�.:z�=':-`�=iaa:.s'�•"�s:-ua�Mi�<rt.«;_'s:m"�.� `"v�'°t $i.ze...ai�t`�:.c:�"s.�1.:t.'`�`� ;Yk�^4^,.'^:;'a.:2..�..".:�:idi'�:�..•:ra:,'::i ti a¢:.<�S'�+Zua`+�.¢.a<,�...:�.iKw.�•<S� ..�<.'i ";L"=r• 'w�'.r'.f"`<'; ^.eC+<a g,.q.< ::h?C="- :vtil=:-`r`.r >,.�-... .Ce ,A,: ,�z,'." :'Y<,'?:•`+T,'_",'+. ,S, �'-S '�E.i•:.°7-+-e^ .<fv ,^.S. !�"..T+a :7'-"u 'gS`',`Vc.'„in3-. 'v',1•x =��°,'\f"',-'°�`,�.;1re>. �-�s t.-fa'•"-r"� .tC�r",�,..t1. <n)t,+`h ('k'^ .@.�yi'e'"<:' :.%$. <U'" ^J.. >'C-ft'. „4. .,. l"t ,"'x, *h'�t''ft'+,.•'.�".. ..''iY•t. ,.>n •'9;',4.."� •�.,.�^; ,h. :.1i.. •ve .v;.^,F,=% r;�P., ..v.��,<4x .4:;-,+;.,,:w:- ,vn4`.f. °.'k•• .V Nl 4;'• .,1.,< <'2�.:" 3....Y- ^��"�i' M.`":r q� V s' ,3.,at.+�'-:v �, ur�°r,-^:•ie+. ;q. ''`:�.� ''fir_. ,tn;v' ":`v..• :.�,�, "Y?'"''<'= .;� ,.Gx, rev�• �t a t s `:s-s ..�tz. w:� •r�, r,l++�; �• "*�:. ,•k..,r,,a •� _� _^� ' ':t.. z-�•�r` + .`� ...a: *x-�`+�.:.a��§'"�s�9a..::t�-..a::a,a,.>rta:.,:°.^..�x,r�..K:;ts�%�z;'v?' :a�:�•2W:;:ac ?t` �'iFP^2L�'`. ��+ ' v 4 ,a�..'wx•. '�' i�ts;�^_•.x• .;.;�':'�s� �S`Rx".=,ra�, -<��':,;�<=s.x } "»3.��` ">rs+�:�'.sr•°atmvw'• e aGz�1'r"4:•.a�:w<t• ozr•+;,�-,'-;•as',m,-• wX• .r•,?"<•m,.•a;a:n a r R:,roiG - h,mar;+ .r.eff4'tr�^ss:.'•�T,L eM°Ev. «t q,*,>ry ;cs>,z; <i,cp•<,:^,< a-'x•T':",."kt','>;•°'+�',";"',y"'£'oo"z%' , .. ..t? .;`,zl ,,^a, s,a, r..'3;:;_ frog ;,<.,ar '•': -.r<.. ,:: :'-' .. .Y'Tdl 2:,.<_ ',< ".rx'":z:R•',-'."-� '8z+"=�': ', ,+ff"T. a.�?.. °:� kit^-' �,§3 �,�.y,. ,��•< ::t� of rd., ��`i• . <§s:• '«,t. .-� s �' ,r,-. G2Y,�.��kk �ra•" }, �a�: <�. ..-'kF�`•-t:,e,F))��`:.. °:£t$'x;;,• rr'•'#' 3v`�"i� 4�>"c'.:t'r r.' °w•� �xt:;� v�r,.:n.,`2*�t.,.< "'�"�•-.b. ,�yy°w,<.•r,,.., t � iY.�"; N"• �°> � .r, ,.:�aY'gf'.� T.,. 1 te°,�. .t. F, "� si ,.% �'`��,.r�,"`'YF 2R21,,} ,� �• wr .t�.� >�:,, t. ;fit<> �<.>"5 � ti:' V •��dr��,+'a ..<.,:, zr;•�a1,, s,. .,, :.e. t : ..�r�a � �. >h r�r••t°a,. "�r>;v"':t,:<.;;•,.'.r..., �a a :,<.g �1r u :'s�' ''" -i'• �3. ,::. r• .,... r .a- .. *"',. � a'�.z,,,,�., ..a,w<.,�,..•�_.'+,�;r::�.s:ts�-..m.4 ��h,:�,w+-�;��a:t;sa>.. �'b&.v -v:+�':37Y-:,A," m;"�' „Yv'< ^,,t:4V'. ^Y+„%"'it•. :<:�n P„3:'+:";YO'd^' Y'x�u' •,v.G- 3-: mt-ak".. ._.`X`�+. '<-`kt s+•E,;.• _�,,., .:C""3 hn�t.,Y=Y.." .S'., ,e`�:"i?"' rRs t.`l p, :F;° 'kd+"r .;<k�'::`�'S�'�,!,".SR: %5N�+},. •_:S :�. .r=' .+>,_-<+t,._. °.�§:<.<�.. .'y^I,.-,,, ,<�_ '�'a��a,'`4n. 'L�„ k�i:�:.<.+-�•.. y .,.r-F"s t:.X.-..-.`�;�'R is,�f�' ..� +..•l- .bo=r -.z•Ef,� a.�U:`'t'ice`::.^. a�, n.E`:`� .».:�., ..5\ --'E'. -f..>�'.fi•a. -•k.:: •'l,',s ,e,3�=�°F '�"r°.�. >'!'°�„u. :','t'w^ .?,'`3:' ..'f,m �;Y.a.bw;>..�;''• . ,n.. v ,, ,,� ;`w•n' . ,: .;,'k" .,4q •,RR" -i`•-,Su�(.'S` '� M r -'&a° 2,,�, ,?'> r%:. ��..J>,.l"Fn' ,M M.^, L a o`C� r!^ :,r.. +�s... .k tsa rs-s c^, ar•N �h .ro.x .`Y.{,ray" e� :wwik;.,:. ,p„ :=.�- ."'�.�+�.,:x,-,-.n.�x�aa,ilt,.-.^'.s��.-M�^i:&,.:<r`'.-..t..s`'"+<:s�a4„v'�<v.'p,:�:..�.,.W,' �'�<.r.,,x:.ii'a`N'."d>,...M �.,��:3�>ate.'.,vr:.aa.�:`.:.b.•�.;":�*".�`�.A''�>'�'�',-:s»d».9.w •°�;:'s�.,�::,Kai`x`sE>a«..:.:.<„..W:"�s.:.�w�...,,,.�;+es:�<..c.A.�a� ^,?<r't7"�''4 v'g�, zx,'c.,s;:°&:2`?" :<:ec -w°.A,.0 s';ar<<;�^. "s �g?a: �: N x Y:? '�<�,•'�.'a"'' ,�xa,• .° ;t. °� ';<.-`. ` .1735a-.. ;,e°ie'sx ., `-:.. .l`"`.a;,.�axi;;?;Sc'.°`i..vc „-,,r .;^-{-uskT'",s ttli;'';ynso'Cr,.., s'"r.R`;:'•�T:-' :�',..a:`a''-5<r't.r.'cg,�'rxYu<s•t".t_7).�_ .m. t.. <.o< r-<u.. ,.., w+"',•r..�.++.�x�s .:'A3.`.' a-',v.-.'a .�..xt.,: ,A•'>t;�:�`.c �h.e^< a..e... .t -�:., e;5'�...E,.". ��•..R'$� vt+b., �+,..,r. S`s.'::�;.': ::>�2>., •.r' r s :3. ,3'" .:•r''tsc`` x�:t: a-• ;°$.'< X ,;y 'fi 2 F,`�^.e'� ,.� , ` fir- � t*,. .�;' '<x '- :b. ,J? s ..;c>rSx�.,�>t£.re;,,,.-., +.:+<'.:_�,' �,,, ,r ra'�;r t '' .s< a.,�...<b� rF�,"•7,<%+°<`-•, ;'' -":€'�`� r;3z•r,. :y^.,. '��.` -�.�,:;.S,t", P� 4�'� ,a�,.+„e � .'.�soS�aD`i reW.`k:�:Xi?s'::d:.5`a�`>:':`�'&�'a�":,:::�'i2}rd''a::s:>:LS:.karv�'f:��i.'>'sr''v�+.?',%-;i�:�:-�k:k'N•s:�'::�+:+vax�it'C•4� e,^� �� " " ':�;d<�•;:<.,^��'�•`+k,.r'•°"Sv�s`�2;'.'^s:3w�..�C•.''.&i�:v� mi^i,�+,`� s•9' 1�7`,,�@- �� ..yam;-, ilri+°'{_ .7.13 ,ya..�,>sF;e;+,-. ,�yz„r ,»cryx,s. .'r.�^. 'zs..<,3. ••.4v`v e 'l s:`;n�m{- R%•vtF^•.n•' rs;'+'.:�"xZ,"'° - '•-` <ta:.z-,.� :�,s � r'�t'e.' :'F t'LY:S. ....it=- 2'#tc :.E, 'S' r,e, a a ro "'^`• •:: , a.t•. �r u'`?>�'`:: +:;,.a-,a'a_ 's�"�:',,�`'� �"off^ _curs,•e -�'�`' m.+, a5.+v?• '�iF:":'�-^^'��'=;, ,,.,. ter. S�. ':�>ayt'•'d?'" G."`;7i4 Abi^_;¢ < :,f.6., x`"�,,f': ".C+;, r.r+;, i'v.Y...'�j M3 `e,+` _ ^•:F'Oif.,y,e�; .. :a •^.{. Y,,.S,.,-.. '2'2T'``� v•: e. :.:-; 'ta°°' 'a" i ':44 y,. •<r � ' :•,,.;;e<!:,f .> � •• •''v' '' *.a }; 'S f�3v ~ Sr4:�E'� 'a ">:,�-*" t � `i`' ' -`"=a,-rv, ,r<,'x w ,^.<,eaK.,,'�. .,rrk i;�, .��t"`'�„..., �°�'v •;• "��:.:";°'`,=:'i.<%:.'"•<%-'��Cii:":�4'dgS`p{ ,h=.>.`�`S.f'.,, •P^x"��>"'tt.ai• -`,-'C,•c`c^Yn.£S-. .:,.- ,,. •2:, q '3,':F.> )1.+.. F �} '„,k�-°.><<: �.s"',., �,_..e..,,.•, � `f�*.a'�J,e SUBTOTAL 270.92 BILL TO: TAX 0.00 FREIGHT 0.00 TOTAL 270.92 �{;:• y2�.:'`C, 'd'„- :.y<,.w..cf'^<"'ca,;,•:�t'a-% a..y,: d: -�C,e"" r' .p.:..".�,GSC•:':w.:%L°z :9 ke, a,eb'„ .:.;�+;:;,rr... v k,F id'' , ,.« °`:rr; y<-:..<.;t.;y` ;., •:�,`..,��,::i �'•>aa;`£az'»:._r y=,,` 3`',�r o ".:;c r:i;,';:.<,p �4 > •, ":Fa :;:sz� `"d` or';"``.^" ."::"< '.°+� ,�•.,,�°.:. Wit• a- +•x�`,•.a t., a=',., oi�-�1t`li�ibet.,v. ��rr�.,. :��<. ��:�;�„��- ;', VY.or �brc�dr,.+1~unetio u 'be,K��, �'"`��:;.� '� :�,.�>��.,.., .,-,.< .��.-,„„y^.._.... .> .>...h.,...arh3�:'.;.F,r'^.:':e��'�-.'E.s,...,?5':�+M.. ,�a„•...."..�«4..,,., r<n�....�,.t.,.a..v r..,�:a�.".a.....^,, t�.5.,.a4. _..M`l.":t,.+�i�,,.;...,.�.r,�-'<L-�.a� E 127.000000.004.5710.0010.48.000000 270.92 01,11.,0 Authorized Signature Authorized �� PLEASE REMIT TO: , 8 } i INVOICE T RO E COMMUNICATIONS, INC. f Audo•Video•Sales•Design-Service-Installation NO. 758193 4830 S.38TH STREET Date 01/06/2003 PHOENIX,ARIZONA 85040 Page ' 1' (602)437-7240 1-800-352-7912 FAX 0 . Custoer 1p�OFNRENTON Irendot 0829 79 TIN if 86-0716'114. .. . ' G' m Sold To: Ship To: . JAN 1 0 2003 ?ar/27,000000. 9Ot{ 5710.001D,/1,00000 0 CITY OF RENTON .6 � CITY OF RENTON C IT1'CLERK S OFFICE 1055 S. GRADY WAY 0.' 1055 S. GRADY WAY . • RENTON WA 98055-3232 • RENTON WA 98055-3232 YO ' /Z/dwo zo 9. �r::>;:»::>::»>:: ....:,::>:«::;:»::>:<>:<:»>:�:�>:<:»::>::»::>::»»> .. :.:•;:.:;.;:.;:.;:.;;:::;•;:.;:.;: , ,. ::»»>::>:>:::::: ontrol: t1`s::::;?::>::::::>:>:Drile ::nafe:;:`::::t>usfaml P.O...TJ Sa es..:........ ::.�::::::::.�;1E_;rrms:: :::: :•:::: :•:: :::: �>,jp;:v.ra :::.:.:::.::::......fSat�•;&htppeid......:.:::. �..........:N............. ..... :•.::::...................... Net 30 .DROP SHIP 01/06/2003 267490 MAZ - 12/18/2002 12/0000178 4605 ::>�>:::�>:«::••::.m:�•.::.• :�•:<:>::::>:»::>:>::::::;::: :::>:::::>::>::::::::::::::::>::::>::::>::>:«:::Descri'::�inri<:>::::::::::>::::>;::::»::>:::<!:::i:::::>:««:::;:z:s:i>:<: .. '`_'aprice.per:111:ii!ig#> ma t AVA EIK6102907698 LAMP REPLACEMENT FOR EIKI 1 1 0 249.00 249.00 . LCX1U OR SANYO • RECEIVE® JAN 1 0 2003 City of ROM:0 • ACC0Utda • MEMO: • AIVIOUITT:i:iiiiiii:i:iiii 249.00 CONDITIONS OF SALE . . All claims arising out of or connected with the AFinance Charge at the periodic rate of. E :' f (::: 21.92 above listed items must be made within five days 1 1/2% with an Annual Percentage Rate after delivery. No returns'accepted unless • of 18% will be charged on.all accounts accompanied by this document. Merchandise returned unpaid after the last day of the for credit shall be subject to 25% handling following month. ::iEREIOITIRMilli IllgaMIIR charges. Seller reserves title to these goods until paid for in full. This invoice is due on or before 02/05/2003 .:'AIiUN 270.92 PLEASE REFERENCE THIS INVOICE NO. 758193 ON YOUR REMITTANCE PLEASE REMIT TO: TRQ E COMMUNICATIONS. INC. • Audio-Video-Sales-Design-Service-Installation No. 758193 4830 S.38TH STREET Date 01/06/2003 PHOENIX,ARIZONA 85040 Page 1 (602)437-7240 1-800-352-7912 FAX(602)437-7265 Customer 21416 N TIN #86-071 61 14 Sold To: Ship To: CITY OF RENTON CITY OF RENTON 1055 S. GRADY WAY 1055 S. GRADY WAY RENTON WA 98055-3232 RENTON WA 98055-3232 ::::;::;::;:: •:::::.�:::.:�:::.::•.�:;.:;.;:.;;:.;:•:.;:•:�•:.;:-;;;;;;::.::.::-;;::;:�is�>:;:::>;:::::::;;:>��;<:::>:::;z:::>:.:>::.::::::>:s>:;;::;<::?�::;::.;:;::'::`�:;>•:;>:::::::::::;::::»::::::;::»::<:>::>::;>::>:.`::.;::.::::.`::.:»::>::;::;;�:::::�:.:;::::::::�::fi;<:;::;::i ..............8hi-:.'Via<:::<:::::':>::::>�:»>::>::::>::::::....... :<:<::.::>::>::>;::>:: ;•:>:<:>::»>:::<:::»: »>:<:;::>: ;:.::...:.:. ;;:.;:.>;;;_;:.:: :.;:;;:;•;;:.;::::�<>:<:::>z...:.............::::.::::::::.:::::::::.:.....................p....................::.:.:.:::.:.....Date.SFtiPPetT.....;:::::::::Controll!la,.::::::::.:.....�rsler:::Date........Customer..F�.b.:�la.:: :.;::.::;:.:Sales;:.;:;:.::•:;; Net 30 DROP SHIP 01/06/2003 267490 MAZ 12/18/2002• 12/0000178 4605 n?..er... Dsc�lp�tion.........:.::::.:.::.::.::.;:.;:...:..:.....:.:.... . drdered.......Shp . .ed..........B/Q..........::.;;:;.;:pr..�celPet:•;:.;:.::.;:::Sxt::llmount:;•>::. AVA EIK6102907698 LAMP REPLACEMENT FOR EIKI 1 1 0 249.00 249.00 LCX1U OR SANYO • • MEMO: • CONDITIONS OF SALE • 249.00 iMMEINgign ANI °U.NT':. €i> All claims arising out of or connected with the AFinance Charge at the periodic rate of above listed items must be made within five days 1 1/2% with an Annual Percentage Rate after delivery. No returns accepted unless of 18% will be charged on all accounts accompanied by this document. Merchandise returned unpaid after the last day of the for credit shall be subject to 25% handling following month. � � #<<>:'•> charges. Seller reserves title to these goods until paid for in full. This invoice is due on or before 02/05/2003 1M'3T 270.92 < >> PLEASE REFERENCE THIS INVOICE NO. 758193 ON YOUR REMITTANCE >' > Page 1 1 TY 0 � � CITY OF RENTON + + 1055 S. GRADY WAY - Nrco� RENTON, WA 98055 8/27/2003 12/0000376 , VENDOR: 007201 SHIP TO: B&H PHOTO VIDEO 420 9TH AVE NEW YORK, NY 10001 FOB Point: Req.No.: Terms: net term Dept.: FINANCE DEPARTMENT Req.Del.Date: Contact: LOMBARD, SUZANN Pre-Assigned PO#?: Yes Special Inst: fact' O.V an f �'� tl n ' ' Unit • 2 SONY HEADPHONES-INV,#101054390 94.85 ,r. ''v%a".' ,?-.,,,hrx•.w.<✓< .,»,>,b.w.+..,5.+-wSa.,e..,<a<.._mr>,..,{.a u,. +-w»bci.» ,a ..r.":,S;i:t<xc,t .:£t�:✓..::.:'1.4X:''' < ._ ,rw.»_ >:.�",.>::.'ii�'A<"::"dt ri<L-.aw•.>...xah, .,,. <v..,,,v.«...n.,-. .,xi'.`,J,'.'�:ti:...w.t ,rKl '.:5.' !l:x. ^6R"� `,`W>-..,, r..y,„ ..tt <.r "«l�.» �;},M .<-...y..w•, { . ik"�:'(:�t:;=;, s:%C::•r r.k<_=:�.��.,.,:..•r:' :.<5.;, .:.'�r ✓.e�,:.-»•,.:..te.:..%:`'...,a:.:<':M.»i.','.:':%':.,...s......t«»<..w..,,..,t,,.c.<,__.».-».-.,..,_,.. •.1`'ru w... �„��.'i':::....::.-z':'.>c.l i�(<S5»..».z.z.....,<,....a,,.»...._.,_.»,a.•,....._x...»-..ar...__^.....w.z.,,..<.,..... .,,<........,,_...... ,.-..e....0 xn•,-;xir��+-.a<....b-R}tv:„✓»..r„2(rt.;.......,..,.n.r^-,..,,».>v;<...-t,-"ir,.:.4-_.,..,� *�,/M. _ <:,'!.� _ .fi.,p.:�,`F.: ";i.°;r'ry;"u .;r°%ri .-h:t-,--,- :>•".".'S='TiF.: _ "�". <a. _.,�.._.,.::.{(.3!-,»..._.«.,..a`.�:.si.'�«.� _....�..«.-.«,-...::"�L`wc�..a:.,_..,....,.,.__x;:a;.:�<_.<.�.........«..,,.»t<<_.__w....._,..._....-...->..w>.>„^._v-.,_..,:..x> ..»u.�z'.'•:�Y i..<,.,.......," >s{^, .>t°., wkx"<.< >.'l,-;' S•,ry+;,i. ....{•, - rv:,Y}^ - Y';'y.�i...:;-yr+,w':aa.�.a..�..:-.. _ rT •i, ._. ,,,m. a i .-»r .�<w+.. __,... ....n rv...n.»_..»."F(.'« _v.w„'a...._.w,maa.e:..,n.aa.»..",..a._...,n.»e...-w+.-....-t.n .ze...a-. S;.'�,(±_:• u to...;....,y. .<„tti: ...<.5>«,•: .:y :....-....T»......,.�.r,,,..,.•...r:>:r<•^ ;,FS•rt a.sq,.., ,....>�.,; tr...�sr`r>r».<,...r.,.a,'..>'.s...:,......:..:,. .<... r>;:;-,„64:..<„_..�.,a_.,,.._r....x..�..._.,..,..--.._.,w»rr..,.,,.,._.....=3..,.<•�,_.:..,....«,..,«)�.,.y.,..a�,«,.�.>,.._,,.,.,+.»..,».«,«.,.., w-w,,.,t.._s.,..,.a,.. ..�,.,.,, .T., Y -,c;,a.,:fit...,.,, ,,.:..,.,..»,^ ..,,.,,.....,.,.<,>.. ...,, <,.>....,..»..,,. ...,... ..>:..<. .3zz). ..r»<..,:.w.,t:'..,...aa... :,.« 'i�N' ..;Y..��:<,,.:.:.;,i.:.�`,».%:<.:..:.•.e.:;3:';<.r..:.�s.-:;¢�-i.•;,,,,...,.:.k".Go-.,.._.•..,.W... ,.c...,..<..».<.a,,..:a.... ...., M1: Y .. < «., a....... ,. ........ .. .... _ .s�.>,;,.-,:l"391,^•;�• `:F'! i:S e.. 'i?'.a•Y::N:'<::.:::-,.,,. G -Y.. ...,<. :..-.... .a.,, < ...,...<,..>. >:.,....,..,.....,,._...,..... ..........www.«w.b-,.....,_...•.,v.,a..._.t.,s,.,:<.£.s,.xl._>.,.r..<..;t:�:•.'v.:....,.w:`kit,;..<,...<,-.....,...._o::[.�....,e'z,'ws�..,.r:,i:=:,,.r,,.wvmw:'a`::�;.;::t:.3 i,..,o.'.:.::.;ti':.i.':.it%:,,-ati:.«,>.-,< ,.�.,,..,r�.»,t.,..,.;,.,y-•.. .r;rtr:..:-Y:+`„':.:<:,.,>, ..,Yn,....,_-.:r.;....,,_.�m;,.,...,m,;_..4,(.>e.. _ F4„ Y > .t`,,. ., .. < :p:",...�m;%:'�."�,,.,v.<�e;><ev,a::.........:.'v`n,.,..-<.,•_.._tF..v;,.r,,�.�: .;.p;,..:9.. ._.,�,,,,:tp;,<.. ,`„`:l: t;Y•. ax. P' "a SF- tFi; _s.n <S.v,�:ki .......,...«,«,-,»:?A�.�..,,.ie,_,...,.».»..,w. _'-'.rve3<'•: F» ,..,.. - �rS,:^: >`'l t._ ._'r4.'. , e ..-,.. w.^:',`S;>�:titer` ,,..«�'ta•� 3wv.,. .,aw >.a,. «. .««, a, _. - v .. _« ,..a .-.,, v. • a an<+w.. , Wan+" .S.<-tom`•::'"n- A a.<.a«.o .,m ,.•+.+ .}..: ., 4'-:'9:.!e.r., ..> .-x«.`s!.>:.,..,.....,,...«....<».,t,,.-.u5_....�,..t:.<�,..✓�.>. H->,::;14c-.'r..,.<»..-..-ci:£,:°i.<zw<..�'.',%"4,,.<..ii�zi"ti�.�.:,..-4;:�:t::`�vwa.:'biF�,'<.nu::s"."afL_x�.w.<,...,,,.w:z_,:.,�._<.....•,,.,,.,.,•.mw.:- ,....».�«.>.,. ...:.;.;L+,:, �ps< ,•<'� FT' .`�t:;",.:! -T-Yr>i„av,.dv <„�.+i.a«,«sa;ac N-m rr« +„ww,;-,4.'rrr-+ >i< r5' <-zt.K..>,.<-.�-:..:...< ,: -,.:,-:.....s < ,,,s.:,,.- ;'<..,t: :_y°:;:C �' ::tk:,-;:::<'t%v�.`•:� z r=,.-r'='.�:" ...5.. •:?r,::'i.t..��..a,Ca:-s.,-,_._.»»_.m. �,,:>•.,».._. .,.....<.,,..,a<:xM... ..,,e....t„__.»,»..=`E'� .,... „..;�. _ ,•s..,,r ._ ,,.o_ 'ti:%:.:i>�.,_,..».. ..a, ,.:,:,�.-.. .,. ,.......�.. ..a,., -.: .., s:.. -.:a. -.,- "sn.i•R:. >ac-n--F. =-v>;-^.z`.r .i 7 :}r, Z• f% Y . l:-k'' -A. •h. ^�C.. gat^: �'Y:s` yyaa ;'a::'.. ., <w,"=:<iz'"',:•<...>;:a''`s,^.<. ....<.�',t;•:a:✓..e,w.. ..a�::w.:.,>..,.,�v.`.ti.6'a'w.un,.,,.,:n�:a2::'sa^,s..;,.,i;:,i'uv;".:t<�zi%;'ri`�,.�,'ra":.,.w��Fi«•.w'`.�'a.:;..':.�..«t»;'.',.a:.;✓...,:niewrb.�.:-�'::.'-)<..",•,.�io;.;: �:<: �.=�.4H.,w_..<.:. < r�k•.;w.,, _...�<w.r'•-;:.v:».,...,..,,,..,+.,,..._.v,.s.,:'"^::,,,sa;.•.tt.;. .,. :gYx `..t: <;.Z�. .rr'b:'a' r-.,,qfa«,atw,..%, „-ni., y'i)y.w; •C, 7 • - fif .> _Lt_'y" _ 7F'-A :T'3:T.+t-.4•C.nr,.,,,F„S-n - C.,^-F,�K'<".!s3:=:= • _ .�v %'r Nh '✓, ':ixfv<,v ,vi�i::,e '`"n :3'''�uz' ,! ,'�:, z,s,:v.".tw'»%,n'a'Y,^.L,...}•":.:'.'vk' :. a .SRF: '<..:a.»C'.w:,...<..<.,..,..>.4'.:vR.. .t.,�i,; .y ...:.;,: '..., "x:^ .,x*.w w.m>..;:,y ,.ti- - ,:rn;••..,. .:'.r.^'rx«r>»-.:,^a'w~':� wrrr,'% *<,•ry..'w- ��w .3:' �is: z'd-ems•: >.F,*'<-': ., ,r. £-<,: "`F<.ts h;.. .A;. ..,a:; "v v, s•'�':a.;._"",�,,e - a"J'»-i:^!;'Si: :`.i':.. ":=Y%t;� :�.'.�"+r�'i:h-. `v �3 -r ✓y- ita. tea#'„r ,�%<'.:, =•c" �r�`%a`�^, >r ,. �r -t'. x,�. ......-. ="5, ,. iF' ":2,...5~^e`°. �.%i.i�:, .xi.;£ t�<.s, •-�' s. �w.x„_�. . -s. . SUBTOTAL 94.85 BILL TO: TAX 0.00 FREIGHT 0.00 TOTAL 94.85 <L<: 9' +:twF tip'•(. cc. unC'Nu he �` :ifliork°Dr"ierF'�,"♦fnc iort�t�umfie�`'-:-::.:.. '--f�« .�: E 127.000000.004.5710.0010.31.000000 94.85 Authorized Signature Authorized Signature 42U Ntn~t1 Avenue, New York, NY 1UVUI • Fax: 212.23Y.7770 •• DIGITAL PRO p:} 1-212 444-6600 PHOTO 1-212 444-6700 _, 1-2 444-5000 A�o�o 1-212 444.5070 hw 1-800 947-9950 !j. 1-800 947 9978 1-800 947-9910 •'.;, 1-800 947-1183 PHOTO-VIDEO-PRO AUDIO To Inquire About Your Order Tel:212.239.7765 - 800.221.5743 • Fax:212.239.7549-800.947.2215 The,Prefessioiref ource'" www.bhphotovideo.com �Q 0-166043"7( CITY OF RENTON Invoice No.: 101054390- 1218954 Ve �� -t1. D 072- I A U Z 52003 Sold To: ip T t' CITY OF RENTON RECEIVED /CITY OF RENTON Accounts Payable CITY CLERKS Of FICE `` ,,11055 S GRADY WAY 1055 S GRADY WAY a =;. V 7TH FL CITY CLERKS OFFICE RENTON,WA 98055 RENTON,WA 98055. Bill Phone: (425)430-6573 127, 60°. b04, S710. 000/ /, 000000 08/19/03 15416727 30 DAY 08/13/03 120000376 N7 UPS 3 DAY 2 2 SONY MDR-7502 PROF HEADPHONE(SML) SOMDR7502 44.95 89.90 6 RECEIVED Auc 2°5 ?03 City of MntO�e Accounts i a 1a T Sub-Total: 89.90 Discount: Shipping: 4.95 COD Charge: .00 Tax: .00 Total: 94.85 Customer Copy Page 1 Page 1 1 O CITY OF RENTON A OD + 1055 S. GRADY WAY Itigeg.XPATEf.;iN47:A1.4 •ep— RENTON,WA 98055 10/25/2004 12/0000707 - Nrc0 VENDOR: 040001 SHIP TO: JW TEL-TRONICS INC PO BOX 1282 BOTHELL, WA 98041-1282 FOB Point: Req.No.: Terms: due in 30 days Dept.: FINANCE DEPARTMENT Req.Del.Date: Contact: EVANS, DEBBIE Pre-Assigned PO#?: No Special Inst: EQPT SERVICE CALL, INV 104482 1,063.90 rgaUAWTFRT.IZFP71RenT.P1.7PT77F7RgYOSZNOPfZOQWWTT3gaIWTgOgnhgglKn. „ . 12,717,Eil KEEZ rlEgtigg:EEKETE-3.2.EREEET,E';TETEEiEZEIEEFSL:':,SZMM.T,gt';2! RNIR7TT25WFWffWggTi5755,f:Tg755WM57;7MFEO5g7WZNV7E7Z17:iWAWg5gg ,7;'EPAEY-TharEESNEME:7:4 272371M32;7„ MZEZVBWNgilii:;, ..q 2'..77'.P..777"," :77: 70'7.77:":4 1" • 7'•2r e; PLN:, 3027577171ErgaglWER70747107iUgilENTEIWI505.1722V7VUOT.MTZWOU; '' EaRMK7AgAiiltg!WTEgggFJAKN3EFONUROWggWNWAY3WWAMWA19*ZdFi'. WaEOTOEMX5tAWWVVEWWAIWREMT60gWWWXIWAN&EWWRw440& IJg . SUBTOTAL 1,063.90 BILL TO: TAX 0.00 FREIGHT 0.00 TOTAL 1,063.90 E 127.000000.004.5710.0010.48.000000 1,063.90 IhAAA,L11-Thikt2..Guy xSot.frix.x. Zdalt-er• Authorized Signature Authorized Signature P.O.BOX 1282 BOTHELL,WA 98041-12.. PH(425)485-4739 FAX(425)481-0703 6)_k_:#1„ A/ex Invoice JW TEL TRONICS. INC. Date Invoice# OtLd— iai D00000, vb�, MP) i o, 00 O. � 10/4/2004 104482 Bill To 5� 00000 Lori Wood CITY Of RENTO N City of Renton /�/ D 7 o 1055 S Grady Way Pd '`; 8 2004 Renton WA 98055 Vaitifyi, d ya00 RE ;t.:''.t.r'.h P.O. No. Terms Due Date VendorlD# Net 30 11/3/2004 Item Description Amount Service Call 1538 977.85T CHARTER 116, LAWS OF 1965 CITY OF RENTON CERTIFICATION I,THE UNDERSIGNED DO HEREBY CERTIFY UNDER PENAUY OF PERJURY, TI-AT THE MATERIALS HAVE BEEN FURNISHED, THE SERVICES RENDERED OR THE LABOR PERFORMED AS DESCRIBED HEREIN,AND THAT THE CLAIM IS A JUST,DUE AND UNPAID OBLIGA1iON AGAINST THE CITY OF R{NTON,AND THAT I AM AUTHORIZED TO AUTHENTICATE AND CERTIFY TO SAID • 51GNEU Subtotal $977.85 Sales Tax (8.8%) $86.05 Total $1,063.90 Payment is due upon receipt. Unpaid invoices will accrue Payments/Credits $0.00 1.5% interest monthly. We now accept VISA and MASTERCARD. Balance Due $1,063.90 Broadcast Engineering • Design • Support Service Call / Installation City of Renton Invoice #: 104482 1055 S Grady Way Renton,WA 98055 ID #: 1538 Contact: Lori Wood Purchase Order#: Scheduled For: 9/10/2004 3:00:00 PM Symptom: Modify the remote control system for the Eiki video projector in the Chambers. Service: 8-17-04: Provide cabling so the building folks could run the wiring. 9-10-04: I arrived to make the necessary connections on the 10th. Wired and tested system. Disassembled the remote unit that normally resides in the rear control room and cleaned and resoldered the connections for the new cable I had just assembled. Unit works fairly well, but not 100%of the time? Try it this way to see how well it works. Also cleaned VCR-2 and checked its operation. It is handling tape fairly well but it really needs a new cleaning roller. 9-17-04: Returned to look at the system again. Discovered that the flourescents in the Chambers were interfering with the IR transmissions. The more ceiling lights turned on the worse the system would operate. I was able to eliminate the problem by covering an unused IR sensor and repositioning some others. Seems to work very well now. A second problem was that the Edit/record AG 7350 VHS machine is not recording any"Normal" audio on the right channel. Proved that the machine was at fault and removed it to the shop for repairs. The machine was replaced with the adjacent unit and connected to operate properly that way. It played on the air a little while later as programmed. Remarks: Wow, I was about to give up on this crazy system when I finally came up with a solution. 9-10-04: 3:30pm >6:30pm 9-17-04: 4:30pm > 9:00pm LABOR Technician Description Date Hours Hourly Rate Total John Weist 9/10/2004 3 $100.00 $300.00 John Weist 9/17/2004 4.5 $100.00 $450.00 Labor Total: $750.00 PARTS USAGE ID# Qty U/M Description Mfr Part# Freight Unit Cost Total 3938 100j Each Cable,Teflon coated,2 pair 1 82723 $0.00 $0.39 : $39.00 2987 21 Each Mini Plug,1/8"Stereo ;30490 $0.00 $6.93 $13.85 Parts Total: $52.85 SERVICE CHARGES Charge For Description Date Cost Travel Time Delivery of cable 8/17/2004 $25.00 Travel Time 9/10/2004 $75.00 Travel Time j 9/17/2004 $75.00 Service Charges Total: $175.00 Terms: Net 30 Pre-Tax Grand Total: $977.85 DO NOT PAY FROM THIS SHEET • Printed On: 10/5/2004 JW Tel-Tronics Inc. T E L -T R O KICS 18823 Beardslee Blvd. -Bothell, WA (425)485-4739 Page 1 1 -Y 0 0 A (= CITY OF RENTON + + 1055 S. GRADY WAY RENTON, WA 98055 12/3/2004 12/0000749 t- ivrv0 VENDOR: 040001 SHIP TO: JW TEL-TRONICS INC PO BOX 1282 BOTHELL, WA 98041-1282 FOB Point: Req.No.: Terms: due in 30 days Dept.: FINANCE DEPARTMENT Req.Del.Date: Contact: EVANS, DEBBIE Pre-Assigned PO#?: No Special Inst: EQPT REPAIR, INVOICE 104620 284.50 343 77- • 4.; •••, , •;;• 41: 52TO.: 1577 111: 44 :;:! ; 37' -37 : • SUBTOTAL 284.50 BILL TO: TAX 0.00 FREIGHT 0.00 TOTAL 284.50 E 127.000000.004.5710.0010.48.000000 284.50 Authorized Signature Authorized Signature • P.O.BOX 1282 BOTHELL,WA 98041-128c PH(425)485-4739 FAX(425)481-0703 (91- A66) Invoice JW TEL TRONICS, INC. opOOde r7 Date Invoice# 12/1/2004 104620 BID To Lori Wood CITY OF RENTON City of Renton DEC 0 3 200� 1055 S Grady Way Renton WA 98055 RECEIVEp CITY CLERK'S OPFICE • P.O.No. Terms Due Date VendorlD# Net 30 12/31/2004 Item Description Amount Equipment Repair 17702 261.48T CHARTER 116, LAWS OF 1965 CITY OF RENTON CERTiFICATI.ON • I,THE UNDERSIGNED DO HEREBY CERTIFY UND.ER PENALTY OF PERJURRR'Y, THAT THE MATERIALS HAVE BEEN FURNISHED, THE SERVICES RENDERED OR THE LABOR PERFORMED AS DESCRIBED HEREIN,AND THAT THE CLAIM IS A JUST,DUE AND UNPAID OBLIGATION AGAINST THE OTY OF RENTON,AND THAT I AM AUTHORIZED TO AUTHENTICATE AND CERTIFY TO SAID CLAIM, WD Oo 7 5/c� 51GNED, I. a-&-P0 Vttd-j-t- c Li cOo ae-"Ji t 000coo,cioq,S1 k , poi et .'{8, oOe OOc �tD Subtotal $261.48 Sales Tax (8.8%) $23.02 Total $284.50 Payment is due upon receipt. Unpaid invoices will accrue Payments/Credits $0.00 1.5% interest monthly. We now accept VISA and MASTERCARD. Balance Due $284.50 Broadcast Engineering • Design • Support Equipment Repair City of Renton Invoice#: 104620 1055 S Grady Way Repair#: 17702 Renton,WA 98055 Contact: Lori Wood Purchase Order#: Group #: EQUIPMENT INFORMATION Description: VCR, S-VHS ID#: 9125 I Received: 9/20/2004 10:14:31 Completed: 9/29/2004 • Make: Panasonic Model: AG-7750HP Serial: L3TC00215 Operate Hours: Drum Hours: Capstan Hours: Thread Count: Symptom: No audio on channel 2. Normal audio? Service: 9/27/04 Diagnostics indicate this machine needs new pinch roller and cleaning roller. The tape path is very dirty and the machine needs complete tape path cleaning and alignment. Needs new fan (discontinued), need to find a compatible replacement fan. The audio ch-2 problem was caused by an incorrect menu setting,fixed. Estimate$90 diagnostics+$40 parts + $135 labor=$265 total. 9/28/04 Estimate approved, parts ordered. 9/29/04 Pressure cleaned chassis. Installed parts as listed below. Cleaned tape path. Checked and adjusted alignment as needed. Checked functions, ok. LABOR Technician Description _---- Date Hours Hourly Rate Total Dave Pinney Diagnostics 9/27/2004 1 $90.00 . $90.00 Dave Pinney I Repair 9/29/2004 1.5 $90.00 $135.00 Labor Total: $225.00 PARTS USED ID# Qty U/M Description Mfr Part# Freight Unit Cost Total 2154 1 Each Pinch Roller VXL1892 $0.00 $12.92 $12.92 4459 1; Each Cleaning Roller Pad VMT0321 $0.00 $2.61 I $2.61 86171 1 Each Fan 24VDC 1.68W 60X25mm !P9730ND $8.00 $12.95 $20.95 Parts Total: $36.48 Terms: Net.30 Pre-Tax Grand Total: $261.48 DO NOT PAY FROM THIS SHEET Printed On: 12/1/2004 �� ----- -------- JW Tel-Tronics Inc. -------- ------------ T E L -T A O N I C: 18823 Beardslee Blvd.-Bothell, WA (425)485-4739 Page 1 1 YC.) IRet CITY OF RENTON r,giiiic4)?0,00140EVAi. + 1055 S. GRADY WAY 4,4 RENTON,WA 98055 12/3/2004 12/0000750 VENDOR: 040001 SHIP TO: JW TEL-TRONICS INC PO BOX 1282 BOTHELL, WA 98041-1282 FOB Point: Req.No.: Terms: due in 30 days Dept.: FINANCE DEPARTMENT Req.Del.Date: Contact: EVANS, DEBBIE Pre-Assigned PO#?: No Special lnst: WIRELESS MIC INVOICE 104650 543.99 ::,11"?il•Mif.Fift7:40,7:044,416E14KA:4-';•',,,,T1g,". 1.;713-13§,E;7177-!-ZSIFIZaFigfElai'tii ............................................................................................. LiLYJ Sz'f•V•7 •L'iZta•,:•;4'..,,1:1,e1::--g ,,•••.5,v.-,f•:•.- •••••.. ..1.7, ••••>17,7"i>=7: • ,T,7)417,71-7757[;77-Y:7-7-77:ZHF:775:1:7'.)a-,177•"TT',;•17" ;‘, '-'7gr.rif?:.•!,71731•7577S7 ..................... • E.-•,t;gg's T.TY:STEliE31::1;151 wil•rk„TR„7,:••;•-%<•_,,,e„.',7i5.: M<RYS''iMi%•,;3:4r•,-,,,,-,-.:4T.-.FraNs:5Z,:r.;-z,•-;y:•-,..;;;;„;,:; SUBTOTAL 543.99 BILL TO: TAX 0.00 FREIGHT 0.00 TOTAL 543.99 E 127.000000.004.5710.0010.31.000000 543.99 \itteD7trt.a- i. WeLeCox%d Authorized Signature Authorized Signature 3W TEL-TRONICS TEL :425-4L31-U(U.5 uec u,Drug+ P.O.BOX 1282 BOTHELL,WA 98041-1282 PH(425)485-4739 FAX(425)481-0703 C3al Invoice JW TEL TRONICS. INC. aa Date Invoice# 0 00°' 12/3/2004 104650 Bin To o Lori Wood � I0, 0� 0 City of Renton JC 0 n 1055 S Grady Way Renton WA 98055 • • P.O. No. Terms Due Date VendorlD# Net 30 1/2/2005 Item Description Amount Parts Sale 578 499.99T CHARTER 116, LAWS OF 1965 :=i�( OF RENTON CERTiFICAT Ot I,THE UNDERSIGNED DO HEREBY CERTIFY UNDER PF^.:;`•.TY OF KRJURt THAT THE MATERIALS HAVE BEEN FURNISHED, THE SERVICES RENDERED OR THE LABOR PERFORMED AS DESCRIBED HEREIN,AND THAT THE CLAIM IS A JUST,DUE AND UNPAID OBLIGATION AGAINST THE CITY OF RENTON,AND THAT I AM AUTHORIZED TO AUTHENTICATE AND CERTIFY TO SAID CLAM. Pa lal000 7S0 8I Nir0 Vim^- dyodo / 0..066, ode!. $ 7/a. Oc/d,3f, d evade (4A) Subtotal $499.99 Sales Tax (8.8%) $44.00 Total $543.99 Payment is due upon receipt. Unpaid invoices will accrue Payments/Credits $0.00 1.5%interest monthly. We now accept VISA and _-. . ... MASTERCARD. Balance Due $543.99 Broadcast EngInecring • Design • Support kttrienr14+tw**#41400±4*tfthD'!t!9�nk!k?t*Vdt.iHgd]td+t!'! 4."rW'`a'i-ftmcv.r 'reH:‘?.:•_ :t s: . 1.' y'. . .. .. s. J W ILL I I\W I11 l..V I LL YLJ YV l V I V V Ll.l_ V V I VY 1 V 1 J 11U .V VL I .11L Part_Sale City of Renton Invoice #: 104650 1055 S Grady Way Renton,WA 98055 Sale#: 578 Contact: Lori Wood Purchase Order#: Remarks: City of Renton needs a wireless lavalier mic to upgrade system PAR•fS SOLD ID# Qty U/M Description Mfr Part# Freight Unit Cost Total 87181 11 Each ,wireless cardlod lay I EW122P-02 I $0.00 ; $487.99 . $487.99• Parts Total: $487.99 SERVICE CHARGES Charge For Description Date Cost Freight I 112/3/2004 ; $12.00 Service Charges Total: $12.00 r Terme: Net 30 Pre-Tax Grand Total:• $400.09 DO NOT PAY FROM THIS SHEET • T,A , Printed On: 12/3/2004 JW Tel-Tronlcs Inc. r_u_,.T.P O.Ij_I O f 18823 Beardalee Blvd. -Bothell,WA (426)485-4739 Page 1 1 O.ti -Y 0 CITY OF RENTON a az, + 1055 S. GRADY WAY vp RENTON,WA 98055 12/28/2004 12/0000762 Nrv0 VENDOR: 016776 SHIP TO: COLORTRONICS 912 HARVEY RD AUBURN, WA 98002 FOB Point: Req.No.: Terms: net term Dept.: FINANCE DEPARTMENT Req.Del.Date: Contact: EVANS, DEBBIE Pre-Assigned PO#?: No Special lnst: EQPT REPAIR, INV 60622 539.62 Y-T1 • zp,) RE1-13RfZi:' SUBTOTAL 539.62 BILL TO: TAX 0.00 FREIGHT 0.00 TOTAL 539.62 E 127.000000.004.5710.0010.48.000000 539.62 )8eitA4.46-4 Authorized Signature Signature Authorized Signature , ,'LAIOIL- 69 I(tOR277-(a c-.)0 sk)(1fitia_60 �li Invoice Number: 60622 C O L O RT RO N I C THE COMPETENT ONES Date Brought In: 8/20/04 Inv.Cost.ID: (425)430-6573 912 Harvey Road Auburn, WA. 98002 253-833-4030 253-946-1642 425-251-8676 Last Name First Name Home Phone [WOOD LEGAL DEPARTMENT LORI (425)430-6573 Address: City: State: Zip: Bus. Phone 11055 SGRADY WAY RENTON WA 98055 Unit Description of Unit Model Number Serial Number PANASONIC CASSTTE REC D647 F8TRB016 Pur. Date Store City and State Service Contract Provider Contract Number Auth.Number Exp.Date CHARTER 1 i 6. 14w14is OF 1965 F RENTON cER lFIOAI10N Estimate N I, THE UNDERSIGNED DO HEREBY CERTIFY UNDER PENALTY OF PERJUR'f. THAT THE MATFPIAI c HAVE REFII Ct1,7+ ED 1111,,I Tr fuliti ege 'tl1+1IRED OR THE LABOR PER ervices Performed N IBEU HEREIN,AND THAT THE CLAIM IS A J I I IN MECHANISM.REPLACED WAD OBLIGATION AGAINST THE CITY OF RENT MECRAVE PARTS.CHECKED AND ALIGNED I AM AUTHORIZED TO AUTHENTICATE AND�� -CE FAFOR PER OPERATION.CLEANED AND SIGNS Area, j. ,t,ekete"'LUBRICATED. 1 SIGNED. - Qty Part Number Description Each Total j 1 SKX188111 DECK $225.76 $225.76 I 1 SMX188891 LOADER $75.21 $75.21 I 0 $0.00 $0.00 t 0 $0.00 $0.00 [ 0 • $0.00 $0.00 Pick Up Date: 10/28/04 Total Parts: $300.97 Payment Type: Labor: $195.00 Pick Up: $0.00 Delivery: $0.00 OUR"NO-HASSLE"WARRANTY Sub Total: $495.97 Your Unit is Guaranteed for ninety days after pick-up. If further Tax: 0.088 $43.65 • troubles occur,we will repair or replace any parts that we used to - —. make the repair. If the cause of the difficulty is unrelated to the Grand Total: $539.62 original repair,there may be additional parts and/or labor charges. . This warranty does NOT cover incidental or consequential damage, Less Deposit: $0.00 or lighting induced damages. Signed: Amount Due: $539.62 p o 01ato-,a 7 Ca V'c.,t- - oiG7f(o Q `bb" i 7•0000eo. aD y. 5710. oo lv , /2. boo 00 0 -S,rSY 0 0 CITY OF RENTON Page 1 1 + + 1055 S. GRADY WAY RENTON, WA 98055 3/4/2005 12/0000818 VENDOR: 040001 SHIP TO: JW TEL-TRONICS INC PO BOX 1282 BOTHELL,WA 98041-1282 FOB Point: Req.No.: Terms: due in 30 days Dept.: FINANCE DEPARTMENT Req.Del.Date: Contact: EVANS, DEBBIE Pre-Assigned PO#?: No Special Inst: VA:fitg WIRELESS MIC REPAIR, INV 104651._ 24.48 • .•• ...-•• • •• • • 0,3i2Pargi 201:10121M ;5717:3,1117,125i.lIgS.73.i. Cf7;:t:55:707 7V5Vigif; 'Z'7Fi.S'., -1.T..;5•17. IT17d,]..E7FEIT':; -,,,-.7,17i7.7542,Eil2,121-21ii:E..?.if,755'; 2-271.faW7.1f;;,-, . . ••••: 4..k.f:•ACS-2!;i2P•4 ' • • `,;(1t•-•,1:54X.4=..4'.1L7.,..s.",,,,,,-;*• • : . • C3:7":Tt71:‘,&.'41T. • ••• •• • ''''''''rVrP''''''" ?."4:'4114iKZ4f'°!:;7i?^;.°Z:l'M''''.Vi"Z''.;:i;i: ',14'1.1FIVilt"P'',Xfi.i9:43.)-W•Tt•q;;;::g:i5%;•:Zat,n,:77.E:FX,.T t1•;:•::f?:111.X SUBTOTAL 24.48 BILL TO: TAX 0.00 FREIGHT 0.00 TOTAL 24.48 E 127.000000.004.5710.0010.48.000000 24.48 • 114,GC/Ildt tie7t442.(-- ‘e)ete,t,,A-) Authorized Signature Authorized Signature • P.O.BOX 1282 BOTHELL,WA 98041-1282 PH(425)485-4739 FAX(425)481-0703 it".0 /of 6(dit' Invoice Plc / JW TEL-TRONICS, INC. Date Invoice# 12/7/2004 104651 Bill To • • Lori Wood City of Renton 1055 S Grady Way Renton WA 98055 P.O. No. Terms Due Date VendorlD# • . Net 30 1/6/2005 Item Description Amount Equipment Repair 17798 22.50T • • • • • • • CHARTER 1 1 6, I .;:. I 965 OflY OF RENTON ;: .':;;HCATION I,THE UNDERSIGNED DO HERE ENAlly OF PERJURY THAT THE MATERIALS Nc!iNISHED, THE SERVICES RENDERED OR THi. 'PERFORMED AS DESCRIBED HEREIN,AND THAT TF -.:UST,DUE AND ltAID OBLIGATION AGAINST THE;• '';'21-..ON,AND THAT I AM AUTHORIZED TO AUTHENTIC- CERTIFY TO SAID CLQ.4 SIGNED' ....Aftz /,.....W.ateZ&L To 1.4 0000 313 V.4,46-A. glOdd I 1A7. oodooa. owl, Svc). Odic ye. poe00,00 • •VD. Subtotal $22.50 Sales Tax (8.8%) $1.98 Total $24.48 Payment is due upon receipt. Unpaid invoices will accrue Payrnents/Credits $0.00 1.5% interest monthly. We now accept VISA and MASTERCARD. Balance Due $24.48 Broadcast Engineering • Design • Support Equipment Repair • City of Renton Invoice#: 104651 1055 S Grady Way Repair#: 17798 Renton,WA 98055 Contact: Lori Wood Purchase Order#: EQUIPMENT INFORMATION Description: Wireless mic set ID#: 9172 Received: 10/20/2004 9:25:50 Completed: 12/3/2004 Make: Sony Model: WCS-999R Serial: 24260 Operate Hours: Drum Hours: Capstan Hours: Thread Count: Symptom: I believe the problem is interference...a lot of crackling going on...I think"Snap, Crackle &Pop" have a side gig going on! Service: 11/05/04 The mic seems to operate ok here on all three channels. I'll talk to John and ask him to call Lori with suggestions. Remarks: It came with transmitter, receiver, and mic,with an adaptor, all in a Shure black bag. LABOR Technician Description Date Hours Hourly Rate Total Chris 1 Tests 11/5/2004 I 0.251 $90.00 : $22.50 Labor Total: $22.50 Terms: Net 30 Pre-Tax Grand Total: $22.50 DO NOT PAY FROM THIS SHEET Printed On: 12/7/2004 J'tj1J JW Tel-Tronics Inc. T E L -T R O N I C S 18823 Beardslee Blvd. -Bothell,WA (425)485-4739 Page 1 /1 CGti Y get CITY OF REN1 J J 0+ ,y + 1055 S. GRADY WAY DATE PO NUMBER 'OP RENTON, WA 98055 12/12/2005 12/0001025 VENDOR: 043383 SHIP TO: MEDQUIST INC PO BOX 10832 NEWARK, NJ 08193-0832 FOB Point: Req.No.: Terms: net term Dept.: FINANCE DEPARTMENT Req.Del.Date: Contact: SETH,JASON Pre-Assigned PO#?: No Special Inst: Quantity Unit Description Unit Price Ext.Price 4 Microphone Stands 65.28 SUBTOTAL 65.28 BILL TO: TAX 0.00 FREIGHT 0.00 TOTAL 65.28 Account Number Work Order Function Number Amount E 127.000000.004.5710.0010.48.000000 65.28 nnAA 1NVUIIII . IVI ed ui st :::>::>:<: ADDRESS SERVICE REQUESTED 90349663 11/08/2005 5430 METRIC PLACE STE 200 NORCROSS, GA 30092 ..;::=>:pAGE: ;:< :::::; SHIP TO: CITY CLERK DIVISION 1 CITY OF RENTON 1055 S GRADY WAY 7TH FL CITY OF RENTON For Billing inquires Call: 856-206-4884 RENTON WA 98055 O BILL TO: REMIT TO: EJ NOV 1 4 2005 MEDQUIST 47 J�IIIHEEMMEN P.O. Box 10832 / RECEIVED NEWARK NJ 07193-0832 CITY CLERK DIVISION FEIN: 221850433 CITY CLERK'S OFFICE CITY I Y OF RENTON 0 CIJA 1055 S GRADY WAY 7TH FL .....R :. :.......::::::: .i�A(VI t T:i'i RIV:::.A.;.:>;:;:<::::::::::::: RENTON :.................... N WA 980 - 55 3232 Michelle Net due in 30 days .. r .:'•:;r::2;: ':< : ' �� : ` inii::i:giiii iiiii::::`?Y::::'; ::5::'i'::::'::::i':c��:::'':: :>;Mini:::::: ::: ::::::::::;:<;: :::::?::::::: :''':'::: : :2`' : ::';::: ::::::y:±:::':;:: ::is iiL:::::::::::f :::iR y ::: ::;i„,.. ::::::'::':::: ::::::<::. ::>;>iVir4T 6IMP".:. ::.::............ .iMMIERED air.::::.: .::.:....... ...:.........::;. . .:; .:.:. : i:iii:::::::.. ...........::S. : : .::. .:. : ::::::.�.. ............ .;:.;:<: :::;. 0001452336 UPS Ground 5 Days 0000288973 0080163402 :s:::':'.O.P ri'IE':Y::':::::>:::•>::::::::::>:::::::::::<:::::::::>::»::::::>?>::>:s::>::>MATERIAi••:: :;::>:ITEM.. ::::::::::::.;:.;.:..........SHIFREOEM :::::::::::::::::::.:,..::. .. :. ::.::.::::. . :................................. :: ...... IS#11. F.....IE............:: MQIt:.;:.;>:..;.> Order through our On-line store at www.medquist.com. Thanks,1or choosing„;_Medquist Elea"se`:;Murray {' i 866.54'2'-7253 ext, 30:60 •'s<: u'J 6.4-2122 zt;°:,. :::°; -°:�.5...00!°�,'. "it i'4.:000 EA}' UN:I'r;&::0MINI MICROPHONE STAND `0.' ,:w�"i. ~fr` •� ..:1 .: q 1 EA 60.00 _„1: ..x. r`.,` Statce'=Sales;•T+ax a:.' Y.,;: ';f� -1- �;�•: City`Sales Tax 1,14 1�� r,. _-r, r`:< .0the:r.:Sale `s, `• 0.24 t i ,.,.+�,af . -:.=. , °- eta .>.r ��'.;.!^: ,.. .. TOTAiz`:AMOUH==T"`: „>air`'--`� 6...., 65.28 • CHARIER 116, LAWS OF 1965 PO I aoo£,t CITY OF RENTON CERTIFICATION UE/LI i>o 2 a tii 3?Y3 I,THE UNDERSIGNED IsO HEREBY CERTIFY UNDER PENALTY ?f ��v�� OF PERJURY,THAT THE MATERIALS HAVE BEEN FURNISHED, 4,ex;r: I,Z7 r 0000,00 ®D 4 ` 57 LD' De) 0` ` THE SERVICES RENDERED OR THE LABOR PERFORMED AS DESCRIBED HEREIN,AND THAT THE CLAIM IS JUST,DUE AND i k j>A, '/ UNPAID OBLIGATION AGAINST THE CITY OF RENTON,AND THAI AM AUTHORIZED TO AUTHENTICATE AND CERTIFY TO SAID CLAIM. SIGNIsD' '.V.". .. . 21 DETACH AND RETURN THIS PORTION WITH PAYMENT THANK YOU! CUSTOMER NAME : CITY OF RENTON To pay by credit card, please enter the information below ACCOUNT NUMBER: 0001452336 ❑ CHECK ❑ I':.�`®.� ❑ Eaz L PLEASE CHECK IF CHANGE OF ADDRESS,INDICATE CORRECT ADDRESS ON REVERSE SIDE t Make Checks Payable To: Number Expiration Date: Signature DUE DATE 12/08/2005 MEDQUIST INVOICE NUMBER 90349663 PO BOX 10832 NEWARK NJ 07193-0832 PAY THIS AMOUNT 65.28 IIIItl1..h.JIIJ,n,IIlIIlIIl,In lludltI,IlII AFTER / , PAY • AMOUNT PAID 02.2005110579701.00047 tvoi • ura;. 4_1 Fz,p v Ied uis l M MedQuist Inc. 5430 Metric Place Suite 200 Norcross, Georgia 30092 To our valued customers: As most of you are aware,MedQuist acquired Lanier Healthcare in 2002. While the old name was still used in certain instances,for nearly three years Lanier Healthcare has been part of MedQuist. Over the next month,we will be finalizing the consolidation of all brand names into one—eliminating the use of the Lanier Healthcare, CareFlow and SpeechMachine trade names—and will begin using the MedQuist name on all services and products. For most customers, nothing but the name will change. You will continue to have the same products available to you, and to work with the same representatives you have always worked with. As for our customer service quality, we expect this consolidation to enhance our ability to provide the highest level of services in the health care industry. We ask that you please inform others at your facility, such as the Purchasing Department, about this change. Please also note our new remittance address on our updated invoices: NEW remittance address: MedQuist Inc. PO Box 10832 Newark,NJ 07193-0832 Remit electronic payments to: Chase Manhattan Bank,N.A.,N.Y., NY ABA#021000021 MedQuist Inc.Account#530930617 We want to ensure that every MedQuist customer has the most up-to-date contact information possible. If you have equipment at your site that carries one of the brand names we are phasing out,you may receive a visit from a MedQuist representative to change the labels on that equipment. You may also be receiving new communication from your MedQuist representative on MedQuist stationery. It is our goal to present our customers with one name and one face, and to simplify and improve our customer support. By consolidating the brand names at MedQuist,we are striving to continue the transformation of our company and to position it to help you meet the ever-changing demands of the health information management industry. • We want to thank you for your continued support and welcome any feedback you have on ways to improve the products and services we provide. Sincerely, Frank W. Lavelle President 678.824.3000 fax 678.824.3020 www.medquist.com R"ea uist iweauuist Nhone:(Ei/8) 324-3000 5430 Metric Place, Suite 200 Fax: (6781824-3020 Norcross. ;orgia 30092 www.mc .iist.com Packing List .......... ........................................................................................................................................ CITY OF RENTON Document Number 80163402 CITY CLERK DIVISION Document Date 11/14/2005 1055 S GRADY WAY 7TH FL RENTON WA 98055 Purchase Order No. Michelle Purchase Order Date 11/07/2005 Sales Order Number 288973 Customer Number 1452336 CITY OF RENTON Route Description UPS Ground 5 Days ,� 0�� Shipping Conditions UPS Standard NOV Incoterms FOB Origin RECEIVED Gross Weight 5.600 LB CITY CLERK'S OFFICE Net Weight 5.600 LB of 1 Item Material Quantity Weight Description 0010 164-2122 4 EA . 5.600 LB UNI Z. OMNI MICROPHONE STAND ****** This is your packing list. ***** An invoice will follow. ****** Returns:All returns require a return authorization in order to receive appropriate credit. Please contact your sales representative in order to obtain a RMA #. Returns must come back in their original packaging material and must be shipped in an overpacked shipping carton. Returns are subject to a 25% restocking fee. Page 1 /1 fvY O . �� CITY OF RENTON + `� + 1055 S. GRADY WAY DATE PO NUMBER 1$1 RENTON, WA 98055 12/31/2005 12/0001047 o VENDOR: 043383 SHIP TO: MEDQUIST INC PO BOX 10832 NEWARK, NJ 08193-0832 FOB Point: Req.No.: Terms: net term Dept.: FINANCE DEPARTMENT Req.Del.Date: Contact: SETH,JASON. Pre-Assigned PO#?: No Special Inst: Quantity Unit Description Unit Price Ext.Price 4 Omni-Directional Microphones 339.39 SUBTOTAL 339.39 BILL TO: TAX 0.00 FREIGHT 0.00 TOTAL 339.39 Account Number Work Order Function Number Amount E 127.000000.004.5710.0010.31.000000 339.39 Med Quist INVOICE ' IV` . • 90345123 10/24/2005 ADDRESS SERVICE REQUESTED ::: ;:. d .,'.::...,_... 5430 METRIC PLACE STE 200 1 NORCROSS, GA 30092 SHIP TO: CITY CLERK DIVISION CITY OF RENTON 1055 S GRADY WAY 7TH FL For Billing inquires Call: 856-206-4884 RENTON WA 98055 CITY OF RENTON BILL TO: REMIT TO: Oi MEDQUIST OCT 2 7 2005 IIIIIIIliiiIlll'IilIIIIIII P.O. Box 10832pid as NEWARK NJ 07193-0832 CITY CLERK DIVISION FEIN: 221850433 RECEIVED :.:.:..::CITY:.:CLERICS.: .:::..: CITY OF RENTON L}}� 1055 S GRADY WAY 7TH FL CASS�ROIERpi1FMNTRNF : : RENTON WA 98055-3232 Michelle Net due in 30 days :Eiiiiiiiii::::•:. . 1:IE .:: .:. ........ .....ORDERED,:::: ........:.....;,:•:::.: .: ..........SH)F?..SIBTi:i:K:17.....:.... iiIi.............:::;:. . .. :.:iigi:................:[ZE .. .]:iiig iiiii:.;;::.: _ _. ...0001452336 . UPS Ground 5 Days , • 0000285566 0080161938 fii': UANT€f>f': :>'? :::':'::::::::::::: :i%:ii`:i:i:::::::s:#:MATEliig tOM: :: •::'::%:::'•?•:>::':: :::r:::::ii::iii:i:::#:i'•ii: i:`':;:ii':iiiiiL:::::ii iiii�IVIC;x:� .;:x•: ; :r,,i:. c::":.:;;, i: : :: ::: Order through our On-line store at www.medquist.com. 0000;IO; }V;:4 , 164-2103 75.00 :;.X-='' ,0`- 4° O ;EA OMNIDIR MICROPNO E, XL W/ R.'CON 1 EA 300.00 • 0000 ;1f ,sa: ; h ;.; :d'q'Mp"n`;E f�i0`r"fira %Trei is u: .•"ss 'i:`•`.� .. f�;,` ''u:`. �•-73 =Y � .-.�. Ot�'E',W-f Xi:R;."68i1 H"1 CA` 306:06-- State>r-, ales TaX ', '` • .C=ity 'Sales Tail" ='- ;at`>, 11.40 r`w; �s�z o� 1 R�hti °�:.:F; ' ` •,, ,., . Otherrkeales Ta t f.-- = 2.40 i pi� ?s. ri a o�n. _ ti, Rreiti '=Cha g : es 12.99 T..O A AMOUNT 665.79 A rER 116, LAWS OF 1965 — 321,..o CITY OF"RENTON CERTIFICATION ' I,THE UNDERSIGNED DO HEREBY CERTIFY UNDER PENALTY Pax:(- �3 1 Po I 21000104 7 OF PERJURY,THAT THE MATERIALS HAVE BEEN FURNISHED, THE SERVICES RENDERED OR THE LABOR PERFORMED AS . /, N j)02 ' p Li 3 3 3 3 �DESCRIBED HEREIN,AND THAT THE CLAIM IS JUST,DUE AND 5 7'0 .0- - .3! IMMUTHORIZED TO AUTHENTICATE AND CERTIFY TO IGATION AGAINST THE CITY OF RENTON, AND AC-CT : I Z7• °©c�00© ,Od 4 . SAID CLAIM, I � /" SIGNED: d � DETACH AND RETURN THIS PORTION WITH PAYMENT THANK YOU! CUSTOMER NAME : CITY OF RENTON To pay by credit cord, please enter the information below ACCOUNT NUMBER: 0001452336 ❑ ❑ CHECK ❑ EVISA l PLEASE CHECK IF CHANGE OF ADDRESS,INDICATE CORRECT ADDRESS ON REVERSE SIDE _ Immo Make Checks Payable To: Number Expiration Date: Signature DUE DATE 11/23/2005 LANIER HEALTHCARE INVOICE NUMBER 90345123 PO BOX 951282 DALLAS TX 75395-1282 PAY THIS AMOUNT 665.79 Ilndtlilnillililuililnullnldlnliiilillnlil AFTER / PAY AMOUNT PAID 0024005101039601.00644 • R MedQuist Phone: (6—"'1824-3000 /� I Ie u st 5430 Met. .. Place, Suite 200 Fax: (L •.,) 824-3403 Norcross, Georgia 30092 www.medquist.com axrz 'va s,:'.tn;• .a'a-' .r,=^°:,.� _mot; -_?r.'.y ..ry•.;ze;�3"tf'. :•a''r:�;'<tt� "'?=i�r-%3`...-. :;v v,5:�r:€.:;x�c�^,w'''•-',:.i-.'.L'"-�., a4P :",r" "`'yam ��,;•a'f:: cr,-�.. ,.,....,c.<. L.•?r...:9 ; ."=`'„i...n•a' fg:e;�":` t��,":e:..�' ,•.,=6,�.--.�,=,_-s-'«_:;�.:,.k','S�3i '* r,,e- �ti� � .' iT{ai: 'snL?:tii;`.rtiW�' }z-;�:2. Yvii,.,'?G .,"w.. _ 7 Mo-,�.• >3xii'•_ ';;;t ,,�i,v.�.� ,.�. •�,. 2 � �� ,{�� ' .•5=,r.=�:•..,,...<„-2`d�^,,sw', �,-�c�,,,,°t.t .�t�t' ...�.� :.� s' 3'•.. a ;-re.�,...� � �2,w.'�'�crv..^.:a'�...-,»„�::1';: 4::,'� ,Is.� �7,Mw':�F-..,:�c..i:;;?ft�;?�x>.'aR•i,:`:1,: CITY OF RENTON Document Date 12/15/2005 CITY CLERK DIVISION 1055 S GRADY WAY 7TH FL Customer No. 1452336 RENTON WA 98055 Purchase Order No. Michelle Purchase Order Date 12/15/2005 Incoterms FOB Origin Delivery Date 12/15/2005 Payment Terms Net due in 30 days Currency USD Gross Weight 6.800 LB Net Weight 6.800 LB • Page 1 of 1 .L.•. ".ayr:w Item Material Description Quantity Unit Price Amount 0020 164-2113 4 EA 75.00 300.00 UNIDIR MICROPHONE W/XLR CON per 1 EA State Tax Amt 19.50 City Tax Amt 5.70 Other Tax Amt 1.20 -------------- Total Amount $ 3'2,40 ,( • 1:x;+u`:^' :.iL:,iS':�',t'_ L:::/:.. :t;jyy: ,�Lo,. •KY„_ } ,�„ >.:2e•:o:„. ...�':,..v...„..... ,:: ... 5 - t,...,,.5�::v"o`t:a't'a.:,.}r, ... t �'Ka.nY ..t,1bJ,s a— .1 2v ;p. .'„t• ;:%:1.` r.Yi•, `4;`,`-::,d�"..,,rt 2,q%_;'`%�-',zi�'`-Y• `?tR:.t"..,�"'�.,..._ .,._n-,n..-..x,.'."..::,..:,^„a:.,....a.,r1r.•..a,..-«..,.x.Y:.—.:i'`w::,..... _.n.:'y�4:%idj+.l':'Cii,:"}'.ix::.;< AR. SOP SRVC Supervisor: Area Service Manager: ($0 -$1,000) CFO: ($1,000 -up) President: ($1,000 -$5,000) ($10,000 -) From: <KlSmith@medquist.com> To: <Mneumann @ci.renton.wa.us> Date: 12/15/2005 3:27:30 PM Subject: Fw:Order#285566 Hello Ms. Neumann, Thank you for your patience. I would like to apologize for the delay in getting this issue resolved. I have submitted your request for call tags to return the microphones that were erroneously shipped. You should receive an electronic call tag via email from UPS within 3-5 business days. --' r- ,t jgAzti pa -v Upon receipt, you will need to print the label within 10 days to mail the package to us. Attached is a copy of the Return Authorization. ..fi,afg girr- UPS an 1i/24jo5 f_ c ;t.;.Should you have any questions please feel fee fb "o adf e '1 e a6 .542.7253 ext 3055. i329.4D (See attached file: City of Renton.pdf) Kindest Regards, Kenyetta Smith - Sales Support Coordinator Phone:866.542.7253 ext.3055 Fax: 866.497.2561 kIsmith@medquist.com www.medquist.com This electronic mail transmission contains confidential information intended only for the person(s) named. Any use, distribution, copying or disclosure by another person is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient of this e-mail, promptly delete it and all attachments. Forwarded by Kenyetta Smith/corp/medquist on 12/15/2005 06:12 PM Elease Murray/corp/medqu ist To Kenyetta 12/12/2005 07:49 Smith/corp/medquist@medquist PM cc Subject Fw: Order#285566 Hello Keny, Would you please check on this for me. We spoke about it last week. The ZRE was sent on 11/07/05 & 11/22/05. Let me know if you need me to re-send anything. Thanks, Elease Murray SR. ISR Phone: 678.824.3060 www.medquist.com This electronic mail transmission contains confidential information intended only for the person(s) named. Any use, distribution, copying or disclosure by another person is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient of this e-mail, promptly delete it and all attachments. Forwarded by Elease Murray/corp/medquist on 12/12/2005 07:42 PM "Michele Neumann" <Mneumann@ci.rent on.wa.us> To <emurray@ medquist.com> 12/12/2005 07:26 cc PM Subject Order#285566 Hello: I still have not heard anything from your accounting department regarding the above order. Invoice 90345123, with the City of Renton City Clerk Division, is incorrect. We were sent four unidirectional microphones that were not ordered. So, I need a return label so I can ship the unidirectional microphones back to Medquest, and a credit memo to show how much the City owes on invoice 90345123. I just received a past due notice in the mail today. Has any progress been made? Please let me know what I need to do. • Thanks, Michele Neumann City of Renton City Clerk Division 425-430-6504 CC: <EM urray@ medquist.com> lvi.d UISt MedQuist Phone:(6'Q) 824-3000 5430 IVPlace, Suite 200 Fax: (6. ,)324-3020 Norcross; eorgia 30092 www.m.eUquist.com / Packing List . ..... .......... ::Shy : .:.: :.:,-.:.::.:::::::::::.,::::::::.::....:.,...........:.......... ...... .......................r....:•:vyw:::::y::{:::::xtii4:i:tii:•!??::tii4i�{.}???}:>::-?:??:ice?:.ii�?:i�ii??ii?:ii�:fi? :n.........;.;.:v.:?.:.`.`:v:•::.:r•.-:..`�;::-.?`{. :r:�i`;:�.`;:;:r{.^{i:�i�:i.~ k< CITY OF RENTON Document Number 80161938 CITY CLERK DIVISION Document Date 10/31/2005 1055 S GRADY WAY 7TH FL RENTON WA 98055 Purchase Order No. Michelle Purchase Order Date 10/24/2005 Sales Order Number 285566 Customer Number 1452336 Route Description UPS Ground 5 Days Shipping Conditions UPS Standard Incoterms FOB Origin Gross Weight 14.800 LB Net Weight 14.800 LB 1 of 1 :-i ::::.:..:::::::........n,.. - ti-:iTii?}i:Y•::4??:-i:±4:•::G???isi::::i??i:•??i:3?iJ::viy :i??}v::::::.:v::::::._::x::.:......................... ;::::::::nv:::..v..:.•.:.v.::r.:::•:::::::?Ji?ii:::::::?nw:::::::ti r:�}}?w:v.v:::.v:?::-?:�i'r.?•}::v::::::::.v:b??iiin: :::.v:::::::::::-i?ii:4:-i•�.v:•::.:::::.?vi??i???`?T:w:.::v.vv::::G:•:::i•????W.v::.v:::::::::n::v::......... Item Material Quantity:::.:._: Weight Description g 0010 164-2103 4 EA 8 LB OMNIDIR MICROPHONE W/XLR CON 0020 164-2113 4 -CA- 6-869--t$ Yt-F.r ‘Act UPS 0-4 �ztzcilo. ****** This is your packing list. ***** An invoice will follow. ****** Returns:All returns require a return authorization in order to receive appropriate credit. Please contact your sales representative in order to obtain a RMA #. Returns must come back in their original packaging material and must be shipped in an overoackAri shinninn mart,,., UPS Electronic Return Label: View/Print Label Page 1 of 1 UPS Electronic Return Label: View/Print Label 1. Ensure that there are no other tracking labels attached to your package. 2. Fold the printed label at the dotted line. Place the label in a UPS Shipping Pouch.If you do not have a pouch,affix the folded label using clear plastic shipping tape over the entire label.Take care not to cover any seams or closures. 3. Drop-off o Take this package to a UPS location,to find your closest UPS location visit www.ups.com and select Drop Off.Drop Off Locator o Daily Pick up customers:Have your shipment(s)ready for the driver as usual. FOLD HERE w 0 S ^ 111117-7g. W 0 1 — InliminImminimm 0, •rAA �M VJ '� ZN OR al to 0N. ' V G a oM = _ o rzi o xO ow ^ o u pQ � p 2` a.OForV a. aN ii<• flhu till 0 Z azw fl OHrnO Rl :": Etiz v:r ��ZjJ-Si �j .,,]ki,r CAoQ: https://www.ups.com/u.a/L.class?7ER150A09042F1-ThxdBJa9Ss%3DOSA 12/22/2005 Page 1 /1 T Y & �`ft CITY OF RENTON ♦ + 1055 S. GRADY WAY DATE PO NUMBER •epN�o RENTON,WA 98055 12/31/2005 _ 12/0001046 VENDOR: 040001 SHIP TO: JW TEL-TRONICS INC PO BOX 1282 BOTHELL, WA 98041-1282 FOB Point: Req.No.: Terms: due in 30 days Dept.: FINANCE DEPARTMENT Req.Del.Date: Contact: SETH, JASON Pre-Assigned PO#?: No Special Inst: Quantity Unit Description Unit Price Ext.Price Sony DSR-45 DVCAM VTR, Recorder VCR and 4,589.07 Interface SUBTOTAL 4,589.07 BILL TO: TAX 0.00 FREIGHT 0.00 TOTAL 4,589.07 Account Number Work Order Function Number Amount E 127.000000.004.5710.0010.48.000000 4,589.07 • P.O.BOX 1282 BOTHEL',WA 98041-1—'2 PH(425)485-4739 FAX(425)481-0703 Invoice JW TEL TRONICS, INC. Date Invoice# 12/21/2005 105280 Bill To Bonnie Walton • Olio) CITY OF RENTON City of Renton 1055 S Grady Way DEC 2 3 2005 Renton WA 98055 EIVED 'DI) CITY CLERKS OFFICE P.O. No. Terms Due Date VendorlD# Net 30 1/20/2006 Item Description Amount Parts Sale 615 4,217.90T • CHARTER 116, LAWS OF 1965 CITY OF RENTON CERTIFICATION I,THE UNDERSIGNED UO HER BY CERTIFY UNDER PENALTY OF PERJURY,THAT THE MATERIALS HAVE BEEN FURNISHED, THE SERVICES RENDERED OR THE LABOR PERFORMED AS P0 f 4O00(Q o DESCRIBED HEREIN,AND THAT THE CLAIM IS JUST,DUE AND UNPAID OBLIGATION AGAINS THE CITY OF RENTON,AND ?C� b� 0 4 Q0 0( THAT I AM AUTHORIZED TO ALTHENTICATE AND CERTIFY TO U SAID CLAIM. 4c,-f; i 1: cooQVo•ooz/, 5 3lo, 00l o '18 06,0000 SIGNED: • ��➢� ,) Subtotal $4,217.90 Sales Tax (8.8%) $371.17 Total $4,589.07 Payment is due upon receipt. Unpaid invoices will accrue Payments/Credits $0.00 1.5% interest monthly. We now accept VISA and MASTERCARD. Balance Due $4,589.07 _) Broadcast Engineering • Design • Support 11 l° Part Sale /61,0 ,2 9- City of Renton Invoice#: 105280 1055 S Grady Way Renton, WA 98055 Sale #: 615 _Contact: Bonnie Walton Purchase Order#: Remarks: Equipment ordered on 12-21-05. Purchase authorized by Bonnie Walton on 12-21-05. Is scheduled to arrive at our facility on 12-28-05. We will deliver to your facility asap after arrival. PARTS SOLD ID# Qty U/M Description Mfr Part# Freight Unit Cost Total 9170 11 Each Digital VCR DSR-45 $52.00 $3,987.00 $4,039.00 9171 1 Each Pro-Bus Interface,RS-422 PRSY9P I $0.00 $143.90 $143.90 Parts Total: $4,182.90 SERVICE CHARGES Charge For Description Date Cost Delivery i 112/28/2005 $35.00 Service Charges Total: $35.00 Terms:. Net 30 Pre-Tax Grand Total: $4,217.90 DO NOT PAY FROM THIS SHEET Printed On: 12/21/2005 JVV JW Tel-Tronics Inc. T E L -T Ii O N I C S 18823 Beardslee Blvd. - Bothell, WA (425)485-4739 . HF&,P CENTER RESOURCES The Profession 4 Source >L ict us >Upcoming Events 0 800.606.6969 >Return&Exchange >Request Our Catalogs / 212.444.6615 >Sales Tax >The N.Y.Super Store trDta•vInu-orvasa >Hours of Operation >Product Resources >More Help Info... >Career opportunities L ,grr�°l e�iste M ►tiP:a l#: ra r er hire He tNi Mist ;��.J'ty ;a t ...N';e..aw_�.'�':; �aysr �:M;:•�f:^w .N.�rt M.Mzy�.,..zry;;,a..,.,f. �,y; ,....�..n,.,..i.*.�..pu._-x HOLIDAY GIFTS . >at .,: 1 `.> = Tk-`i T tflllr"S-<>>:p�? -°, `" 4 1 a 4 's`k� '' J" (f R ;. l h S Search Home<Professional Video <Post Production <VCRs, DVDs&Accessories <VCRs&DVDs<VCR Players& All Products MI Recorders New!Top Searches Audio - Professional """�"` View List ❑ 39 of 54 0 Binoculars&Scopes Sony DSR-45 DVCAM Compact Desktop Recorder �11z4 � ,14.&• VCR with RS-422 Control, LCD Monitor, i.Link I/O Books&Tutorials ? ' Mfr#DSR45• B&H#SODSR45 VW r ,m it�j�< a $4,100.00 Cameras/Photo Gear 7�- „ Price:• t Computers&Solutions �` t ilk.' Email me a better price Darkroom 14 Shipping Cost: 4.1) "lcl Digital Photography Availability: 42 In Stock Film,Tapes&Media Quantity 1' Filters&Accessories Home Entertainment tgl Enlarge Image (2]Print Page Lighting &Studio El Email to a Friend Portable Entertainment I No Payments for 90 Days/ 1=1, Projection &Viewing with Bill Me Later+ click fordet lls Underwater Accessories Features A SPet ititatidrIS. Y Item Includes Video - Consumer Video - Professional l The DSR-45 DVCAM VTR offers comprehensive and intelligent features that make it perfect for linear and nonlinear edit environments.The machine offers the ever-present DV/Firewire/i.LINK connection. It also USED EQUIPMENT gives you XLR audio outputs. For integration in linear suites, Component, S-Video and Composite Video inputs and outputs are present. Reference video input is there(as the one composite BNC)as is RS-422A, Email RS-232C and LANC machine controls.The built-in LCD monitor is useful for menu set-up and video/audio confidence. In addition, the DSR-45 offers one-touch duplication and the ability to preset user bits and time Sign up for B&H news code. and special offers !Enter Email Address Key Features i<j_ii. il) Worlds most • DVCAM and DV Playback and Record complete resources The DSR-45 offers functionality in the professional DVCAM format as well as the consumer,ubiquitous for Adobe Photirstaop DV format. Both formats have their advantages. DVCAM offers superior picture quality and greater multigenerational dubbing performance.The DV format offers longer recording duration (maximum 270 -�- minutes versus 180 minutes in DVCAM) and less expensive tape stock prices.This machine lets the user sr-=` A' to decide which features are most significant to the end product. Para os clrentes 110 • Sony's iLink Interface y raskinos The DSR-45 is equipped with a 4-pin i.Link(DV) interface based on the IEEE1394 standard.The i.Link M SACKER SAFE) provides a digital link from the DSR-45 to a variety of compatible equipment including Sony DVCAM TESTED 21-DEC decks and third party nonlinear editors. Signals including video, audio,time code, and control can be transferred through this port with virtually no degradation of image or sound quality, which is essential in nonlinear editing. In addition, when a DVCAM cassette with IC memory is loaded into the DSR-45,the ClipLink data recorded on the cassette memory can be uploaded to a nonlinear system. • Conventional,Old School, Linear Editing Compatibility The DSR-45 puts digital video in analog environments with ease. Component,Y/C, or Composite video are present, both in and out. Linear editing gear can be connected via RS-422, RS-232,and LANC ports. a a A/D -CII nrli�inn nfFnn ro.+....c rofnrnn,-e a-.nn�l Thn rCD_AI .-ten ...-e i�r��•....-.nne-tFp.�irlen i,�f...-..rn tee• • f1/-0-ICJII-cuutrrIy VrtCI I I C1.4U11 CJ 0 I CI CI CII%.0 JI IIaI. I IIc von.-YJ Lall uac Iw WI IIJtJILC VIUCU III I'JI u3L"n.5 ^•F' a REF IN. Jam or chase time code with TC in and out BNC c"nnectors. • Easy Duplication Modes The DSR-45 has three duplication modes which can be set from the menu to copy cassettes: • Auto Tape Copy with Cassette Memory Copy creates exact duplication of the original tape without the blank segments,and duplicates the memory on the IC chip. • Auto Tape Copy duplicates the original tape without the blank segments without copying the IC chip information. • Manual Tape Copy is used to copy the original tape from any position on the tape.The IC chip data is not copied. • Built-in LCD Monitor for Confidence and Set-up While editing, working images are displayed on the built-in LCD monitor. You may chose to layer the audio level meters on the video, and system status can be shown to simplify the editing process. When setting up the unit for operation,the LCD screen will display the menu options. [Company Profile I Career Opportunities I Imaging Partners I Privacy&Security I User Agreement&Disclaimer] Prices,specifications,and images are subject to change without notice.Not responsible for typographical or illustrative errors.Manufacturer rebates,terms,conditions, and expiration dates are subject to manufacturers printed forms. ®2000-2005 B&H Photo-Video. . -- WP`-D CENTER RESOURCES • >Upcoming Events to ,..t.4. The �1't? 5Si01t itSource >Return&Exchange >Request Our Catalogs 800.606.6969 / 212.444.6615 >Sales Tax >The N.Y.Super Store pWI•llGry¢•IiroMille >Hours of Operation >Product Resources >More Help Info... >Career opportunities Lpgri,1.1).1in inter. fillyiKdoistit frack9rder Liv Heip Il AIM V, lly.Car,; MUD"GIFTS e. ' y¢��4.0 5iii. �[t�x:S fiiil I bAa`a*3r t r S"' 4 z'a�z Cl 'f� � .... .!.•.+�.:/F�vv:.J.�r.v,._.l��t� .a..,...-...v..._.... , ..4!!.�.�R�S.�, s xe-?n��.6'lK?U_4�:=+,3^.__ .y p.t.n.:::a.m.. .. ....... .;�. ., ., ....' . Search Home<Professional Video < Post Production<VCRs, DVDs&Accessories <VCRs& DVDs<VCR Players& All Products N Recorders New!Top Searches wir View List Audio - Professional "0* CI 39 of 54 CI Binoculars&Scopes Sony DSR-45 DVCAM Compact Desktop Recorder _, s r< µ. VCR with RS-422 Control, LCD Monitor, i.Link I/O Books&Tutorials Mfr#DSR45• B&H#SODSR45 Cameras/Photo Gear k � i '`''" 100.00 �; i11�� ,_ 'lt,: C , � Price: $tt� Computers &Solutions �* "f' Email me a better price korAjl ,:� G4-Shipping Cost: Darkroom Digital Photography Availability: in Stock Film,Tapes &Media Quantity 1T al 4_ •matt tt wist ti 'I . Filters &Accessories .,t,,,v,,,,„,,.._;. Home Entertainment l Enlarge Image E!I Print Page Lighting & Studio IS3 Email to a Friend Portable Entertainment No Payments far.0D ys!iirio+a Projection &Viewing With Bill Me Were clkck for details I Underwater I Accessories v • Video-Consumer Video- Professional To add an item to your cart check the item then click the Add To Cart button. USED EQUIPMENT Displaying 1 to 8 of 14 Sony Email �:. PDV-12CL DVCAM Cleaning MFR#PDV12CL Sign up for B&H news Cassette- Standard B&H#SOPDV12CL Quantity: and special offers More Info Price: $ 44.95 Add To Cart 0 !Enter Email Address i t � ; Sony PDVM-40ME 40 Minutes a -:w f; MFR#PDVM40ME �1 0:141,;4FP-: ::-) ,; DVCAM Cassette with Memory B&H#SOPDVM40ME Quantity: it wor1d's most p`F„ , ;, Chip Price: $ 16.99 - Add To Cart IUIO[P Infn complete r2r�CE`S`--------- ---------------•--- ---__...__...__---------------•—for Adobe Photoshop . Sony . PDV-184ME 184 Minutes MFR#PDV184ME ;hM . 1 DVCAM Cassette with Memory1 If B&H#SOPDV184ME Quantity: rn Chip Price: $ 37.99 More Info Add To Cart D Para os!lassos clientes Brasifeir•os (tO HACKERSAW FEC MFR#RKSSSDR1 TESTED 21-DEC RKSSSDR1 Racksllde Kit B&H#FERKSDSR20 More Info Price: $ 259.50 Drop Ship , ' FEC RKSSSDR2 Dual Rackslide Kit MFR#RKSSSDR2B&H#FERKSDSR202 More Info Price: $ 259.50 Out of Stock �= - f^ Comprehensive 3'8NC Male to ]-BNCMale mpx#araep10*n �—~� ComponentCable - 1O � �m�coc�s m Quantity: �^ � More Info Price: $ 37.99 Add TnCart Fl Mack npm*1o2s �--� 2-Year Extended Warranty Quantity: More Info Price: 99.95 Add ToCart F7 Mack 4-Year Extended VVan �� zo�anty nun#MAswpovcs Quantity: w�u��m�m More Info Prima: $ 169^$5 Add To [art Fl ' *MmmeAccmssmrims Cart - [Company Profile|Career Opportunities|lmaqinn Partners(Privacy&Secuhtv |User AqroomenL& Disclaimer] Prices,specifications and images are subject to change without notice,Not responsible for typographical or illustrative errors.Manufacturer rebates,terms,conditions, and expiration dates are subject to manufacturers printed forms. @ 2�02005 B&H Photo-Video. ' Limn vvooa- rsequestea rice From: <webteam@bhphoto.com> To: <Iwood @ ci.renton.wa.us> Date: 1 2/21/2005 9:04:15 AM Subject: Requested Price Dear Customer, Our current selling price for the: Sony- DSR-45 DVCAM Compact Desktop Recorder is 3,599.95. To purchase this item at this price,click below: http://www.bhphotovideo.com/sitem/sku=249564&is=REG&m=Y AOL Users <a href=http://www.bhphotovideo.com/sitem/sku=249564&is=REG&m=Y>click here</a> Thank you for shopping at B&H Photo Video The B&H Web Team www.bhphotovideo.com 420 Ninth Avenue New York, NY 10001 800-606-6969 212-444-6615 Prices, specifications, and images are subject to change without notice. This is an automated email response and cannot be replied to. To contact us by email, Please click on the following URL: http://www.bhphotovideo.com/help • • ,\ 0 — CITY OF RENTON Page 1 /1 JL + 1055 S. GRADY WAY RENTON, WA 98055 • 3/3/2006 12/0001091 VENDOR: 076380 SHIP TO: SPL INTEGRATED SOLUTIONS PO BOX 951245 DALLAS, TX 75395-1245 FOB Point: Req.No.: Terms: net term Dept.: FINANCE DEPARTMENT Req.Del.Date: Contact: EVANS, DEBBIE Pre-Assigned PO#?: No Special Inst: _INy100827, PROJ§45559SE.,:REPAIR FOR _1,162.47 .FOR AJ-D640P 5.-77" 47:7" ,77.<;;;?;:) ; tRi?75.-A7Zg7,57, SUBTOTAL 1,162.47 BILL TO: TAX 0.00 FREIGHT 0.00 TOTAL 1,162.47 E 127.000000.004.5710.0010.48.000000 1,162.47 /ittA/77t-a4t4' )60-72,i4x-e: .4 Authorized Signature Authorized Sianature INVOICE: 1 Or ,7CCi" Y C e14U oice Date: • Re, to: •Splits SPL Integrated Solutions Project Number: S45559SE 02/22/2006 P.O.Box: 951245 For: INTEGRATED SOLUTIONS Dallas TX,75395-1245 Client#:C03013 SPL - INTEGRATED SOLUTIONS SPL Integrated Solutions CITY OF RENTON 1427 ENERGY PARK DR. Q L- i12 Service W.O. S45559 Customer P.O.: VERBAL FEB 2.8 2006 ST. PAUL, MN, 55108 PH (651) (651)287-7000 FX287-7001 E E V9E l �(� cRv C;!F�t(� sFR4E Bill to: Project Site: CITY OF RENTON SPL Integrated Solutions ACCOUNTS PAYABLE Ngac Do 1055 SOUTH GRADY WAY 8661 154th Ave NE RENTON, WA 98005 Redmond WA 98052 Tel: 425.430.6606 Terms: 30 Day Net Invoice Date: 02/22/2006 ShipVia: UPS Ground Due Date: 03/23/2006 Product Code: S Authorized Agent: Lori Wood Qty Mfr-Part No. Description Unit Price Extended 1 ROBREP01-REPAIR Repair cost FOR AG-7350 547.50 547.50 1 Diagnostics & Repair estimate for AJ-D640P 93.45 93.45 4.5 Service Labor @ $95/hr 95.00 427.50 *"**Three trips to site for servicing ****Troubleshooting, testing, removal and reinstallation of units listed above CHARTER 116, LAWS OF ;165 CITY OF RENTON CERTIFICATION ��C�/v I,THE UNDERSIGNED G0 HEREBY CERTIFY UNDER PENALTY FEe �® OF PERJURY,THAT THE MATERIALS HAVE BEEN FURNISHED, f THE SERVICES RENDERED OR THE LABOR PERFORMED AS ZO06 DESCRIBED HEREIN,AND THAT THE CLAIM IS JUST,DUE ANI�I„C�4 Off?, THATUNPAID OBLIGATION AGAINST THE CI-111 OF RENTON,AND I A AUTHORIZED TO AUTHENTICATE AND GERRFYTiF TO TH ",‘OUntS P yabh/O e b Plod O �0 I SIGNED LCJL� if�4Y`-' V — 074350 Q.c.e 127.000000, coy, 5-7 /0, ool o, cfg, Cfoc O 'DD Please note new Remit To Address above. , Sales Tax WA $ 94.02 Tax ID: 52-1760942 Balance Due: $ 1,162.47 02/22/2006 SPL-INTEGRATED SOLUTIONS Project: S45559SE INVOICE: Page 1 of 1 • ii six ytrk .- 1—efouoi—, 0- . 1, . INTEGRATED.SOLUTIONS • 'Phone(425 Ave.55 •64 Redmond, e AX(425 6985784 Location Terms Q Net 30 0 COD Inv.# • 45559 0 Watt.._1:1 A 1pleeded. 0 Estimate 0 Redo N/C Date In I In Via Date Out Out Via Customer P.O. • Bill To: .Ship To: /:� Contact Name 1 } t� Phone 13 , Eq ui Types .q p. ; Makes, Model � Serial# In With - Marks j ;• •Repair Instructions \fiki r k Lr1 c�-1` C p -•-V1 ' 0 V_Q tiv,cA C.�- ...- v l r `>4 fl.>nc (DM dilcz fo. sl t qi 1 • Labor Record 1 } LL v-i` r k_ •7a �L�...r 3 V--e-r��,. ;;'` i - SfeG 11..5t. 2 u. ;kAA-- )—.v tr g'-2 — (4 .Yl O V ,= �_t Yt: i ilk A.";'1 .-C'.v,•kt 4,- U t e..r y i C`_ cs,l k t9"y a`r Se?S lL 1).,,1.0-k. 1 c t'... Parts Record Item Code' . Lot Parts Cost Ic s '' 1 rip. : t ` .. c 'tv 0 ir"_ t�-V,. -'c-R i V •)Li 101<"„, 40,61: 1.9 42 lid'ri - -2 -. - r I P. , - . ,r ::salece1l -f. Q... t,v r,1a'1,e.;„� i• 5. 41-•7 • �'1 i' �, .k 2 ( 6..-I'D O lam' /, u -.� � t'�s lrfj !vim �y -7 U - j, 7 KTM . . - q 5 4 44.-5— • • Labor/ Parts Subtotal Shipping •Tax Total Due ` 2"-C° dc E-(-S,1•75 Tech Date Done • Page 1 /1 0'tVY �'..t CITY OF REiv.90N a CI + + 1055 S. GRADY WAY ; \4 aU, ` l Y y mil 'e RENTON, WA 98055 3/30/2006 _ 12/0001105 • VENDOR: 076380 SHIP TO: SPL INTEGRATED SOLUTIONS PO BOX 951245 DALLAS, TX 75395-1245 FOB Point: Req.No.: Terms: net term Dept: FINANCE DEPARTMENT Req.Del.Date: Contact: EVANS, DEBBIE Pre-Assigned PO#?: No Special Inst: £»:s.;w..S.,�, .��., v:.xt' ,.�\;�•�::;.i;;r�..,��..�,,;�..., <�.r;>�;t,.�^'` :*'dr`e, S_ ..�_ .;x..,y. :.�: `e>r•s�. �,"�•x.>,,.t-`l`x.•c" at.1 .<x>at,v Z ,.sr ��.� >'.�itt+`'� ,;;�:a�,t:T.e� s•S,:`< =.;� -�x?pre,�,. xr"G ,x °f£teit ,v,,m 'k<,� a.:•'t Y `2a. " i::° •: 5' t tj''T•`,,` 'F'• . '�S_:t,,�� ,li ,c-x >:`:: '' �:..,s}�y � � y:<^:' r',a;-.t�C F >°n.'i#,yf�»":�F,<—'<`;,v\,•,x.� �n�. �•� < (7yyj}(��}•�,,fr'CgtA ,d.•,`a"'.•�`yy��.'.'x"°,'4%t��'-�T��(T� �,��Y,`+�``��':• .., :�'i+ yy t�' zy't atk''�.o."-t. ..Aar ��.. „�...2.�^. e''fr\r d.,.�`=<r1S,,. �`' 'x3#n.l..,.. <.�R-.\;.>`.,'4`.:0'-' �' ". a`.*`L�at2�dx _ ...a, >....«,-�,.x.-.�.`�i�� 4'3R.-m�`.•,j,�R-fk��'��u��s.�.v. EQUIPMENT REPAIR,INV'At100833 ROBREP01 467.84 `�".,��m-*t�i�w"�^, - '-3;y,¢>��,;;.. !<_ C�"ka�'':;`�_��'�==''eve•°+';' t �n',. �..t� ,•>�s��•' �i.. ��k�:�`�'�:�?:��C �.��„ :•v'�a'rar�` ;��.,> �t4��w��:S"u`'>�„m•��s�s`t^.,,.:«...<... ,.. �e�� ,,�• ,. a�'-.ii....� '.�'{�. ,.� ^�, „5;x.` .. .. ,,,,naTx� ��\�....«.:le;::. �.�r.��'��<:� ^,.��:b' ��-3"� ti.-a a-i -";s�.� '.`gvs,,: 'u,=:t'a". .-`� >a':eq��_` :e<. :i:a= :tv.<. ,.:z,>d - ��>;c-•„ z s•> >A •,,'1. �@S.'<.,,v- M�i•m ": �, I' ,S>n-,-t^<` Z' 9?i>•."." t:.,id:-:,":.l+,Yke: :;'v5•"•�t5r+` i.,. "a> �i°�£••�-��.,�`L!_> - .`��, w�.;2; 'eFia•• F>_«�+,.�:"� >F3 ,:�� `��;;°.s�?,,,.4� ti;�,y;i:-r,,?'ay. "h"'`.a`,.;�,<,''r. .ue•. -«.,^.�> •.�,,<�..r:`� �•�`� e�'o'y ?��:�� r�,� �S-<a`'�'.:-�:a' '`�. •�s r a. .s.°a,•fiI�A•;.3 -,,`,.<`,,"`y�•,�>#;y�w:`.«`k.>._ .:YD�'�'Y ?. `S.,S`S^ "e',vE\„,,,i t,.\R _`3 ,, 'Y'v:-..,`�'<' " :� R<`'t,`5 ..i.7.,:}`.e ,. A'< ^1'4>S <AIff8t>s,..r\Ai,,,,.��^.a ,J. '•i.,. _:�: .r. ,�.„�'ma's...',,,+,w i�•' ...�. ,a.:r. .��r..'�.�.5.'�5� s„i's::�:',:: •x i'`•`Z„,w" �• ^.uY��'�„L�S s J:; ,....,;-a.. .<,r.,,,z;..'.<5,:_�:<»5<�..,,.��.,<.,;.x....,,:Y»'x<' ��. >',,.a..�ra.>o_..«r�,.. � "�,i 3r..->:,:.:.:, y,_` ,,,.,;.. „b.._z.<. _, u .,>_.,,-ra> ,E ._».. __..._-,_...,.._.F,,.;•�> ,.?#i+>� `.''+,�_:is,."t��£��'tQ�.sr...:::.s�:b:,x3:r:,r�.<<<:�.r�'?:�:'3�,.."k=xr>"' ':' `.c`�,\,'�.i,t��::.... .. -`•'n`Jr.se•^.Zt-re>h E -:rv-. .-":•- ,�vw,a ? ,r t..,,>-R;•F .C°,-a..a., , ,e",,e, .iE gp.M.,;r,`^, _vrrs`tT `u' 'Y:txv.. <x;;r. :.^.c: :.'rr,: , RP 5"r:s xaWri w-r`ra •r, ..,�o. .e >\ S?,`.,; .\._ .,t,..*.,. ,.. ..;t. �-:a,.:•>..:v,<.:z <x>•'zw �' .*., ->.�,.'�'•`':j .,os ,�'`.e s,> ..`>��i"^;}a';'^°�°:= 5.,..: €;��'^,..v•;,�:d-. <:�. � r. �.b5ax.k... ,<.'£` ;< f. >,� r c...x".��>.- .':vim<.. ,..�`r,.�>,`s �.aaa ��'°`�"`<�s�:•r',��\=>:�r-_k z, �.s>a:,,"�n�:..,�:;�.�.. ,'c. ,J;:z>��.... `�'1.t '... .V0 0Sfe. ,vk>:>(.,{ <.�\".p>, "' i."`3,. 4.< •e`.\`C'--'a>.i v.3ii°• ., ,-_4.,, ^,e`S p< .,'V-.---<.. •aHa, ` ..M^: '. .`•. .,„v`">>,?�,s.`>�,�.n�_u.z�'�._,. .��',sa`«��. „�.s� �'33: •�- _t�;!..H.-s?,.`t+c.:��4s�•-�",,,�s >�z...,�„>,"z.��»-:�:.. �':`�:ae .., s,`�:_zm:.,t . ��..<s' '�sis:. , ; -+ia s�t,:r: _;�,,,e�<e. `.,,r.;,.,>- d.T°" � �t>i.�;. - ,wr-,:A«,r,sk`-• rr,;, '>r.•� ...r::: f Q,> -..3 3t, w Y4: •'iirram,. '``'`'`::v 4'> `€7 ,, 1- ', ' AK s.5i-;>i: . - C:y--F°='., i; :ge*'�S',,s-< ^.�< .3">::�=�hSy�`�+.,,�`,,.x,:;':»i?�- -_Via.,..�. .."�,iRC_. k.. � . x. „ ':., :6,,,i _ v .:2''<^"s J,e,r •" _,�..3;. «. ;, '' 1:i, <e-K �� ` = .�,, " '..� �,.r.,, �»t,•.g -=1 r.._K .a p r: . •.>,�, :•��..u«..,�:..��:',. .., �au�.#�.h._>.;;.,�.^.4,"�:z;a��...��,,.�..'..,.> .�r,:..x:.�;.''-:.::.>.:.: �»a`*-x.:.<. �<=°`rr •5�w:.<.>?�S.L��>.. <��'.`,_�'F:•: >;~�x."��: i'��.^i•. v-._ �:?`:��:`�ti - :°`'?., :'"yam,.. t,i '�h•.^ ',r� "�:�:` .! rrq �,§a .iA�, 3 g,� `'i�p� 4\ \' a�;'�$_Y,.S >vn:".' :SFi >•,v+`s `'z� e,`+' a,.,, , ., a>': k,! ,�,u• , -i;:o.:f"g>. �E`., 'i1SY ,.i Y: �„S:"csH `"�•...�'e ¢;�.�;'r:�, z5 - :.,.., ,r�-:`?co,--, „'.}�`n?.,"�a, .,U S x„°,,.-<y,k.,-. .::?"'>,'.t;, - ��i:,.« "3\F:, yt ,<.� ,'h.^: - v<R,- iv�.^ a;.�,�?.c: .,�_.'% "b. x��'�.'`'<S�v�"�'.cctevs�eF„3;dvx.w,,..3a�•s'`a=,.•a.<,,,,o-<cti.�:'�;x:;.biix„�e.>saa..,�,, sr`=�� ..2"�s..^•.•«,e�<'�.' g � a:�,a�j._.. ,.^..t: `.,� ... �-;2y' ,x�.«.. f .».<.ar««zs^,.aL..w�m,a��ki�,.3-R.e'`�<.� „e,,u x"•u,..^s%'�Fzk',a...<.<�..��: '4w;:.t,iowF:°S`4�a�*a.`�• �, •,a��r:. <,. '� �...4 'ate i� �.a,� e^,„ ' e..,. .:?x,'..:a •..>._":�;^.=�'s..,�,£'.`•,,,.;,:t =< .�>�h., '>".!.., -'�it>ex,>:-..:,'y = ,.$-°'�+,•.r s..-u> ..fir .�;�,�,. z::* k<-`< ,e?+ r \'<:.;.. "l,4 ,,�� :',S"N.','.,ar, u•.: i...f, ',;.5,:rkft `^i,., e,� '.=,t^ ..4 , K,...\e• a,;• ao-,k<,3r, •>r i `°'n� ''''^ '; ,.�.,.,i .��,,�>�;s�<�,r•, �.a<. ��-\�•.e-.:J,� ,'ice•;;� ..Y. s .'"eslr. �Nt�r>+. m:`�; ,3r;.,�, 'v.. L . :'F•':cc;• �.et�,s�:: .mat .�:".•£' •�F-::`;3x;'.. ..•a� � a.�.,. � , >. - �a_�k'ws t.,aa.-c>>�: . a. 9'3:=..r,�>_'�.Y ZM. rm_ ....,. ..., ._ .. ._..<.L.:.>•'v.'. .:'.�iz�iXS� ...__.•..<,.�< �v::-.>,:,m,.s?av-=<,..rn?�:>a. >,,<,-'»"'�.�'°_-�'_, ,re.rt - ip1, "<�'5F,\",v..^y,.�w,.< •�,"<:e::�.w -..:�,•ff>C:.:,^✓xC:'"i".' F^3Ny>^. a.<u,� r-SG"u. ..`5, -`fat,, �:�� ":��,, ''�;> .t <3:. ��;e ."`s.;ar:.,�^ 1.L"'- �'=��.. .,a, �,�.<, E-�, °.ems, .ma`s �,. t.�=;tom,`�` ;��, ,fir,,,• > Ewa= ,: �^. �°i� ">"r n <,:.....,��'.�c„,,.,., a..,>e!.�».`!sa-,r,x::sav�As.-.n.a.,..,_"_ .,:4a<.<,`.&`,c�,ws,�w..:5%a'3r::�aF4^:.;t >,.,>;n•.`,'i_,.,v.:�....^.u,.z..�..;;•.,.`.._,... ",Se��s't'.:e'x;<.,i;.'.g•,«t,es�>��•.« . � N�:w Ylas::.`,3 c'_.s �a _:..�V $ v.;,a,.. >i„ 4;•:�n 'tAm g v2 e, �Ei.•.n> fi t. F` a ti �h...= <�'� $"Y.,^C`.:.r�m. ._»M: I t r� f, ." �� . riSi; . o ks t5 ,-_,;.�.:a .•:3.�-•r., s�4,,� x ;.:s",�w a`>..,x�:�. �3T:�&x:<��>.�m a<�z ��.:.,�,'��U�`:a. ..�_.., > w �v_.e,sa a•.a��. - �a'%tlidn.< _ � mi F �.' ' ; �� . _ . ML_ ;:` _ s3:; :� s v, ��a ._> rG �'�s£,..�'� :' > i<.w.,>�k ., _._ .,-. . ».� ..,� �a � kazFn<��x.«<f,^a�...: ,� t ti r >np..�"a ,§<�<4„ <� "��;•�^:.;•> ,,y'._?p2F;c:. GPI",r'x:"..:3°\"•c„�?.•<y:'^ ,t:aL ^e;ta i�>-`• �. ,>\^3<.a;,.e.�<- `r� `x�o• x.'Yr,. 4s�• �,•.,..,°..z; .`2`��,`;tt -Q.,. h-.« .«'�;M +$�, �!• "-%fig ,� ,h.. ,"k.,4�r ��:.. ..a\�5.<r'.'�..�..>°a�.\.� caxLw`.'•>,,�a,.,;q,< ,ikx.;.M� .4s.�r,;:� :�.,*.a�'-�'' s"t <c,"fi:.,'.ty, x�:?�, "�i > a: :��x ^,:'�>;x> ..?-' ::d:�'f:a» ....:�'�.�,��'�,.�:xyr�.�->-�.......,,._,_G.�,��YuL�:«_...�.�.w...,.,'��..��.'tS�w.a<nsa.'s:�..e<.�S,s�.._. .,..�Aa .,�31.:,��.-.. ...a_..,>r, .<_ .._., ".,._,._-.,. `� _.�.,ra'm :..t..;� �>-.ns�:::' _a.r..>.. %.�.: :'.��€v_:��:.�..>oWfak�::r=z�ra '��,' ,,zsr ,re5,,,.F,F,3_ .:�>:;W a`al'K`:�w. -�„�::; "'s.r<�^'„ fig , ::emu ,R' .!s .a�?., ..rax :v..' >.;s..�,-r�.,�.+;x:,=.<..'cu;,ru,; ,.. .�_s><x;««-,.a,<-;.-..,, ,>�; � ,F.: ,S;g is <Rto>_. ;,,'s>� :�>`�"i::� .a,�:..•� '=t�< �f"' �-F...�,, ..t'�'-°x'<:. e•,,. ^`ti•1..,, � .�5..-..-,,s�>>. _. .. .. .:3c�:,v`�.....c�:,>.�.., < r4,.r. 'r=='ass a•.,°� L`:;r.<.a .w.'�5 .,.�<.r - '�• -F..f r '�-:> „�aa,. '��s,'='=�` ,�.. ,.2:.:>. �.<. <,s>'•a ,t.,.^F ,a ,. 'c'><^i5?,g`.< _k-i:�.,c.^.,.+IISY.> 3 F:,°3.._'',.} .:-�-R`a,e.,u6 .i:�''\:'> �� ,,._.-s"�...., e _, ••.. ....v,.<.. �......... ..e� ...., a.,zb•,^+..�r �,` _" °,:- F�.,�.'�a >\_, ,3`:\•„,a.::E.k$;:<\;�:_,<t,` "-¢y: .,cf^.. ._�,.ww. �-_,...,,,..•.,• �asu.:-rs<.3.�;•.:.,:>..a.,.4z.=.:.- �5.<a&sri.��.,r<;�t�.'�":�::=5,.,..�'��:'S�i�`'z�:.'ia�=.,...,.<.a�'�'..L°��i?<�'a�TE�.•a.:�r>::'�> .u...,,,•a..,.,..:nsw\`.::x�:A'� �sx'�';+. ,,up<.'e`e C`�'P.'``,'t'.eY, ?:kfA'..w�4row�T>`d,"-'rt Frnf�V=,TG;•C'C�,;.f.:Na>1<. '-:v fy',,', pV;Aa - M �R tyz.i ".•.,r .`:�: _\'�> IVAittSe•a2 �s, `3••+�:.•>>',4:itr .�.,r m�,.-ea ,r;� .�; :•Y`• - .1<, -t `,;','S.'ayl, r,��`' •ter ��t"`.,. ..;,��` .:, ,:rC ^s.>"�: `r-. .>^� = 1 '�. 'z::-.>8�<<t�s'�:� ;•x:= w. ,sa <.r �.A:t:,.^l,<:,:�.�:e.> ��.}.n S"ate;- ,'&. .� - ,,-�- ,ny,,.�` +.. _w�:' -xr, :;�,'<«'^._. .$< ".,?<x<,_':a.._�:t-.:n;K, �,�',ems;;, ,>a .`sF r..as-�' °-�ic`;:<"='�.Y��{ a. yyy. �� T',�i'"` ?z..�.. .3g- ,x >'� '`'�'.a°._ `f,:. .� �h.F. o- :.,��.>R ..<YY.-a>,>�',,l ,-,•`'Es'.?aa. .x 3�•=ar^��::..<..;`.^�•::'...�x�zM�:.:tMysr;wSr:;'.�`'+`�`>'�t<.<:.,.«,...<.r.. .,,xi_. "�e�y�.. ,. F' t'.' .:�_., <;zr:.,s6>..r•n>;•:^.,�3. .,t<•..<g;,.a ,,:t':`,':i� �n�.`�,. S n'.y-�¢.�," .a ta"s.c;,.�u�:s: �:,�<a,.*S.er.� ...3•`.<,».,,_w.e_,. _r.<vi��t.,°-w�'..wS_>..,<e.,.i`s.................. ::.�;a.``�`a....;e,a�£><.;..w,vn".A..�',��ec��'�,..w.., r�?-,,, =x^N3v: "<c'EE*,w •iS9�!^ _ 'YC?.".S �.*,; �•>,.<R". R'Y: t.. .<:y>, x.� ,. �,:< .< <:. .., .... \,�.a�,.�, e..R, fi..>,..•.-.-,�;,,.:<��«.k,,, s�-:.. . .5.,t ss`.•�:,��a�q2.>., .<.r;•c;.;, .�.r>.r �.<.�t>7:";"^�.,'M"e '-z �:'> .»,ss�,-:�'`-`r`. gsr.,.P,..,,,.;;.,..,,rr` ,e o;«,sr,x„k.<+�`�>o_ .">.,..>> >,•:�;s.:...:.+<,.-a .:'z.:>` .:i\> >,.K?>: ter,. �ii,�.-c., ,.s„>, .,:v, >�� .,3 �e>'�.,<if�<,•< *,,.'z=>-:�;'. ..,...-�33�.,..a.,,aa�w'<.2...�<v s2 t.,r.>�. ��,h»�a4:.,.,.,Mi..>•aya.sv�u..._._a<.a�:�y�r>.,.<:<,y. •'z�'v.x:�.xs �`:ay.•iveu`.''S?u;G�:iws.'s: ai'<`s'-a.,;'.w'>.Esc''v>:'cta�'�"epia'�m�i�'e«s�..-. -i•air..=„�' <. °`y.i s`",,. �2:. 2,,. 4:� ,�'" ....,..>,:...,>.,:r:s.<,;,,<..� , � -><'�-rs. "..•='r. -_.. ,. ...,. � •3'a .-•�.:d r Y:r:v" :^.;�3'- •,.,::z.- `r1: '�l a��.:�"t'tra:--"r"``3„r.<,•`\*.�`.�,r=-" ..�`'s�,. .,Zi.. 'i<t>._ y> =j, x ., ,"ec`,�,..e....-.,u.;.'::A:.,,;:,...`'r«,.<.,".._ .. .�.<._.,-,..,�•3<.,.x'-> <._,.. 'ze_ ..-.. 4<.<M-�Y.,k,<a�. ::�..,.,:,..,�,.r,�;•:°r'�•� °�o>• �*% ,tt.'-$a'-,,',. SUBTOTAL 467 :84 BILL TO: TAX 0.00 FREIGHT 0.00 TOTAL 467.84 �. ,� .r�'>�w =�> '33., -rt, :<r� .•a�-.,a�>-,r<,r.,,:-�_:>::<�-rrisk<.»:;�.t;.�:o:<=..� wvr h"�'�'.^ 'S` w.2, _'kd'$v?iu��_.�v. .r:a+3,,! .ry>�.., �;,,.,��t.,,lt,,x..:�;•• •.a �';;'%<'s?.'='% `"Cµ `z='.•^ �'rm<•>: Y,<aJf': .v ,< .,. ""4>.W ••c'xs>.`e= 'i':,?«<='•,,3:`':£°,• �>..y S <:^Cuf, 1':• 5.. yy.+�. -.�9 t,¢,,y�:f, e' �kd N ��,y �"l1G .fi�x'-.^�`. 's<+t .F na,N `.. ��.��`' �,n-:?T•`,«.K`C >.. ,<>�.�'�'i<��. y�w<.. ,«.�>�:��>e..:,:err,r�,.s�„x>�.:xa„e�z>.•^'.o�:<",'.,:..�C-ra':.-,,.x�'. k<`...t��?�`�� ;:o,<��•r,�tTw;;-�„•,<, ,.,r�•a�z°„ ,.,.,<..a:��E.:�^•�.� ta E 127.000000.004.5710.0010.48.000000 467.84 7 466 `7(1_460,21,derit41....„,_ ed Signature V �� 9 Authorized Signature INVOICE: 10P C I T1 utak ice Date: Rt To: OPAL She:Integrated Solutions Project Numt�ir: 545578SE 03/16/2006 P.O.Box:951245 . �'E tEl SOL ORS Dallas TX,75395-1245 For. Client#:C03013 SPL - INTEGRATED SOLUTIONS SPL Integrated Solutions CITY OFRENTON 1427 ENERGY PARK DR. ,�(�((� t Service Order MAR 2.1 2006 ST. PAUL, MN, 55108 V Customer P.O.: VERBAL RECEIVED PH (651) 287-7000 FX (651) 287-7001 U CITY CLERK'S OFFICE Bill to: Project Site: CITY OF RENTON SPL Integrated Solutions ACCOUNTS PAYABLE Ngac Do • 1055 SOUTH GRADY WAY 8661 154th Ave NE RENTON, WA 98005 Redmond WA 98052 Tel:425.430.6606 • Terms: 30 Day Net Invoice Date: 03/1'6I2006 ShipVia: WILL CALL Due Date: 04/15/2006 Product Code: S Authorized Agent: LoriNberd Qty Mfr-Part No. Description Unit Price Extended. 1 ROBREP01-14>*1 A1.F . Repair east A 7`tS0l ' ietiA * 240.00 240.00 l 2 Service Labor hours, $95/hr CHARTER 116, LAWS OF 1965 95.00 190.00 ***Picked up unit&sent to repair CITY OF RENTON CERTIFICATION ***Reinstalled repaired unit I,THE UNDERSIGNED L,0 HEREBY CERTIFY UNDER PENALTY ***Verified unit functions with rack equipment OF PERJURY,THAT THE MATERIALS HAVE BEEN FURNISHED, THE SERVICES RENDERED OR THE LABOR PERFORMED AS DESCRIBED HEREIN,AND THAT THE CLAIM IS JUST,DUE AND UNPAID OBLIGATION AGAINST THE CITY OF RENTON,AND THAT I AM AUTHORIZED TO AUTHENTICATE AND CERTIFY TO SAID CLAIM. .. -Pa j (c)or, nos' RECEIVE® Vol,L.,L".. 0767320 MAR 2 0 2006 1.27, oodoo6, ooLf.s-7/o• Oo(o. ',/8, oadodo City of Renton `bD' Accounts Payable Please note new Remit To Address above. $ _ Sales Tax WA $ 37.84 Tax ID:52-1760942 Balance Due: $ ,r 03/16/2006 SPL-INTEGRATED SOLUTIONS Project: S45578SE INVOICE: Page 1 of 1 Paoe1 /1 . � . CITY OF REN-"ON C)�o 1055 S. GRADY WAY RENTON. VVA99O55 5/31/2006 13/0001146 vsmDOR: U82Q7g SHIP TO: TROXELL COMMUNICATIONS INC 4830G38TH8T PHOENIX, AZ85O4O FOB Point: meq.Nu: Terms: due in3Odays D»Pt-: FINANCE DEPARTMENT Req.Del.Date: Contact: EVAN8. OEBB|E mnvoio|m,t: Pre-AssignedPO#y: No PROJECTION LAMP FOR EIKI PROJECTOR IN 314.43 Now- FREIGHT INCLUDEPI - Al 5 BILL TO: SUBTOTAL 314.43 . TAX 0.00 FREIGHT 0.00 TOTAL 314.43 ^ .2..000000.0=4.57.".vw/v.4o.vvuuuv 314.43 Authorized Signature Authorized Signature PLEIi-SE REMIT TO: ... -. INVOICE TROSE II COMMUNICATIONS, INC. Audio•Video-Sales•Design-Service•Installation No. 172526 4830 S.38TH STREET Date 06/12/2006 PHOENIX,ARIZONA 85040 Page 1 (602)437-7240 1-800-352-791 2 FAX (602)4371-7265 j Customer 21416 N TIN 11 86-071 61 14 8 1/41,v : 84 Sold To: AtC Ship To: C iTY OF RENToN CITY OF RENTON - CITY OF RENTON • JUL 2 5 2006 • 1055 S GRADY WAY 1055 S GRADY WAY RENTON WA 98055-3232 RECEIVED RENTON WA 98055-3232 CITY CLERK'S OFFICE . 44 t4ii.:ii. :::: i;!ig.i'ii Ship Via :Mpoo.;:ptiokitr:: :i::.i.iii:•d•oiii•i:disi..d0lit4e0A64 P:0.4*iii'..4 ta$ N'O-!! ii.:::::;;; $4;1 ‘..*.::Ai: Net 30 . United Parcel Servic 06/12/2006 632143 EEM 06/05/2006 1.210001146 4601 , .,..,,.•.:Q::, :.::i..,,,.':.. . :: :::•:''.:: ...:•:-:..i.,..: .•::':''.:ni?;,::']'f..:.c:: ,: :„, _.., _.i.W: Shipped :i:•::i.::ii:,.,i:,,,:i:::MN ., ,...,,::':: ::•:] .'''''..i:s. ,...:i. .:.:.;',.'-:.:',:.....i::i'::.....:::.:Ii #:M:.i)!MA":1N-#!.::, : :• : •: : . .:,- s91*:lPP9.i!: :;::.! '. ii :- ::.:'::iiiiiii!Hbi: i;;: ii.f.P9T.#g.:i::; :iiVIJPPg9:::::EiiP.I.MI:iiin::ii Price/Per :S3Sti:?114rci49W.• EIK EIK61 02907698 LAMP FOR LC-SX1U, 1 1 0 289.00 289.00 SX1UL,X1UA,X1UL UPS 1Z8718930314215191 • REC 1/ E1 v ED .JUN I 6 2006 A_City of R en... ton I.CCoUnts PaYabie CHARTER 116, LAWS OF 19. ... . CITY OF RENTON CERTIFIC• ION I,THE UNDERSIGNED DO HEREBY CERTIFY U i 'PENALTY OF PERJUF Y,THAT THE MA RIALS HAVE BEEN.- PC I-Z-/00 0 I I 11(0 THE SERVICES RENDERED OR THE LABOR •..•.-I.,.,...:.As DESCRIBED HEREIN,AND THAT THE LIAM CAST DUEAND UNPAID OBLIGATION AGAINST THE CITY OF - 0. AND I/04/>0-a f. 0 7 7_97 THAT I AM AUTHORIZED TO AUTHENTICATE AND v;- TO 4a , • MEMO: ISIETUSALtS CONDITIONS OF SALE AMO.U:Nrtfti:ii, ia: iiiiiiiiiio 289.00 All claims arising out of or connected with the AFinance Charge at the periodic rate of ;S:AtESi:37470.(4 2 5.4 4 • above listed items must be made within five days 1 1/2% with an Annual Percentage Rate MiggiOii;iiMiNi after delivery. No returns accepted unless of 18% will be charged on all accounts accompanied by this document. Merchandise returned unpaid after the last day of the for credit shall be subject to 25% handling following month. FREIGHTIN charges. Seller reserves title to these goods a:i]:: : ::Maain:: :•;i:: .............................. until paid for in full. . -i:•::::::;:-':]::iiiiK:i:.,i-: -:Na •••.•&.•••.•:i :i*i::i.]?..::*::.i••••,: :This invoice is due on or before 07/12/2006 .AMOUNT 314.44 . i,:i:::i• PLEASE REFERENCE THIS INVOICE NO. 172526 ON YOUR REMITTANCE .e: !;:::i:::i:ii:i:i:.::i:i:i:::•:: in;OuENO •s,(C-ci (D,t, • • 0 - CITY OF RENTON • • • 1055 S. GRADY WAY PO Number • S' RENTON WA 98055 ; UM * -- • • , VENDOR: • u C 6.d17._.e.)yefiHIP TO: Fi (4: D S1 . • etyiv 6efA.11 - oe-•/D • uclo FOB Point: .;. Req. No.: . • Terms: net t e rm Dept.: • 0"*.;.;7114rri.; - Req.Del.Date: • • Contact: . Special Inst:* • " Confirming? • : 0.-s3 Quantity Unit Description -Unk Price Ext Price ;..........................., .. ........ ••• •-••••••• .• " • V. • . v.v• ,• •• REMO a gang gig ME:g;ti.: agg: I K: "ti: I IMININKI Pt aggettASSE1 gig$ INPURISOM111111 Eigetigt I; I In III IIIII II II I I ti II•:`. , . • I 5:fig 1,3:gag Si 14:111 nigginatifferi rili!P.!• .e! . . •141.ali REEMPIIIISSEMEgagagre intagitaninaggl iI0IN EMERY VIM %.3'• tif • . . : . I igf,:sgeRsiva;:gginniting g aimri:",::1:A .!?piii Riqms g• iiT:ipmg. :11.441110:1 age ilaiNg PIAVE AMR liteldfillegignakitalrefallagegliglenig 11:NON.Sitit. , • Ple:4 .ftaiggiti .0141.0111pg .1111 411111.111'..11:141.0:11pillgi slit:To:City of Renton TAX d _ .1055 S GRADY WAY• .FREIGliT • RENTON. WA -:•498055--3232 • TOTAL ; • • • . . • . . . . • . • • ;.'• I • • . I, • • • • •••• PLEASE REMIT TO: • TRO , E ILActhootmosua,e5NkcigAn.sTerviicoeNifiss.„0,,,Nc. No. 172526•, 4830 S.38TH STREET Date 06/12/2006 PHOENIX,ARIZONA 85040 Page 1 (602)437-7240 1-800-352-7912 FAX (602)437-7265 Customer 21416 N TIN #86-0716114 • Sold To: Ship To: CITY OF RENTON CITY OF RENTON 1055 S GRADY WAY 1055 S GRADY WAY RENTON WA 98055-3232 RENTON WA 98055-3232 Net 30 United Parcel Servic 06/12/2006 632143 EEM 06/05/2006 12/0001146 4601 . EIK EIK6102907698 LAMP FOR LC-SX1U, 1 1 0 289.00 289.00 SX1UL,X1UA,X1UL UPS 1Z8718930314215191 MEMO: iNETSALESim .:iA1v1011)N7r=i 289.00 CONDITIONS OF SALE All claims arising out of or connected with the AFinance Charge at the periodic rate of SALES TM 25.44 above listed items must be made within five days 1 1/2% with an Annual Percentage Rate after delivery. No returns accepted unless of 18% will be charged on all accounts *OiMWAMM accompanied by this document. Merchandise returned unpaid after the last day of the for credit shall be subject to 25% handling following month. FREIGHT charges. Seller reserves title to these goods until paid for in full. This invoice is due on or before 07/1 2/2006 AMOUNT 3 14.44 PLEASE REFERENCE THIS INVOICE NO. 172526 ON YOUR REMITTANCE DUE • • S I Troxell Communications, Inc. PACKING LIST T ROE 172526 4830 S. 38th Street (602)437-7240 Invoice No. Date 06/12/06 Phoenix, Arizona 85040 1-800-352-7912 Page 1 FAX (602)437-7265 Customer No. 21416 0 Sold To: Ship To: CITY OF RENTON CITY OF RENTON • 1055 S GRADY WAY 1055 S GRADY WAY RENTON WA 98055-3232 RENTON WA 98055-3232 Your Purchase Order No. 12/0001146 .................................... Net 30 632143 12/0001146 06/05/06 1 06/12/06 Item No W/H Product No Description Ordered Prey Ship Curr Ship BID 2. 1 EIK EIK6102 907698 LAMP FOR LC-SX1U, 1 0 1 0 SX1UL,X1UA,X1UL UPS 1Z8718930314215191 SHIP IMMEDIATELY, BUT MUST ARRIVE BY 06/30/2006 • MEMO: Page Ill �Y Ows r �� CITY OF RENT._.N c�� • + + 1055 S. GRADY WAY �x;ti:.;• '71f ;.:> _ . ? ?IN:UMI<##r e. N,TO'� RENTON, WA 98055 8/1/2006 12/0001201 VENDOR: 040001 SHIP TO: JW TEL-TRONICS INC PO BOX 1282 BOTHELL, WA 98041-1282 • FOB Point: Req.No.: Terms: due in 30 days Dept.: FINANCE DEPARTMENT Req.Del.Date: Contact: SETH, JASON Pre-Assigned PO#?: No Special Inst: S'-V'ro�i3g.L.Yr``+::?e ,,,,„t.^ "a+'... �i �:F.:t-a3t ,y�.i.v>>.( °"":, x..:d. k..rtre. :,;S:r yi}N, @' ,v,'aaJ�+':^"•'.:ti.>.ue...m., `'.'+,-,�;` ..4'F g.. .� h.C fit"...>y:.si5S �'::?'.a`.:vt 3�a .,..i.'yi` x r, ,<'F.,,'-> �:ri :""..* .x- 9{"! <;SS S „Z,:-:, v'!„c °, '?;t >?,': hxF,s''" ':S':�'.� '.Y-r.• i'.r•A:il; •,•:�,t>:<'". �. .,., ..4�.�1..r_''"'t'4, ,:W:.<.�.. ... :si`,,x.>:iz:. .. .., -.s'i' c r x`_.i�eS�.''rl;i��'IQ~�4 `�o°•i. a^'�`�� ,^fi':.�i<'�'-Y.>,, "'1 �/ __:rt,- :, -,.„; „a..' �+'?�''.-. �'�' a-�,r> ..,>,.. .. .,..�r"::e�#:�.,g.:.,�.c. �.a. >r....... .. .......`,•t.�'�, ... .,.H��111�;`��,C,@art"�.tr.�:k.:',«,. _... _..x..�< s .> Video Equipment Up rade-(Sony DSR-45 1,017.35. ..,:tia^;A`=';:m;i..?m;, - -f:: ,.T"ea'_."i'; ,"' `C", ..x,...y,,,u<- .r.' ,: .ti•�..;-. p,;-y..-.>,>. -,:;: ._'�,«. �'5,.'�� -r:.• -.,f;t- 3" .7 :at>;�at;. _ .:«�`^'' C� `,•h`,x"'t'. ro. ;'„r.•>,a",'�'q"::v'..--,^.>t �•a��te:. i 'a;7,: i 5'. -x. >.f.: -.a •,� iaty x 'd.1 - .,.r i,�t. y'kt�,^.`'.< \e'L 4..�'> .,i,zi:, TF`,x�tS:'t5,.1':>f",a p4„t� �'xF= �,`F�tYa ��('�ItaIoWG�'i. '.L ��Sj�/ 3'�{:��U(`�- ""�. .'.4: •:vl,. 4 i'i� 3. "•<<.Z i � ..»,ul„-;,,3.).G4;w1'>a.a4..,.,...5`•b31.�3`C>..,--SrM_vvru.,,e..-ua,.�.i....�n::e�;�A��di::Y<x+.c�x.>,,,ar✓ >`.7�i,� >�ek<`�.t j• .,li,- ��F .�.<.i`'r`i"'•'`„�}'�;' .Y.> .sJ �: �Y}t c., N......,^.s:::w�:�;<^m-.,..,-.,.Y>•{!, ,':.:�i�5',da.,ie�".s,:ew.._,.�..,a.,...,a.x.i.r`.ik;,�.:.4.:�-,.,.c;x;:s°:.,_,xa.»v.,.cx.m.�..f>_..•--:t :.ac,�>...• ';zSt'3:ia:.� automation system) • SE5^-i6 W,- -1,",•.-7 •.3x't' 1'y.1: .'_"'.�« >"tS•..d`x'A- xt,x^ss:'r:•e::7.7,.rE, - Ve 5>a ^ Pet n,. <,g'„':r a>,S - ",;ya '.'S: ?q.�>>>^:^>-n ,e.. �t,r -.:- .c, .-,,. r.<,.,-.`..: . , . • �is y - ..Y,i_rtye�i`.n:- .+. .>F ,. ..,". .. ..x,a. ., 1" -�=S'r-�i'r.-{•.._\:-`t�,.a.,e,,.+'-.., - w' .'i��.``i ...;R,4�. r ..u�..,.,� ,........ _., ....�< -,;4t .„.,s.... x .<. . w:..�...-a.,, t><.' :'3•• .<t�,',;: 1>sY�;•, 4'.\ 2" Jrx ^•a,,. �:�-. +:�;�_.�:'•$=r�r3<:;' s:'+r::'_ s,i:s"r-y��7.,,, �.-- ..`-a r,t- ->. ,_,,,i.o.. .�.., x„ - I.>.,�"+Tes'.":.`Ef: tvJa3ri3>1..S::e3.._,a>l2„ ,s:.'t"ti:•»✓.-=,••'i�"-�>'.. .:r`d.:'•••'" wY,n�m ,..wLla.a.ezu.e 4.a5..v�.Kx�'`v.�tv\,.vs»._-¢'3v 't „' 3�'Le c 'y l� v,-a...n...!"J.:'-,N,k .<,.,r.r\��<.-.._,:w,.a.x:w,.a.eK.r.-.'..a��4.i"t«,.a.a-,rxa.v'.'.3;YY` ..... , .....__a. ,_:i.,a`..:!�`r ( rt'-,„7,,,';2. `e,,, ,,,a 73,,Kt`T r,:rr•`s,-a-?Z :•r--• Tar,'ra1.^t"i';2"€-,,,,,,„m:,,,,. w.�. «.1,x .«.,>s'3:::F' ":ytx+.a „r'- ';-C•. G'€=''s�Y:�iT,Y �i" ,.:a'.r, v"a"as-t x^•,'Sa�.�.... ._.`, '3+.<_-: ii'r i.; xiF .�sa.a.a¢ii�..x �':^.:,,,. ., -aa>`::i,,..,...>.e.. <:.._.c-.��n�.`t:, ,ak...W,�'�.,',`' \t= ,.., ,t>. ..,. .. 1, µ- a ' � s; .e.�X3.:�s3��' �Dzi;'a{�':i:` :,P,�Y<...✓n�,t3A5G::fi." `-.�`.z'_>.a.,M`i'.=.t�;:t.......>.,..�ta..x.,.>c<:�._a«...., ..,,R-r,st>�it �,..A:."r Sst:::';,rs;�;t �ya� ;c y";.e3., c "3-•• ..nE="�F7i A`>1,,, 5. y4�:, Cae< .x 1.;r.,7,.sr F`Eri 1=•',Ww^ - - r'krvi ,..,v;" :.lx' .9^ ' :�i.^: ',rL<'S ;'ti:-7-s«. ,.-..Y^--r'._^;..^•�'•='ta'm T�>} ,rhY. i<�, e:;i;nl'i. 7�ii-n;�. �',i, ,.`��vx+.'xy x,it, -`�=r e-<i_._'r<.a. ->\'ice .b =..+'.>...� .3: ...5+- s x5'"��;'i`a , F., ter. ,'F .fix. ...Y 1 �+.x`i'::":i� , ayM<,V ,, .... ,...�-.-...1,:. ... ._`:>..:::....s.a>`+'u:?: >:"F Py ;$.ra,!4 t2,:; .. .A.- - >.x'i. Y,. tom: _4;t's�.� -.,. ... , .;..>. ., „ ...... ,....\, a... -rv.< .0.iy>,.{ ...S,r._ `.:..i� ..1,r, �-t'L.Ydt .- �J:itrc..s..,..�x-.u,.:.,saal�'`.`.;.�`xa..e_e...t.,.>,u..,x,"..>..v,.>• ............a.......s..:�£u_a_'4a.'srii.w.,....,..n`s>.:•.'Yta>.S4Stlw_!ut.,,�s,...a:.<>�S,.ix<-,:&`c,,"u�.:+:x>it'.'Y.o#', ^'[".iTir,-e.r,r' .^s•,-"e,«.<..^:...<..,N fir, te,�_, _ -;-t' > <:-"<..<,>,..,..,'. _y,:R:^'I£ :�rv. .r-c:'R,°>.'".,y..er?;n•m zri'Y', -.) '-, q---'x�?^"-t .',' :,>_".:e..1. ..ems->: ,..5, x�id=x: ^"^tY, "z i:' .:,(-,._x<.r i- �.. :i',477i _ .� 1-��\er.cx..n•S'•' _ F-ill!.' .<i> w�'-"•+c(a.-� 4 `T'.:: _ �: `s�vT: „ta._....:..s.>o-«t:i',.,.,..«a >.. ....:i ,, a •� I.xt,:`f.,wR...�.�,s.,a.a,ssW c �v:�''..;a'�..�k:`:`,.<kduii�,_.v'''i..e .<�:`r��l..,a>.n'e kr n...,.. u:'sa:�::thiu;:,*:';ra...,a.. C.,a,a..,,>. ,:�a. 'ua 4L.,.,,x.t..a:...,>...,....a,a,.,,....>,._...,sx� •:�'»a°.�v+»k� ,,,''' .f �"..at"za:t. x, .,,` ."5 ':CM:Nt.:!•1=,"�'xx '��^..:Se F:,' nsY'>a'sJ"k•' _1:3'"- C,-•v>Y^%+,y- ,-.3:. a,x!rrc+ .,,. .«..a.. >..... "':ti' o:a"c..,--r::t_ .. _Fi.m -"'e'%7'%'.° ,;�..,xy„...^E ."y;""`^Y'a.•ex ...->y.,.m v.-;.%rN.,, �.,�y.>;-v ,�,.,�;ryy,-. ,moo. ::6w ..<3; ✓t:i'w', - f +("::'"Ste....,: ,..n..__.>�..,.a.�,'rk„^ ::cz':,.,tns:<„_.M?a:.i ..>. . ,7_ , .... s,x.x..x,,,_a_,. ..:, x.. �>^v.% .z:r::.°`.a..i_:.....:a:..:':� °..<..�,,,-..,s.:::a..>.;�°.`."��',,.k!aN:�._.,:a:.a>...r3>..%...:.A.a.r rx�:.; �.:;•-K..,-i.�'a;t•'t, •x�K:,-- ,e<""MS`:; ^^' ,7:;ctv^, "'__,<FS.^C , .i^':=7L.:::•"T-a-'�,a`,-, .,'r:.-�7 _,e'7z,-, ::itR: -_ "•""K"< ,SR e.. ^s C.237. :;i`.'xH m'i< k>':li.', } �:V�".::`:>:?��'%'-.::-:'^,,,".` ,Skc-£,"' ',rf .-rYv,.o. k'`F-Y x ,t- .ate"\. ,`a �`ti::,;;. 'r v\ ,i;, N .r. F ka, f�, .=.fir. ''ri ';R.,r .� { w..Sr<L'.Y .ar.,..,»,.5.......t,z=.,s_...,.,.4..>.., ..'.t.,.........:asm6 , ., ",:.�"..>'rx w^. �` ^.•,...,-:-„a.,...a_...n a,... >_,.,..n^. Y,iE k^A,. z a .t.r. ,x•.. ,>, -n x'"a„ 7`S.:.tc..xw...a, < ,>,..,_.a.>.«S.n:....>a<.... ,..,_5'.«.a__:�:.;c �� ,...;tea.,....:.kr ..�; _ ,.....,., ,,,,., .,,,.._....... ..... •. � ... ,_.. ..:5,'4'F"" ».:<;••«- r.:'n's;: t�rc"; ,. „,,.:"„,;:cx r,•: _.,�_„ x-r;tea:,�> ._,i,,... maer „a.r-•,d•, "'s a, .::zs'a ..Jos},.' �'�z:�;>`. ,.�x :+✓<.;�- ^s--v<v>...�..:. ,.,,...,tom• " ��b;�:'.�:.:9::+^,x't}?',�'i1}e�`»-:t"'::rx ,�y=V, ,,:h'�F ter,.:•-' ',`vim. 1 .d s y, . .53� - \ S-e'fM•t.;.�4t.1i Y .2g�;Ss::_`..X.y.•.a,_..._5..,...a.....>...._.,-,.,,,µii.ir,Fa4•.ox,a..l,.;,�.:.:>..,>...a_.,,....,..>a,.,a.ta.;t1'%C::t'i�iv."z"x.`x?.LSe:'.:tsa•:�,.:,.._au.,u..>".::ti:"-`w:.i�.'a•.._.<.,"?:ii'_,u<,b .a,. .:7`^0- ., 'i'<«3 i. r.;^:-.^rf,,^>..-.,-«tv�•"li::;x-w:v.:i=':.s.•-•y..,..r.� «r,-.}S", a•�-x^,s>.,.r'«�..;m,i';.s r•,-•,�?'?,,.. .,. ,.. .,.. f!>. ..> , - ,.,>,,...3...... .. .>. ..'��iq'�i`ae;.;:cC,�.' .,--� x;".r,'�;E'e,• .. �::�,'.'.a> -:- ,••�''-T' :>.:'::..:mom=�,`: '••x=•mt? -xx,.,,a-�>�.,..`,s,;�,�.:.:x'<.�`�t ..s Ye s.Y.r.,,,`,-tc 2.'t .. r.., r....L.>,t.w.C.S.r:4.a>,i,,... �`. _ ,Y'. -S >n.-,.-<,<._:r Y.n., ..,d .:fi.41,: - z.T�.z '�`-,4„�:.�r2.:: .�i'Rr�a_.f ..A-;' w. <�,>_,<,_„,,.,x. ,., .. „; ,, ,i„, >.,r -? ,-s> .. „s r, .,^._• s,.ic..x.z;, t,;,-,:;,t ,-«.: t"-i<t' .-..:: ...,EF.sxut:.a> ..> Tv fa-< •, yy ':�. sx.5e+.:.:. ✓•S - z,t: �r �G.� :>Y'a'Y`'..,,,j-_�i. i:,?fYv a�';,�.,t�.ii- wd x -su-,✓,:, :...t,>,^,�s�x�:a:`wa...,..-au-:'.r.a.:a ..sic3N. ..>.x. =• _.,:. ..t..„. ,,f, ....C.,.,...,..aa,&<,.ex.`a„cas`.v�..�i., .,, ,.� .aw..«.,..._,,..,_a-.....,a.,a.,a...a «.,.a...<.,.a.,,.->'a'.•.._,,,.,.,,,„i.:.,^..,,..<...._, ,. „Zk.:<`x-«.Ex'�.s?a f,<:. =,._`.'r,.:,�..ai•... 'yC'>t.;x,^;:;�7;.n"�i: '®"`3v,,:'a:,°''j .'�,','-xr<"" •,xr::m';>^' e�<:_ c, - �;'rs�':"� "�'="'-v",v rS•�s-a'S:r,:, '-`:S";;^, ..,y„-x r:�xn^r.xuv.-cr. c,,,. .,a-. ,a,_ 7-,:```Ae,>.r' ,i_:'''� y:} i t .;55<> 7,T.Fa..' r'v'sv .t,:�"f="` "=''T.T?:�.?'_.. .5 0.,..•"a;Sf't::9 r t"f s,-M s.'k^ `s:t -- "r<;' <'%{• �' .tin.:.S;S'rC ,.��r"<.a.{rs,-- f,.s.,t. .e _�:i��`sex.`" t A'�='�e:tom'" .. ':..N.c t- t",w.,., ,*,bk .. w`S., s. >, ,.: >.. :a.,<`w - ,r'`..>„,:k`..�.u::n `'V „e;, ,.�•,a' ,,,, ,g...s..' ,,,,;r. ... ..e.. �:* j...s o. '>. -.<.<,>e' :�. .,,35` fir: � -a.t ,...�. .r., ,3>: ``��..�' '�<s=.:-s>><:• � ^�<:..sa?-.5<.. ..,at;`c Aa~.� r,.��w. a> .:c�. .•S.Fsa'M°SA,.<a...m.xSd..,R'•wa..a._":.A:«�.Cax.,...�.`^./l`.`>.`c"�a;a;�:.::.i�'C+-'�/:akil:ia..::<,�::,,�,sra� ' am�t1,...t:if,.::a:.a::.'��'a:.�` ,`.a_.'s'� � '.:.`�5�..:.zs,�;,:„,3,,saa.'.'`_, .,x'e,vs°w "�f,�., �.... ;S•�F,• �"�!'^= -�' IIifaxb:`s�Ysr,zi>:.t>->x.�n�iw�^kS".n''»"i.,...,.t.�:'a.cv.3d:kcAvS'�4,".� -.'I' :f�"-�'-ryyr^s=""'_'`•`"„c`t.t=a+rs'�,'-?.,ss;?;•x;,';w:+-�' .,x„p7s�u •�'ssyv-;`^,=':•r�r ^^.c- .< .�r^.^: -�rcr ^Y,gxwn>,>-,- �5;�`'`k E. '��:'v. r' ;:3`.. iF! .r,:"' w`::`s^ _., ;>°. -''s'7<tY:r?,,�,�.c r, M;�,�-_'-,s-,.F "=:rr;:j _? y°',.,r.ci .t' .e'a 3,.t, x.�: ",:,`,tx •a; ,a,.k _``S7..e'>��55"`r:- `r. -E rv,'� ,,�,`:° •',,`-.,,'p,--�,'--".'','. %&';`:��_'.' .H'. >? <ks >S'?``c .v=re<'�n. „?aS;✓ i:c§t�- '.'h"•3 er k' 'T.t'• `'K:W:;^:�`. x�;.•:<_.:HS-,t.•>g"4 a.st� ..^�✓`«� �" ; " .,. >,va.. .c_• .,-r _ <•- ,.,3z n'�'ix. ,�,4A,, r., �,.. .•tr". ..a.,r >.;x, ..;4;'. s., r:. :u:`�iwss�:e's>:€;�3s.k.rN•��' �.'wa,..ark,,,,..>..,>�.x: eo.,,a.>.,«.,.::»....ara>w�s,.�.�..a.....>.x»ers.�.��'^a»_.,<t>.,>,,..,.._ ...<a. '._u._. , .. ..r-.•� = `»w;�:z,.xw.F.,aa.....'�:.v:,:.a,,.>,. <.,'"U `T.a�'`•A> SuH,v,w,ZM�»,>�«a=,n+.-t.,3waNu ,.a_.+':fJ�'.$'x'-•.�e , �„"•Cm,-' �•'°�.«•••� '.e.e'<•b"Y.�.',,'<?.^3Y>,�t:%: :,l-V:"i°:•y°° �xY•^<.'C... sty Y-t•a' my;i:y7.+A-..A� «-�,.,,. �.ra. �, -�' "`, c•,r.�'- k. >:�•.� >-'�.,: -ra...��.�.m:s,. .x'c,�-:s ,rz•:;;'>':r„'-"i.�*'- >� ,t:•y�». `S, rt"�ak� - R'Si,,-.,": ,,y � �'��<„ <.� 'aa >e ,,1 .c•-,,��:...rt°� -:.R_ <"r�b.�'.-:''• +�`�. >2,4,°-,, �.., ,.,1, fe"y3;.;, :,v��,..> ;:.�",� ��,.,2x-?`F.- et�,_.:nw.'.`i r_' 4,k<�,'1".i':'�:z,. .r,ea� s`,•. ;+es>s3:lauav ;:.Hai�'.'�r.w,:'a ?, ... �,ae'Ws.ac�..'�4x`�x,��'`°�.',7v.,L•,>au�a..,,�._x,.-�.,e&FL:,.a_a...�-:�.Y,'-'.";�......�•-"�'`�.s-�:;wt:.a..:r'»,�$s»=_:..�.x.:-,--z's:. ise 3:wt.,�,.�3".wv,ada>;e:-,��:F..;«3»'�:�,>u:.a-.`.�'�5:,,`,.w�.r,�i�:'��r,�"�:`trt'='S'•cLv'r`'. x:�" ="1a" ..��.„>x<,ngx>,.;-¢s,>. ,`, c,i"';"> 'C.M",.`rt-is .yW"^•.••ra»,. `x�t�."'�r�,,q. ^rs, v-x,d. -v'a^, Nrr.�,..,Lat ,y,t=T'!�n"+. t' G.• :"' r"r1a,.a.u..q, ""."'?>},��:5;';:,I:«" .G."'.>s•. � "-r. � :, r-a�' '-'."„,A�,";" :r, ya y.,. y<., ..k.::=e>,^ .; t- ;. t., •r:;.=%t '31> -a .. 4 "n' <.^, ;<'-::-., ,,-.,<. -z?. _ti 'w;�.',?".�",r;'-'":t.:." �v.x,.. -'i rx.7, >:.A<. 7*•.;,, } o s `.s: ;tF6� M_-> „t>!>tit.= >5 ., t-fa., >•'�i e. ':::,,',ttv.., ,>«',: .� ;•S.. a:,`...., '.x.; .,,'W'T --..mi>d'",,„ „n vY,a� i�V.w `,7,.t.��•'.:G t4,� iS� 'i4 {V:P�",,�s��v ;'r`:_�r y .,1, R.£•• �L'�a'.>isa€,.,x4f«r,trts:3..su.m'oFY�x"'x.:<`r'.w:Y�FN'>'>`:.[ .�'�t5?:c� eaR;ai'y.. ry Pis .i->_ ice' '�`.�i`3'`•dxo.zire»'i�-:'� b>�• ��{�r-'a.�,-��'?,.��,:, v "�b'�K'>`•..: 8`�ny`fin "Y` w<s.'�<.. . :s .. ':,:4'.2-,�._..,-'�w'-'".lx, .-.,y..w..x�� .w�,:xc��,t;�� «�,..�r'' ''�"�•''+:.. ":r�,t�:.�,:..,_.an.: •`�,. t�u'.r`va^:s�::.•,z`a-..u^":?':?`s..'a,� '::sue':, -:z '?. ":��',-.. -F�`.r:xrs:x. ;=is.»'r`:` "<.y,,,M_, _ �'-e;-:< -:`';.,A'e."."' .»,,.r,.-,.., .>-,v,....,;... ':.8,..-'_ ,;•.-,;:, '3F:� ;+w..S -S:vi'h'". _.}-"-`•. ;s=u _t , �:';. `�'�_' - r�s.,:<: d.. •s>' ,sg "^.�.,s. - <::<:., x`tr'",3'+•� -ems..%',. 'i`•x`,u ".✓_<!. ..x.:. �3'C..' -�.ran,.'%`�'"'t",. �I.s3r:'3.�_.,. ... <�s�-'.aa�A`°_=�'.-' ..? :.�...,., Wit., _G... 'i;. .c -,.�r«ucs ..fs < �:. ;o, ,-ti, [;i'*'i.t> '§:'y ',-- ,,I*i,- ..�s"x,., .`-:k;--,'um e......s ..e`r.'•a.> '�%,''�,v^' ."i,?, a.,. :. ,'r.,,R,-`,,.,, ..5 - ,,,, ,- N, w:,4e' "Cz`�''�g„< `'i�`:..:,v.Jvti �.�i`,--<ek�`:, :�:'�:�..Ss,r .r•a. �*�, i'R2g ,=''..'.-.,�'C' ...,w:. .�,. .1:_.s..:-`a; :z-tx7'r. � '._`3`;-,�,..:3- e}�y., �,.�_.�,tx,,.„a;:,��'..,ka.�&,.,... �-„�= �'�'t'�, .._x a�°C;:x;'ra�'ta�',a7:Qr......s},.,>r. .,s�-,.'�;ei�?r'iC=E^,t�n, .z�,-�..lg�i�r":�'�-.F,.l>L»,`�. ..,,^:i;:�,5,"1�•.`''T.r"'r:`a;A•;s-F- ` ta,,,. 4 a, !�?�'a?.\''':�: .- .�., a ...3xr.,..5>. .t ... :ea:".,'it3,��,t,,„��a.V, .;,rrK;::."-'`i*a `{a q� SUBTOTAL 1.017.35 BILL TO: TAX 0.00 FREIGHT 0.00 TOTAL 1,017.35 .;r� .,tom. ;«u.+yw,e 'c;x�•[.��,�+�, ;�'r:',%fix�,,.. ,...r `.�s�t,,�.�•`- *._:, g�:ar?y�,.. t:,�-r< ;e'a.=ram="k. __;sn'a>'�i.;>ry. ,..xr `",�"' �"�1,if3y, �'�d:e;y%N�a°t,;.• `.t=":'x3�aM:x� -"v ,v� .i\��t 0-.W R. ''x✓ TSL'T \\`t4,el; s°�.*.Y S{ /3�` y� �f►>y' ,, _.tij�y�Se.; i>fxe''`-:n >1<ys�nJ3t 1 7 ?s' `:�'ts�`..�d,»S ri•;:s;h�<<�� .�'�::4m %wt�'"-•`. ,�,��.,'v\'"�7`��'�'�'x��. �.,y-.<�s` .�k:�,=e3s�>�^ =s;�='Y�,'�`'�''�i'i��;`.�'�� !:'A;�:�`�5:� � ;�tl'!},u "�+�.€��'�- ' y � ��;�y��art;�E% ?•l�.`c^ttt` i�'��>:.�` : $ 't{,a, b>:t`exc i'nm-r xar 5'.,R.;=> •,^- k't�wr��`�`3��c ' E 27.000000.004.5710.0010.48.000000 1,017.35 7144diltee )1307(41..(2.2d- idagret"-, Authorized Signature Authorized Signature • P.O.BOX 1282 BOTHELL,WA 98041: 2 PH(425)485-4739 FAX(425)481-0703 • • • i Invoice A ‘1-°J1 TEL TRONICS. INC. l�. Date Invoice# 7/27/2006 105650 Bill To Lori Wood City of Renton 1055 S Grady Way ®FENfiON Renton WA 98055 JUL 2 8 2006 CITY CLERK'S OFFICE: P.O. No. Terms Due Date. VendorlD# Net 30 8/26/2006 Item Description Amount Installation 1810 935.06T CHARTER if); OWS I r ► z I o00 gal CM/ OF REN )N C'ERi i t�:; ioN I,THE UNDEI IGNED 170 HERaY CPTIFY IMP : pc�0®Q( KRJUK 1-IAT THE MAlERALS NAVE BEEN FURII;14,ED, 13Crv�O.2 Tt1E , ` oagr•5-710 .Off to o '44z SERWCES REItlDCVED CVTHE LAQOia PERFORMED AS MAT AND T ilk CLAIM 1S A As',F3tJE AND UPI PAID OBUGA1ION AWINBy 1HE CITY OF REt1TON,AND THAT 14M AurnoRi ED TO AUT1'ENTIC/1F PaD CE9wY TO SAIb <<DC" r CI.A:M, SIGNED, Subtotal $935.06 Sales Tax (8.8%) $82.29 Total $1,017.35 Payment is due upon receipt. Unpaid invoices will accrue Payments/Credits $0.00 1.5% interest monthly. We now accept VISA and MASTERCARD. Balance Due § ,017.35 ` Broadcast Engineering • Design • Support Service Call / Installation City of Renton Invoice#: 105650 1055 S Grady Way Renton, WA 98055 ID #: 1810 Contact: Lori Wood Purchase Order#: Job #: Scheduled For: 7/25/2006 10:00:00 AM Symptom: Upgrade their automation system so the digi deck can playback through the automation system, possibly input 8 on the Leightronics. DSR-45 digi deck. Renton has the Leightronics interface. Service: Installed new wiring between the new Sony DSR-45 digital deck and the Pro-8 automation control system so that deck could be controlled by the Pro-8 and played on the air with the rest of the automation system. The DSR deck is now called P2/S8 and feeds into the#8 input of the automation system. This gives you one more source machine to use for your system, and will playback pictures that will be much clearer than anything you have on the air right now. I had to disassemble and repair the NB remote control switch that selects which system can control the DSR deck. The switch had some loose components inside. I opened up the box and repositioned the loose nuts inside. It seems to be working properly now. Also installed wiring to allow the DSR-45 to act as a recorder during Council meetings. If you install a 184 min tape it will record for 3 hours non-stop. Remarks: 10:30AM >4:30PM LABOR Technician Description Date Hours Hourly Rate Total John Weist 7/25/2006 j 6T $120.00 $720.00 Labor Total: $720.00 PARTS USAGE ID# Qty U/M Description Mfr Part# Freight Unit Cost Total 26881 1 Each 1 RCA Male to 2 RCA Female Cable,6""Y" 35525/YP2PF $0.00 $3.65 $3.65 89151 2' Each I RCA Female to 2 RCA Male Cable,6""Y" 35530 $0.00 $3.42 $6.83 733 2' Each Phono Plug,RCA 3502 $0.00 $1.46 $2.92 1342 21 Each Adapter,BNC F/RCA M 33510 i $0.00 $3.86 $7.72 9378 1 Each I VDA,1 x 2 BNC 'PT102V $0.00 $97.94 $97.94 6069 11 Each I Misc.Cable&Connectors I $0.00 $16.00 $16.00 Parts Total: $135.06 SERVICE CHARGES Charge For Description Date Cost Travel Time ( 1 7/25/2006 $80.00 Service Charges Total: $80.00 Terms: Net 30 Pre-Tax Grand Total:I $935.06 I DO NOT PAY FROM THIS SHEET Printed On: 7/27/2006 J14) JW Tel-Tronics Inc. T E L -T R O N I C S 18823 Beardslee Blvd. -Bothell,WA (425)485-4739 • Page 1 /1 • e.,'S-f -Y 0 • CITY OF REN1uN CM + 1055 S. GRADY WAY NIL RENTON, WA 98055 10/26/2006 12/0001259 c- i\irrr0 VENDOR: 070019 SHIP TO: S &X PRO AUDIO LLC 913 INDUSTRY DRIVE TUKWILA, WA 98188 FOB Point: Req.No.: Terms: net term Dept.: FINANCE DEPARTMENT Req.Del.Date: Contact:SETH, JASON • Pre-Assigned PO#?: No Special lnst: Video Booth's Audio Mixer maintenance _ _ _ _ 152.32 FR,17;72;77;Z: ,,,,,!,RF57.77.77.7.77;47 5EtZji75:7:;:?;LZ;Z:;::ZTW;45:7;Z,7C. TF:2Yi?7 '7;';'7; :•>•`""ft 717-7-%•••rir--:=7,? '''•:•:`,WSI.r,U,7•!?,F..".:it'21'i,7'-'? 757;717•77373:7 •iTr 7,7,77::::Z377,7,7,i77:75ZEITATSZa727-iTAZC44::72 SUBTOTAL 152.32 BILL TO: TAX 0.00 FREIGHT 0.00 TOTAL .152.32 • 0:4-.05.3til:r40!;#4.74.04iiiitiiiiii1V-AW40,flatigagfriggi.kiZAWAVO.f47 irt;410.1:0*-04kIWORN0.17 ,315iiRg,i:'%:gati*Oi,titifie E 127.000000.004.5710.0010.48.000000 152.32 9111,1A,Vit.A.4.4\___.- • S4$71-44-4-‘,..‘ /dae,6-7"--1 Authorized Signature Authorized Signature Invoice# (L IMTOAI s and 3( AUG 0 2 2006 Product & Customer littivED Service Center: S and X Pro Audio Customer: City of Renton Laurie CLCIII('S Orrioc Address: 913 Industry Drive Address: 1055 S Grady Way City, State,Zip: Tukwila,WA 98188 City, State,Zip: Renton,WA 98055 Phone: 206-575-1704 fax:206-575-1708 Phone: 425-430-6573 Model: Mackie 1642pro Serial#: DN10594 Date Received: 7/28/06 Purchase Date: Dealer: Invoice#: Failure Description: left led ladder not working...audio seems ok. Action Taken: Disassembled mixer and replaced a couple ic's and transistors in the meter circuit. Replaced all internal cabling for possible intermittant channels and outputs. Reassembled and tested...Checked all inputs and outputs...test ok. Additional Comments: Technician: XUAN Repair Date: 7/31/06 Total Time:1.25 Qty. Part# Description Unit Cost Extended 2 op amp is $ 1.50 $ 3.00 2 small signal transistors $ 1.00 $ 2.00 1 0002261 cable kit $ 35.00 Shipping Totals 1.25 hrs @$80/hr Labor $100.00 Carrier Parts $40.00 Waybill# Shipping/Handling $12.32 Ship Date Sales Tax Ship Cost Total Invoice $152.32 Date Picked up: CI TARTER 116,LAWS 0f 1965 CITY-Or RENTON CERTIFICATION P i7 17./o oo 1,THE UNDERSIGNED DO HEREBY CERT Y UNDER PENALTY OF PERJURY,THAT THE MATERIALS HAVE BEEN FURNISHED, V A)Dot; 0 700 i q x THE SERVICES RENDERED OR THE LABOR PERFO AS . �� l 7 ��i� DESCRIBED HEREIN,AND THAT THE CLAIM IS JUST,DUEAND 0 U , Q 01 ;�� UNPAID OBLIGATION AGAINST THE CITY OF RENTON,AND THAT I AM AUTHORIZED TO AUTHENTICATE AND CERTIFY TO t`DD r SAID CLAIM • • SIGNED: 411L#U€' •./ KJG2�C.e-dti"� Page 1 /1 0SA Y 0 • '4 CITY OF RENT1,14 - ta + „u + 1055 S. GRADY WAY ', , ; :;i`:4AT -s=u ' F?° t II Ft #4 A�Nrro� RENTON,WA 98055 12/11/2006 12/0001292 VENDOR: 007201 SHIP TO: B &H PHOTO VIDEO 420 9TH AVE NEW YORK, NY 10001 FOB Point: Req.No.: Terms: net term Dept.: FINANCE DEPARTMENT Req.Del.Date: Contact: SETH, JASON Pre-Assigned PO#?: No Special Inst: /� s•d_:z" ,.:^a.. :S'i.:*F. <s" t ...�,t•,at:, `l^.',,=> b, .i r.�":a:i" >'Q ri�� <'�' T.- ,:�»: <'�`,s�. ..Y'�'' -t ..a_.t'�l•=..< .e;.3+'�3` .-y i.;:•ice.. <.4`*.^�.Y x ttg y. ; ...�.,.�,, Y�� e: g:. .,,e .s.-.'P ..<c'S, M ':FxY.'\if t•".. ;,rs<',t s '"'""� 7t �' �rs.a...... .,.. ._., ,., .. ...<.,.:•_......... .......�.'i,_ea r, t..d,>.et �-is�,�:�€R.suig�.,.,ay_�.c.?7° " .M�I� .....,,�«�.•r.rm<.r'ie� � rl it w,'L3;?.t,'?,i:a'<`,'a'��'d^=''T' I.l. r:,, w.;a;,�R,: : VideoCamera uT le lam on-camera ; ` = _ y�,ys366.95 >~ .?V y :iZ " r. .��". " �Y ��EF'� - «s�iroz7i•trs � °v ,„ : 5r, kv� `TY z T �rkt1 f fir .rx>;wi+.as„_ 2xa _,r�:�>h. ..,L.... _..��. >.. ., � cxz;aats,..> .�vl:'i;>.,-;�;;,<-c„ >:a`- *>r..ay:,:k €�:He.a .:kzI a.� u� .'':�s��s,�,,,t�, '�a_- s�k,;;�, ry,,X. y'"^'^;+•r,,'y.^ >';;;Cx"'.:3`.ti.:c;:`"'''��r`��<•�":X;�°�,"s'•-�ys<.;�.c;�,�''in„rt;�y:>nx�>s•e�.��,;„'F�"'�i` <o-..s> ;•.:'ut.,-«T ;F'.-•r•,.,r_ - --'a^:a k"<si:, s;:Y> -'€R, a \a't f,«`s" '•;" -"5,, _ ';:;';: -":'"'.'.=^`'` l �,r.v r-.x�>;>:^•..:a w>,s.a= ''++33�� >;�>- ,�> x ">t ::s`>`.`,`� .r2,;n ."^:"i^=.rxv,L c'� .�,_a,�. - `2?` .X .F£' c`1e. ^.�?( F'.":a 'l >-:N�. ,dY" 'S.:, ., ..,e t."4,' ..:ik"!,l Vi't�i'. ..4Kj ... .33.t->..,Yw >�vT> F""e:•_?'Y<H.;, ��cc a.>4_«.e �5.� <?>? :d}`+i':77-��''``'':;;!! ��r".q��;p;H `S, i'` , "4,. ,1 sly eSyfi,1''&d:z,.. ,S;I:f ppj.ir.;F--..! -<�,.;,, ...A><.. 3b,3':i:c 3' „ .• &..- w,,.,> 'r`` ..., .;... .;:S:c...a,.t. -< .�.s..,.. >}� < ,�.>"¢'�1 .s,.\z.:>, -^:xs �> ay j� rY^ itS.Ls'-.,». `l VAn, �,` ,��•.-'�.v s_"�.:>�:,-r-w +�': eci, T..« ��-`c .,'"Z',-(<L.,S.'a e< fl5 .� o.+ ,,,w '1,..�,...s-....r>1:. `.S w`.3'.sz s__:~,-_:.c• :z;z"�.«ara:_i..a.,.. :,:.i<mow ..a.. , si•.�+'.),:M+�,...3:,.,..d,.z.___,_......,"..a'�,�w.vn.Yi.<,.'�1��Maa:,"a:'�'>>�7.�c'�;+s�n':s..'s''�`�'. , �_a':w`"-."`.'-•w�.��>�.>,"...,':',�;-�sxrSaw.3s'sa"x'?.'�.��v;�•"�.Nar.'.,_'wz,'t>t xrremx\, F.,.e.:e,,,•,•.. �.?r�•d'�v{'�-=.,.-,w�<.tt-.-v.x-,: _F.:'a`3,>'.t=.tY.,,'`aa'iS:f..a'.t�r�"� �?\^ �'w , i4, ...f,5�� Ye'SS.-��•P .,�.a•;c�ti',4?:. a .;>�,lax�' y,�'7:.. �9�2`�..,,:i;..,...,,,,.w.:'�;>„^u.v« �r �>,�a, sis:'�+`.�`'� s'it;`°".Eii-':t•t'� ?.a:.:3`t'=, z .z i�`'�..3•"">:�.�<.3tF�t.'�_..s':eti.:t`..t: , w ,. M:€`�.iw»_ s „e.,:>a:-vv. >: .Jt l�r'=s:,.. >,�s-d.=";::' .�' '>(:�,°r�<rT a,fi w„a.,.'ar •. _a:<>:.x.+„�S.+,x<', .S,a,.ai:.4�,%.¢A,.s"M."..u�:i`esi-....�....:;.a-,..x.::.`su-a.,,_1:>•'s.,,.cw:a.v.,,:3.z.tirss,,i a e:' ".>.-.,�;_s�<tc: ^,�S w�.,a •-'1„ .�.-.,,» .-"{^;c�,a �t,, u:"" -°,Y*'Jek:,S° 'krs'•�.;�_,;;,.n..;r;-.r..r.v w -.. .. ,n F:,..0. ._c..a, >....."x._a.3J<. ,..;fg_e_; .. ,"S!"=..i = ..'Y. ,i. C>, Y,. F'?x vxFFa-`. •„5.+;. <y.•p -t:"'.z�at"�4:."'�'`:,...s,>v,r3_•a,._., -•s:: as��,">� � a=?= ";�-'_ ".V`:�., :s rMi''`.�'•"`s..^.. ,..<_:.c.:;.�_.,.....,.t<.,...•�..,,»_._.,>.....,_.--.._:,._��,:'ira:: :�-:<?.,,e.:�e-< :s;. .�">,:•ama �^�`':....:e.aku;.:.;.'.`�:::"''.:.�'N.,�.-z..rx:�� a :h 2?;,77: .4£fy :.4`�:: k=,='�`t- a.�tF.�,.¢'-f,.+ as�..>''�L�'c<S. '."•.h;.'="> .�%. .R<.a•' Sur y?a,. ,..:, tom^ ^'a, _'+:,....�> .,..,�;; ..y.- .,:.y*.:Y•'=e is 3 ,:z»•-::�z�:x::�;a'<::�,,•.�;>sx,.>,�.,�...:::.s^�;>:`_¢:.:.a.,^. :..:::t'a:.:�:.: iz�,:: ,:::r:>;:�to, ::c:��..aa< ;{:^ :,ems:> ;ay"" . ..>,.f..,:,>tn'.*':'A't :Wtti,x:..*g��fs,:.":.rzar..,•.<:F:F�<;t•:.w.c.V.AZa t-: iI4X-` ,,Y,1''; R7, ? 'a;.';:.;`a;S—, ---.,><-z*xr;'_<r'°�,";-{4 "."..:4•"r'n• i",1`"=.:�`"R,•5,7 _-°t:�r:.-ray>.-.rye-. _ ..,..:-Lei...>.,��_-.e..:;:e,.- ..-„m>:.�}�, .r-c -: +.•-::�.,,-<...� >,.Y,.� c=1.; .,c: ty:.rs=M.a;�e{;c• --?",7., ?;"zn:. -.�;;..-t.}>,.}.� .....•�,.:y,.*. > ->.. .,,-a y.e>. .:..._::,. s s.• ..,°;.�,r::a:". .,•` ^^-,tom, ,x„{, ,,ii „y n5, .i ,.t, „. it d,>S> ,•r<_� .':X- - :�''•.:q i at. Y - "3z'fn ,"xr a- ,,:b,i irir;-<-` xa,� o ,_:;>bx�..,.,... ,:A\\�w >,r•. e...' ,.;. , ,. , e t'; ,A.: .-«"' 'i:�}'-t ,?t:'.'':'t' 1`� r{... "i'f•.<.�_ S. - ..,,a^%_. ...\. >-q_a.;x.}+" tt .,k> ...... .., `._e' ;-YL-'`, ..�i" .:kk. ,Y,.£;1 .,b:,K-r-"'J �}y,,. .. .,.- .x......F,,...,�._L+ax+.«.�.<.�w k.z..>._ sL •��3t� fi:E �w: -...'w'S•�•_�'r-s - kc•,:4�" a.a-.: .,... e>..,�`�e.><.>a.�eS�li.a,» ir:..,a, ::::,;..,,...:,):•?: .,,.,... ;:,rS<;•,.:� t } a t_ .�-•_._,>..,. ..a,e. ..,a«,m.,.,.....n_,,_,....,..><"..,._.e<..>...,...�.,s,,..._.,.ea..<-.:.:=.t<"Ls'"',,,_ ...:.c..3"a'u`.'�"',y.:�..n^'�r'w<:_�`a,;'�.�y�;�,: .:.�:.i �-ai.L^..N��V,�,-,_:...,.>..?:3r'..> .w{atd, ,.a:,,v« ii-Ti:�•1,y>;„r,.P,:,1,„."t ^r<. a.C.,. ..x i:' r,s>', w. , msC'.,. .'^"tv =i- Rr era .a :.,:Fa:,,; .•,+: ..�ata�y �?,.'a ?� „>��;.., .-..,.,e ='cy,,.'>. ,,. Fa<� °T` -<.i, <:.,: t- r . fix.' >s.•.CPP`.t5 :.:g;3,e. .i"`G2 'a.., _.�,s .,.±d>t»,�...�.sr�M�.-_:......._?,-.xa�:u.5a�,w:.wx:,.-'< ,G'+ .>._...," '� t,�. w� :'�.a. '�.1?.,a.,�^;�'•:��=,_�,,.:,:,,.eG1,..,;�..,»�..aaa.,.a,,.>......-.�,.�,a'�- .>: ,a2!.E..�Mr.'•aa'�. ..a.aa,�?r_:.>�,�'„'a�';��.;� -w�_..s-�.:�..?µ., "'''„�� r�T.`_.:� '3-^�<l�`:�`w��,,�'7.�.:'j:�:t.x<.{'`-:..,�.�i;.s'✓:5«^;.G> �s\<stic::ts'2x'.:.'�'4.:'. Y,::"',><ri"e,,k,.v- - motx,:,xi,„1,;-x'�:';?;i'�vs�i^,< .•^--;z;=` Y:_=' ^wry^^^ »w--.r.=•-;« ''`'2,�;'' Wiz; ,�.f.:x a3, "^::q;-:�.^;.' :t"-'.'°Ta;�vi.*.2..:,<Urim`" -,..,`a....c....^=lY.}c:_` ...:>`°--;>=.i.^:'':x •. '-S:U,�>,:•>, ;`.pp<?.y..-��,�,.r 'v:,^.: �� -`,�_ :Y -"y>j. ' .5. ,p C.<. ,'rr ,� �''F ii "tea rn' `•�--• .,a- ""--.• aa:a.. .e...-.a.. ,"C c- ... ...:.._�. „v e,. ",y>,:., \ .rn._ P1," -aF .v'M1.... .r:F.:".':'i-i_. y.hrt a'F-.;.:..i: ..t: ,.. ..c..<, ..,«.....�a,a,:�.,..>..,..,...a_......a.>,x,.=.,,;:k;e�°M> }<: „`..4`�'^x ,^a:. ..:.tf_, :;,,.-'.f> z,=o., ,x'<;>?a�. .. .x.",..e«u.,.<.....>�Ks��s...^a....o_-.>.»> issacttw,..< -+_,m.::«isa>.,ai.«.,..,r:Aa...;:�>..><...,.......>..:;,;xakJ,,:M.,zs'e.�-e`>e->a�,.<Aua:Sf..»«>;ti.te�,.<��=y.,:��,�> . %n�``,r�{;^:_°�,"+,;;:.='7-Ki�ttr, ,»--r;�i �f.;�'�2�a= z:€;,?t,..;y.,.s•.i."`- _ :,'S-F,"n w-,�•e•a +r:,a^esT,-"^" ^°.Z .v,.••., ."-,<l''�f'> i>:r-- ::':�`.>F':a., ,a},� -i'�C.^y.;�<':-;°r•_.. .�.Ft•,+L. .e€',. �^T`. `�:"" y k 8.s-:te'S ->F. ��.°�' ,z', y,.3":Qv?r'< �.K :'i3€F`� +`y�'Y,: ,..,:�:a ,•'�5,,%}a �,{". "�- p[ .�-��'`S-';^a" L.::'e.. J v S ``'vi,, ra,i ; .,,''d, \d8� d.}..a-, ,✓eh...,>;. ':,,4f Y\' '-$.. ..,i a<y>.-, c` ... ,x<,t',,.V,, :1:'.•=a2<^ ..'�i ,>t� .t", ::�•.'�t .rf�4..•:,'sa'F. d.,��'�ti�: :�;a5-r a;s`s" ^..Y�` ,_�'�.>...,-._.�€,..: ,.ir•.,HId 1>:...,:i.t.,iv' ,s•.:i..�..a.«>..r.u,:b'..:.,. S'>.'.:`,.,`.^;,,\:;8;'.a.."sa,.we 5�:.tu.:xassru:r,.<`'.^.'a,s3Y?:.sz,,. dq.,. '�',.<.. §.. _-5s,;>"&. .i% .:<`Y:='l�S': >, E F'r.K .,.;,v,..,.a.s ...:: .'•7rs . � 3r :e-=>>a,,. ``kx.;�• s�'«'a;'� hrrrati��e�>r>'`L::sr`a•`u.:YH.�r.:E�`'w'�:�r:�a.:l#.-,1;wr.`...,,.,..r�,.«'a:Yr?��:'e,a::»,. ',=.p=� a�' " .^�"'E'ia..�;,,'�'"`k A ;a:_s rs.°^°�Y c-''stz•.,, a"'.'. `6'a:.q>, •"r,.:44.7, .rt c e,•�r ,i. nQg- a�- i.raY>:�,:., -'�,>' •-r. .r- :.,-'�'r�� ;?�,ii.I ,�'^ ^�. a� ;•-t�-rc..>�.,-.. ,.�,.`tf�,�:<- r� �,g>. �'`,c,a, .:+, �.. .;�a'�c ...��' .- ,-F.. t'S:r:F< r,.-r .�, �•. ,vh�,�. -;as `'•d.• >??",<,a<,';n'k,. �:"`�• .S..> �,%s�� «.i; .... 3v. ..,an -t1,.:• „^;sf� e:,.:,tawas'a ».,,,t;" ". Y�.r<, ?.A:: '<-.a'�'; - :a !ti:i', �,.:.�W°r.,.�.>.<,.."�,<..._.,,_,<,....i�»�".�k': .>v.ya tiu' .;t;=...`st..:�a<- .�aa: ..��-`:}r,:st;:...ri�;' -.sw r.........,. ..s.:tau,t,>..a,::> ii: 'x�,.✓:�:s...,._.:zi;.:e.._,...,.._,. �r �s:..�«�.:.:::u '�:'va ..�',r'k.�"s�' ��. '`","a.,Ti. 5"�'�'�.. +,�..it:%,,,;., sa�xcu�z 5.^-.....;'`��.. .32,. .,..3:�:, �'��1�=,s`?.'c.,`+:»M>:rv.'�. ^w ss„�S.e/r,'£ n�•£P'l..,V^��Y K;it"esC:,-,,.Y,`."". ,mfi'+x �x,;!f,':�:o. 'LS:'= <. ,'2 u. �;y»''',-"«r'"c�ssr:,�<;ax, •»».e;•�'r"n 5'n�'rz .-.gr'�r'..' .\"..«-`i^:^r-n.a, n;r<a, <^, .x,_. ,sTa:,:y ':`,�sa< .'vim„ -L•._ �r"'�; i � err, .R `r::�:- -�.:=a:e .>A' <-za�"�:• .",C,`,'^a,z: 'F,. .� r;'J", ^4'iY'.:_�� aFR}:"Y:i> ,,>>,,�� ..5::�."��SG,T.;.. .V..q ..ar,_ 3:t;.v"<a,itiR.+.+ w#rcix`.f3.�' .ate ", �^ .;� ''.i\:`:.'a ":.i :4^. Ss.-.-, -wriN�,`.,a".;.€'�1.>;5,s''r..-sa:"'L'e"e`_' =a•a s 'M�t n.°.2''�'i'!" ��t�,: rv�".i�>::3:: �:sCs s.Y`=`_•S'.c"„a1>..a„::.'�: :,-.,.,...,.s.,�«u?,. m`"'.' :,�at. � .>k� _ -�><x,a>.,a:,r .a.:.:,_s.r.,r. 15":»,.,- a^. . .s•.'w�'�'��'..a.� ....<.......,,..ax..i..m'-`�" .,�'>r->,,`�yz:?,�elk" � *»' �:._,,. t.,, ..:.=a�>'z2r�.a�:x.,.>s,:w.�>,:: .;;x�»u"�,x,frra::'!'t:.>.:,§�^a:`�ai�::�'.r><x`5�'� , �' �:,Wln>- g"Y ,t';n,::•.iS t r ^£f..rs..Y .. tY.:3^:t�c„: .'z� :?AaNi5;-°,"V'^? v,I C 7 w g�y". %""._�um`57=+ Y �� .''';'‘a." rJ., Viff a �, i-�j•Jt �� J�:,� titis rat. ;sv y} S£ ,�'v<a Ck.'�r .3 ?i,4uA,^Li' �' v0.>,bFfiaL+5.�`:^`» � ;4 ,�:; .„�.;^�;✓-`.:�i::v�}; aaa> S `..,>. . xs4:si,. e��nR -,,z.^.r „ -r:';•�r�'''i>k�+.t.-, '".--a�;'s ::yh�;••i.?:v:�4" ;%.?.:'"m a.:�','."y:.>•„s"s>s-..,.s.-"s•„'^.^ •.�.`^z:rr;;;a..:'�sv *,-,"cs.,,;."+ s`� ^38*.:.+.�t< .3`,:. , .;E �.� .� ,•:4S� "J.n-.• :`A"'liY 'oE" .ia..,ta....,: r';i+":: .�i�i;,.>,t.. �}_' :.,Y.,^, ..v='<.�'.,. a-. Kr�.+n<7.,5":= , .>1 -:.xii y .�€ *-tP .c� 3t-. =.5t4,-` _ ..r-..r; s ti:. ..ram..,Th, m. ,..\ ,z,�;•?-,. - r4G:?; .;s';Z>. �-.y4:,> »1 r;>'ir _�-u ,',.s'ra r;:;:i'9- q ,y r. ,,�;<,r.t,y-.-ia.x7 :"=934 'i',s<...e ..e�s;.,,�Y o. ;�'•'°>. a,_ s��..r-'•:-,•c's...,._�• ,,.,rx"�:��x�. ..?•3�-:.i^s''�a�.'`,�.',., , - '3'Y` , .A�{�,7,.E '.-, .nr,�';.-. �:`7>S">s:."'�.:�:. .,m, ::,3rw'e' tea.%,..; .=f: �' §`:�a- `�v`�,. �'e's.•r ..„ .�.�. <4e .-.. .,..ra 3.7., ...._.,..,. _ .."tk�",__ •,��.....-ati"'v�..,.:t'.°'....::� ��",> ..�.,,,, z".-'..,a.=f�•,`4.a'��i�-.�s?a�;o',�..�„,�.;:�1.'k",,,q SUBTOTAL 366.95 BILL TO: TAX 0.00 FREIGHT 0.00 TOTAL 366.95 `>''�.'Tc?_•`na•,'''tti's�y,i'�vi a"i;v n'k« .; �j�",r�a�'.>.."."r. �_:«';' +,a� ,�'i£o,�:"r„'r`�.^�? Y'S 4'3%?"•;' +h.'73T's:'.>-M..-:h`�- :^9�ti ait,'.- ��s�y {#.'-si-'.w"ox:-'��'',��>r :z�•.� as'.....z.-r171.-;aE3s^;a,>,W, , i!!4`i Wei '� ,;tit -<i ... 's: �. SSa.`. 'gt= ,,,s r @ a r3 e.lr ,o'.. 11/. _ ,'� �i t1ITw'i n.,. �� c�w`� i;� �%a3v.rt.��"'��„ :.m"'.� 25.s(i..Psx��t3��+ E 127.000000.004.5710.0010.31.000000 366.95 Mtsd.Cli niAA7,4-114-4%-- Xgeltyt,(A:4. Zdaled7t-} Authorized Signature Authorized Signature 420 Nhth A're17.4.te, New York, NY 10(101 • Fax: 212.239.7770 ' • • DIGITAL PRO 1.212 444-5070 & 444-6600 P�;a 1-212 444-610071-212 444-5000 AUDIO Pl4 1-800 947-9950 !.4. 1-800 947-9978 1-800 947-9910 C, 1-800 947-1183 PHOTO-VIDEO-PRO AUDIO To Inquire About Your Order Tel:212.239.7765 - 800.221.5743 • Fax:212.239.7549-800.947.2215 The Professional's Source www.bhphotov deo.com ` Invoice No.: 184482480 - 25253531 � U CITY OF RENTON DEC272006 Sold To: CITY OF RENTON Ship T #. yy ;, , 4' Via.;,.: .,. ..4 CEI G F P r>,•,z ;4 1055 OS GRADY WAY PAYABLE CITY a RK'YSE8FFlCE r 1055 S GRADY WAY J ..�•i4l RENTON,WA 98055 FINANCE DEPARTMENT RENTON,WA 98055 Bill Phone: (425)430-6573 Ship Phone: (000)000-0000 ��oic��2a><� .....:.....Qxuler.G..d:................Tsarnas<�-:'::>'::::Oiriiear>Da>�> »:�'u..�h.s�.U....e...�tirnnlber....5 . ............................... h ... ....:........................... .......................... ........................ ................................................................:...........�................................... ...:alesp.�ersva�....:. : : .: : 5.�p�::Vaa. . .;::.;:;.>:.;:.;:.;:.::..:; 12/13/06 15416727 12/12/06 120001292 Sls UPS GROUND 5-7 DAYS rcl`�iQf:'.:Sh t.:Bk.a> >:`>< . '� <:'•:>s::::<.;>'• <:';: <> >' : : : <i..> >?[`:< : > �> �;: >Qt:P.; .::::.;Y..::.:10. ::1`>:,:.;:..................... ........ .:.:..fens tJescrlpPon... ....... .:::•:":..;:.;i:ri. S.M.I ..item.Pnce.... ......Atrr unt.: .:. 2 2 BESCOR KLK-624 20/40W DC LIGHT W/COMPACT BA BEKLK624 69.95 139.90 Salesperson Code: CT 4 4 BESCOR JC6V20 20W/6V DC BULB BEJC6V20 8.50 34.00 Salesperson Code: CT 2 2 VIDPRO 27"TRIPOD PADDED CASE VITC27 16.95 33.90 Salesperson Code: CT 2 2 GIOTTOS RHD-124 REMOTE CONTROL TRIPOD GIRHD124 69.95 139.90 Salesperson Code: CT / DEC. 2 12 °6 ,o l /2k917(Zt V 007 y' / C+tlu .• .le Z7.7.004- 210, ooio3I `1 i 1 �I Pay merit Type Card/Ch&k4ltanhe :'x!�AAmount • : Sub-Total: 347.70 ; ; .:; . :.>; :: .: ••...:..;::..: .; > :; ; ;:> ;;.:..; .:::: : : :.l;T�lINFSI , .sly:.: .... ... f::YUERi�. L.. ..............;.:..;.... Shipping&Handling: 19.25 : : : : :: .; ; :OPERJ1RY� AT�.....: . .:: AV�3�NF: . :.. ».:.;.;.; .:< .;::.: :.;:. ...::.; . < .. ;::..: ; ; . ; ; . :: .; . . . 0I t- tea : � Q ; T::T : U t?>OBt I�IN::AoA1N5.7H1r f�'. .. < :::»:>><:::>:;:;:::: : ::::::::: .T::tal .......... ... .. . .. .... ::: ::::a :.. :deri s?'[:><::<:::>:; ::>:::..... .:;::.>: ;.>:»:.:;.;.;:.:.;:. :;:: .>.: .:::.;.::<..:.,: ..;.:.:;..:< .:; :::. ; : .;;>:'tEfli'f'::ISM`14tt'HL}Etf7Q '.:: ... ';>;;::>:>:::::::::�:>::.. ..........�')1'............. ................ . .ti'' ' '��`. :i'i'•::1i.•::�S<` !�+`<• C;i:;C[ i?Yis•'ai 2>`�•;`?j : Customer Copy Page 1 of 1 F 420 Nj►-#h Avenue, New York, NY 100"'' • Fax: 212.239.7770 � j " . 1.212 444-6600 Ho a 1-212 444-6700 212 444-5000 A DIo 1-212 444-5070 rim - ' . F 1-800 947 9950 r., . 1-800 947-9978 1-800 947-9910 C7, 1-800 947-1183 z PHOTO-VIDEO-PRO AUDIO To Inquire About Your Order Tel:212.239.7765 - 800.221.5743 • Fax:212.239.7549 -800.947.2215 3 The Professional's.Source ,. . .. , _,. www.bhphOtOVIdeO.COm Invoice No.: 184482480 - 25253531 Sold To: CITY OF RENTON Ship To: SETH JASON ACCOUNTS PAYABLE CITY OF RENTON 1055 S GRADY WAY 1055 S GRADY WAY RENTON,WA 98055 FINANCE DEPARTMENT RENTON,WA 98055 Bill Phone: (425)430-6573 Ship Phone: (000)000-0000 .::: e .::: :::.1�urehase,�(lr�le.>l;:�ium6.ear::>:::::<Saleesperson;;: 12/13/06 15416727 12/12/06 120001292 Sls UPS GROUND 5-7 DAYS ................................:...::.:::.:::::.:::::::._:::::_::.:::::::::::::::.::.::::•.:.:..:;_.:«:::.:.:.:.;:.:;;.:.;:.;;;:.:;;<:.:.:.:.:;<,:::.::.:�:.:::�:::;:<�.tint.;Pn:��:::::::.::::::14rnounf:<::•: 2 2 BESCOR KLK-624 20/40W DC LIGHT W/COMPACT BA BEKLK624 69.95 139.90 Salesperson Code: CT 4 4 BESCOR JC6V20 20W/6V DC BULB BEJC6V20 8.50 34.00 Salesperson Code: CT 2 2 VIDPRO 27"TRIPOD PADDED CASE VITC27 16.95 33.90 Salesperson Code: CT 2 2 GIOTTOS RHD-124 REMOTE CONTROL TRIPOD GIRHD124 69.95 139.90 Salesperson Code: CT Payment Type • •• ' ' ' •••. Card/Check Number Exp Dt ' . Amount: Sub-Total: 347.70 Shi rn &Handl'm 1 .2 PP g 9 5 g z::::;>;;;;;:;: ....:: ..::.;.<:.:.:.:....; :.:.:. . .... .:.:.....:......:...:::.: :...:.:::.........................: 'ia�1:Order:.:............: :::::::: Customer Copy Page 1 of 1 -rv^.-aa;T+-t-nv-;*ns':v¢^5_'fi.w�'(x:m:.<�"itx^i rv,y._ � ryr,<:•.:r-e�,'t•;s. 1'r rt�3;}., .fW^»::: -i�:� ^. �� A"^o!'. m- ^s-n+,�q.,.t.�S a:tyC4 4,1 2;n rnf •r,>Av��`nv�eY. :;:.�. ; , n'° 1' 70 ;; x. ,k..., t� L„" V:•', ,:-:.k+�s:3:.-,a' k14ei',+��'i`",�a'4f..f...wa�#'t,.':��. • 'h PHOTO < _„� DIGITAL VIDEO iY/ PRO ry ,,, • & 1-2121144-6600 PHOTO 1-212 444-6700 i-212 444-5000. AUDIO 1-212 444-5070 A t'.?i 1-800 947-9950 a.��, 1-800 947-9978 Cis. 1-800 947-9910 ' 1-800 947-1183 FA PHOTO-VIDEO-PRO AUDIO f�..�.'_` To.Inquire About Your Order Tel:212.239.7765 - 800.221.5743 • Fax:212.239.7549- 800.947.2215 ' .'.r,'w .+d�*'�.,�.z'0° .a �v`��.F�..;:� ,r;t:Y?�.-' .>> �; � u� �:- «�tQ�°' ''`�:•:.�."i~';;",,. ¢3� F,k.: *. Pof`_oea_,'S.. ;r. R+''r. - i ,INYma ,. _: -,.w..a'<''1 ^•rY.p•..... rt T „_ �•, '�- ' !��•r r:«l.d.i�.+ x5..xn. ;✓:;c. :.:. L:s..sa-„fiy<....«. ...... -2, s,...,s 9 . .i ,. +r%r< .., z�aw•rxL..z.,,,A 3.,T. ontro1 No.: 184482480 \1C—' )...,(,) a,CITY OF RENTON V Sold To: CITY OF RENTON Ship To: SET II JASON ACCOUNTS PAYABLE CITY OF RENTON 1055 S GRADY WAY DEC 19 2006 1055 S GRADY WAY RENTON,WA 98055 FINANCE DEPARTMENT RECEIVED RENTON,WA 98055 CITY CLERICS OFFICE Bill Phone: (425)430-6573 Ship Phone: (000)000-0000 �alr� e ' a..:.: t r:-,::o .:.:::-::::.:.:' ::::;;::;•::..,: &::.:.: o. ..Unt.. ...G`us..anne...0 de ..... .... 'Irertns.........:.:Urdex.:�?a .....Pur a e. r >:: ::;::»>:: >:<:>:<>;::>::>:::;:;>: . .:. • :.::>::::>:>:::<:»::::>::>::::«:�: :><��.. .... .ch..s .C1.deg-:Narn[�e�:.;::.;;S�lesgerso.>u�:...;:.;;:.: .;:.;:;::;.::.:;.;::.;:;;::.;;��h�pVaa::::;::::: :<::>;::;::;::::;;:;>:. :. 12/13/06 15416727 12/12/06 120001292 Sls .UPS GROUND 5-7 DAYS Qiy,Ord Qty.Sh0.0.04 Bk. '. >; .. ,. . ,. ,•.:..: ....: . . .:Item Descrlppon. , ...,-.. . KU Item r> e .;,Amount.-: 2 2 BESCOR KLK-624 20/40W DC LIGHT W/COMPACT BA BEKLK624 Salesperson Code: CT 4 4 BESCOR JC6V20>20W/6V;DC"BULB /%'`,",:- ` 6V'i0';,-'"`-I Code: CT-^ ": eiar; Salesperson -y �',:-`�'"•- � :;` 2 2 VIDPRO 27V=TRIPOD 'ADOED' AS . —) " i' ' ',Salesperson Code: CT is � ;, ' :, �,. ^.y ; ," • `1 2 2 GIOTTOS RND=1, 4'REMOTEsCONTROL>TRIPIID' ! >-``''<,`: : - "._ ap'-. -- ':i G1RHD:,24: Salesperson Code: CT..' 'r I' J i Customer Copy Page 1 of 1 Page 1 /1 ' ' ' CITY OF RENTUN '. 1055 S. GRAOYVAY RENTON. VVA98O55 12/29/2000 12/0001317 *ENDOR: U48728 SHIP TO: MEDIA TOOLS 13256NE28TH-3TE8 BELLEVUE. VVAQ8005 FOB Point: Req.No.: Temn: nmtterm Dapt-: FINANCE DEPARTMENT Req.Del.Date: Contact: GETH. JASC}N Pre+\osionodpO#?: No mpocia|/nst: Avid Express Pro Keyboard- I ea. 90.62 no with Avid Express Pro(including setup (Editing Equipment and Software) AN MMORM IN ' — B|LLnJ' SUBTOTAL 12��1/�6 . 77Q{ 0.00 FREIGHT 0.00 TOTAL 12,851.40 Media Tools it.bd. f\p 13256NE2O ST#8 Invoice ce Bellevue, WA 98005 DATE INVOICE# Phone: (425) 603-9000 12/7/2006 2484 Fax: (425) 614-0615 Bill To Ship To City of Renton City of Renton CITE OF RENTON City Clerk Div.,Rm 728 City Clerk Div.,Rm 728 1055 So. Grady Way 1055 So. Grady Way DEC 2 1 2006 Renton,WA 98055 Renton, WA 98055 Attn:Accts Payable Div. Attn:Laurie Wood RECEIV CE CITY P.O. NUMBER REP SHIP VIA F.O.B. TERMS FK 12/7/2006 Best Origin Net 30 QUANTITY Item DESCRIPTION PRICE EACH AMOUNT I Sales Panasonic DMR-EH55S DVD Recorder Player 485.00 485.00T 1 Sales Panasonic AG-MX70 Video Switcher 5,575.00 5,575.00T 1 Sales Gaffer Tape 2"x 60 Yards 17.00 17.00T 1 Sales HP XW8400 2XDual Core 2.66GHz XEON 5150 5,605.00 5,605.00T Processor 2GB RAM 2X 160GB SATA Internal HD,HP DVD-RW,FX1500 Graphics,3-Year 9-5 Warranty,W1NXP Pro,Configured with AVID EXPRESS PRO(includes Set Up and One Year of Support) 1 Sales Avid Express Pro Keyboard 80.00 80.00T Subtotal 11,762.00 1 Shipping Shipping and Handling 50.00 50.00T Tax 8.80% 1,039.46 P© !z0,c7 13(1 VeN i cVe '• O 7Zg' Accfs ,, , °° CHARTER 116,LAWS OF 1965 `� A� I��, DOD o00•�Q`�' S7«�got O, 3(, c� CITY OF RENTON CERTIFICATION la? . ow�c),cog,S-PO,c a in.51.#• n ii I,ThE UNDERSIGNED GO HERE BY CERTIFY UNDER PENA..TY f Z7, r�0�t�©O d0 r S7/c • bpf 0 5 j , 00`Co k.._.,.__._ OF PERJURY,THAT THE MATEF IALS HAVE BEEN FURNISH%, THE SERVICES RENDERED OR THE LABOR PERFORMED AS / ,t - "'� DESCRIBED HEREIN,AND THAT THE CLAIM IS JUST,DUE AND It ft'` (j7, 00 QPO©,D0 q • 5-9 !}, 0 D?/o i4`[, 00 000 " l/b i7`D� UNRIID OBLIGATION AGAINST THE CITY OF RENTON,IWD THA'I AM AUTHORIZED TO AIJ1IENTICATE AND CERTIFY TO I Z7.000000•°C`(/5-9 0o 007/, 6 if.000084 — 1'6/i27• qV SAID CLAIM. Met.% SIGNED. )134 Z 4(4.6 VJ• Thank you for your business. Total $12,851.46 . , - Wig. .-‘1,- ',Ay t Form W-9 Request for Taxpayer Give form to the (Rev.November 1999) Identification Number and Certification requester. Do NOT Department of the Treasury send to the IRS. Internal Revenue Service Name(If a joint account or you changed your name,see Specific Instructions on page 2.) S. Media Tools c Business nanr3ifasenn2ettriStepaific instructions on page 2.) t. Bellevim WA 98005 Q, •Check appropriate box: [ Individual/Sole proprietor 0 Corporation 0 Partnership7—(, Other ► _j_,�_j_ d Address(number,street,and apt or suite no.) Reque-•--'-^ --4-"-.' r^ ^^-e d O. City,state,and ZIP code Part I Taxpayer Identification Number(TIN) List account number(s)here(optional) Enter your TIN in the appropriate box. For individuals, this is your social security number dial security number (SSN). However, if you are a resident alien OR a sole proprietor, see the instructions on page 2. 11t14111 For other entities, it is your employer OR Part II For Payees Exempt From Backup identification number(EIN). If you do not have a number, see How to get a TIN on page 2. Withholding(See the instructions Note: If the account is in more than one name, Employer Identification number on page 2.) see the chart on page 2 for guidelines on whose `1( I + 11-11 41 c J q g J 9 number to enter. Part 111 Certification Under penalties of perjury. I certify that: 1. The number shown on this form is my correct taxpayer identification number(or I am waiting for a number to be issued to me),and 2. I am not subject to backup withholding because:(a)I am exempt from backup withholding,or(b) I have not been notified by the Internal • Revenue Service(IRS)that I am subject to backup withholding as a result of a failure to report all interest or dividends,or(c)the IRS has notified me that I am no longer subject to backup withholding. Certification instructions.You must cross out item 2 above if you have been notified by the IRS that you are currently subject to backup withholding because you have failed to report all interest and dividends on your tax return.For real estate transactions,ite 2 does not apply. For mortgage interest paid,acquisition or abandonment of secured property,cancellation of debt, contributions to an individu I retirement arrangement(IRA), and generally, payments other than interest and dividends,you are not required to sign the Certification, ut you must provide your correct TIN.(See the instructions on page 2.) Sign Here Signature ► 0_ �_ Date ► 7 ).( Purpose of form.A person who is What is backup withholding?Persons 5.You do not certify to the requester required to file an information return with making certain payments to you must that you are not subject to backup the IRS must get your correct taxpayer withhold and pay to the IRS 31%of such withholding under 3 above(for reportable identification number(TIN)to report, for payments under certain conditions.This is interest and dividend accounts opened example, income paid to you,real estate called "backup withholding."Payments after 1983 only). transactions, mortgage interest you paid, that may be subject to backup withholding Certain payees and payments are acquisition or abandonment of secured include Interest, dividends, broker and exempt from backup withholding. See the property, cancellation of debt, or _ barter exchange transactions, rents, Part II instructions and the separate contributions you made to an IRA. royalties, nonemployee pay,and certain Instructions for the Requester of Form Use Form W-9, if you are a U.S. person payments from fishing boat operators. Real W.9. (including a resident alien), to give your estate transactions are not subject to correct TIN to the person requesting it(the backup withholding. Penalties requester)and,when applicable,to: If you give the requester your correct Failure to furnish TIN.If you fail to furnish 1. Certifythe TINyou are giving TIN,make the proper certifications.and isyour correct TIN to a requester,you are correct(or you are waiting for a number to report all your taxable interest and subject to a penalty of$50 for each such be issued), dividends on your tax return, payments failure unless your failure is due to withholding, 2. you are not subject to backup you Payments youjreeceive will be reasonact to backuble cause and not to willful neglect. subject to backup withholding if: Civil penalty for false information with 3. Claim exemption from backup respect to withholding. If you make a withholding if you are an exempt payee. 1. You do not furnish your TIN to the false statement'with no reasonable basis requester, or • that results in no backup withholding,you If you are a foreign person,IRS prefers 2. You do not certify your TIN when - are subject to a$500 na you use a Form W-8(certificate of foreign required(see the Part III instructions on Peg status). After December 31, 2000,foreign page 2 for details),or Criminal penalty for falsifying persons must use an appropriate Form information.Willfully falsifying W-8. 3.The IRS tells the requester that you certifications or affirmations may subject Note:If a requester gives you a form other furnished an incorrect TIN, or you to criminal penalties including fines 4.The IRS tellsyou and/or imprisonment. than Form W-9 to request your TIN,you that you are subject Ix must use the requester's form if it is to backup withholding because you did not Misuse of TINS. If the requester discloses substantially similar to this Form W-9. report all your interest and dividends on or uses T(Ns in violation of Federal law,the your tax return(for reportable interest and requester may be subject to civil and dividends only),or criminal penalties. Cat.No.10231X Form W-9 (Rev.11-99) Media Tools CITYOFRENTON Packing 13256DEC9 Slip NE 20 ST#8 2 2006 DATE INVOICE# Bellevue, WA 98005 RECEIVED Phone: (425) 603-9000 CITY CLERK'S OFFICE 12/7/2006 2484 Fax: (425) 614-0615 BILL TO SHIP TO City of Renton City of Renton City Clerk Div.,Rm 728 City Clerk Div.,Rill 728 1055 So.Grady Way 1055 So.Grady Way Renton, WA 98055 Renton, WA 98055 Attn:Accts Payable Div. Attn:Laurie Wood P.O. NUMBER REP SHIP VIA F.O.B. FK 12/7/2006 Best Origin QUANTITY ITEM CODE DESCRIPTION 1 Sales Panasonic DMR-EH55S DVD Recorder Player V 1 Sales Panasonic AG-MX70 Video Switcher 1 Sales• Gaffer Tape 2"x 60 Yards ,r 1 Sales HP XW8400 2XDua1 Core 2.66GHz XEON 5150 Processor 2GB RAM v 2X160GB SATA Internal HD,HP DVD-RW,FX 1500 Graphics,3-Year 9-5 Warranty, WINXP Pro,Configured with AVID EXPRESS PRO (includes Set Up and One Year of Support) 1 Sales Avid Express Pro Keyboard ✓' Subtotal 1 Shipping Shipping and Handling Tax Received By: � Page 1 /1 01, CITY OF RENTON OINWVO� 1055 S. GRADYWAY RENTON. VVAS8055 12/29/2006 12/0001316 vsmoOm: U4O001 SHIP TO: JVVTELTRON|C8INC PC] BOX 1282 BOTHELL. VVAQ8O41-12G3 FOB Point: Req'No.: Terms: due in 30doyo Dept.: FINANCE DEPARTMENT Req.Del.Date: Contact: SETH. JAGON Pre+\msignvdPm#?: No muncia||nst: 1ea Sony UHV Wireless microphone 579.91 ' ' SUBTOTAL 579.91 BILL TO:. . TAX 0.00 FREIGHT 0.00 -._.._.._ .—_ ._., ......, r..� a ..1111)11 ill P.O.BOX 1282 BOTHELL,WA 98041.1282 PH(425)485-4739 FAX(425)481-0703 Invoice JW TEL TRONICS, INC. Date Invoice# --- - --- 1/2/2007 105971 I Bill To ` ° Lori Wood rY CITY OF RENTON City of Renton 1055 S Grady Way JAB! 0 2 2007 ,bUi Renton WA 98055 RECEIVED R IOP CITY CLERK'S OFFICE P,O. No_ . Terms Due Date VendorlD# 1 Net 30 2/1/2007 040001 • Item Description Amount Parts Sale 641 0 i R“.t...S5 Mu e_ fop_ MELD ^_ , 533.00T • • CHARTER 116, LAWS OF 1965 CITY OF RENTON CERTIFICATION pc, l zib®0 lit(o I,.THE UNDERSIGNED(J0 HEREBY CERTIFY UNDER PENALTY OF PERJURY,THAT THE MATERIAL HAVE BEEN FURNISHED, THE SERVICES OR TH LABOR PERFORMED AS 9 bo 2 ; 0 p®pi DESCRIBED HEREINN DERED l/C� ,,AND THAT TH CLAIM IS JUST,,DUE AND UNPAID OBLIGATION AGAINST TH CITY OF RENTON,AND fl {� THAT I AM AUTHORIZED TO AUTHE ICATE AND CERTIFY TO LS c- SAID CLAIM. 127. 46, 00 '5) 1© , 001 D, 5 t, SIGNED: • I(,QA it�1 Subtotal $533.00 Sales Tax (8.8%) $46.91 Total $579.91 Payment is due upon receipt. Unpaid invoices will accrue Payments/Credits $0.00 1.5%interest monthly. We now accept VISA and' MASTERCARD. Balance Due $579.91 Broadcast Engineering • Design • Support Jar, u/. ui uxufip uim aturaivant 9.40-6FOI-UILJ p.0 Part Sale City of Renton Invoice#: 105971 1055 S Grady Way Renton,WA 98055 Sale #: 1 641 Contact: Lori Wood Purchase Order#: Remarks: Lori, This microphone is the sister of the one you've got. PARTS SOLD • ID# Qty U/M Description Mfr PartA Freight Unit Cost Total 9103 11 Each UHV Wireless mike UWPC1 • $0.00 $520.00 $520,00 Parts Total: $520.00 SERVICE CHARGES Charge For Description Date Cosi Shipping ; 12I6/2006 $13.00 Service Charges Total: $13.00 Terms: Net 30 Pre Tax Grand Total: $533.00 DO NOT PAY FROM THIS SHEET • Printed On: 1/2J2007 JW Tel-Tronics Inc. 18823 Beardslee Blvd. -Bothell, WA (425)485-4739 UPS Internet Shipping: Label/Receipt Page 1 of 2 UPS Internet Shipping: View/Print Label 1. Print the label(s): Select the Print button on the print dialog box that appears. Note: If your browser does not support this function select Print from the File menu to print the label. 2. Fold the printed label at the dotted line. Place the label in a UPS Shipping Pouch. If you do not have a pouch, affix the folded label using clear plastic shipping tape over the entire label. 3. GETTING YOUR SHIPMENT TO UPS Customers without a Daily Pickup Schedule a same day or future day Pickup to have a UPS driver pickup all of your Internet Shipping packages. " Hand the package to any UPS driver in your area. " Take your package to a location of The UPS Store®, UPS Drop Box, UPS Customer Center or Authorized Shipping Outlet near you. Items sent via UPS Return Services (including Ground Returns) are accepted at any UPS Drop Box. To find the location nearest you, please visit the 'Find Locations' Quick link at ups.com. Customers with a Daily Pickup Your driver will pickup your shipment(s) as usual. FOLD HERE x o Cy ,-1 � �:� Cg ,e. Z _ C.) I g �O O a0 immoommi Z N O *-a ore IL/ o U W�� 00 _ m w cm o� M U n O � IMMIMMINMINMNI CO � � A w z 0 o • r � ` f� Or'r oN�� o� o it fi=• , • 0 3 opa. G4 O +• •o •,;r ► cy..,,,.., i r� ti - '1L " d rt m c,x d 1 ' .r. '. z a M 43°15)1 V) S'Y"'erf—t:rt••r2;,.^ N H m x https://www.ups.com/uis/create?ActionOriginPair=print PrinterPage&POPUP LEVE... 12/11/2006 DHL: Prepare a shipment: Print waybill Page 1 of 1 o a i 'Ll cPV.:44c4" o rQ a y P, -1iito P. 2w Q ' 2 MO B p rn m�m ; o to =tv ,Erna r .e K r, rn>a_7.o c cn gti ..mro ,00rn0 2a - C4 c VI —I o m' r F. O N r-• 1, RA c.C.Pi INNOMMEMI r Ch u� .P co W a 91 CZ MINNOINI t al ,714.0 01 to ammunin2 d n D i a 0 o ac imeimia N 0 to O 7 'O g `5 N C7 S Uri GO a CD m o� m41 0 NJ 13 (A) O al Mai CI MC /i tri n -01 4,�d1E G�"i N mm w O o v; al ' L_ rnl Please fold or cut in half — DO NOT PHOTOCOPY Using a photocopy could delay the delivery of your package and will result in additional shipping charge For Tracking,please go to www.dhl-usa.com or call 1-800-225-5345 Thank you for shipping with DHL Create new shipment GI f View pending shipments Print waybill CI • hth,c•//avahchin Mil-ilea rnm/chinmpntrinrnmpntc/lahelrinr acn 10/18/2005 Page 1 /1 •(C-Y 0 CITY OF RENT ON a 4= + + 1055 S. GRADY WAY RENTON, WA 98055 3/12/2007 12/0001367 • .1\TrvC) VENDOR: 040001 SHIP TO: JW TEL-TRONICS INC PO BOX 1282 BOTHELL, WA 98041-1282 FOB Point: Req.No.: Terms: due in 30 days Dept.: FINANCE DEPARTMENT Req.Del.Date: Contact: SETH, JASON Pre-Assigned PO#?: No Special lnst: MX-70 Switcher maintenance.-(Rerouted 1,577.60 could play and record to the system) .1e1V-ak:e-if • 14.17reZ rri7e7;;T17;!;;I:?:N7.7- c7;; 4 741144,7111(Aff. SUBTOTAL 1,577.60 BILL TO: TAX 0.00 FREIGHT 0.00 TOTAL 1,577.60 E 127.000000.004.5710.0010.48.000000 1,577.60 71)1,(./eit,r1t Zdaito-7-, Authorized Signature Authorized Signature P.O.BOX 1282 BOTHELL,WA 98041-1 PH(425)485-4739 FAX(425)481-0703 IMFat Oinf F RENTON Invoice JW TEL TRONICS INC. FEB 2 7 2007 PDate r Invoice# CITY geREIN® rm I 2/21/2007 I _106050 Bill To ILori Wood City of Renton , 1055 S Grady Way (6' U (`V I Renton WA 98055 ' P.O. No. Terms Due Date VendorlD# Net 30 3/23/2007 040001 Item Description Amount Installation 1891 1,450.00T • • I CHART R 116, LAWS OF 1965 CITY OF R NTON CERTIFICATI I,THE UNDERSIGN L O HEREBY CERTIFY UNDER PENAL OF PERJURY,THAT HE MATERIALS HAVE BEEN FURNI p 1 •c t eta,0 (3,`-) THE SERVICES RE DERED OR THE LABOR PERFORMED DESCRIBED HEREI AND THAT THE CLAIM IS JUST,DUE UNPAID OBLIGATIO AGAINST THE CITY OF RENTON, VEW 042..2, 04 00 ( THAT I AM AUTHORIZED TO AUTHENTICATE AND CERTIFY TO SAID CLAIM. s+swED: i,�:�• Subtotal $1,450.00 Sales Tax (8.8%) $127.60 Total $1,577.60 Payment is due upon receipt. Unpaid invoices will accrue Payments/Credits $0.00 1.5%,interest monthly. We now accept VISA and Y `MASTERCARD. Balance Due $1,577.60 • • Broadcast Engineering • Design • Support Service Call / Installation City of Renton Invoice #: 106050 1055 S Grady Way Renton, WA 98055 ID #: 1891 Contact: Lori Wood Purchase Order#: Job #: Scheduled For: 1/17/2007 10:00:00 AM Symptom: They just bought a MX-70 switcher and need it wired in place of the.MX-50, which only has 4 inputs. They want the following signals feeding directly into the 70: Cam-1 Cam-2 Cam-3 Cam-4 Elmo must go through scan converter to projector. Monitors for council Computer DVR Deck 8 x 8 Knox router They also need me to connect up the DVR deck so it can record and playback. Hope it has SVHS in's and out's. That would be the best with their system since their gear is all S. Can feed the DVR from an output of the Knox. Will have to reroute the current video lines that appear as inputs to the router directly over to the 70. Service: Rerouted wiring as necessary to feed the new MX-70 switcher as suggested above. Added wiring for the new DVD recorder so it could play and record to the system. Removed some unnecessary wiring to help clean up the area. Added new wiring to the audio board for the DVD. Remarks: Worked continuously on the project from 10:15 AM to 10:30 PM less some time for a quick sandwich. Managed to stay to the end of the meeting that evening in the council chambers. I think it had something to do with rules for cutting trees in the city. LABOR Technician Description Date Hours Hourly Rate Total John Weist On-site installation 1/17/2007 11.5; $120.00 ; $1,380.00 Labor Total: $1,380.00 SERVICE CHARGES Charge For Description Date Cost Travel Time ; 1/17/2007 $70.00 ............... Service Charges Total: $70.00 Terms: Net 30 Pre-Tax Grand Total: $1,450.00 DO NOT PAY FROM THIS SHEET Printed On: 2/21/2007 JW Tel-Tronics Inc. TEL -T R O M I C S 18823 Beardslee Blvd. -Bothell,WA (425)485-4739 <CY 0 — CITY OF RENTON Page 1 /1 +. * 1 + 1055 S. GRADY WAY bUERJ RENTON, WA 98055 4/9/2007 12/0001390 VENDOR: 082979 SHIP TO: TROXELL COMMUNICATIONS INC 4830 S 38TH ST PHOENIX, AZ 85040 FOB Point: Req.No.: Terms: due in 30 days Dept.: FINANCE DEPARTMENT Req.Del.Date: Contact: JOHNSON, LONI Pre-Assigned PO#?: No Special Inst: , PROJECTOR LAMP-MARCH 2007-INV. 314.44 T,Z 17:217:77. -7; 77, ttizaa,gax6i,:k4 17Z7.746,,,T7:2147%-k7:::5:1,75; SUBTOTAL 314.44 BILL TO: TAX 0.00 FREIGHT 0.00 TOTAL 314.44 E 127.000000.004.5710.0010.48.000000 314.44 Authorized Signature 2utle7-14ot.ri/ c1.-411 Signature I'LtAbt litIVII I I l.): 1• .•. 4N VO I GE:" . . • :::..::.:i......:. ..::....:.:....,..: i. .•\ D T RO E 1----- COMMUNICATIONS, INC. Audio•Video•Sales•Design•Setvice•Installation No. 244686 4830 S.38TH STREET Date 03/23/2007 PHOENIX,ARIZONA 85040 t ' fk Page 1 (602)437-7240 1-800-352-791 2 FAX (602)437-7265 Customer 7-144S B1 - -1yr OF KENTON TIN // 86-07161 14 Sold To: Ship To: MAR 2 9 2007 • CITY OF RENTON CITY OF RENTON RECEIVED CITY CLERKS OFFICE 1055 S GRADY WAY 1055 S GRADY WAY RENTON WA 9 8 05 5-3 2 3 2. • RENTON WA 98055-3232 •::::•••1:Siii::.--i.••,:ti:ii.i.'iS.:,:::::;.::,:i•..1:i.-.•:,•:::;-,i:..:.-:-....•:•;.:_:::.8.hjp::Vila:-,•..-::.::.....?:.::i•.s.,:.-i•i :;:i]:.p.0t0:::.$bii$0.0:::..-...:••??::.:i...i:Critilrbl.:;No .::-.-..s •:•:••:Drciett.)W.:i-::::::.•..us om9y.:,•..:4)..N...:. :......:..:.::...._..e.s.:.-::.,.• Net 30 Drop Ship 03/23/2007 713642 RW 03/16/2007 120001371. 4601 ....'::•••''.::•::.: i.'::,•-•?'.-*:•::::::i•::. ::•::::.:::....,-.. .,,i.... .: . ..::'•::;•..:**.:::: ::.:•:';:j...:i.ii.:i:.ii::.;R ;:'...;•..,__.Z.:.::..M;: ;: .;:-: :i..;!:5:iKi: ;:V..i ; . : ;i;; :.. .:-: ::::i-a•. :g. ltOWNl.itnIPPt.':::,'.i',"::':i'''i'.':-::::..... •.,.. .•:i.::i::ii.::::i:i:..:...:-:--1-001PtiPP :.,. : i ::::: : i:: .;% Ordered,: Shipped i.::. -,p1y::-!, ::i:i i:...:.::. .:::PP9!!.!!. ..:.:.:i:i.:..?!,..:7.:i:„,....ATT,.!.p..::,:...: EIK EIK61 02907698 LAMP FOR LC-SX1U, 1 1 0 289.00 289.00 SX1UL,X1UA,X1UL ' RECEIVED • MAR 2 9 2007 City of Renton Accourts Payable c,i-fAltTEIR i.16, L.:‘,IMS•or 1 9.' . . ,--, ,- .. -.....7Y OF RENION CERTI'FiCic ''..T.1.-4 I, ThE UNDEVONED DO kEi(FIN CtRIIFY NDE.--: Sli;;AclEAJI3mEEI:AFI:!;: t..JDE, THE EANI*DDIECIR:qTHE LABOR PERFORMED AS CS:ER;z-RSe'j'UIR(TiE3-0TflARSNREDTHE111612, ...31 D AND R) /2/on o 1,',5(40 lif'14',".ID OBLGATIbU AGIVNGT THE&TY OF.;tErii.01.',I,AND 11-i-i,. I I AUt,10f2i;:t.,::13 T'D ALWENTIC-Ari: All\iD C.I.TRWY f0 SAID - u:D.D'' . o OM . , 4 ,---11 _, -, ,) i),) t.) g 12-7 U.;L-,L,u0 ,.) , '1.,c, , 'NO OD 0 MEMO: . . 40t.sAtt0:: • CONDITIONS OF SALE - -01.001.YT-::.... :::,..i:::::::,:i:::... ...,. 289.00 All claims arising out of or connected with the AFinance Charge at the periodic rate of SALES TAX 2 5.44 above listed items must be made within five days 1 1/2% with an Annual Percentage Rate after delivery delivery. No returns accepted unless of 18% will be charged on all accounts :-.:i:,::::::::<:',...•:•••••.:: :i.:i•.i:•::,!•::.• accompanied by this document. Merchandise returned unpaid after the last day of the ....::•::.•,:::.::::••.::,:: :i:ii.•,:ii::::: for credit shall be subject to 25% handling following month. FREIGHT ...--:--...,,:.,., charges. Seller reserves title to these goods .s:i:.:::ii:ii:::::-i*•:iM::i.::.:.::-•.•.:.:•:::: .i•:::;:::;:::::•••':::?.•'?.::::..*:-::;•;•.:: :::until paid for in full. .:,:..::i•ii: .,.......... This invoice is due on or before 04/22/2007 :AMOUNT 314.44 .,•::.;....., :::: ,•:•..:•:::: PLEASE REFERENCE THIS INVOICE NO. 244686 ON YOUR REMITTANCE -:i:.:.-::i.'.-:....:.:..,.:::. :DUE::::,::.--:_:::.:' PLEASE REMIT TO: . , INVOICE . , , :*:.:.:::.::...:.::i:::?:,...,,,.-...,...::::...:::::::.....::: TRO E COMMUNICATIONS, INC. Audio•Video•Sales•Design•Seivice•Installation No. 244686 . , 4830 S.38TH STREET Date 03/23/2007 PHOENIX,ARIZONA 85040 Page 1 (602)437-7240 1-800-352-7912 FAX (602)437-7265 Customer 21416 N TIN #86-0716114 CITY OF RENTON Sold To: Ship To: MAR 2 9 2007 • CITY OF RENTON CITY OF RENTON RECEIVED CITY CLERKS OFFICE • 1055 S GRADY WAY 1055 S GRADY WAY RENTON WA 980 55-32 32 RENTON WA 98 055-3 2 32 --- - - •------ :•: :4::i;ii:it.-4,0i.r.4ni] :;:'...i-.2::V E.:.::P:iniMPOSij$.N.1,*::;- .,-.':':.:::-.:.::i !'-::J?irf*:$....................:1.::.. .biifier:041.::: ::::„•:44................... -04•001*e4Kii.::0::•:::Eag4i.O.C!;:.i.:t.; Net 30 Drop Ship 03/23/2007 713642 RW 03/16/2007 120001371 4601 •,i., :,, ..,:: :::if:,i.:•:::.::,:,:-.:. ,,,:,::%:,:m:i,., ::: :,.:-:,.*i:i -s,:,- **.::::::,,-,--,.:.::::-,:-,%-. ,...,-:', .-a:::n:-,..-.:::%'Wi:ii:::::'-',. ---::-:::,:: .,:::*::iM:::-::::: ::.:OW :--ii ?..P.. .:".::.-:::::::..,.. ..;:i:-:•:',.-•-* Q%:::.:.:.::,::,::::::: i:i:i:ai:::ft00:-N4.0:.)#.0*:ii•:.:::':i:!ii:g: :;:i.V:: ::--:if::;:•:?,:i:::;:;:::-:-..- :1:).-00.IiitiA4:i0.•,'•'•.:--1-1.::::•:;:-:::::-:M•i::::-:.:.:ii :-:: •!:.•i:It):r40:1'..0-:•:-:-.-.-1•:::.00004iii-::: ::•::.:!IIPP:M...,:•::: ::.':-T41100.1Per:i.•,.- EIK EIK6102907698 LAMP FOR LC-SX1U, 1 1 0 289.00 289.00 SX1UL,X1UA,X1UL . 1?4P4 ' C•6& 4/44) c ,2, C Oft,. op? __,... ,. Wits'ilptAto • MEMO: . . .htt.EtAtt .i.::::. 289.00 CONDITIONS OF SALE .i*:A0.:-::.:::::.!,i,i,:ci::.;:i ;i :i:,, .iii:::.i!i'g:•;'.;,::;.;::.V;:!:i::;i::: : All claims arising out of or connected with the AFinance Charge at the periodic rate of SALES TAX 2 5.44 above listed items must be made within five days 1 1/2% with an Annual Percentage Rate ,:ii %:..•:::::.::::.M:,:::::,.-:---.,.--... -.....-...- •••••••••••-•••..... after delivery. No returns accepted unless of 18% will be charged on all accounts ..i:-.,:ii::.,:::::;•:::...::::,,::•:::i•ic.:.!::i: accompanied by this document. Merchandise returned unpaid after the last day of the •::: :.:-:::::...::::,:W:--f:::. for credit shall be subject to 25% handling following month. :FREIGHT•-,::-E:•-•.i charges. Seller reserves title to these goods • ii':;...:::-:-•:,:-...-.:::: :.•-:::::::::.: until paid for in full. This invoice is due on or before 04/22/2007 AMOUNT '.. •i. . ..... , -..:::.. PLEASE REFERENCE THIS INVOICE NO. 244686 ON YOUR REMITTANCE DIJE:::::: EE:::.' • PACK LIST Page 1 Priest Oif i11/O7 E CK 1 INTERNATIONAL, CITY OF RENTON MAR 2 2 2007 RECEIVED CITY CLERK'S OFFICE CITY OF RE TO 3/19/07 1055 S GRADY WAY 3/14/07 PO 1 2000 1 3 7 1 RENT RENTON WA 9 5-3 3 01/OOt 05 72 71364201 53 Eid00 01 Carrier: UPS Sk`ound 61025076418 1 1 0 Eta LA&¢ ASSENBL VILE-X'1 X1s„eri�� 1 Frei Wit * COMPLETE * •• Page 1 /1 ‘ 's1 TY) CITY OF RENTL,4 • cz, + 1055 S. GRADY WAY -33,-r1,44.0.i6ttgaikaqg'',61 RENTON, WA 98055 6/11/2007 12/0001435 rsJrV VENDOR: 040001 SHIP TO: JW TEL-TRONICS INC PO BOX 1282 BOTHELL, WA 98041-1282 FOB Point: Req.No.: Terms: due in 30 days Dept.: FINANCE DEPARTMENT Req.Del.Date: Contact: SETH, JASON Pre-Assigned PO#?: No Special Inst: 2 separate services calls- 2,815.07 • r,":".' ::1R011010(fictrIKPIgitar.q!.4.510 1' -; Repaired Eiki Projector Monitor ' ":••••••••-,r••••••••-••••• • • ' `,"•• •• ; • , •,;!•••:"•.:3.•••• z'4"';0.•";•;$•••,.;••••,''• • • , -••'•:;;; ..,P.7:„73,7,77,7,7W5-77 7.7777,,'77.7541777:7777:71';..737.7.,*:"AV,TOW14.;!‘i,7171.2 7,727,77„7.77,,-77777.0 7,7';• , ,• •-•-rkrm,..w•••,,•;-,,,r,,r,t,m•;31-,•,•••,q,-.. 717-7, ,‘ ': • ; -T;•• FtEr7,17.C417 1.( ' • 7,TY 171%11.77:7,';€7 757:77-77 ri'757.-710.'!;7771 '17:7 777„-•'-7.7:7,7,4; 1;577,7.7'',7.577,7177:7'.=;/). r,;i71.1;;T-7:7 i'?F:7777:57.1,7g7.77,77,72:77,F:-7- F.,',:,--::::7-77-;-PraT7S.:57a7,7777:7,77:;;:<1': '••4';'‘,':'-.-2:-57!".c:77 '',,'"ff71-',17,7-V..'; ',fe irAf: 7;7'7;;Tr ";:%';:: :57I F:T•Zj'ITW317:;7:575 IR SUBTOTAL 2,815.07 BILL TO: TAX 0.00 FREIGHT 0.00 • TOTAL 2,815.07 E 127.000000.004.5710.0010.48.000000 2,815.07 Nhddil/gA,t Authorized Signature Signature Authorized Signature P.O.BOX 1282 BOTHELL,WA 98041-1L. PH(425)485-4739 FAX(425)481-0703 Invoice JW TEL TRONICS, INC. to, I L Date Invoice# 6/7/2007 I 106242 Bill To Lori Wood CITY OF RENTON City of Renton 1055 S Grady Way JUN 1 1 2007 Renton WA 98055 RECEIVED CITY CLERK'S OFFICE P.O. No. Terms Due Date VendorlD# Net 30 7/7/2007 Item Description Amount Equipment Repair 19749 1,095.00T Equipment Repair 19817 510.00T Service Call 1948 430.00T Service Call 1951 .550.00T CHARTER 116, LAWS OF 1965 CITY OF RENTON CERTIFICATION J I,THE UNDERSIGNED GO HEREBY CERTIFY UNDER PENALTY ?Q ( Zi/Q2 0 L LV7 C(J OF PERJURY,THAT THE MATERIA_S HAVE BEEN FURNISHED, THE SERVICES RENDERED OR T-IE LABOR PERFORMED AS 04 DESCRIBED HEREIN,AND THAT THE CLAIM IS JUST,DUE AND I/ �( O OUNPAID OBLIGATION AGAINST TNE CITY Of RENTON,AND THAT I AM AUTHORIZED TO AUTHENTICATE AND CERTIFY TO SAID CLAIM. SIGNED: -C�!12-�i`Q" ,/-44 l� X� LZ,'1,* , o01,., 51 O , 0©('O , `k8 , Afx i( D D / ( Subtotal $2,585.00 Sales Tax (8.9%) $230.07 Total $2,815.07$2,815.07 Payment is due upon receipt. Unpaid invoices will accrue payments/Credits $0.00 1.5% interest monthly. We now accept VISA and MASTERCARD. Balance Due $2,815.07 Broadcast Engineering • Design • Support Equipment Repair City of Renton Invoice 106242 1055 S Grady Way Repair#: 19749 Renton, WA 98055 Contact: Lori Wood Purchase Order#: Group #: EQUIPMENT INFORMATION Description: Scan Converter, Digital ID#: 1E+0 Received: 4/30/2007 3:44:39 Completed: 5/10/2007 Make: Sony Model: DSC-1024G Serial: 2101983 Operate Hours: Drum Hours: Capstan Hours: Thread Count: Symptom: John went to site and removed the unit from their system. He connected the computers up so the computers can still be displayed onto the projector and side view flat panel monitors. What will not work now is that the computer images cannot be recorded onto tape for replay. Faint herringbone lines from all inputs. Ask JW if you have any questions. Service: 4/30/07 Electrolytic capacitors are obviously the problem. I will replace (10) caps in the power supply. If the problem is still there, then the main board will need all new caps (there are over 100). Est for that would be $800-900. 5/4/07 Replaced the 10 capacitors on power supply circuit board. The symptoms haven't changed. 5/7/07 Lori called to approve the estimate. Please see if you can fix it and we could have it back by Monday the 14th. AS 5/10/07 Replaced all electrolytic capacitors (total of 136) on main circuit board. Fine tuned output levels and tested all inputs and outputs. LABOR Technician Description Date Hours Hourly Rate Total John Weist I Disconnected from system. 4/30/2007 ' 0.5 $120.00 $60.00 Chris Diagnostics 4/30/2007 ' 0.5 $100.00 $50.00 Chris Power supply repairs 5/4/2007 0.5 $100.00 $50.00 Chris I Main board repairs 5/10/2007 51 $100.00 $500.00 Labor Total: $660.00 PARTS USED ID# Qty U/M Description Mfr Part# Freight Unit Cost Total 15021 10 Each Capacitor I $0.00 $2.50 $25.00 1502 136 Each Capacitor i $0.00 $2.50 $340.00 Parts Total: $365.00 SERVICE CHARGES Charge For Description Date Cost Pick-up j 4/30/2007 $70.00 Service Charges Total: $70.00 Terms: Net 30 Pre-Tax Grand Total: $1,095.00 DO NOT PAY FROM THIS SHEET • Printed On: 6/8/2007 J11) JW Tel-Tronics Inc. I. - S 18823 Beardslee Blvd. - Bothell, WA (425)485-4739 Equipment Repair City of Renton Invoice#: 106242 1055 S Grady Way Renton, WA 98055 Repair#: 19817 Contact: Lori Wood Purchase Order#: Group #: EQUIPMENT INFORMATION Description: Multimedia Projector ID#: 1E+0 Received: 5/30/2007 4:03:22 Completed: 6/1/2007 Make: Eiki Model: LC-X1 Serial: G8601301 Operate Hours: Drum Hours: Capstan Hours: Thread Count: Symptom: Dirt in the optics. Clean optics and filter; check operation. Service: Disassembled projector and pressure cleaned chassis. Cleaned filters. Manually cleaned LCD panels to remove dust. Tested functions, ok. Remarks: There is one blue pixel stuck on in the lower-left quadrant. Location: 104x372 @ 640x480. John Picked up the unit on 5-30-07 and had to move a couple of cables around in the control room so everything else in the system would work properly. John delivered the projector on 6-04-07, repositioned the wiring changed for the removal and tested operation. LABOR Technician Description Date Hours Hourly Rate Total John Weist i On-site projector removal,wiring. 5/30/2007 11 $120.00 $120.00 Dave Pinney Labor 5/31/2007 1.5 $100.00 $150.00 John Weist I On-site hookup,projector setup,wiring. 6/4/2007 1 $120.00 $120.00 Labor Total: $390.00 SERVICE CHARGES • Charge For Description Date Cost Travel Time To PU projector 5/30/2007 $60.00 Travel Time To Return projector 6/4/2007 $60.00 Service Charges Total: $120.00 Terms: Net 30 Pre-Tax Grand Total: $510.00 DO NOT PAY FROM THIS SHEET Printed On: 6/8/2007 JW Tel-Tronics Inc. T E L -T R O N I C S 18823 Beardslee Blvd. -Bothell, WA (425) 485-4739 Service Call / Installation City of Renton Invoice #: 106242 1055 S Grady Way Renton, WA 98055 ID #: 1948 Contact: Bonnie Walton Purchase Order#: Job #: Scheduled For: 4/13/2007 1:30:00 PM Symptom: Lori is having problems with: Intermittant audio to ceiling speakers in Chambers. Audio on recordings was all okay Wavy lines from the Elmo copy camera. No video from the pc to the MX-70. Service: No video from the PC was caused by a cable disconnected by the SPL folks that had been in there recently looking for an audio problem. They had moved the Sony scan converter and had not noticed a loose cable. Wavy lines in the elmo and computer pictures are being caused by the Sony DSC1024G scan converter. It has an internal component problem that will have to be repaired at our shop. Let us know when that can be taken in for work. The audio was working perfectly while we were looking at it. I listened to it for the entire time I was there and it always sounded good. Remarks: We spent a good bit of time trying to make the audio system act up. If this happens again please try to call me while it is happening. My cell#is: 206 818-2388. We may be able to figure out what is and what isn't working at that time. LABOR Technician Description Date Hours Hourly Rate Total John Weist 4/13/2007 I 31 $120.00 $360.00 Labor Total: $360.00 SERVICE CHARGES Charge For Description Date Cost Travel Time r 4/13/2007 $70.00 Service Charges Total: $70.00 Terms: Net 30 Pre-Tax Grand Total: $430.00 DO NOT PAY FROM THIS SHEET Printed On: 6/7/2007 1/� 1 JW Tel-Tronics Inc. TEL -T R O N I C S 18823 Beardslee Blvd. -Bothell,WA (425)485-4739 Service Call / Installation City of Renton Invoice #: 106242 1055 S Grady Way Renton,WA 98055 ID #: 1951 Contact: Bonnie Walton Purchase Order#: Job #: Scheduled For: 5/11/2007 2:15:00 PM Symptom: Return the freshly repaired Sony Scan converter. Reconnect it into the system and test everything to make sure it all works. Service: Reinstalled the Sony Scan Converter. That took about 45 minutes with all the wiring. No problems there but when testing the system I discovered that the Dais monitors had no computer feed. Since there were • no known drawings I traced out the system and tracked the problem down to a Gefen VGA to DVI converter unit in the Dais. There were proper input signals but nothing coming out but the menu from the unit. I unplugged power for 15 seconds and reconnected. It worked great after that. The picture on the Staff table was very blurry. After following the wiring system out for the staff table I reset that Gefen VGA to DVI converter to clear the problem. Everything was working properly when I left. Remarks: It is too bad there are so many standards converters in the monitoring system. The picture quality could be a bit better if the system had been installed with less complexity& less conversion. It would have made better pictures, been more reliable and cost a lot less, both in parts and install labor. If the proper computer monitor had been purchased none of the DVI or scan converters would have been necessary. $2000.00 in parts and a considerable amount in labor could have been saved if this had been planned better. LABOR Technician Description Date Hours Hourly Rate Total John Weist ( 5/11/2007 ; 41 $120.00 $480.00 Labor Total: $480.00 SERVICE CHARGES Charge For Description Date Cost Travel Time I 1 5/11/2007 $70.00 Service Charges Total: $70.00 Terms: Net 30 Pre-Tax Grand Total: $550.00 DO NOT PAY FROM THIS SHEET Printed On: 6/7/2007 u J14) JW Tel-Tronics Inc. re t -T R o„ ICS 18823 Beardslee Blvd. -Bothell,WA (425)485-4739 From: "Michael Bradley"<bradley@bradleyguzzetta.com> To: "Pepper, Robbin"<Robbin_Pepper@cable.comcast.com>, <MWine@ci.renton.wa.us>, <Bwalton@ci.renton.wa.us> Date: 8/22/2007 12:30:34 PM Subject: RE: Comcast response to Renton WA Franchise Fee Audit Final Report This is indeed disappointing and frankly unacceptable to receive this just minutes before a scheduled meeting with Comcast and the City of Renton. A meeting that had been requested about 6 weeks ago. We will not be able to fully review until after our meeting. Mike From: Pepper, Robbin [mailto:Robbin_Pepper@cable.comcast.com] Sent: Wednesday, August 22, 2007 12:30 PM To: MWine@ci.renton.wa.us; Bwalton@ci.renton.wa.us Cc: Dick Treich; Michael Bradley; Davis, Terry J;Turpen, Janet Subject: Comcast response to Renton WA Franchise Fee Audit Final Report VIA E-MAIL Ms. Marty Wine City of Renton 1055 S. Grady Way Renton, WA 98055 MWine@ci.renton.wa.us Michael R. Bradley, Esq Bradley&Guzzetta, LLC 444 Cedar Street, Suite 950 St. Paul, MN 55101 bradley@bradleyguzzetta.com And Richard D. Treich Front Range Consulting, Inc. 4152 Bell Mountain Drive Castle Rock, CO 80104 dick@frc-inc.com RE: City of Renton, WA- Response to FRC Franchise Fees Audit Final report-from Comcast Cable Communication, LLC. On behalf of Comcast Cable Communications, LLC, I am hereby transmitting the Response to FRC Franchise Fee Audit Final Report. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at(720) 267-2238. Best regards, Robbin Pepper Robbin Pepper Director, Rates & Regulatory West Division Comcast Cable Communications, LLC 720.267.2238 Direct Line 720.267.2715 Facsimile CC: "Dick Treich"<dick@frc-inc.com>, "Davis, Terry J" <Terry_Davis@cable.comcast.com>, "Turpen, Janet"<Janet_Turpen@cable.comcast.com> From: Marty Wine To: Walton, Bonnie Date: 8/21/2007 4:35:17 PM Subject: Draft reports Hi Bonnie, These are not final yet, nor is the survey data. We are meeting preliminarily with Comcast(Terry Davis and the regional VP)tomorrow to discuss these findings and the I-Net. I don't think Mike Bradley plans to finalize them until we are farther along in negotiations. I'm looking at the invoice and will respond tomorrow. Yes, Mike will be here tomorrow. Marty x6526 Comcas Cable Comcast® P.O.Box t 042 Suite 200 Bothell,WA 98041-3042 CITY OF RENTON AUG 0 3 2007 July 30, 2007 RECEIVED CITY CLERKS OFFICE SENT VIA OVERNIGHT UPS Bonnie Walton City o`f Renton 1055 S Grady Way Renton,WA 98055 RE: Franchise Fee Report- Second Quarter 2007 Dear Ms. Walton: In accordance with our franchise agreement with the City of Renton, please find enclosed the franchise fee report for Second Quarter 2007. The figures reported herein should be consistent with the franchise fee check you received from our corporate office in Denver, Colorado. If you have any questions about your franchise fee check or the attached report,please feel free to contact me at(425) 741-5752. Sincerely, lAte44.44-v-- • Ann Svensson Franchising Contracts Administrator Comcast—WA Market Encls. cc: Janet L. Turpen, Comcast Ken Rhoades, Comcast Terry Davis, Comcast Bradley & Guzzetta, LLC ee: 9ay d t G " -mat/ & • OPERATOR: City of Renton Comcast Period From 4/1/07-6/30/07 19909 120th Ave NE,Suite 200 Bothell,WA 98011 FRANCHISE FEE PAYMENT WORKSHEET UNITS UNIT PRICE MONTHS IN GROSS FEE% FRANCHISE YTD REVENUE SOURCE (AVE OF PER) (EACH MO) PERIOD REVENUE FEE Installation-(Including Digital) 987 $16.06 3 47,569.70 5 2,378.49 4,761.10 Rate Card Price $12.48 Basic Cable Service* 19,059 $9.80 3 560,352.09 5 28,017.60 56,305.12 538.77 Expanded Cable Service* 15,373 $34.51 3 1,591,621.37 5 79,581.07 158,571.88 $11.99 Special Interest(Digital)** 10,078 $17.26 3 521,775.96 5 26,088.80 51,474.75 $15.99 HBO Customers 3,422 $15.99 Showtime Customers 963 $15.99 Cinemax Customers 753 $15.99 TMC Customers 648 $15.99 Starz!Customers 1,791 515.99 Encore Customers 865 • Total Premium 8,443 $9.16 3 232,087.27 5 11,604.36 23,020.57 53.98444.95 Pay-Per-View 6,371 $9.21 3 175,992.42 5 8,799.62 16,589.01 $i.io Standard Converters 47 $3.80 Addressable Converters 187 53.80 to$8.50 Digital Converters 15,178 $o.1s Remote Units 15,178 Total Equipment 30,589 $0.02 3 2,033.06 5 101.65 222.77 TOTAL SERVICE/INSTALL INCOME 3,131,431.87 5 156,571.59 310,945.18 Advertising Revenue 218,036.17 5 10,901.81 19,280.78 Shopping Services 35,486.40 5 1,774.32 2,992.84 53.4$ Guides 527 $3.43 3 5,426.48 5 271.32 548.63 Late Fees 24,149.30 1,207.47 2,459.04 Miscellaneous 6,932.44 5 346.62 637.72 • TOTAL NON-SUBSCRIBER INCOME 290,030.79 5 14,501.54 25,919.00 Less Refunds/Bad Debts (66,037.90) 5 (3,301.90) (6,221.22) Plus Bad Debt Recovery 0.00 5 0.00 0.00 NET BAD DEBTS(-) (66,037.90) 5 (3,301.90) (6,221.22) . TOTAL REVENUES 3,355,424.76 5 167,771.24 330,642.96 Franchise Fee Revenue 197,355.49 5 9,867.77 19,661.98 Utility Tax 236,451.89 5 11,822.59 23,598.45 Adjustments* TOTAL DUE CITY 3,789,232.14 5 189,461.61 373,903.39 EXPLANATORY NOTES: A1L�a3!c;and x rided.Bas'ic:Servi0i,konue§arerecord TaSS i.; F'1 •`I' "< r c ,Ra ed, to .(iiCabeBu •Corriirt9reJenue`ca�-`o .�:r..:��3.: 'r"' r . ''a 7h s cl�"des=ev'��ue�\oc 'i•i" i�' f D to Aid tion 'O"tle•�'a5 uYe l•a I� rn "i :'d`' ,a .a.w..........:.......k.,...�[...@[:l........,.,......19.. ,..,..,.......a 4i,...� z ! s�� u WCam Prc al, dditignal�QiitietS�`�"� Send to: Prepared by: A vensson City of Renton Authorized by: . Title: Franchise Contracts Administrator Date: 30-Jul-2007 FRANCHISE FEE-.REVENUE , :,. ,. „.:., t :.w b :',.„,:;" ,a=,,,. _ >a^.<. ,s' ra. z * . *', . .. .. fix..;,=.7'; SECTION 1-GENERAL INFORMATION ENTITY NAME: AUBURN ENTITY NUMBER: 776 FRANCHISE NAME: CITY OF RENTON BIWNG AREA: 8498 3400 0050 YEAR/TERM: 2007/QUARTERLY DAYS DUE: 30 DAYS FRANCHISE EXCLUSIONS: Internet SECTION 2-SUBSCRIBER REVENUE Description JANUARY FEBRUARY MARCH QTR TOTAL APRIL MAY JUNE QTR TOTAL YID TOTAL BAD DEBT/WRITE-OFFS 84 (21,801.50) (24,119.66) (12,465.26) (58,386.43) (19,420.13) (24,243.86) (22,373.91) (66,037.90) (124,424.32) BASIC CABLE 186,804.84 189,870.57 189,074.83 565,750.24 187,142.20 184,599.30 188,610.59 560,352.09 1,126,102.33 BOTTOM OF THE BILL DISCOUNT - - - - - - - - - DIGITAL CABLE 165,020.49 169,903.15 172,795.30 507,718.94 172,746.64 172,919.58 176,109.74 521,775.96 1,029,494.90 EQUIPMENT REVENUE 728.73 753.02 940.49 2,422.24 766.02 724.13 542.91 2,033.06 4,455.30 EXPANDED BASIC 515,906.28 531,304.27 532,605.77 1,579,816.32 530,367.54 528,425.18 532,828.65 1,591,621.37 3,171,437.69 FCC FEE REVENUE 1,005.75 1,004.35 1,130.40 3,140.50 1,172.26 1,167.82 1,187.79 3,527.87 6,668.37 FRANCHISE FEE REVENUE 65,126.33 65,731.75 65,025.98 195,884.06 65,538.88 65,668.78 66,147.83 197,355.49 393,239.55 GUIDE REVENUE 1,868.92 1,847.35 1,829.79 5,546.06 1,820.30 1,802.13 1,804.05 5,426.48 10,972.54 INSTALLATION REVENUE 16,337.22 17,323.50 13,991.51 47,652.23 15,208.65 15,061.24 17,299.81 47,569.70 95,221.93 LATE FEE REVENUE 9,220.00 8,075.00 7,736.46 25,031.46 7,860.00 7,704.30 8,585.00 24,149.30 49,180.76 INTERNET REVENUE EXCLUDED EXCLUDED EXCLUDED EXCLUDED EXCLUDED EXCLUDED EXCLUDED EXCLUDED EXCLUDED OTHER REVENUE 664.47 887.97 1,128.92 2,681.36 1,096.57 1,086.23 1,221.77 3,404.57 6,085.93 PAY REVENUE 74,134.96 77,163.54 77,025.59 228,324.09 76,969.15 76,885.13 78,232.99 232,087.27 460,411.36 PAY PER VIEW REVENUE 49,328.35 55,941.98 50,517.43 155,787.76 56,778.13 63,621.69 55,592.60 175,992.42 331,780.18 UTILITY TAX 78,301.59 79,030.96 78,184.54 235,517.09 78,800.65 78,963.81 78,687.43 236,451.89 471,968.98 SUBSCRIBER REVENUE TOTAL 1,142,646.43 1,174,717.75 1,179,521.75 3,496,885.92 1,176,846.86 1,174,385.46 1,184,477.25 3,535,709.57 7,032,595.50 SECTION 3-ALLOCATED REVENUE JANUARY FEBRUARY MARCH QTR TOTAL APRIL MAY JUNE QTR TOTAL YTD TOTAL SHOPPING COMMISSIONS 6,994.86 2,993.76 6,453.08 16,441.70 10,663.95 6,195.89 8,601.93 25,461.78 41,903.48 LEASED ACCESS 1,560.06 1,367.99 2,385.82 5,313.87 2,520.69 1,836.11 1,165.95 5,522.75 10,836.62 OTHER COMMERCIAL LEASED ACCESS - - - - - - - - - OTHER REVENUE 46.60 (474.00) (24.98) (452.37) (361.20) (80.89) (485.38) (927.46) (1,379.84) TOWER 8 RENTAL INCOME 527.65 1,919.61 619.84 3,067.10 3,710.25 580.05 1,139.04 5,429.33 8,496.44 ALLOCATED REVENUE TOTAL 84 9,129.17 5,807.37 9,433.76 24,370.30 16,533.70 8,531.16 10,421.54 35,486.39 59,856.69 LOCAL ADVERTISING 41,870.37 44,235.90 41,376.71 127,482.97 59,877.79 58,516.86 47,905.02 166,299.67 293,782.64 NATIONAL ADVERTISING 15,022.07 11,317.63 13,851.71 40,191.41 20,433.62 13,549.58 17,771.03 51,754.23 91,945.64 BAD DEBT ON ADVERTISING (21.77) 33.50 (106.68) (94.95) (0.18) (17.43) (0.13) (17.74) (112.69) ADVERTISING REVENUE TOTAL 84 56,870.67 55,587.03 55,121.74 167,579.44 80,311.24 72,049.01 65,675.92 218,036.16 385,615.60 SECTION4-TOTAL REVENUE $1,208,646.27 $1,236,112.15 $1,244,077.25 $3,688,835.66 $1,273,691.79 $1,254,965.63 $1,260,574.71 $3,789,232.13 7,478,067.79 SECTION 5-FRANCHISE TAX% 5.00% 5.00% 5.00% 5.00% 5.00% 5.00% Cable franchise fee 57,588.78 59,026.26 59,447.78 176,062.81 59,669.03 59,145.83 59,744.94 178,559.80 354,622.61 Ad sales franchise fee 2,843.53 2,779.35 2,756.09 8,378.97 4,015.56 3,602.45 3,283.80 10,901.81 19,280.78 SECTION 6-TOTAL FRANCHISE FEE DUE 84 $60,432.31 $61,805.61 $62,203.86 $184,441.78 $63,684.59 $62,748.28 $63,028.74 $189,461.61 S373,903.39 Amount Paid 849834000050 FFPMT $184,441.78 $184,441.78 Over/Under $0.00 $189,461.61 $189,461.61 • OPERATOR: City of Renton Comcast Period From 4/1/07-6/30/07 19909 120th Ave NE,Suite 200 Bothell,WA 98011 FRANCHISE FEE PAYMENT WORKSHEET UNITS UNIT PRICE MONTHS IN GROSS FEE% FRANCHISE YTD REVENUE SOURCE (AVE OF PER) (EACH MO) PERIOD REVENUE FEE Installation-(Including Digital) 2 $16.06 3 113.92 5 5.70 9.17 Rate Card Rice $12.48 Basic Cable Service* 49 $11.08 3 1,640.12 5 82.01 204.68 $38.77 Expanded Cable Service* 43 $37.92 3 4,929.62 5 246.48 505.94 $11.99 Special Interest(Digital)** 20 $18.85 3 1,149.79 5 57.49 115.03 $15.99 HBO Customers 9 $15.99 Showtime Customers 2 $15.99 Cinemax Customers 1 $15.99 INC Customers 1 $15.99 Starz!Customers 3 $15.99 Encore Customers 2 Total Premium 18 $6.01 3 321.42 5 16.07 42.84 $3.99-$44.95 Pay-Per-View 9 $17.07 3 435.17 5 21.76 30.29 $1.10 Standard Converters 1 $3.80 Addressable Converters 0 $3.8oto$6.50 Digital Converters 29 $o.1s Remote Units 29 Total Equipment 59 $0.06 3 11.40 5 0.57 1.14 TOTAL SERVICE/INSTALL INCOME 8,601.44 5 430.07 909.08 Advertising Revenue 735.19 5 36.76 57.18 Shopping Services 119.64 5 5.98 8.83 $3.45 2 $4.83 3 24.15 5 1.21 2.24 Late Fees 55.00 2.75 5.75 Miscellaneous 12.39 5 0.62 1.18 TOTAL NON-SUBSCRIBER INCOME 946.37 5 47.32 75.17 Less Refunds/Bad Debts (2.91) 5 (0.15) (0.15) Plus Bad Debt Recovery 0.00 5 0.00 0.00 NET BAD DEBTS(-) (2.91) 5 (0.15) (0.15) TOTAL REVENUES 9,544.90 5 477.25 984.11 Franchise Fee Revenue 566.62 5 28.33 57.57 Utility Tax 681.63 5 34.08 69.25 Adjustments* TOTAL DUE CITY 10,793.15 5 539.66 1,110.93 EXPLANATORY NOTES: '*'All sasic,and Expanded Basi4,$trvue Feyetaues.are recorded;as;5tapdardCable,;Bmm'I tev2nue category - ,> *\This mclr def eygil e for 0!gltaf AdditIpi1al Outlets 4s well i3s ulk(,Compierci§l,AullgcodOlt!onal Outlets'\ , ` ,, o,a,A Send to: Prepared by: An Svensson City of Renton Authorized by: Title: Franchise Contracts Administrator Date: 30-Jul-2007 FRANCHISE FEE-REVENUE -, s:, a -:,r; . r a g,.„4.s, a. ,tea'., vL -Ve,,~`s' z..Z . 0?;:4"rti �y i -<Y' Div :f.5,` N,.< .. a 41z e. . v AY. .n j• SECTION 1-GENERAL INFORMATION = p ENTITY NAME: AUBURN ENTITY NUMBER: 77Q FRANCHISE NAME: CITY OF RENTON BILLING AREA: 8498 3400 0360 YEAR/TERM: 2007/MONTHLY DAYS DUE: 30 DAYS FRANCHISE EXCLUSIONS: SECTION 2-SUBSCRIBER REVENUE Description JANUARY FEBRUARY MARCH QTR TOTAL, APRIL MAY JUNE QTR TOTAL YTD TOTAL - BAD DEBT/WRITE-OFFS IA - - - _ - (2.91) - (2.91) (2.91) BASIC CABLE 941.13 690.72 821.62 2453.47 414.90 688.22 537.00 1,640.12 4,093.59 BOTTOM OF THE BILL DISCOUNT - - - - _ - _ - _ DIGITAL CABLE 357.40 403.11 390.25 1,150.76 410.90 357.79 381.10 1,149.79 2,300.55 BLANK FOR FORMATTING PURPOSES - - (6,078.17) EQUIPMENT REVENUE 3.80 3.80 3.80 11.40 3.80 3.80 3.80 11.40 22.80 EXPANDED BASIC 1,752.85 1,738.78 1,697.47 5,189.10 1,715.16 1,624.80 1,589.66 4,929.62 10,118.72 FCC FEE REVENUE 3.60 3.60 `3.92 11.12 4.20 4.13 4.06 12.39 23.51 FRANCHISE FEE REVENUE 200.28 196.18 188.30 584.76 199.88 190.39 176.35 566.62 1,151.38 GUIDE REVENUE 6.79 6.90 6.90 20.59 8.42 8.83 6.90 24.15 44.74 INSTALLATION REVENUE - 71.46 (1.99) 69.47 75.95 19.99 17.98 113.92 183.39 LATE FEE REVENUE 25.00 15.00 20.00 60.00 25.00 15.00 15.00 55.00 115.00 OTHER REVENUE - _ _ - _ - _ - _ PAY REVENUE 195.72 178.77 160.82 535.31 124.07 96.47 100.88 321.42 856.73 PAY PER VIEW REVENUE 62.88 46.86 60.88 170.62 94.53 228.34 112.30 435.17 605.79 UTILITY TAX 240.93 236.01 226.50 703.44 240.43 229.08 212.12 681.63 1,385.07 SUBSCRIBER REVENUE TOTAL 3,790.38 3,591.19 3,578A7 10,960.04 3,317.24 3,463.93 (2,921.02) 9,938.32 . 20,898.36 - SECTION 3-ALLOCATED REVENUE JANUARY FEBRUARY MARCH QTR TOTAL APRIL MAY JUNE QTR TOTAL YTD TOTAL SHOPPING COMMISSIONS 4.78 10.06 21.40 36.23 36.07 21.02 28.70 85.79 122.03 LEASED ACCESS 1.07 4.59 7.91 13.57 8.53 6.23 3.89 18.65 32.22 OTHER COMMERCIAL LEASED ACCESS - - - - - - _ - _ OTHER REVENUE 0.03 (1.59) (0.08) (1.64) (1.22) (0.27) (1.62) (3.12) (4.76) TOWER&RENTAL INCOME 0.36 6.45 2.06 8.86 12.55 1.97 3.80 18.32 27.18 ALLOCATED REVENUE TOTAL 84: 6.24 19.51 31.28 57.03 55.93 28.94 34.77 119.64 176.67 LOCAL ADVERTISING 28.62 148.58 137.20 314.40 202.54 198.49 159.85 560.88 875.28 NATIONAL ADVERTISING 10.27 38.01 45.93 94.21 , 69.12 45.96 59.30 174.38 268.59 BAD DEBT ON ADVERTISING (0.01) 0.11 (0.35) (0.26) , (0.00) (0.06) (0.00) (0.06) (0.32) ADVERTISING REVENUE TOTAL 84i 38.88 186.70 182.77 408.35 271.66 244.39 219.14 735.19 1,143.55 SECTION 4-TOTAL REVENUE $3,835.50 3,797.40 $3,792.52 $11,425.42 3,644.83 3,737.25 -$2,667.10 $10,793.15 22,218.57 SECTION 5-UTIUTY TAX% 5.00% 5.00% 5.00% 5.00% 5.00% 5.00% 5.00% 5.00% Cable franchise tee 189.83 180.53 180.49 550.85 168.66 174.64 (144.31) 502.90 1,053.75 Ad sales franchise tee 1.94 9.34 9.14 20.42 13.58 12.22 10.96 36.76 57.18 SECTION 6-TOTAL UTIUTY TAX 84 $191.77 189.87 $189.63 $571.27 182.24 186.86 -$133.36 $539.66 $1,110.93 Amount Paid 849834000050 UTPMT - $0.00 Over/Under 191.77 (189.87 (189.63 571.27 (182.24 186.86 33.36 1 539.66 1,110.93 s' WHY USE THE CABLECAST CG-250?' I ...„ /r R --- :: Turn your channel into a vital community resource with live traffic cams,school I � _ closing information,transit schedules and more J :: Manage and upload your content from anywhere with an internet connection I ) :: "Zero training"user interface gets you going quickly `, / :: The Mayor,Police Chief,Superintendant of Schools or Station Manager can all ,: create instant emergency messages across all access channels AIX :: Automatically creates"Coming up Next","You were just watching",and "Today's Schedule"screens from Cablecast scheduling software :: Bulletin board screens are exported to your web site ensuring that the entire • c-- community has access to all the information that you provide ",._, c - R � _. :: There are no licensing or production fees.There is no required sponsorship model � ` - ...... ....� � ��.:,:.= � �..- � •.• • .. Integrates with the Carousel Framework found in Cablecast Pro,SXLE,SX2 & SX4 .c rn KEY FEATURES -- ... � _r� . CABLECAST CG-250 SPECS :: Integrates with Cablecast Pro,SX2,SX4& SXLE :: "Zero training"web based user interface Network 10/100/I 000base-TX :: Integrates with Tightrope's Cablecast scheduling Power: I 00-240V AC,50/60Hz and automation software Power Consumption: 200w nominal :: Multi-zone display for exciting,active content Dimensions: 19"x 22"x 3.5" (2RU) :: Zones can be configured in any size or quantity Weight 34Ibs.(Shipping) :: Emergency messaging capability,with multiple Audio Input 3.5mm stereo levels of authorization Audio Outputs: 3.5mm stereo :: High definition or standard definition output Video Input Optional :: Plays Flash,multiple video formats,and image files Video Output: DVI :: Comes with dozens of pre-defined templates, VGA I 5-pin female and you can create your own. Composite: RCA,750 :: Plays"Live" internet feeds full screen or in a window Resolutions: NTSC,4:3, 16:9,9:16 :: Built in intelligence for scheduling bulletins and feeds Video Playback Windows Media,Quicktime, MPEG-2 :: Exports bulletin board screens to your web site Multimedia Playback Adobe Flash tightrope /0 / 4 800Transfer RD,Suite I B . Saint Paul, MN . 55114 . (866) 866-4I 18 . www.trms.com L .�_. J ©2007Tightrope Media Systems Corporation.All nghts are reserved.Cablecast and Front Door are either registered trademarks or trademarks ofTightrope Media Systems in the United States and/or other countries.Other products and company names mentioned herein may be trademarks of their respective owners.Tightrope Media Systems reserves the right to make changes to specifications at anytime and without prior notice.The information contained herein is believed to be accurate and reliable,however no respons?oility is assumed byTightrope Media Systems for its use,nor any infringement of patents or rights of third parties resulting from its use.Printed in the USA WHY USE THE CABLECASTrSLE? j :: Unbeatable price/performance benchmarks % :: The same great Cablecast programming and automation software that gives you complete control of your facility from any location with an internet connection (see Cablecast brochure) 1S . . :: No need to transcode everything to MPEG-2,you can play native file formats,and you get Cablecast's unparalleled deck and device control :: Attaches to your network for easy data transfer from editing stations and external storage :: Import files directly from DVDs up to six times faster than real time with DVD import utility _ 3 :: Includes internal storage,and you can play directly from external storage devices k, a Y :: Easily share and play files from other facilities Yti r ° _ (MPEG-2, H.264,QuickTime,Windows Media 9)* •-fir.7.7?2=0''''- i". :. 'r CABLECAST SXLE SPECS KEY FEATURES '._ -------- k•= Network 10/100/1000base-TX :: Two output channels and one encoder'charinel Power: I 00-240V AC,50/60Hz :: Plays MPEG-2, MPEG-4, H.264,Windows Media 9, Power Consumption: 250w nominal QuickTime, DV25, DVCPRO and DVCPRO50* Dimensions: 19"x 22"x 3.5" (2RU) :: Includes the Carousel Framework Add up to three Weight 34Ibs. (Shipping) Cablecast CG250s for up to three channels of Hard Disk 500GB community bulletin board Video Inputs: Composite:BNC x I :: Complete Cablecast programming and Audio Inputs: Analog:XLR x 2 (I pair) automation software included Video Outputs: Composite:BNC x 2 :: DVD import utility included Audio Outputs: Analog:XLR x 4 (2 pair) :: Integrated with Cablecast streaming and Internet Genlock Analog black burst BNC x I VOD servers (Optional) Encoding formats: MPEG-2 IBP:4:2:0-4-I5Mb/s :: Plays MPEG-I, Layer 2 and Linear PCM Playback Formats:* DV, DVCAM,DVCPRO,DVCPRO50,MPEG-2 4:2:0, :: Optional 4:2:2 and I-Frame MPEG-2 encoding MPEG-2 4:2:2,MPEG-2 I frame,Windows Media 9, :: Optional SDI input and output,composite included Quicktime *Some restrictions apply _ `'N Kw. '‘) (7.7:-, fei) f M, C ... ( l ism SERVE-RJ ) . \ ri ( c o.J I`roti�`T l tightrope : 800 Transfer RD,Suite I B . Saint Paul,MN . 55114 . (866) 866-41 18 . www.trms.com ©2007Tightrope Media Systems corporation All rights are reserved.Cablecast and Front Door are either registered trademarks or trademarks ofrighirope Media Systems in the United States and/or other countries.Other products and corrparry names mentioned herein may be trademarks of their respective ownersTightrope Meda Systems reserves the right to make changes to specifications at any time and without prior notice.The infon nation contained herein is believed to be accurate and reliable,however no responsibility is assumed byTrghtrcpe Meda Systems for its use,nor any infringement of patents or rights of third parties resulting from its use.Printed in the USA • WHY USE THE CABLECAST�SX2? j 1 :: Unbeatable price/performance benchmarks :: The same great Cablecast programming and automation software that gives you • complete control of your facility from any location with an internet connection. — (see brochure) :: No need to transcode everything to MPEG-2,you can play native file formats,and - 4111 ' you get Cablecast's unparalleled deck and device control. :: Attaches to your network for easy data transfer from editing stations and external storage :: Import files directly from DVDs up to six times faster than real-time with the DVD import utility :: Stores up to 2250 hours of content and you can still play directly from external X storage devices :: Easily share and play files from other facilities S (MPEG-2,H.264,QuickTime,Windows Media 9) i CABLECAST SX2 SPECS '''- - " -Y -� Network 10/100/1000base-TX -`" - - � ,g Power: 100-240V AC,50/60Hz ---`� .- r ; Power Consumption: 300w nominal "�' . - r-•r • j- Power-Supply: Optional Redundant ^ :L. - Dimensions: 19'x 27.25"x 5.25" (3RU) KEY FEATURES "x` ---=- ,,4;; Weight: 521bs. (Shipping) _ ., :.,`_.:--= '.' Hard Disk 2.0TB - RAID-5 protected :: Two output channels and one encoder channel Video Inputs: Composite:BNC x 1 :: Plays MPEG-2,MPEG-4, H.264,Windows Media 9, SDI:BNC x I QuickTime, DV25, DVCPRO and DVCPRO50* Audio Inputs: Analog XLR x 2 (I pair) :: Includes the Carousel Framework Add up to three Digital:embedded on SDI input Cablecast CG-250s for up to three channels of Video Outputs: Composite:BNC x 2 community bulletin board SDI:BNC x 2 :: Complete Cablecast programming and automation Audio Outputs: Analog XLR x 4 (2 pair) software included Digital:embedded on SDI output :: DVD import utility included Genlock Analog black burst BNC x I :: Integrated with Cablecast streaming and internetVOD Encoding formats: DVCAM:4:1:1 - 25Mb/s servers (Optional) MPEG-2 IBP:4:2:0-4-ISMb/s :: Plays MPEG-I,Layer 2 and Linear PCM MPEG-2 IBP:4:2:2 - 25-50Mb/s :: SDI (with embedded audio) and composite video MPEG-2 I frame:4:2:2 - 50Mb/s inputs and outputs Playback Formats:* DVCAM, DVCPRO, DVCPRO50, MPEG-2 4:2:0,MPEG-2 4:2:2, :: Two terabytes of usable storage,RAID-5 protected. MPEG-2 I frame,Windows Media 9,Quicktirne *Some restrictions apply ' � _T] R1$D' 'SERVER JI ia ll'' e'_ RAI1 CoterTo)tightrope • , ` `�J -- . \ i ' / ` N 800Transfer RD,Suite I B . Saint Paul,MN . 55114 . (866) 866-41 18 . www.trms.com ©2007Tightrope Media Systems Corporation.All rights are reserved.Cablecast and Front Door are either registered trademarks ortrademarla ofrghtrope Media Systems in the United States and/or other countries.Other prock.icts and company names mentioned herein may be trademark of their respective owners.Tighimpe Media Systems reserves the right to male changes to speafications at any time and without prior notice.The information contained herein is believed to be accurate and reliable,however no responsibility is asc+imed byTightrope Media Systems for its use,nor any infringement of patents or rights of third parties resulting from its use.Printed in the USA TIGHTROPE' media systems Introduction Tightrope Media Systems Corporation (Tightrope) is a manufacturer of turnkey head end management and display products based in Saint Paul, Minnesota. Since 1997, Tightrope has been a leading innovator in the markets it serves, with the first web centric systems and an innovative approach that emphasizes market application and customer experience. Tightrope markets two main product lines: Carousel and Cablecast. Carousel Carousel is a turnkey,web centric digital signage system designed for institutions that seek a dynamic information system for their common areas or cable head end. Carousel has two principal goals: zero training and zero administration. These goals ensure that the user creating the message is likely to accomplish their task without administrator intervention and that the administrator is free from as many unnecessary tasks as possible. The Carousel product line includes digital signage management systems,players, software display engines, information plug-ins and multi-media tools. Many of these tools are applicable to higher end applications and are available only through Carousel Pro Dealers. Cablecast Cablecast is a comprehensive head end control system. Cablecast manages an institution's media library,programming schedule and device control through a fluid web centric interface. With the ability to work with a wide variety of video servers, routing switchers and event controllers, Cablecast is a unique control system that works well in PEG centers, healthcare facilities and education. Within the Cablecast line, Tightrope also offers a complete line of video servers, encoders and media streaming products that are designed to provide a complete digital head end that reaches viewers through standard cable networks as well as through high speed IP networks using our video on demand products. t CMP Undo:law:Inca Wits ., , .• . • it, ... 7.7,- ' ,..".' . , , • f, t, ,'; : : •, . . . • FOR VIDEO PROFESSIONALS IN THE PUBLIC SER, ICE ' • k o FAI CE 4.1JC'T`"Q©L' V Liaq 01111.1?M�`-2s d l CO:1l- C&ATT II ,w7 E. ` [P CRC EPA EMT' MARCH 2006 A governmentvideo.com • BY ANDREW 4;.rr �,-� :, l :r << - , STARKS When _�, �; i1 . ,' aren't enough r l/ 1 g How to automate It ,M ,t 'K ~!�s.+. I _ • - WI'i� ^Yi � + 7 LL Y e l. your PEG access station _ yY , IF = {f f , l 1 , i+ Task �� i -,w s- Jr.;� *{ a If there's one thing that I've If P',`+- <,,v, jj i " t - e ^• : ° ° learned when talking to �'� fy �'r 1z- PREVIEW People who run community V7� t. _-` ="-- `a — � television channels it's that f1� 1' 1 ^.i K• 1-' the want a video server,Yet ft�`, '�u 7h 'e' 'V : ji "" _-= _�:.:K.. . g* when pressed for the reason why,I find what y,,,.� �,�,,,�' -j . o' ~' ;, ,,; ;» w they're truly looking for is an easier way to work _ ,.: •<=''- ;, `' 'I —F-;l i their station's playback. '. .- .. •a"; '•, r ,yd w? ,..;r: "w"°1a+, r• t It's true that most video servers play beautiful • �''� P ) ;,, 4" ' video,and they all have automatic playbacklea ,I.` w. ri> 1l€' tures that la video on a schedule—isn't that `' .. r 't: ,""°� - what a PEG station requires?Actuall,theyjust '�._''�,i' '•' �:/( `,.` ,>.'.� "i.• ' don't have the automation powerthatastation 4< %` .' 1/,.'` 1, ' .Ir' Fz' needs,and for that reason, � ' ;" ';; `? `• �r ';• +�' he server itself isn't z <. }. _'' �, l the place to start when you look to upgrade your , �'" ti ;;,?_`..:,``•A' ' ��',. '"*r''d! il', playback system John Goran runs Brunswick conrniun try Television in Maine by himself.While this makes it easy for him to If you're going to"go digital,"there are many evaluate his needs,it also means that his system needs to provide a great deal of hands-off automation. questions to ask about your goals,facility,and staff.Start by looking at your stationfirst and you do you need to run every week?What kind of . requirements for your playback system,you need will save waste and frustration. reports and records do you make?Do you need to to know how your station operates, Goal Teetdatt physically store and track the media? Finally,think about yo ur staff.How big is it? j Decks,DVDs,And More If you're looking fora quick list to get you started, What's their expertise?Do you have frequent Your next step is to decide on the types of start with your goals Do you want to save time? turnover? playback devices and formats that you need to Make your channel more reliable?Have better look- If you've got a full co mp lime n t of SEE-certified support Each one has pros and cons—going ingvideo?Play more shows?In short,find out where engineers,you probably have different expecta- over their differences will help you decide on the the pain or desire is that's driving your decision. tions than if you run a three-channel access cen- right combination of DVD,servers,and tape. What about your facility?Where does your ter byyourself.Understanding the strengths of Avery good friend of mine calls DVD a"magic programming come from?Do you control how the staff that will be operating this system is criti- technology"It's dirt cheap,makes an almost per- shows are made and on what media they arrive? cal to the success of the upgrade.(And be sure fect archive format,and it looks great on the air. How long are your shows?How predictable is you get their input along the way,) j The downsides are that a DVD holds only two your schedule?Where do you publish your pro- Get a handle on your capabilities and your hours ofvideo(more if you don't-mind MPEG arti- gramming information?How much programming processes.Before you can get a handle on the facts)and,because it's a consumer format,isn't • • well suited for perfectlyreliable automation. 1` N ___ , _ .i U 6 The main problem with DVD is the interactivity S that over-zealous producers can build into a disc, i'` p0', which can befuddle even the best automation s , t•r i, �` . �� P tem.Still,if you can exert some control over how }�` t�`s f r. - your DVDs are made,don't mind the occasional 4, 7477. `� _M_vP•2oe 'bad burn,and find a tiny bit of slop between pro- t "`�=` ";_j,------ • ,' :i• i I: ' .' ,c' • grams charming,then DVD is an excellent choice. r ' a aA m--ail �tik �'" . You should certainl include DVD ca abili nr _ . .,,11,_m it ' ' ' ' 7- your playback system,even ifyou transfer content to a server.And if direct DVD playback has a place • s? ,-�," r t in your head end,make sure that the automation y iy,��, Si`t :;1°' j,1 ,i l % system you pick is compatible with a serial-con- „'- , i'J .i'',,,: •.,'•,,-,„,.,• x :41 trolled DVD player.(You need two-way serial con- " .. ••.1 I' 'I,+�..,R '$". ••I ''•rs, :.. tro l to be sure the programs play properly.) .fi ,, , • ?�." ,+� Low-costvideo servers are all the rage in PEG ,4 -..„r`" "ii,;,� °- , t . '- `�' - '+ - -• nowadays,and it's easy to understand the trend. 1 *• , .. a,cno,`r„5 a - Servers are getting cheaper everyday,they offer , /r;, 7=P' '�' '' broadcast-like quality,and they can play hun- • dreds of hours of programming back-to-back ;;.y' j' ' without operator intervention. Shawn Serre,station coordinator forPittsleld Community 2Vevision in Massachusetts,required an automa • - However,what video servers offer in conven- tion system that could handle content contingrom a vmiety+of sources,including tape,DVDs,and NLEs. ience they demand in technical lriow-how Don't be surprised if a year after purchasing one you are say- I ings and program your head end at the same time. ming on DV tape,consider a server that can play ing things like,"Yeah,you need to go backand re- Your automation system should be able to stream- ! DV-25 streams.If you get your programming from render that MPEG because our video server doesn't line this land of process,and if it does,it will make video DVDs,buy a server that can ingest those support long GOPs orACS audio,"Video servers are you more productive and your station more reli- without having to re-encode them, computers—and if you're not comfortable around able.If,on the other hand,you have to use a col- Also,pay attention to any expansion options them,you may avant to look elsewhere. leoion of separate systems to manageyour station, that your new server may o ffer.Two terabytes may Then there's tape.Yes,we all want to get rid of your technology isworldng against you. ! seem like a lot now,but it maynotbe in a couple tape,but it's hard to abandon it completely. Next,make sure you get your hands on the of years.Be sure that your server has built-in Sometimes programs come in at the last minute software before you buy it.Don't just let a sales- redundancy,so if a hard drive goes down,your and there's no time to ingest to a server or copy to person show you how it works.What looks good channel won't go dark. a DVD.And sometimes it's just too much of a pain in a demonstration maybe completely inade- A few parting thoughts as you begin your to transfer tape-based shoots or old program- quate for your needs• quest for playback nirvana: ming.Keeping a few decks around is a smart idea. ! Finally,think about the expected life of the First,"fix''your system o nly as a last resort.Are While you are evaluating systems,think about system you are buying.If it's just a stop-gap until you a television station or a software develop- whether ornotyou need to airliv broadcasts.If so, your station grows,then a closed system with ment company?Staff turnover and the lack of be very careful Many computer-based"automation" everything built in maybe a perfect choice,But if outside support make home-brewing a mission- systems are designed first as communitybulletin you would like the system to change and grow critical playback system risky at best. boards They can play graphic slideshows and video with your station and technology,look at systems Get professional help in choosing your system files on a schedule,but theydoidthave the flexibility that offer separate and upgradeable components. Make sure you find a good salesperson or consult- needed fora station with liva programming. Theywill probably cost a little more,but they will ant that specializes in PEG stations.They have years And Beyond save you money in the long run.Better still,they of valuable experience(and often the ear of manu- Schedulingwon't require retraining and process changes facturers).In my experience,the success stories By matching playback formats against your when new technology comes along. always start with advice from this group of people. station's worlflow,you've made it simpler to pick Finally,hit the lists.Often,your best resources the right automation system Now you can focus Playback Pessibili�es are the mailing lists,blogs,and forums that other on the ones that work well with the playback Now that you've picked your automation sys- PEG centers visit.Find out what's working for devices you will need.Here are some things to tern,it's time to choose specific playback devices people—and what isn't fulfilling expectations? keep in mind while you're tire kicking. Certain devices may work best with your configura- What is the support like for that automation sys- First,you need to look beyond playback Try to tion,and that may weigh heavily on your decision. tern?Does your dealer have a good reputation? envision your new system installed and think If a server is a part of your plans,be sure that These questions are best answered by those that about all of the places that you will need to use you pick one with at least as many outputs as you I have gone before you. your schedule and program library.It's all about have channels at your station.One of the best Getting the right automation system can trans- the process.My former boss at Bloomington I things about video servers is their ability to share formyour station into something special.It may Educational Cable Televisio n in Bloomington, content across any output.Make sure you buy • not be as cool as buying 50 new transitions foryour MN,used to say,"Let computers do computer i one that will handle all of your channels.If you , editor,but the effect it can have on your viewers things and people do people things.I should need to add a second server,you'll be stuck copy- and your time at work is much more profound.Kt never have to enter the same information twice." , ing MPEG files and wasting storage.You might as Ardr:_r.:r Starks is pteridcnt and cry-cu'i.icr o For example,if your station advertises program- well be swapping tapes. i Tigi:a'cpcMedia mingSystems,iBootz.5(I2030;,amemu- on yourWeb site,in the newspaper,and on Next,go back to the questions that you asked I f•r'r ' r of PE'ane• -station auto man>>;systems and your channel'sbulletin board,look for ways that yourself aboutyour station and your processes. I digital sign age systems.Contact kim al- you can leverage a database to create all three list- For example,ifyou get most of your program- 1 ,rndreuektr",c con. Copyright 020CG by CMP Entertanment Media Reprinted with permissicn tmm GOVERNMENT VIDEO.6517 eze" Q,Ibeuk 1 , 8/,Yddp ,. (-41figt- /dart/ V&iZ ad, -4 'wit 7.0 ?/,,t From: Marty Wine To: 7th Floor Council Conference Room #720; McBride, George; Stroh, Gregory; Walton, Bonnie; Wine, Marty Date: 9/5/2007 Time: 2:30:00 PM -3:30:00 PM Subject: Council chambers audio troubleshooting Place: 7th Floor Council Conference Room #720 Rescheduling at another's request...would be helpful if you could bring what you know about the history of maintenance and repair to the components in the Chambers as well.Thanks. + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + * Item Type:Appointment Place: 7th Floor Council Conference Room #720 Start date:Tuesday, September 04, 2007 Start time:4:00 PM End time: 5:00 PM + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + For about a month we have been experiencing problems with the audio system in the Council Chambers, with long periods of static. Bonnie has a vendor she has been working with to troubleshoot the problem; they continue to work to isolate and solve it, but I would like to bring all our city resources to bear on this situation and fix it- Facilities, IS, Clerk's office. If there are analog/digital problems with our myriad of components, video or other components not working together well with the audio system, or if the setup and configuration of the chambers is causing a problem, or if we need technical help we don't currently have, I would like to identify the problem and work together to make the Chambers a static-free place for Council meetings and all others who use the chambers systems (Planning Commission, Hearing Examiner, etc.). This is a problem solving meeting so please come with your most constructive ideas-if there's no one else in chambers during that day, maybe we can move to that room as well to talk about what's hooked up, to what. Feel free to invite the contractors you have worked with to set up systems in the chambers to help us work this out too.Thanks. • DATE DESCRIPTION VENDOR P.O. # EXPENDITURE 2/2/1996 Leightronix 34-pin VCR control Proline Industries Inc. 101032 205.58 2/16/1996 Sharp Video Projector Proline Industries Inc. 96629 4955.56 4/29/19.97 Samson Mr-1 wlTX-3 & MT-350 Mic Markertek Video Supply None 555 11/17/2000 Eiki Projector Lamp Troxell Communications, Inc. 120196 318.99 2/1/2001 Tripod Mini-Fluid Head Glazer's Camera Supply 1120003 153.13 2/16/2001 Eiki Projector Lamp Troxell Communications, Inc. 1120002 303 10/2/2001 InfoChannel 200 Hardware/Software Unity Communications 1120179 19092.22 2/28/2002 SVHS Deck (#3) Repair JW Tel-Tronics, Inc 2120031 276.24 5/9/2002 Panasonic Camera Repair Robb's Repair 2120082 254.59 6/7/2002 SVHS Deck (#7) Repair JW Tel-Tronics, Inc 12/0000016 354.2 6/7/2002 Eiki Projector Lamp Troxell Communications, Inc. 12/0000020 270.92 6/7/2002 Digital Juice Library Wendi Fischer Enterprises LLC 12/0000021 423 6/21/2002 Wireless Mic, Panasonic Battery B&H Photo Video 12/0000024 557.35 _ 7/3/2002 Bosh Chameleon Kit B&H Photo Video 12/0000023 84.7 • 9/12/2002 Panasonic Camera Repair Robb's Repair 12/0000022 70.72 10/24/2002 Panasonic Camera Repair Robb's Repair 12/0000041 174.08 12/6/2002 2-Sony Digital Camcorders Professional Video &Tape Inc. 12/0000177 8527.07 12/31/2002 Service-Remote Control in Chambers JW Tel-Tronics, Inc 12/0000186 326.4 1/17/2003 Eiki Projector Lamp Troxell Communications, Inc. 12/0000209 270.92 8/27/2003 2-Sony Headphones B&H Photo Video 12/0000376 94.85 10/25/2004 Equipment Service Call JW Tel-Tronics, Inc 12/0000707 1063.9 12/2/2004 SVHS Deck (#7) Repair JW Tel-Tronics, Inc 12/0000749 284.5 12/3/2004 Sony Wireless Mic for field camera JW Tel-Tronics, Inc 12/0000750 543.99 12/28/2004 SVHS Record Deck Repair Colortronics 12/0000762 539.62 3/4/2005 Wireless Mic Repair JW Tel-Tronics, Inc 12/0000818 24.48 12/12/2005 4-Mic Stands Medquist, Inc. 12/0001025 65.28 12/31/2005 4-Omni-Directional Mics Medquist, Inc. 12/0001047 339.39 12/21/2005 Sony DSR-45 DVCAM Deck JW TeI-Tronics, Inc. 12/0001046 4586.07 3/3/2006 SVHS Deck Repair SPL Intergrated Solutions 12/0001091 1162.47 3/30/2006 SVHS Deck#4 Repair SPL Intergrated Solutions 12/0001105 467.84 5/31/2006 Eiki Projector Lamp Troxell Communications, Inc. 12/0001146 314.43 8/1/2006 Video Equipment Upgrade JW Tel-Tronics, Inc 12/0001201 1017.35 10/26/2006 Mackie Repair S &X PRO Audio LLC 12/0001259 152.32 12/11/2006 Field Camera Supplies B&H Photo Video 12/0001292 366.95 12/29/2006 Video Equipment Upgrades Media Tools 12/0001317 12214.99 12/29/2006 Sony Wireless Mic for field camera JW Tel-Tronics, Inc 12/0001316 579.91 _ DATE DESCRIPTION VENDOR P.O. # EXPENDITURE _ 3/12/2007 MX-70 Rewired for DVD recorder JW Tel-Tronics, Inc 12/0001367 1577.6 4/9/2007 Eiki Projector Lamp Troxell Communications, Inc. 12/0001390 314.44 6/11/2007 Sony Scan Converter Repair JW Tel-Tronics, Inc 12/0001435 " 2815.07 • s �r v a h rr.❑ p , . ` r�s y :r I wy "`mr a r, r z v" • �atk��3v K .a w era PLEASE REMIT P ri v i6 1111 ` PAYMENT TO: 1233-120th AVENUE N.E., BELLEVUE WA 98005 (206) 451-1999 FAX (206) 637-9558 030843.0000 L I TY OF RENTON g ICI TY OF RENTON—MUN I C i B] T) BILLTO ACCOUNTS PAYABLE . .`. PIENTON H ATTN : MARILYN PERERSON 200 MILL AVENUE SOUTH p MRK FOR : VIDEO VISION ATTN: JOE PEREZ 6 1996 200 MILL AVENUE SOUTH RENTON WA 98055 1 p RENTON WA 98055 PURCHASE ORDER NO. ORDER DATE SALES ORDER NO. INVOICE DATE INVOICE NUMBER 9 0 '52/ 1/24/96 00780022 2/02/96 780022 DATE SHIPPED SHIP VIA TERMS SALES REP. 'REGION /26/96 UPS/DEST NET 30 DAYS MARGARET SPENC t' OTY ORD'D OTY B.O. MODEL NO. DESCRIPTION QTY.SHP'D UNIT PRICE AMOUNT NOTE: PROLINE HOLDS TITLE TO THE BELOW LISTED MERCHANDISE ITEMS UNTIL THIS INVOICE HAS BEEN PAID IN FULL. TITLE FOR MERCHANDISE ITEMS (EkCLUDING RENTAL ITEMS) RILL PASS TO THE PARTY LISTED IN THE "BILL-To' SECTION ABOVE ONCE ALL FUNDS HAVE CLEAREE THE APPROPRIATE FINANCIAL INSTITUTION(S). AT NO TIME WILL TITLE OF RENTAL ITEMS DE PASSED TO "BILL-TO" LISTING UNLESS SPECIFICALLY STATED. • NOTE: THESE ITEMS HAVE BEEN ORDERED SPECIFICALLY FOR YOU. THEY **** ARE NOT RETURNABLE. IF ITEMS ARE DEFECTIVE THE MANUFACTURER'S STANDARD WARRANTY WILL GOVERN THE REPAIR/REPLACEMENT OF ITEM(S). 2 PRPA LEIGHTRONIX INC. 95.00 190.00 34 PIN VCR CONTROL INTERFACE FREIGHT PROLINE INDUSTRIES, INC. 1 .00 .00 FREIGHT SALES TAX WA 15.58 TOTAL AMOUNT DUE 205.58 0-7 lai, oO0000, CGCO . L{ I.o001'70 UC"m-#O 61a`i 0 Po I o I 032 PLEASE SEE REVERSE FOR TERMS&CONDITIONS OF SALE e l CARI(-IINAT 063690 PROLINE INDUSTRIES INC 096629 02/16/96 DEPARTMENT FILE COPY Vendor No. Vendor r'ame PO No. PO Date Chapter 116,Laws of 1965 CITY OF RENTON Purchase Order City of Renton Certification I, the undersigned, do hereby certify under penalty of perjury, that the materials have been furnished, the services rendered, or the labor performed as described herein, and that the claim is a just, due and PROLINE INDUSTRIES INC unpaid obligation against the City of Renton, and that I am authorized to 1233 - 120TH AV NE authenticate and certify to said claim: BELLEVUE, WA 98005 Signed FINANCE DEPARTMENT STEPHENS, LISA City Unit Description Unit Price Est. Amount Account Number WO/Func Amount 1 ea Sharp Video Projector 4,580.00 4,580.00 E 127.000000.004 .5940.0071.64 .000084 4,580.00 1 ea sales tax 375.56 375.56 E 127.000000.004.5940.0071.64.000084 375 .56 Authorized By 4,955.56 4,955.56 Accounts Payable Div. •200 Mill Ave.S. •Renton, WA 98055•Phone(206)235-2618•Fax(206)235-2513 I DP 3119 11/94 " LEASE REMIT PROLINE INDUSTRIES, INC. INVOICE PAYMENT TO: 1233-120th AVENUE N.E., BELLEVUE WA 98005 (206) 451-1999 FAX (206),637-955: x�— 03084 0000 `r- -EI TY OF RENTON s" C I TY OF RENTON BILL TO ACCOUNTS PAYABLE I �� j 1' ON H.14078 148TH AVENUE NE 200 MILL AVENUE SOUTH P VISION VIDEO/TIM RASMUSS : ATTN: JOE PEREZ 6 �96 REDMOND WA 9805 ' RENTON WA 98055 ,,, PURCHASE ORDER NO. ORDER DATE SALES ORDER NO. ; INVOICE DATC INVOIrE`:EMBER 96629 2/06/96 00779503PA 2/06/96 779503PA DATE SHIPPED " SHIP VIA TERMS SALES REP. REGION 2/06/96 RICE ADJUSTMENT CREDIT MEMO - MARGARET SPENC 1 $ OTY ORD'D j OTY B_O. MODEL NO. DESCRIPTION OTY.SHP'D UNIT PRICE AMOUNT *** ** ** ** THANK YOU FOR THIS ORDER!!! ** ** ** ** SO THAT HE CAM BETTER ASSIST YOU ** ** PLEASE REVIEH THE "TERMS AHD ** ** CONDITIONS" PRINTED ON THE BACK ** ** Of THIS IHUOICE. ** ** CUSTO R WAS CHARGED INCORRECTLY OK ORIGINAL INUOI E. UNIT PRICE SHOULD HAVE BEEN 54580.00. THIS DJUSTMENT HILL CORRECT INVOICE H779503 TO RE ECT C)RRECT AMOUNT. APPLY 0 IHU3ICE4 779503. (TL) 1- XGEE50MKII SHARP ELECTRONICS CORP-810444 1- 4,895.00 4,895.00- **SEE MODEL X6E650UB ** 1 XCE6 0MKII SHARP ELECTRONICS CORP-810444 1 4,580.00 4,580.00 **SEE MODEL XGE650UB ** SALES TAX HA 25.83- TOTAL AMOUNT DUE 340.83- CREDIT MEMO i PLEASE SEE REVERSE FOR TERMS&CONDITIONS OF SALE J ORIGINAL Order No. C3� :`?`�2-1 M� I I7IU. ( Nl NEF DIVISION OF TOWER PRODUCTS INCORPORATED i i 4 High Street•Box 397•Saugerties,NY 12477 Date: 04/2'9: VIDEO SUPPLY Telephone:(914)246-3036 Fax:(914)246-1757 Process:. 14i a Sold to: Ship to: CITY OF RENTON Ms. Lori Wood - Renton Municipal Building __ CITY OF RENTON - CLERK'S OFFICE �'. - 200 Mill Avenue South Renton iluniclpal Building / �1 . Renton, WA 98055 200 Mill Avenue South ‹. Customer No. Sales I.D. Batch Code Media Code Pay Method Order Total 7. Exp. Phone Number Total Wt. Zone Total Items Ship Via 44ti, 2:�5' ;:'5Ol Message: ,A.merica's Broadcast Supply House."' t o.NL i l FROM OUR MEGA--: NLJLN T Oi::'r' & RAPID-FIRE DELIVERY ! . INTENSE TECH SUPPORT BOTH BEFORE & AFTER THE SALE ! ! aE VALUE & n rrF;CT 1 rF YOUR r Ur IlEC . ;(,tl �1� .. � : 7 7 2 OTY Item No. Description Shipped WO Unit Cost Extension r:. -1947--1 -- 17T ) i r RI:i•RT_,k. i. A13 Li,i3 WW / '--- i t'SYdI� '}x-' : -n0r „'°'..,,. /roc)/c ?y .,,," { .:'C wJ b.' . I» Stit"r rn WiAl .,,r +::'mot , it iaiMiMIIIMIII g, r Gross Misc. Discount Sales Tax Shipping Order Total Deposit Chg AM/ialbue ACTUAL SHIPPING H RG 549.0O 0.0 Imo', (O. A WIL ND/OLRBECAOD DDCETOJ'.' 555.O0 555.00 0..00 YOUR CREDIT CARD BILL OR COD PKG TAGS MARIERTEK 1 MARKERTEK 4 High Street VIDEO SUPPLY a High Street Ii VIDEO SUPPLY Saugerties, I Saugerties, NewYork(USA)12477 *;k3;,.yr*: n;tr;;;,d:i:d.(;x:e t< A•*k::t* 1 New York(USA)12477 401(71(** C:;j0. c'; 'h;k;K;K:4::;k:k'::`n:$.•r (. )' UPS SHIPPER NUMBER *I * IJPS SHIPPER NUMBCP America's Broadcast NY ; 26-0 4 * I America's Broadcast * r�^N Y 26-0 54 t: PKG ID# 62992 *I Supply House. TM * PKG ID :( ''9 2.,_ Supply House. TM ' r****** ***Y****,**;t::: ::Y 1 ::c*** (**;1 A****. ;r.. :s<;r..:.:x Via' UPS GROUND Zone ' I !'ilia UPS GROUNIC1 ~one: I Ilil!I IIIII IIII III1111111111111111111111111311111111111111111111111111111 I I IIIIl11IIII 111II lII!I hill hill llll llll hip to: IIIIII1111111111111111I11III1111111iii1111I1111111!Illllllli!II!I111IIII111111 1 Ship to: IIIIIIIIIII.1111il111I111111111111111!III Ms, Lori. Wood I Ms. Lori Wood CITY OF RENTON - CLERK'' OFFICE I CITY OF FENTON - CLERK'S Cl�FIt:E • oonton Municipal Buil.aino I Renton Municipal Building .,,, h It 200 Mill Avenue South i R'eitton,, WA < 05.77, PFI-# 206 235--2500 ()�' CITY OF RENTON PAGE 1 1055 S. GRADY WAY '> bate =PO Number ea. ):1,\Trro' RENTON, WA 98055 11/17/00 0120196 VENDOR: SHIP TO: TROXELL COMMUNICATIONS, INC. 7981 168th Ave. NE Redmond, WA 98052 FOB Point: Req.No.: Terms: net term Dept.: CITY CLERK DIVISION Req.Del.Date: - Contact: LORI WOOD Special lust: Confirming? Quantity Unit Description Unit Price Ext<Price .. _ 1 Projector Lamp 279.00 279.00 Sa�jo (Q - - SUBTOTAL 279.00 BILL TO:Ci ty of Renton TAX 1055 S GRADY WAY FREIGHT 1 RENTON. WA 98055-3232 TOTAL 16.00.00 318.99 Account Number Amount', Account Number Amount ORIGINAL/FILE COPY ut orized Signature PINK WHITE Authorized Signature C).s"nv CITY OF RENTON PAGE 1 1•11. 1055 S. GRADY WAY bate P0 Number r-%'`7•-v RENTON WA 98055 02/01/01 1120003 VENDOR: 0 2986 0 SHIP TO: GLAZER'S CAMERA SUPPLY CO INC PO BOX C-19088 SEATTLE, WA 98109 FOB Point: Req.No.: Terms: net 30 Dept.: FINANCE DEPARTMENT Req. Del.Date: Contact: LOMBARD, SUZANN Special Inst: Confirming? N 'Qiintity. : ,,,:::::::: ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. ......................................... .................. ............. ............. .................................................. ........ ......... ........................ ............. ...................... 1;: ........................ ............................................................................................................................................................................. -1,11111:11:11 SUBTOTAL 153. 13 BILL To:Ci ty of Renton TAX .0 0 1055 S GRADY WAY FREIGHT .00 RENTON, WA 98055-3232 TOTAL 153113 E 127. 000000.004.5710. 0010.31.000000 153. 13 ORIGINAL/FILE COPY Authorized Signature PINK WHITE Authorized Signature • Glazer's r rt� Camera Su 1 Inc.pp Y, n L 430 8th Ave.North - PO Box 19088 TERMS:NET 10 EOM (Due in full by the 1oth of the month following date of purchase) ��/� Seattle,WA 98109 Y 8LAZER' S CAMERA SUPPLY 206-624 1100- fax 624-8065 430 8TH AVE N - STORE 1 www.glazerscamera.com SEATTLE, WA 98109 CITY OF RENTON 206-624-1100 ATTN:LOR I WOOD FAO#1 120003 1 055 S. GRADY WAY INVOICE# r DATE_ TIME _ RENTON WA 98055� 263528 1/1`/01 13:5L 425-430-657:, v ert q'(/ V ACCT.# 1316 SALES 24 REG. 98 MISC • CITY ST 00000 - - 000—b00-0000 . ::/ c41" (�7 0000oD . Gbt(. 57i0. 1)01° . 3l. 000ade ITEM DESCRIPTION SERIAL-BAG NO. LIST QTY. NET TOTAL EX. • 70758 31216 -:'Mini `F.luid Head w/QRP' - - 180. 00 1 -135 00 • 135. 00 100 UPS 'GROUND SHIPPING 1 6. 00 6. 00 * CNTCT:FAX ..ORDER:LORI .WOOD * 4'5-430-6573 • * BILL. TO: CITY OF RENTON * ATTN:ACNTS PAYABLE * 1055 GRADY WAY * RENTON, WA 98055-3232 ransaction Amount. . . . Change Sub—Total 141. 00 3tore Charge $153. 13 Sales Tax 12. 13 Total 153. 13 • ORIGINAL• • 1ANKYOU FOR SHOPPING AT GLAZER' S CAMERA SUPPLY • arms and conditions on the back of this Invoice are made part of it,as though fully here set forth,and are accepted by Customer and Glazer's Camera Supply,Inc. 1120003 SIGNATURE • - Y n CITY OF RENTOP: N\ PAGE 1 • 4' . .," _.. . 1055 S. GRADY WAY F.,...:..i:::::: ::::::DAw.:::::..,;..i:::::;:;::::::::::,.., .:.:.::::::::::iiii..,::ii:.13.0iNoir:tis:4iv.: :::. T? S. RENTON, WA 98055 I 02/16/01 1120002 - 1,\TrVO VENDOR: 0 82979 SHIP TO: TROXELL COMMUNICATIONS INC 4830 S 38TH ST PHOENIX , AZ 85040 FOB Point: Req. No.: Terms: net 30 Dept.: FINANCE DEPARTMENT Req. Del. Date: Contact: WALTON, BONNIE Special Inst: Confirming? N ‘;:itcio'aiitity:i.:: ::.:.,.::::::::::u.ii„itqii:::.:i:...;•:::,•::::::::::::::.m:.::i.i*....:,::;:::.iin:,M,•:::.:.:::::inim.,,,m;:A:.....Aii,..::;:::::::::....,:.;.::,..-..,gp..........................................................................................................................................................................................;V:.:::::06jiiPi:IC:e ...::::::::,::......-..::::....:...:.::::...0:c*i.i.os:;:...:.:ii..::::: .--.*:....„..,...--..,,,,,,-...,..-...... „......,,..--,:-...,.... .,-..-- -.,,,,---..—../.. --..---. . ..,,,,,....,,,,,, ...::',...:::: ::.:...-.:::,...i,...-.......,.........',:,,....,....,,,,,,........:',..........:...,..................'Z.,:,,,,.....:::ff..,:,.....................:'............,.. .........,.........................,...-..---..,-,:mn.,...-..-.:„...,....-.:::::::::, ..,.•.........xp,, ,,,----....-.--, ,......:. '-iii*:!:•::::::::::::.1..i.iiiiIT:ii:::: :.i:iii!iii,.. :....-:!*•:Viii!:i.ii::::::::::1'...liii.ii!....---.:.i.iit'li.i. P2:::::!::•••'.11.::".:,E:•.:)1::1!:*::i!...:.:*:P111111:11Eligii111:11111::::".:!.!!!ilili:.::i.-... ..:...!::•........E....::•.ii.A.C..1!:-!.:1•1Piliii:f..:.•..lrgliiiiiiPliiiiirli:110:::4.!II:E-ilailigliF::::::::i.i,:1:,ii::::.:::(:.1i:::::!::!.....: -..iEi?::::.:::::Nly.INIT: 1:::::.ii:::::ii!ilili$i!iiii"ii3:........::i!::::!..r. ..:.:::::1:lill :::::•iiiiiiii.i.:!i:::1;:"...VE.:::::::::.::::::::::::::•iiii.iiiiiii'iiiiiii::::01iiiiiiii.:::::::::::fiiiiiiiin:;:iitiffi..3i:•.!::::::::iiiiii.E.F:::::!ii!..!T:;.•::::!:::'•::::::i'lli•::iiiiiiiiiiiiii;:••iiiiiRi.":!.....!!iiii:iii1::P:iii.!iiii.iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii!iiiiiiiilgEiliiiiiiiii!ii:gii.iii !iii..:... .......,::::i:;iiiiii:•::::::::::i:•:,::::1::::::.::::iiiiii!:',i!iiiiiiiiii:i.i$:;g:::::iiiii!:ii.$:Eiiiii:.::i:::•;....'-.':;:i • .::::::::iii!i$:::::::.,..:',::::::18,ili.iii:•.iiii:::iiiii,..']<ii.iiii...:.1:8•iii i......,:.'..iii.:ii.-..:iii:,i!iiiiiiiii:iiiiiiiiiiijiiiii,:iliii:iiiiiiiiiii...:::::::.... ]iilisii:iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiil:.A;.:.:.:i::::EiE I,:giiiiiiIiiiiiii.'iii.ii.:M.:gi!$k:::ii::..F:;i1.:i...q.:MiiiiiIiiiii'..Aiiiig:iiiiiil.:iiiiiii0ii$7iIiiiii:::?..iii:Niiiii.;1:0:Ifii:N tiglirilliplpilliggilip ...'...::::::::::.,:iliiii::::,:q.i!,..4iii!iggOii:iii.i!!Fi! ]1::::::.iiiRliiii!iiiii:**6:::::.iiigiiiiMileiiiiiii$:'::::::::iiiiiiiii.':1::!:::..1:ii!iiiiii...,igiiini.iiiiii.:..:•i::::iiiiiiiiiiiii:liiiiiiiiiiiiiii;:iiiiiiiiii.:::iiiiiiiiiiii!ii.iggiiii.iiiiiii!iiiiii:::iiiiiiiii..N.::-..•::':;:•...::::::'!:...;...........................................................................................................................................................:•:iiiiir:P.•::.iiiii!i.:•:::iiiiiiii.:..:.!ii.i:...:1.]::iiih'•,;:'.:::;i:.•:,....iii...gliiiiii.:A:i'ili!iii!iiii:E!iii'iliiini!.0 SUBTOTAL 303.00 BILLTO:City of Renton TAX .0 0 1055 S GRADY WAY FREIGHT .00 RENTON, WA 98055-3232 TOTAL 303. 00 Aasoultehiiiiiiiiiiiii.::;:.::.::::::: : ::::::gi:N:1:::::.ii].:.:::: :::.*:::::: ..:4::::::i:::::::.;:;::i:;:::.::::;:i.'::::::::::...:::::::.;:i..i*6i,k.:..0i:ilefi.iP:iinettij:i.f....1Viiiiit(iMgei;:....:::-:::::::::.: ;tk::::.::::-..;t0::A.:.:Aiii:iiii:i.itgiii:::::::::: ::... ]:.::: E 127. 000000.004.5710. 0010.31.000000 303. 00 . . . . .._ ORIGINAL/FILE COPY Authorized Signature PINK WHITE Authorized Signature �� PLEASE REMIT TO: • • (:INVOICE T RO COMMUNICATIONS, INC. O Audio•Video•Sales•Oesign-Service•Installation i .- -- No. 587838 4830 S.38TH STREET Date 02/06/2001 PHOENIX,ARIZONA 85040 Page 1 (602)437-7240 1-800-352-7912 FAX (602)437-7265 Customer 21416 N TIN /186-0716114 � I/a f1V/fO� Sold To: Ship To: Iv'Q� i�yy (/ 1�eid r # Ofa979 CITY OF RENTON UU�� CITY OF RENTON v 1055 S. GRADY WAY 01\L ;(t0A9 1055 S. GRADY WAY RENTON WA 98055-3232 RENTON WA 98055-3232 AA /a7 Dod, Oast 6-7/0- /0 3/ 000 :.. . .::.<: ::':':;»;>:::> ..><:' ate<Sht ed_::>::;:<:=:<:;r:<:Control:No..:..:.:.:::.O.rder.Date ::.;:?:Customer P.O.:No > Sale Terms...:::.:. :.. :. ::.:: ..:...:...Shtp,1/ia : [ .D . .. PP. Net 30 United Parcel Servic . II 02/06/2001 102255 CS l 01/15/2001 1120002 4601 • Item Plumber:.::i:: ::>.:.. ;.:.s:.:.;::>:: >:' ;>::::>::Descri tlon::>:;<;:::>::<:>:<.:r:.::>:: :z;:::>:::.>:;>::> `:':;::::Ordered »;Shipp0.4::>::: "::B/0 :.: ::;;:Price/Per'..:: >.Ezt'Amount..: SEP 610-283-5175 LAMP FOR PLC-9000N 1 1 0 279.00 279.00 • • MEMO: • :NET'S'ALES CONDITIONS OF SALE :AMOUNT- CONDITIONS 279.00 UNT All claims arising out of or connected with the AFinance Charge at the periodic rate of SALES TAX 24 .00 above listed items must be made within five days 1 1/2% with an Annual Percentage Rate after delivery. No returns accepted unless of 18% will be charged on all accounts accompanied by this document. Merchandise returned unpaid after the last day of the for credit shall be subject to 25% handling following month. FREIGHT. charges. Seller reserves title to these goods • until paid for in full. a This invoice is due on or before 03/08/2001 AMOUNT 303.00 I PLEASE REFERENCE THIS INVOICE NO. 587838 ON YOUR REMITTANCE DUE 1 %)-s I CITY OF RENT( � PAGE .,D 1055 S. GRADY WAY tz�-N'�v'0'1�'� RENTON' WA 98055 18/02/01 I120179 VENDOR: 083650 SHIP TO: UNITY COMMUNICATIONS ' 13720 68TH AVE W EDMONDS, WA 98026 ` FOB Point: Req.No.: Terms: net term Dept.: FINANCE DEPARTMENT Rep. Del. mate: Contact: NALTON. BONNIE ' Special Inst' cunnnnnor N ��nu�� '= - --_-------__--_--.....'.~~~~~`�`�' '`-''''..�~~~~''~'~.``~..`````~`~.- , '�' ~~..``~``,~._~~�. SUBTOTAL 19.092.22 eoLLTo:City of Renton TAX .00 1055 S GRADY NAY FREIGHT . O0 RENTON. WA 98055 3232 TOTAL 10'802.22 E 127. 000000.004.5040.0071.64. 000084 19'092.22 AumnQw Signature o��^ 'n�«�' Authorized Signature €1k, . , /►ra P0' 1120171 Vedl r# 011650 ni Invoice Invoice#:092601-01 Invoice Date: September 26, 2001 Customer ID: City of Renton Bill To: City of Renton Ship To: City of Renton 1055 South Grady Way 1055 South Grady Way Renton, WA 98055 Renton, WA 98055 eC /al: 00000. 04y. 59410, OD V. 6g 000089 Date Your Order# Our Order# Sales Rep. FOB Ship Via Terms Tax ID Sept.26,2001 Marilyn Petersen 092601-01 Monte Strobl Delivered Net 15 91-21108749 Quan- Item Units Description Discount Taxable Unit Price Total 1 IC200 M 1 InfoChannel 200 Master Server Yes 3,200 3,200 1 IC200MS 1 InfoChannel 200 Master Software Yes 3,500 3,500 1 1C200 PRM 1 InfoChannel 200 Rack Mounted Player Yes 3,900 3,900 1 IC200 PS 1 InfoChannel player Software Yes 1,500 1,500 1 IC200 DIA 1 IC 200 Deck EX Yes 599 599 1 IC200 SIX 1 IC 200 Switcher IX Yes 299 299 1 Cables 1 Cabling for player&Deck Configuration Yes 200 200 1 1VPRO AV 1 Tview Pro AV Scan Converter Yes 1,850 1,850 1 UnityTR 1 InfoChannel Training Yes 1,000 1,000 1 Unity IN 1 Installation, Yes 1,000 1,000 1 Unity SPT 1 1 yr phone support,2 yr Hrdware Yes 500 500 Subtotal 17,548 Tax 1,544.22 Shipping 0 Miscellaneous 0 Balance Due 19,092.22 REMITTANCE Customer ID: City of Renton Unity Communications Date: 13720 68th Ave. W Amount Due: Edmonds, WA 98026 Amount Enclosed: Phone: 425,742.7051 Fox: 209.882.5038 Email; mstrohl@unitycommunications.net V 4 Equipment Repair City of Renton Invoice #: 101850 1055 S Grady Way Repair #: 14854 Renton,WA 98055 Contact: Lori Wood Purchase Order#: Group #: EQUIPMENT INFORMATION Description: VCP, S-VHS ID#: 7528 Received: 1/16/2002 2:48:26 Completed: 2/6/2002 Make: Panasonic Model: AG-7150-P Serial: F4TC00061 Operate Hours: Drum Hours: 4532 Capstan Hours: Thread Count: Symptom: Ask John. Service: Replaced parts listed below. Pressure cleaned chassis. Completely cleaned upper and lower head drum assembly,stationary heads, roller guides, capstan shaft and all other tape path assembly. Adjusted alignment as needed for good RF tracking. Checked all functions-OK. LABOR Technician Description Date Hours Hourly Rate Total Conrad Farrell I Evaluation. 1/24/2002 I 1 $70.00 $70.00 Conrad Farrell II Repair. : 2/6/2002 j 1.25 $70.00 I $87.50 Labor Total: $157.50 PARTS USED ID# Qty U/M Description Mfr Part# Freight Unit Cost Total 5958 1 Each IC Module VCR0320 i $0.00 I $70.40 I $70.40 6099 1 Each Ground Brush VXA3980 j $0.00 $7.76 I $7.76 2154 1 Each Pinch Roller VXL1892 $0.00 1 $12.92 f $12.92 r 4459 1 Each Cleaning Roller Pad VMT0321 y $0.00 I $2.61 1 $2.61 3957 1 Each Belt VDV0228 ,I $0.00 $2.71 I $2.71 Parts Total: $96.40 Terms: Net 30 Pre-Tax Grand Total: $253.90 DO NOT PAY FROM THIS SHEET Printed On: 2/22/2002 orwam J.W. Tel-Tronics Inc. TEL -TROPICS 17701 17th Ave W.- Lynnwood,WA (425)745-9544 •S`SY 1 O r. ® `— • CITY OF RENTOk_• PAGE 1055 S. GRADY WAY �,N2p' RENTON, WA 98055 05/09/02 2120082 VENDOR: 068843 SHIP TO: ROBB SCHARBAU ROBB'S REPAIR 12815 NE 124TH ST - STE J KIRKLAND, WA 98034 FOB Point: Req.No.: Terms: net term Dept.: FINANCE .DEPARTMENT Req. Del. Date: Contact: CORNEJO. RITA Special Inst: Confirming? N .... ...:.....::..............:..:. : :: . ... .•..::: : DesGr, t,on:.......................................:. ..: :: :.:.. .. : ::.::::::. .nit,�rtee..::.::.......... '.'> Ro#3 :`O pep.:i :.':<:s ;: :::' # .. .:: 7H8:Y : ;>:: > ?U <` : ' ''' >?<'.»:>:'> :,;:: " >>- >'<« > > ::?::R4BR <><>: , : ;>,:...: >::;>:::.>:::::;;::>::>:.>::>::»:;::;:::>;>:........... . ..�......e a�...r..:::.:: :In.u.:..#5338.7H�... :......... . ........................ .:.::::::::::.::.:::.::::.::::.:::::::::::::::::.:.::: ............................:..::::. .: .................................. SUBTOTAL 254.59 BILL TO:Ci ty of Renton TAX .00 1055 S GRADY WAY FREIGHT . 00 RENTON, WA 98055-3232 TOTAL 254.59 ....................................:.:.:...........:.:....:.::....................:..................... .::.;.;:.;:.:::::.;:;:.;�..;:.:;.;:.;;:.;:.;:.;:.;:.:.;:.;:Account::N>�mber......................................................................... �; :• :::::.:::::.::::::::.�.:._::.::::;::::..::.�:.:�:::.:.:::.::. ....111ko�k:.ikrd¢.r..:l~unctron:.Number•::•:::.:.�:.:::::::::::.::::.::.:.:::::::::::•::.A ..................... E 127.000000.004.5710.0010.48.000000 254.59 ORIGINAL/FILE COPY Authorized Signature PINK WHITE Authorized Sianature • NOT VALID AS CUSTOMER RECEIPT IN CALIFORNIA V/OM- '4- ( --t SS, ©NARDA,INC.!NASD 1992 El LABOR WARRANTY 0 PARTS WARRANTY vNO WARRANTY c? BRANDIyA&.b>v) ` 4 5 3 CLAIM NO. 3 B 7 H B- 9 (PLEASE PRINT) SERVICE CENTER NO. CUSTOMER'S�rs NAME(LAST MBE FIRST),1 F S EA p I I I I I I I I I I 11 r_rT7 b� _"'I1 N —I Z,\ �eNA 6.Ace MODEL NO. A10 5 %ei Vv 10 L,Iap I(Y'I -I , I ( I ?I I I 1 I I C ir„A\ov, STATE �} ZIP CODE R CODE PHONE NUMBER SERIAL NO. 01 c 9 I I so 403 6 I I 1)1 / lolelCl` I I I CUSTOMER'S COMPLAINT 1� p DEFECT CODE OD ,1� \I/►JIrNit-INJArC� ethic PtN'ID LON� MOtiL!t..(.9-1 P L Aas E 74 / L L rE"1 pz. I 1 L 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 CITY DATE PURCHASED DEALER'S NAME �© C.r"� 0g yaw MO. DAY YR. �. Ree/ /27.00000..00!57/a DO/alit 498O'O I I SERVICE PERFORMED(CHECK AND DESCRIBE BELOW) DATE SERVICE REQUESTED ❑ ALIGNMENTS ADJUSTMENTS OR ElLOOSE CONNECTIONS II PART(S)REPLACED ❑ OTHER MOit I \Y I 6 el--el----L EXPLANATION OF SERVICE PERFORMED MFG.CODE!REF. DATE SERVICE COMPLETED MO. DAY YR. Replaced below listed parts and realignment 04 129 I 02 CHECK PRODUCT WORKED ON Clean relube adjust and tested TV STEREO OTHER TIME STARTED TIME COMPLETED TIME ON JOB COLOR 0 ❑ \I ChM QTY. PART NO./REF.NO. PART DESCRIPTION B/W ❑ CHECK REPAIR CATEGORY 1 VXR0355 / MINOR INTER. MAJOR �PA., Stlppl y rP�l 2 55 CARRY IN SERV. 0 0 El 1 VXR0356 �. - )-�A Take up reel 21155 /114 i r ' ON SITE SERV. 0 ❑ ❑ 1 VJJ0414 p , Mic jack 5150 CENTER SERVICE 0 ❑ ❑ 1 VJJ0363 City ntc, ,� `�� Phone jack 5150 CRT REPLACE. El El,�-,�� O+ ,c-'_ I STOCK MERCH. 0 0 El SERVICE WAS SATISFACTORILY COMPLE`i'EI5 �r;v� TOTAL LABOR CHARGE `T 11 cked-tr`4 40-v2 Q 180.00 C.n CUSTOMER'S SIGNATURE ECHNICIAN'S NATURE TOTAL PARTS CHARGE W .. SERVICE CENTER I DISTRIBUTOR INFORMATION 541.00 CA3 n • OTHER CO Ro n + ' I = 3 12815 R.E. 124th St,AI : PLEASE REMIT FROM T"fis SALES TAX Kirkland, WA 98034 COPY BY OF) 130 I p2- 20.fi9 ev 425) 820-1200 GRAND TOTAL CO 254.fi9 ORIGINAL-MAIL TO MANUFACTURER .....,..:.:f:i'f,,. " . .., •. - Page 1 1 eclCITY OF RENTON A. =, + ..„ , + 1055 S. GRADY WAY . • .4.— ' . - • RENTON, WA 98055 617/02 12/0000016 t- Nry0 VENDOR: 040001 SHIP TO: JW TEL-TRONICS INC PO BOX 1282 BOTHELL, WA 98041-1282 FOB Point: Req.No.: Terms: net 30 Dept.: FINANCE DEPARTMENT , Req.Del.Date: . Contact: CORNEJO, RITA Pre-Assigned PO#?: No Special Inst: Of.afit4k ::;.:',:'.:.'it611(;:7f;;::;'::.%':;;r:'::,::',:::.. ,',.: ': :".:::::::::::: .,?,:.:°;'",::'.. ";:,;;;;;:;,-.O'o''ai114;1i,i''; :::;":1;:;-''':::::';,','i4J,';12iF:.!;i5;:;,:il':-!;;;k:iiii'':-.li.'?(;,.'s.gtiii*i*Pi'-.: ,'; SVHS Deck#7 Repair-Inv.#102080 354.20 .:,;,-,::;:7-:? ;' ,77-.;7;77,,,F.:'•:,-..,'..5.7,,T,:::,,:,'•.,;";-f::,:.::,-,z:...',7-..i.:,.::F:._i,.%tr.,,:.'.:.4;:s7.,-"•N.,YE.1,;Mz ›i''2-r';,.7.,'::faf'd 7:,;,,,i,:l, 24 . . ., „ ia ,,:. x ; _'„:L7k; - .,',"::::7'..a'.:2;•:':,-,.754::'777'n.z,:l','2'•;:r':;',.';', "- -;::',;:,'-',''..,-;'-7:;.7,:.".-7.1:;:q.,it'.`..7-`:tsZc';';;:.•:..i:s';: ',.'2;3,.1:7.',;:,.:',:.7g-i,:,..-%;;;;,,:17,77.',;:=,r,,IV,7 i'.;:,::::::;',fnV2:,',..."..''',1•Z?:fi,'',... ..:-...",- 3.. ;.:if..;ea 4'SY::::2•.:!•...!,:-.,:':2,...,-f.'4iL ,',fi,-.,.J.,24::.,-;7';,,,.24•:?.. ..,l'i,:::::::i 5:Iii.c.'.:,:ii.:.:F.::',•?.=',2j:Zif',;:ii,,Liks.r,;';):,,:: ::.3:Z•Iii.,,:-;:;,,,ii,..,,I,,11.,:ix.:„.2,i-i..,-.4.2.,...,,,,z,z,.. ..:6,2„..,,,,-.:.;,-,,-.:,.j.1,2.L.,z,,,(,.;..;,,,,,,,ifz. 4',.1.7. ,4 . . :.: .71. <,T,, :4.' 4 , 37Zri7.7-7:17:,17-3. F,.:, , 17,,';,7,,';';;;;.c:;-,5.:2::ta ;7",fi..7:Zi;.:.e.,77,7.7,73,71727;::::',VS,SiTf5:9:::: :::',C,:;;:i!.;:::::17;.i:::1"?:!f4.72.';;:-Z;T:',,-,:,:).'4ii.,,F77,;:..7.7,IT.7;TT.1,:'53,:c:',:77-7.',:,5.:,'1;:l7....,:77 .7',.:5;7.7::::-..377:7.?c-7:".":7.-ii::;T:1:::,;:,`,•;757-.727,7:,f2::: "' ,T„... ..;':::27::',T::':'::',f:T'j5,7:E:'r'2.:.7:.f.i''''?14.:::.':'"I'Z'.:1T.:117:::::Niii17:::::;":'..:',2T.57,...T: 51'':5.7.137''-;:!'1.7"A.7,'7'.,f:f..:.i':f';'::'7.5iTZPK:Li22.ii..'7,-.q43' '..7," ::' 131: :2:,',:i,i'.',i12;;:,%''k,-ii,a,..:,i, ,',.,";,',',:-,:.2"..Z.•:::,...:.'i..,?.-::,-:::: ::.‘.1:--::::;_'::f2',..':1,:..?;"..:-.;..1.f..j:;.&'a.-i;.. ., ::!;ii.:',';',...-,KI;•.:::: . :, ?. '. ,Lici--",,,:.:.. .n,;,., ,',1.:-::::::•;.„.-;=.:•?•.2:`,) :1,:el,.;'2 " :: ,...., ,.`,".:'-:":.,.''' :7.:::;2 .:'ti‘:4' '.!" ::...4' '.;.' '.;:' ' c' ',.: - --g- - 75-FzTiT,7:,7::: ' 'i:of fE7;,:i;:j'I-i",p7, .;r;'' '::-S77,',',"AzTf-,:"..7';::::::;z;:i•,:'-'7,', 3,--n=:,-;:,,,...:: ,,..r.;;;AF:N.,,,,,,,,,:.:757:7,:),,,, :1::::'..--,:m:,.;:5-7:-:'07:g;:::-. 7.::77,.. ..-',:F. :-.7.7,-::::77,T.::::::.-'.-..:,;:.:.:7,:;,:-T,',:i',-:&q':,,C.:7-::7:::.?";:',-, ;:-,77, , ,: .T.'r-- `:x-..: :::: , . . -.2::.;,-.....-. 7:377,T'''',7T7 , ,.: j' , 7:77"= t:-77,:iW= :, ,T:T:, , ,, ; . : . . .77; T:'''',77--,r,:';:;;:7 r•ri-rjr,,-7,7-!-.;ff.T.,:::77,T,,,,-,:: -i-,,5,::,7,,,,r,,,,,,,--1,77,,R,.:R..,-? :c.:,.7,77, fil.":",..',:.C ., ."::*;:.•,' 1,4' ".....,,.',. . .';.. .N.'1:2-.,..=....::::•i'z....::'," ':•::"..',,,,' . ',..i:P....,."?..V,`.s.,,,It...z,,,,, ,,,E,..:2:j.:: :,....V.1- ',;,,',..,,f.-.,.,.:-:',,',12,,..),.-;,.t.i..jf,::,;;J:::.j,',.2.:',?..,::::,,:::.,',.; -;,•;,:i'.1,..."',.'„,,',,s,--;`;',,,';',;,(.:,,.;,'.,...i.,2z:;',.::i ::..:7;3.,,..4,.......f..-: ::-!..,..,,,..,.....,,,....:,...,,,',.L.k,,,i'..,•..-,.„4..i,i,,,2:4'1,:i.:: : 4,,4.:;:,...:...f::,,zz:,..,:,.4,,,.7-,,,,?,,:...,,,:;-.-f-5:c:„K:.....1, . .,,d,:„2.1:&.,,,,,,,,..,.. .v.:,,. , A.:::.,.,;:,:.44'::-...-44-..::4.:;-, 5.4/4'2.•:,141 Al:::.,,,,,....!.,-..z:,.J.:;;;,/,:,...','..„.....',:.:,;,a;i,1:;:-.2 ,,--,,,-,,, ,:,,,-:,:..,;:-,5•..;.-:-:7777<:17,-; ',,,,,,:':,..:7T77':':',7A=2",`',"V.77."':,:•71,'7,1-7,7, 4,,',n,, '"'":7'7.'"':','',::,7"::M;':.-',':-T:"'F,.7'.'7,7(^."•'77,777;''''';:r97:'.7",7..,,7.7,r;';:.' ":7"="`:%W.7,'''`',',7n.75::7z",;71,7(!' '..7;-'"',-771,":''',."17,-,--,,r,,,..,„--, „,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,f,..,;,',,,,;•,,,-,,,,,,,,,..;„.,„,•,4....,,;.,,,',,,4.,,,,,.. ...;:.,',.....Zi4.:"...r.i:-.. .1 ..-..“6i..1L .:&:::..:2'24;;Z5`.:5,44,,4'2:;.;.;44,,;;;;:;4, 4,";.!;.4/,4/.2,42 4-4'4'4/4/I4, :444...4/,.4‹.,44?.2 v,"-r.17.,,:r),`,T:',1,r7e,.•?,`,:',!':„-..,,f''' ''7':-5:::-.'7:7,-'::7':..;:,7,7:,,:::7Y.: °`77',:w,.:.::--.,g,To ::.,7,),::-,,n,7n7,-,,. . .,-.°T.r.T.:,,!,TT-7 ,,-,"'"'"77.-;"1:7,0,:',:°5;:`'"7,77,,,,, ,'7i;.,''',."',.:M"-',:i:''':;:zr,;,,,l','M,:z..0;.1.,,!,;',377.7%;".:::IF77.-,T', ,,:17.:2.:,: ;,,?.:',..;„ •::,,:-:::.:.',,,,,,..::-.,,,,........a.w.,;;;.:x.:,..Z.,';‘,:,...!..„..,..;........:';.::!:-.,:::.;,,:,'.(4.$,,,,l;;;'1,4::',-,1:1,1,X,`,11),ZL..,,,,„''...X.....;..o,,..4,;,:',..—,4:4:::,,,,,::.er„,.;;;,,,:a,:,..:::-.::::::'. ,.:.,,!.:.,.:>:a.;:-., ,..r..,:,,:, ,4,:-)--:,42.:L..,,,-,t,..., ....., . .r,,.:;:i.,.;7.7,7.7.:.c .:.;:,'..-,-,c,:;r:T.,7:,,,-,?3-;.,-.7.,..7.,,,,.-,;:i-,:-,7:7T.5•;-:{,7;7 , ,n":71 .7,i;z7.':,s,';`; 71777: ,7,7, 75.7:„7:.,,',....:,7:.,7;;.7.::',;,-,777,' --7-v---:::—..,,,,:,7.1,-,i',7Z.".,,Z;;:.,::',7 7:777`',;,,V".77:17V:77;-,;n7r7:'Z',:,',:::,,X;;7:7.--,':';',P':,"',77'::?...,:Y".7--'7;r:;'77i;•1::7:79:77:47-FY,'.77,";":;".','%`iTWi''',77',.:7-1.'''-,-',"•";.,:r;r7„,, ...., ...7‘:-'°,??7,:.':777.-7:i727 :7:),r1.",-%--,,,, :::-er,=, • ,":5,!,:,,,,.,..',,,..,,,,':',q,,,::,,-,:j ..!,:, •,,,„•:,-',,,,,,:.,:-;! 4.i.,, ,, ,z;‘,,, ....,,',.;', :-'.. :„;::.. ,=?- .<.:',.:',,,,•':,:'., , ,','.::,',,.,,:, .,•',..... , ;',1-,''; '.;''6::::i,:%0i,?;. f.24:: ,g..'.',,,?.. ," .3.';..!,':','....'"::;.: •f-'..•::::... SUBTOTAL 354.20 BILL TO: TAX 0.00 FREIGHT 0.00 TOTAL 354.20 ;',''',:;,-i,',41,..caf';','::::1:z-J,'" -'4, 4,0"tif:Niiiiiii,ii-,''h:;:' ,A.f.'1',.:1(.';','::;:.'s.,;',-c.47; •-,.:.':.'‘,.':'-:-;-.-7:4-,:::;.::,!:'‘''.,]c7:i:Vi.:‘:,.''...:ir:iir,.W..6',ii',(5ii0oi...';' 'Litt'aliii:i-,S14iiiiS, i'AX,',,'F4;::,g,;,5q,n'..::,::4');;;?.:.:::..'i-l': ::,',.):<.',4,t.iii;i1(1,6*` .?;-0 E 127.000000.004.5710.0010.48.000000 354.20 /166. ki Gelaer- Aiith„ri7.„,Rinnatura At ithnrivarl Qirinnh Ira • i PO Dce, P.O.BOX 1282 BOTHELL,WA 98041-1282 PH(425)485-4739 FAX(425)481-0703 /en/lor 01/000/ &CCf jZ700200,0, 57/0, /D,t000000Invoice 700 00000/� T E L T R ONICS DATE INVOICE# c 5/9/2002 102080 BILL TO raY Lori Wood 4147 City of Renton � b(p CITY OF RENTON f 1055 S Grady Way , V Ia 1 a0 Renton WA 98055 MAY 1 0 2002 RECEIVED CITY CLERK'S OFFICE P.O.NO. TERMS DUE DATE VENDOR ID# Net 30 6/8/2002 040001 ITEM REPAIR ID# AMOUNT Equip Repair 15206 325.55T Sales Tax 28.65 We've Moved! Please remit to the address above. Total $354.20 Payment is due upon receipt. Interest of 1.5% per month will be added to overdue accounts. We now accept VISA and MASTERCARD. BroadcastEngineering • Consulting,Maintenance and Repair Equipment Repair City of Renton Invoice #: 102080 1055 S Grady Way Renton,WA 98055 Repair #: 15206 Contact: Lori Wood Purchase Order#: Group #: EQUIPMENT INFORMATION Description: VCR, S-VHS ID#: 5285 Received: 4/23/2002 3:31:20 Completed: 5/1/2002 Make: Panasonic Model: AG-7750 Serial: L3TC00220 Operate Hours: Drum Hours: 4865 Capstan Hours: 4012 Thread Count: Symptom: Play button doesn't work. Audio recordings slightly hot. Service: Pressure cleaned chassis. Replaced the PLAY switch to restore normal operation. Replaced the pinch roller and completely cleaned the tape path. Checked audio levels, ok. Checked video levels, ok. Checked functions, ok. Remarks: Made a service call to Renton to check out the machine. Determined that it did indeed have a problem that couldn't' be repaired on location so I returned the machine to our shop for repair. I wired up the production rack so an adjacent machine could perform the duties of the machine out for repairs. I returned and reinstalled the machine after it was repaired. LABOR Technician Description Date Hours Hourly Rate Total John Weist Service call and Pick Up 4/23/2002J 1 $80.00 I $80.00 Dave Pinney Diagnostics i 4/27/2002 ! 0.5 _ $70.00 $35.00 Dave Pinney Repair i 5/1/2002 1.5 $70.00 $105.00 John Weist Service call and delivery j 5/2/2002 1 $80.00 , $80.00 Labor Total: $300.00 PARTS USED • ID# Qty_ U/M Description _ Mfr Part# Freight Unit Cost Total 6156 1 Each Switch _—_ VSP0193 $0.00 I $12.63 $12.63 21541 1 Each Pinch Roller VXL1892 $0.00 $12.92 I $12.92 Parts Total: $25.55 Terms: Net 30 Pre-Tax Grand Total: $325.55 DO NOT PAY FROM THIS SHEET Printed On: 5/9/2002 J1t) J.W. Tel-Tronics Inc. • TEL -T A O„,C S 17701 17th Ave W.- Lynnwood,WA (425)745-9544 04;:prZ: \ • I • I . Page 1 1 .......- --- ', -• CITY OF RENTON A....R._ ... 4-. 1055 S. GRADY WAY- • Nrc0 .....j RENTON, WA 98055 :;;-,:fAV.::4:4-30,...A.T. E.,—';,):4,1;4',<'-'1,:: ;PRP-0- 1) 6/7/2002 12/0000020 VENDOR: 082979 SHIP TO: TROXELL COMMUNICATIONS INC 4830 S 38TH ST • PHOENIX, AZ 85040 FOB Point: Req.No.: • Terms: net 30 Dept.: FINANCE DEPARTMENT Req.Del.Date: Contact: CORNEJO, RITA Pre-Assigned PO#?: No Special Inst: 4iiiirtVi'',;:i:i.:';Unii. Y.,1..i,r- : ,;, ;:',: ;;::i;J '...:;‘,::.IY:0'44.11;:iia'n'N't,Vi,:t::::::.V. '3:3iNs:f3' iiiff.OliWi:gii V.-7;;;''44,70,iid0:3::,'"::',',':',' THIS IS A REVISED PURCHASE ORDER 7:?:4-7-P-176:'-iTi7,74 7-,;3641;7:?;.‘ Tf:';i6lia3P17dfigri706WWITT,I.277.7,71PAW747,7f‘,7.--.77'7.i.'ii:Y;gcfr;VFZ•MT7i,C,:'ir:;•'1P377:717, ....;:,•.;',:i.):&;.,-.',1,Ittil :.cd,,,, 2,,,,....,,,,:.:,,....i.6.4.,- #697277 ,;:.: ;6,,,,,,,:,YP,,,:4•';,',',7r: X`:',...".,-,:.!','A.;.;1;-f:-,,",:,,,,,'„f,A,.,g,,,,,,,,,,,,,.6,nal,,„),,:,,,,,,,,,,.;AI,,,,c,,,r,,,,,5,,,,,,,-,.1„,...,..‘,,,,,,,,;•>,,,t,,-,,,„,; .,...,„,11,,,,.:-.,..,=, V',"":".,<:40:C::',2,"' '',,,5 :"','-',"•.":"."''',''',"':,•''',",'•'''.'s:\Vti,"---.''''41 Z:V5',2..'.'.4,Z4',.,•", 4.,.:::-.,!... g:..-C.a.tilQ•:::!, r,;;,c. :".f.X...:::,. .(7,..;,,-,,,,,s,,,,,-,77,57,,,-,T,.7,,,wg.,;:,,,-„-,,,F,,,,,,,cl..7-,,,:xg-,,i,;:ts.,!„,;,,,,,,,,::17,'":;;;z:F.,':r'''''':',7.-'7,i,<,---;-.--"=,77,777,17.77,.,,:,..:).!,77-',77:7:3.7Zrz.5F7,-";,',71'771.M.z,,,,,,,,r,,,7,,,,,,;,,:ro,,,,,,,,,,•;:r..-, ,..,,77,-,,,,,,, ,,r7,-,--,-,:rr.-,,-,-.7-,,,,,,,,,,,,,-,,,,,„„-,,,yir 4,,,,t1,,,,:A71,7: .;?4,-,:;,.,a..;Z,›..;;.;',.1.,..?&i,,,,x$1‘2,a;;;:".4.,,;.i,::4.,1.'1.',4,,,Z,..,':::',..,i‘kiV,s.,.,t:I.:;.,-;..1:Z:=.1,':',.:,::,..',I,U,sr1,4,-;,:,..a.,...•;1:‘,'"',:.,e21:,e:;%;.,>i,:,''.1.2,:,..:1,. .w.,.1"j"..,C..`,-:.:3::',...:,:,',.V3,A,L‘1:,..y.;:•%;:3:.: ::::,:,,..:2,-.:r.,'..ea:',1:,7,,:.14.:,Z,'',*.;,,,,;(:1-...;„:40•;;;.:Veg,;,,: ,,L.:"2.;52,4;::,X,;," „Y:3;.., 1,7:.f,'77r557'rO 77'.:S'''-,:;:::P.':':M•1'4i'',,V.,i:W:A,g=:r';"°<'‘,V-5.":7..7';:F-MTFn577;:;f,fgFl7K3::F;,::T7'2rri,',.;,'a'r.;-':'r?.,:.,M:%rZ'w.,:i:c').,VU'f'k'. .C.-pp.?:::,,'.s,:Y4•sr7;'rs:,7,z-.nr.krrpgY.',;."77,7..;,.77P.,7:777::740'.i;; ,';,,,WI!,z. :;:.:W:1::',g,;;;,:a1,:a0•:...?:•gtf.,,,,,,,V43,2g.';,4Z.*,DYH.... i.:41';-:= mp;;N:;-.%;,..,,,7;,.---). ..,-..3:f4g.:,,,;:•.?.sp,T.4pF:..,:3-g,T;r:.': :::7-7:7, ;!,,,;;f„-,),,i1;,,,---„,...• -,,,,;1,,lak'..,..-..!:',..--.-L;n'ef-.. .,,,,.. ';',:f.5a4,-, ,,:;-;,..-aF-'...-::,!'..i?,-5:,-,tz.o.,i,:k2.i.d:',11-c:L=e;,:i:n2,2,L6,„01K:2-,.;SJ,-..s,ti-,;:-.. . ,:::,;:',. .17:V!.:4:',.'6,.,,,k,,;,:tet .,a0::::12::::::2-,a ,?..',.?.,...?: :;,,:i.:,:,z,!:',,:zn:1:',.:Lz.-.,-j it,,i,..f. r ,,,,,..v..,:q,,-,,, ,r,;7,,,-,:Flwur,),ti,,,,,,,,;,..:,,i5,N,:g,TN-7, ,f . ,v7-,:,,,p7;g;f7r,7?.wy.„:::::;,v.,-:.,:;;y„,,:f.1:...;:,i,-o.,--.::T;:.,,Tv,?::;I.,::tgj.:- -w.r,,,,;:r. c.,-...--n.,,77,7:;:,,,,-,4:7-1/4•7<,,,r,7,7.7.7.7,;x:,,,,:w..7.7,1;-i-:-.. ,,q-7,, az•Lx,v-z ,, 4..,,.!,. fie.s,.., '. - -.L3t:.i:a..was,:„.c.-,:-::,---;;..z.,,,A-1...,Ye.:...v..2±,,,,,,,,,.:11:',,. ..ci.--:,: n;;.!.,,,::: ::z,,, ,Ag;io :',.=,:g;i:,;',..-:,-,:a-;.,1.42;-,,,,'.41,.-*,-,,,:,;:•„,q,v.?::,:„,.i.,-'..",6'.',,fg'ZI:..,S7Z,'4,';'.•-i,.•' 1":,<,,k,!, 77::';:,-,,, ,z7.17.1,-:`,2:2',,T,,72;7:":,:-.•.y.t,.,:°.:'Z'4,;n1-4,':'":";A.T.',V.77.77:'.:,',7,7777,707,7,77,77'7.,7'77S,TF:77.7:7;:::-:7.3-47::e,3':-:7".;I"';..,,r:c‘r:,: :,';',i447,',5;;' :C,7 :r:7=g'371.:r,',7:.',7,:,:-c71;-'7-77,--7;•:7;-7-'7'f:' .•i:.:., '',',';'2.:•.';',''''"•-•ri:11;.1.".,-,fi"... .,'IM‘i^1;i;.',.';,`1,.?,Va.:i.iY,.•, ‘:A'.--`,,"kL1‘,2-.:.'''':i,..L.;:',1!;. ';.,:','LZL!':'',',..,.•;',4.•'',?Ii7.!1- ...:..:''','...-1?::.a,',:',.'.,',..;:.. .' AIv''.1:.,;:-. 0T:',!P 6',1,`;;Z:..::::,,,,,,:tiat,:!.;(A63 :1>..;.-", :.t";'.`!"L'..ij•Z','0;i''''''',?..=.:1'=,i :Fit77-7,7',77:>:::::777?;T:7.n.ff,7::147: :7r-';''K:',.:'''ec- ''.;'tgv.:-F,:k'::.Tq'i:;,;.'r: pV,;''.'';'v57,::-',,,FZT4F17.7::..'VZ;S'':,7::f:: ;..ri7;', V".:'j';7.;: fF.c.r-r,.:,;-7..,1::jnf,i;.f,':';f•i.ff,i.E:.>.-yo',:.;s•-,:::-.7,z'i-7377,,,F,Fp.:-.7,c--.;37,:•:r.:,z,,37:,,,,mr:.-Af-.7.1..1.7752T,•;;:.y.;:: 'ci,':..V.', .;;;:,'",;.:.::',:,;:,,:li'l.12;:.'1;',:•:,,-T. 'ii.,Igii3".?,-,a, -:k-,Z.;','11.7-... a<.":',.::•.:"i''L;,,f,k."..,1,,,„;'-'".:,1--.14,-::: :,:irl'ir''''',V,.::'1'.= :-:,;,:r.,:z: €1.:!:,4,°A.I.e.a::.F.'ilit,:ck',";,:k2,',:i?.'.''fsi-'ekT:',::,'::.Zi;-!:','-',',;;',1'.,:a, ---'-':;',2ii,,,,,!::•!,';;:: ,7.1.7.7.riwnm,,,,,t-PR2,-,-----, ,;2, .., . , .1,- -, ,zr. ,,..- 5,7-F777,77-77.777.,,;,e,',...77,',74-zr,r,F.:,-..77::::1`tcm:",5.,,,-Y. ,p".c,,7.:V.,•',7:i:: ::•%/-'`.47,7,'T IT-...7.4777'..?;;W":ArM r77:777-7777:77;i';'',YZ:7 2*j.,4 ',i''' ;.':.;i::: ' '4,;g : • , ' .1.,Z,,,,,-,,,-,,',;,:,...,1-',..,,-*,tii".., -.2:;;'3W:,P;::A.-,,-„..-.; :ilvgz;P:;,:i-,..'4.•.;.:;',,,VAPI:':ali;.,.r,0;:;.-:i.;::.24.-1;‘t%';;,4sraN;i1''';',.i:;2::: , '-311'i':L''-t-.1•:.•::;z'I`..M; ",,,..':-7.- "'"'"'"",=,',";--•,-,,,":Mr,:';',.:,."‘i-.-.-,T.,,..;.:;,',.. ..7::Yn,:..*.•,'4,:v, •.>,;,-.-. '.'4,1.‘,1,7-...'-'-',.' -''.••.-;.,,,r,,--pig'ar,-2. 73714,..mT7=7:n,..k7-i?" . 21:1r5t::'75:15,,f,f<,!. .:,'..,t,';'•,.,V.:',V,, -?;-t-Frj--r:Fz,77,5;.5-2-i-np!;,-,-;-:,ri-rc,,,,...:-..,,r,:....,!,s,,,,,,,f5,1-:-..v.,,,f,:?:,- ,vn-,,,v,f-e7-'-',.''::P:;;-',.-,P$,T.-."':'',z:;q,';,5,,m':sznl:::':-f:.;,''n--,:'-'m':m'','''','"';.",'' '',:mNc'Tx;::'F.',-;.,';`,T7076•7-:-17,:Tiqw,-,-,,,,,,,7'77-.7-42,,75,5„7.r„ ..,;,...,,,,,7„ :ar,: i6-:'„,..ha-. ...:;..L.1-.;, .,'..,ii:•.-il:'1,.,A1,:;,..,..."-.;.,;,11-f,,,:,'..V.•:',1,,2!:.A,t4,,i,/...R,11:;:;!;;L :i1=::-',',...fgas.,'..;::`..:2":4,,:2:>1&.,-.;;;;,,,;.1:C":k.!;.S.T.iL::1"-.,);.<1.',.!L':?::-:51',.1;1,,k,;:;i:1:4•!:fi'Z.3..gE6...5k,',/,',.;kk,a2,:,:, ,VV::.1.,,,a'z,,s.,V.,,,,d.::, Z..k,',';1`,;:4--"':.:,;:: ,,,''.',71,"!:';',J.',:j.17:".:',:::?,'F74,,';';',",:;,z,":17,7.;,;::p-,,,:',3,7;1,,Wti,,,'6,',,,,,zz-7,1t,,,,74,V,:,y'r,',1:717,7,',4';;;;,,,NiTT7K7i7;17,75,7,7t.,,,,:n:„Rp-,;:i7,,,:r•,,-;:,",-,7.;,:t,V,,,,!,:in!‘i y...i::1,7. '',..',77•:T.,5,7'.,;'17'.-Pe.;47,71.7 T.:',7;71",".1"fi:7,747,7Z7PP.'.1 1 '!,/,,.,,,,1:.-,,,,-,-,L, 5.--Z;;1.:,,,,,,L.,,,,,(:,,,z,:zi,&=„4',3.A.c.,..;,..:,;,.,,,VAN,A,‘,f.:, ,Isa,;':,).Qc.,Pit4j,,';V.1444P.:2=-,:';f-1:•°i-`7 -4',',:.,-;a : .,1,:::,. >it444 ... ..:.'4, ',A,.,42..:',J„;34:a6IU .:,S1,,;,..,-,..J.;•„,,.1 i.-'.,i1,-;1,mL:.;',..;&,C7Li,'Q,A,;. '4,4::315.-....,.:.,-,L;1',-,4'.,,-,•:4;,..`-.. .:..U1,1*,',7.,-:".„.1,... ....i,ts;Ak.;',..,,,..;'.-,..Lak'lli,li..:-;•t.,,:fZd^:?;.t,.(:.X.I`g.:,2.•..l'i,L.L'a.;3•.".41'..;. ..A.:',ft:.*::.1;'' ,1,..::',j,k44.32,,,:a:z.."4.';'•2:,'-`.., .7T-,,-,..,:,niz2;1,-;,;.•17.‘,•?,:'7/4".e.,,..„;i7.,:,;:::,:-.7''.'j.,,f.y-,,:,7(;.37,,,,,,F,70,,:;17,,,:,;,?.?,y7z1T-iyT.:.:4-;i.,>::::1,r.4',',,;‘7.:7-3WacMyr..3,2441.2y:i".f,,W...,":.?:„..,1471F". 71,...:;4M.,7-ZXW,"'i,•JWS:iiT,piA",04`,4;F:`.:..nS:s7;"ig-"TiMF.,' ,...FITAT:1:174&37:::::1::".1."7-3 ,,.:;,,.,:'.,..,f;4'.. ...,,,,Ik..,,;-,fri,..1. ?).:,,,- ,,:-0,&'-'''•::.v.')',,›=,=.4.A.:.3^,M,,".!;,-"., ..,,V,-A:1‘.,-,;..;,--:-;;,f.',;::,f4 :ig::',9.zs.,..3.t,ii,,,ft°,47,;,,n•-.!.,'-i%-:-:.°".,%sklgt,,f,r:I^,!,?.-;••v"-!:.-44,:V*:,0';::::•-,t., ::.sil:•. ,f,-.--%-!.•-•!,',:,:''0:.;);,5,?..f1-1',.-_-17.,c4,?-i;r:,:',7a,',,,'A-.,:iLf'f';',.Z,,,:e SUBTOTAL 270.92 BILL TO: TAX 0.00 FREIGHT 0.00 TOTAL 270.92 :i.!..,;:i:It..1,-,:2P.,--:::11.T;',,,„1,,;,;,,5'14,49,:, e6.:A'e4V;''-''..i,:F;iifali,:i,;',i:A:44k.!tliij, iii',i..F4ii006,'"10(4iiiii00i.V. :1';'.;:=?•,.'`',<,'`):!,:lift"›:'''Al;i:-::''''ckg-!ilAiii4:iiiiit'fir,q.: E 127.000000.004.5710.0010.48.000000 270.92 • c"7/11,()AjLb iftWAIL-4,41.4\_,- .. • • - 6/2A.i.e.Si Ztiait,-61et-) Authorized Signature Authorized Signature -*SE REMIT T0: K'nd&t - Oe' V 7 / -._. acc /27 t0000'I0.00/ 7/0,not., :::;;:;;:::.:;;>:;.:::.:.::;;.::::::.;:.:>:; TR Eli COMMUNICATIONS, INC. Q� ,oD 00000Z 0 - Audlo-Video-Sales-Design-Service-Installation No. 697277 :=i> ' 4830 S.38TH STREET Date 04/30/2002 PHOENIX,ARIZONA 85040 (602)437-7240 1-800-352-7912 FA- •02)437'-7265 Page 1 Customer 21416 N TIN #86-07161 1'. 01\1' v/ CITY OF RENTON Sold To: S 'o'T, 61 ., o: V- .... CITY OF RENTON CITY OF RENTON MAY 0 7 2002 1055 S. GRADY WAY 1055 S. GRADY WAY CITY RECEIVED L CEII��FFlCE RENTON WA 98055-3232 RENTON WA 98055-3232 iris :Mi;:: giM:: ii S : > >;;:> ` ><:> : :: h .'S/ia... ......................:t)at :Stii..:..erl:>: :::>:: :::Curitrol:N.a::><:::::::::>::0i..... ... .... .:>: ':>:<>T.a.....:......::............: ::. .... ............................... PP. . der..bate:: .: .ustarrter:::P .> .o'>::>: [>:::s>:::$als>:»z>:t::.::: Net 30 United Parcel Servic 04/30/2002 222629 CS 04/24/2002 2120081 4605 ''.:'':[:>:'' :0:6.A00. e.. ...... ii.li i :...... .....:..:......escri.tlgn.iiiii:::.::::.::::.::.....:.............::Qrrler..Pd.....:.. i.ji 0.-:.:..:::iiiID::.::... ....:....Price/F±er.:. .:::..:.:.64. 4,0i ..... SEP SEP6102907698 LAMP FOR PLC-9000N 1 1 0 249.00 249.00 UPS 1Z8718930312131874 RECEIVE) MAY 06412 ci1y of Renton ` Accounts.-- MEMO: NErisSa ::::::. :::::::.: :.;.::::: 249.00 CONDITIONS OF SALE AYVI:IDUN `` i All claims arising out of or connected with the AFinance Charge at the periodic rate of --S.ALES!TAX 21.92 above listed items must be made within five days 1 1/2%with an Annual Percentage Rate after delivery. No returns accepted unless of 18% will be charged on all accounts accompanied by this document. Merchandise returned unpaid after the last day of the for credit shall be subject to 25% handling following month. f.Ott.Ottrani> charges. Seller reserves title to these goods until paid for in full. This invoice is due on or before 05/30/2002 :AMOUNT 270.92 PLEASE REFERENCE THIS INVOICE NO. 697277 ON YOUR REMITTANCE PLEASE REMIT TO: • . ':1NVOICE RO E COMMUNICATIONS, INC. Audio-Video-Sales-Design-Service-Installation No. 697277 4830 S.38TH STREET Date 04/30/2002 PHOENIX,ARIZONA 85040 Page 1 (602)437-7240 1-800-352-7912 FAX (602)437-7265 Customer 21416 N • TIN ## 86-0716114 Sold To: Ship To: CITY OF RENTON CITY OF RENTON • 1055 S. GRADY WAY 1055 S. GRADY WAY RENTON WA 98055-3232 RENTON WA 98055-3232 ...0 de..Net 30 United Parcel Servic 04/30/2002 222629 CS 04/24/2002 2120081 4605 '�^;r;.;:1'";��' :<:�..11�`•��`ei(!`ii iii sYg�.Cfi<3iii'?i" � Eir'�•ree�.Per:<'z��>':<EX.t>Amou t SEP SEP6102907698 LAMP FOR PLC-9000N 1 1 0 249.00 249.00 UPS 1Z8718930312131874 • RECEIVED MAY 0 6 2UO2 • City of Renton Accounts Payable • MEMO: jETi S.'I SS CONDITIONS OF SALE gIVlQU.N € € ; 249.00 All claims arising out of or:connected with the AFinance Charge at the periodic rate of r S TAX 21.92 above listed items must be made within five days 1 1/2% with an Annual Percentage Rate• after delivery. No returns accepted unless • of 18% will be charged on all accounts accompanied by this document. Merchandise returned unpaid after the last day of the for credit shall be subject to 25% handling following month. charges. Seller reserves title to these goods until paid for in full. This invoice is due on or before 05/30/2002 iAMoONt PLEASE REFERENCE THIS INVOICE NO. 697277 ON YOUR REMITTANCE . Page 1 (CX • .S. 0 0 . CITY OF RENTON 0 • • , + 1055 S. GRADY WAY RENTON, WA 98055 6/7/02 12/0000020 • 41LN— --be. VENDOR: 082979 SHIP TO: TROXELL COMMUNICATIONS INC 4830 S 38TH ST PHOENIX, AZ 85040 FOB Point: Req.No.: Terms: net 30 Dept.: FINANCE DEPARTMENT Req.Del.Date: Contact: CORNEJO, RITA Pre-Assigned PO#?: No Special Inst: • Ouanity Unit -" : . Description Unit Price Ext Price Bulb for Projector-Chambers 270.92 -• " '" ; • ;,• ": • • 4697277P.) • — „_ 4,4 • nv, - •. "' • '• • • . • •,•,• •,„ • • •.••• •:" • ,••••, , --•• • 777n-kr:r...,,, ::--7,77-^„ T:,-;72,7.7.77" • • ,,,,----- • -`• _ . • • ::".: A - 7;7: • ,, ,• " •-' „ , • - • - • •••,, .•, • „•.• ,„ _ 7777-• ,,,,,''''''''''''''' • -,-. „;, ,,, „,. • --',;,;;;;,'•;-,,,„„„ • ' •- •••-- • • • ' • ' C. 77:7777777777 7-7777777 , ,,,, •A, 7:-.777,7 7,7 SUBTOTAL 270.92 BILL TO: TAX 0.00 FREIGHT 0.00 TOTAL 270.92 • E 127.000000.004.5710.0010.81-.000000 270.92 • • )& ,, zeiazt-m-- Authorized Signature Authorized Signature . Page 1 1 C.) O� CITY OF RENTON t 1055 S. GRADY WAY RENTON, WA 98055 6/7/02 12/0000021' • VENDOR: 090294 SHIP TO: WENDI FISCHER ENTERPRISES LLC PO BOX 733 REDMOND, WA 98073 FOB Point: Req.No.: Terms: net term Dept.: FINANCE DEPARTMENT • Req.Del.Date: Contact: CORNEJO, RITA • Pre-Assigned PO#?: No Special Inst: _ a%,y'▪ a� Reimbursement for Digital Juice Library 423.00 • .`b,''_h.<«»_.3dw.°..,.,,.a.,,._.,..w_._,.< z•a„...,,.«C.-..,.,...u...^...,,,..,.,«..,..,...%-.w......,,..,... w,.. .., .,. ,......»:+r..,>.,..:,. .z:°..,.... :,,a.,,,..:...,,,w,•: .._ ..;...-;„v.vvvF•:..".,..,. �..,;; <v;£«n .y,xr-• r;T-,Y„ r ry i•4 ;f.t. • try ,na„a .. "..,e....a.,.,rr..M,.,.,......_,nsia`:..,,..,....a1wd.,......0............. a>._.......c.»- .: 1:4 .. __-. ».,.-.., _„«.,,..,,....,:+-,.,,<..<r.•-..._.s_.-..,-r,-,..._,a-.:1-..,...-,Y'.:C.�..s-,,.;..,,...p.v'C'-ems•:.-s.- ..,<- yr .cam» ..p.Y.;,"r _ > } - .• , .. .S-.«,.°.,tf .mot.•'�..�.<;1,�.`.`.: .u�,..,.-,<,..,:A<.i__h.e..?.:a.:., ,. ,.•,. �'.tl..-.c:rr/,w•,".:L'�.:.^,:.v:...,.:>,.;.3::.+,'rztr•n -.- ";.s... • .ro-.. ..«.,..w,.._ .....,..:x^<>.,.,.vY -s"7^,_r^..:,i n...y:�,:.a ;,'.!'.Try» �''y-4`• IG. t•.Y. , n, v ,4 .,wn,,..♦ MMXo�,r, fit' --_, .,.... ^..,...>. .». •..,.,",»...<.,.." ,.._•,r..;,•r,s.�;-e»,-;-.zo,.,.x,-. ^n.'r:•.,,.;w_,,,..,,..y..::»;,._r:,»--.,.'..;..-.}-.,,L,,,•r.. ,,.,ra. ,•g,.�,.".,•:<.•,;r^rr.;c-„ <?fry 74•77 r-s ...r,., <ty._ ,<y.w.)..;.. Y^s �• r,;Tr, a'S",«;•- ,•�-"T«J-i';-mm „R^^/hr r'teYTN,.-;.,fin- e K, •i-Y.r-;•" s„%+� x•"'X:;rr• ^.mP:' ' .V.F.>"•vcS,•— -r v(f^ ter( 'lry: .,�.E.a.r..my.>2r„+;'.-w..,Y'}>+w^g,�,w.,a«+✓r'<.,--.�)�+.-. .n.r,-_.,, ....»»:.. ..;...,,,..,...r:• n.....-«...iv.; .•rr>»:i.v-"„e-.v,•_•y.:) .a.. . >;�n r'?.-}.mot' owl; V:. r?,.?r ,...:_..,�_._w-»ao-s»,.•"---n..-..>-;r»•;.-<-.r.,w•>.»,�>e,„:<-.,..•-»,".<•.,-.,-;.".m r•�,<�.-r`".-";";"y-;:a;:ar.:">';`•>,.->-A,..'t:rrrr.`;:� •-.:u.:.. _ —,�... :..r_.,_,..m>....e;•x.�c.;..,nm. .�.. ,s.. ,. .z ... .... .....: ..... <: .,,..... ...,. ... .t.r a-.-<..:... ....... ...b..,,. .. , .. .}' :fir -;ram ••-;F> .........,.<.,w,.<...».:w...<.::Fi'µ <....._.. o .. .,, _ .... ...,.. -, _....,. -: -r..�,..�:..:..»..,.a.,nar-r,•:-r v:,,..>o'rtr<:-n_......,.a-.,.-yr-,,,_", ^�rnx .;c.»-ur,•r_;yr....«.-;r,,...,.•, i\^t, .a, tt*F r„e', <..v.:,'.w, .:.: .,.._r'<✓.. -'f _ yy.•, • F:i ;a t (:4a._-...,....,.u,..w`�A,>.,_.....�a, r'L' ,- L.Tym >vy;�','✓-a ,r}:n�r<»Y,:",,. ..Y. ,.x��- -;�y a;s hy�r.»—. 'zra _ sia ;)<<SUBTOTAL 423.00 BILL TO: TAX 0.00 FREIGHT 0.00 TOTAL 423.00 • y�. 'mo unt 'n<Ntiin ctio's' der% u Work�' r. • ce6u°f N 'intiet _ ._<. Q.x,.. E 127.000000.004.5710.0010.31.000000 423.00 LUQ Authorized Signature Authorized Signature n ,t7, = Digital Juice, Inc. t vG,%�yf�� L/ 1736 NE 25th Avenue Ocala, FL 34470-4854 Invoice Customer Service 800.525.2203 Order Date: 03/20/2002 Business Relations 352.369.0930 Invoice Number: 361306 FAX 352.368.6091 Customer 52878 Online www.digitaljuice.com Shipped via: FedEx 2day Bill To: Ship To: Wendi Fischer Enterprises, LLC Wendi Fischer Enterprises, LLC Wendi Fischer Wendi Fischer PO Box 733 22625 NE 98th PL Redmond,WA 98073 Redmond,WA 98053 • 425.785.2513 N. J Quanity Product ID Product Description Unit Price Total 1 BTX.BTX BackTraxx Music Library 399.00 399.00 • Notes Sub Total 399.00 Paid in full with VISA Shipping&Handling 24.00 TOTAL $423.00 Thank you for your order. ',',idtr o y079i/ /27,0000DO,001/ 57/0 .0 >>3/. 000000 y1?0- 4°-000002_1 CITY OF RENTON. CY11)1 rt)-k JUN 0 5 2002 OIL' Pi) , RECEIVED CITY CLERKS OFFICE Wendi Fischer Enterprises, LLC INVOICE P.O. Box 733 Redmond, WA 98073 EIN: 91-2110301 Invoice Number: F00102 Invoice Date: 06.01.02 • SOLD TO: REMIT TO: Bonnie Walton Wendi Fischer Enterprises, LLC City of Renton P.O. Box 733 1055 Grady Way Redmond, WA 98073 Renton, WA 98055 ITEMS DESCRIPTION AMOUNT DUE 1 Reimbursement for Digital Juice Audio Library $423.00 TOTAL DUE UPON RECEIPT: $423.00 If you have any questions concerning this invoice, call: Wendi Fischer 425,785.2513 • 4/* • •• • . . • Pagel 1 0 0 el azi CITY OF RENTON + + 1055 S. GRADY WAY RENTON, WA 98055 6/21/2002 12/0000024 • VENDOR: 007201 SHIP TO: B & H PHOTO VIDEO 420 9TH AVE NEW YORK, NY 10001 FOB Point: Req.No.: Terms: net term Dept.: FINANCE DEPARTMENT Req.Del.Date: Contact: CORNEJO, RITA Pre-Assigned PO#?: No Special Inst: T.11,1011. THIS IS A REVISED PURCHASE ORDER ........... 27:74Ei:;:EfiP:.>;17.17,5177iTZ,i9::"71i37:34:17.767:4347;37, Inv.#'s 76030670-8738558 1;.;57-Tr.:71.17;',77:27 Invoice#76030670-8770588 444 •1717,4,::,-,%'r,72.7,..T77757-77777.777:7,?-,74,777 — . .t0.24bL TzTirgF/,'7,T5-5-7-A7:-"z‘P`3 7717,77i7;7;a777?3•C:'::7:7777.,77:7`"'"?', ,27:3;,„7-27:7::'7g7,71:sf'f.77al SUBTOTAL 557.35 BILL TO: • TAX 0.00 FREIGHT 0.00 • TOTAL 557.35 E 127.000000.004.5710.0010.48.000000 557.35 • 41-AA^JP-e. 6eitAta-'cJ ,r .Page.1 1 r 0"-4-%Nl CITY OF RENTON �f.1055 S. GRADY WAY ;,',,:,DATE ;: ::Po'NUMBER'>'n RENTON, WA 98055 6/21/2002 12/0000024 VENDOR: 007201 SHIP TO: B&H PHOTO VIDEO 420 9TH AVE NEW YORK, NY 10001 FOB Point: Req.No.: Terms: net term Dept.: FINANCE DEPARTMENT Req.Del.Date: Contact: CORNEJO, RITA Pre-Assigned PO#?: No Special Inst: ,Y': a ,: r t"°E .Price ,� ''U it'Pri�e�'' x n.Des ri do >: ',.� < , :Quantity;, , >.Unit' . r. .. . `�� A n:,R,,.' , . . ... .. , F . . q` Camera Batteries/Wireless Mic/Gaffer 557.35 li ;°'': .,h3 t, ae: _=T • Inv.#'s 76030670-8738558& .. Q._..<.,.,.,,.. ...,..,......,.,.,,.„,,,,r,,•,,:•Tx„„. , : :29`K' :'7;-'F;'•„ :;:-, ' 76030670=877058$ xE, x..> ...,e,'' .... ..... .':ate;; .': t`Ii; •.-d.. w.m,n..,.. ka... . +.... ,,,.a l<3 G,,c„... ,....,.,n...., .,,_u..,__,-.... .r <,a.,..,..3,<,. w,S<..,. ^ r... ,.. < r xa..wx.n,_,._ , ...,,..,. _....,. , ,. ..la..s>...,. • <..>..<.,..,.,__.•,n. .,....,, (r�- .._v:e .>:'e a.,,,.v+....,n„ <, v ,p.,....:., .Y.,i,,..w....,•-r x ,,.. ,-�-'.P."«..,?•-t> - 'L'. r.max. .,. ,. ,... ..., .. .. .•• . :'ri9.........a..3�;..,,.,.,..�,.,aw,..o,..x,._...a,-.,.,.,-�...a•,.....,.,.x�..•.LL•.:.s..u...._ . +, • .r, ...,..,,. y,g••_:.-.,y. :_,•„_. -p.;"„ ...'_, ....r..„, -mow , y4. ,, rr , 57 .' tt. ". -»••..,. _,.Z,_ Apr:. ,y, c::::4_,) - x.- • ,<he.,.,,,_..ey n<�'-4: .. .....:....t...,.x'.'.<.::''<.ur.,y.G.�....,..x:n:".-,;v.r: ,n.+ .. • >,jy�.... • .. .r, ,: rt.., • ,....-.._....... ._....w:,. .,...,,...sr.<....u..r...n-_.. .. .-.<...A..<C„.L..a•�___..,u ..,.-<,,,z.._y,L,-m._z,s v,+m. ,,.-„»a-'C,s'.,.,.,_.t,...., rt"e•<,r«,......,__j. 5. E SUB o N, 557.35 BILL TO: 4.roTAX 0.00 EIGHT / 0.00 Ate 557.35 �.-'• • " , Acco.unt<Number ' ;„-� ;:�:•; �-.VIIor[eOrdei•"Function%Number- ' :.. ' � ., , ". ,zA •mo unt:: ,f.;'';; E 127.000000.004.5710.0010.48.000000 557.35 L� J. idae Aiithnri7Pri Airmail rp . , . , Page 1 1 CITY OF RENTON A cm + ' + 1055 S. GRADY WAY AT ' ONUMBE RENTON, WA 98055 6/21/2002 12/0000024 VENDOR: 007201 SHIP TO: B &H PHOTO VIDEO 420 9TH AVE NEW YORK, NY 10001 FOB Point: Req.No.: Terms: net term Dept.: FINANCE DEPARTMENT Req.Del.Date: Contact: CORNEJO, RITA Pre-Assigned PO#?: No Special Inst • Camera Batteries/Wireless Mic/Gaffer 557.35 Tape Inv.#'s 76030670-8738558& 5-5•„;..w..,,,,;;;=,..—:„,1 77.: -';'; " . s . .• •-••• 7):'.;F:.47-1N775:5KrT':filf;!, SUBTOTAL 557.35! BILL TO: TAX 0.00 FREIGHT 0.00 TOTAL 557.35 • E 127.000000.004.5710.0010.48.000000 557.35 -2/11..GA.C/It 67/44.LL •Ni t/iaetlY`' PHOTO*. VIDEO & IMAGING PRO i, 10 ORDER INQUmY >_ • 0 +�la< Tel Te% 212-444-5000 Tel Tel 800-947-9950 ::: 800-947-9910 :: 800-615-2999 800-221-5743 212-239-7770 212-444-5001 '< 212-444-5001 212-239-7549 PHOTO-VIDEO-PRO AUDIO Fax: 800-94f-7008. Fax: 800-947-9003 Fax: 800-947-9003 Fax: 800-947-221 5 . ............. The Professional's Source Invoice No.: 76030670 - 8738558 Sold To: Ship To: CITY OF RENTON CITY OF RENTON Accounts Payable 1055 S GRADY WAY 1055 S GRADY WAY 7TH FL CITY CLERKS OFFICE RENTON,WA 98055 RENTON,WA 98055 Bill Phone: (425)430-6573 :I;nvaice.plgte.:::C►t t xn�r ..:::::�±:.:.:...P .r...b....e.4x..�x.�,u�rn'��.... .:....:.....>* ............ ..................n.................................... 05/20/02 15416727 05/09/02 212009 . N7 FED EX SAVER .b. .Qt ..Shi :tlf..Sku....................................... I.tem;.0es:crl.:ticrn.:::::::.�:::::.:::.�:.:.:::::.:::....................................................................:.::..:�.::.::�:::..::::.::..::.:::::.:A.m.::::::.:::::::: 1 1 SONY WCS-999 900 MHZ WIRELESS SYSTEM SOWCS999 119.95 119.95 1 1 GB GAFFER CLOTH TAPE(2"X60-YD) BLK MATTE GBGT6OB 23.95 23.95 • • RECEIVED MAY 2 8 2Uu4 City of Renton Accounts Fti yoble • • Sub-Total: 143.90 Discount: Shipping: 10.75 COD Charge: .00 Tax: .00 Toal: , ; ,4 444454'65 • Page 1 Customer Copy t ........ ......... :s'�PHOTO IL', • .M»-VIDEO & IMAGING <�'�PRO Ak' D��''l s ORDER INQUIRY NEN<` 212-444-6600 < 212-444-5000 212-444-5070 `' 212-239-7765 Tel 800-947-9950 Tel 800-947-9910 Tel 800-615-2999 ' Tel: 800-221-5743 s 212-239-7770 :`<, 212-444-5001 ;. 212-444-5001 212-239-7549 ;.:; PHOTO-VIDE()-P J AUDIO > Fax 800-947-7008 , Fax 800-947-9003 Fax 800-947-9003 '; •Fax: 800-947-2215 tt _?:; . :::{:j::i::i:�:::: . : : ::i::i:; >::: :: : venue>::>Ne :>:�fa.r.#e;:::NY::>:'LQ0.0;1:::<::>>::;::>:<:>:::>OIn::Thy:1�1Lib.: w..:.::.:.......�:......:.:.�.:.: ..: :.::::::: • 420:.Ninth.A..::...;:'..:.....:.:... ...........,............................ .................... . . The Professional's Source .. ::....:... .::: ::::::: :::.::::. ::.; :::::::::::::.::::::::::::.:::::::...... ........................ LL Invoice No.: 76030670 - 8770588 CITY OF RENTON \kl‘IA' ShipTo: . Sold To: CITY OF RENTON v CITY OF RENTON Accounts Payable SUN 0 6 200z /�i 1055 S GRADY WAY 1055 S GRADY WAY V 7TH FL CITY CLERKS OFFICE RENTON,WA 98055 RECEIVED 0° RENTON,WA 98055 CITY CLERK'S OFFICE ' 1)0- Bill Phone: (425)430-6573 n .. ;.;::. .;fade:;.;:�;:.;:.;::.;;;T .::;::.;;;. .Dr�le�:.Bute;:.;:;�!urchg�e:;Utdix.:t'�.upa>f?025g1eO1�ics��:>: : ;;:> >>>;:.:: �►it:.:..�a ::::.::::.:::::.. :...� X��oice:�atie;:.; onx$JC : .::::.: :�1f1�15:::::.::.. ............................................................................ 05/24/02 15416727 05/09/02 21200' • N7 FED EX SAVER .cr:S>:>.•;;''::;: ; ::.:>:::-::i: :i{5i•:i:: ciz:::::;:: '•::;:��;:;y::., 6;>:: >;•:4:i%•;ir.;:.>:::r:r:<::::<: .•: . ><>:«'':><. :;::>?: ;'>::::::>:<:»:;:::(tem.t?nap.:>:;>:::?::>:::.lk p.9)An:!>s ::>:::;::>::>;::>::>::::>:< :::::::::::,:.:..a :nescr� o <:::: >>::>:<s:«::.:: :.. .... . f�ty flrd�ty,Sh:p i2fy Bka ....... ... .........:�It.rn..:.. ...p�:�.. ..... .:... .:: 4 4 PANASONIC AG-BP15 1.25 AH BATTERY PACK(125 PAAGBPI5 99.95 399.80 . c053 - - - . 9 - 5 ,�-`UJ • .. - -- - 0 - " - • of Fte�to�,e . • • No co,... Sub-Total: 399.80 Discount: Shipping: 2.90 COD Charge: .00 Tax: .00 Total:,, ,, :';:,..:,4'..:. j ','402.70 t Pa e1 x Cuctnmwr Cnov 9 PHOTO IMk -VIDEO &IMAGING emil PRO A 0""■1°Ii"'ORDER INQUIRY 212-444-6600 212-444-5000 • 212-444-5070 212-239-7765 • Tel Tel. Tel Tel • " 800-947-9950 • 800-947-9910 800-615-2999 800-221-5743 •i::i 212-239-7770 212-444-5001 212-444-5001 212-239-7549 PHOTO-VIDEO s PRO AUDIO Fax 800-947-7008 Fax 800-947-9003 Fax 800-947-9003 Fax 800-947-2215 The Professional's Source jig) "WON.4: tij.00011 1111 IRO WO. Invoice No.: 76030670 - 8770588 Sold To: Ship To: CITY OF RENTON CITY OF RENTON Accounts Payable 1055 S GRADY WAY 1055 S GRADY WAY 7TH FL CITY CLERKS OFFICE RENTON,WA 98055 RENTON,WA 98055 Bill Phone: (425)430-6573 4.0.61e63)00 Csstomer Code Tens rdt )ae; ii1:4.0.,4000tatiNiuofwa 05/24/02 15416727 05/09/02 212009 N7 FED EX SAVER 4 4 PANASONIC AG-BP15 1.25 AK BATTERY PACK(125 PAAGBPI5 99.95 399.80 • Sub-Total: 399.80 Discount: Shipping: 2.90 COD Charge: .00 Tax: .00 Total: .402.70 • • • Page 1 Customer Copy 7 June 2002 B&H 420 Ninth Avenue New York, NY 10001 Subject: Accounts Payable W-9 Vendor Form re: B&H Invoice#76030670-8738558 In order for us to process the referenced invoice, we are requesting that you complete the enclosed W-9 Vendor Form and return it to us as soon as possible. You may fax it to Tracy Schuld at 425-430-6855 or mail it to: City of Renton , - Accounts Payable 1055 South Grady Way Renton WA 98055-3232 If you have and questions, you can reach Tracy at (425) 430-6918 or email at tschuld@ci.renton.wa.us Thank you very much. Enc. (1) Page 1 1 ( "/ 0 0 CITY OF RENTON ct + 1055 S. GRADY WAY RENTON, WA 98055 7/3/2002 12/0000023 • Nrcc) VENDOR: 007201 SHIP TO: B & H PHOTO VIDEO 420 9TH AVE NEW YORK, NY 10001 FOB Point: Req.No.: Terms: net term Dept.: FINANCE DEPARTMENT Req.Del.Date: Contact: LOMBARD, SUZANN Pre-Assigned PO#?: Yes Special Inst: BOSH CHAMELEON KIT- INV.#80043380 84.70 4 4 ' 4 ; • . 244 : ; ;i;i,f; 7 SUBTOTAL 84.70 BILL TO: TAX 0.00 FREIGHT 0.00 TOTAL 84.70 E 127.000000.004.5710.0010.31.000000 84.70 1IA4/CA(-t/te 180W4A,Z_12 Oalt& L • PHOT & IMAGING IE AUDIO ORDER INQUIRY • 212-4-___-6600 212-444-5000 , 212-239-7765 • 0 ' 800-947-9950 Tel: 800-947-9910 Tel: 800-615-2999 •ij Tel: 800-221-5743 • 212-239-7770 •-']i 212-444-5001 212-444-5001 212-239-7549 PHOTO-VIDEO-PRO AUDIO Fax 800-947-7008 Fax: 800-947-9003 . Fax 800-947-9003 Fax: 800-947-2215 .......................................................... Invoice No.: 80043380 - 8952029 Sold To: Ship To: CITY OF RENTON CITY OF RENTON Accounts Payable 1055 S GRADY WAY 1055 S GRADY WAY 7TH FL CITY CLERKS OFFICE RENTON,WA 98055 RENTON,WA 98055 Bill Phone: (425)430-6573 • Ati*OlaValti;i0CliStiinteeCtid.0 06/19/02 15416727 30 DAY 06/19/02 120000023. . 93 FED EX ECONOMY Qty Ord thy Ship Qty Bko Item Description SKLJ# Item Pnen:;•AmountM 1 1 BOSH 42" REFLECTOR CHAMELEON KIT(5-IN-1) PHRCK42 69.95 69.95 • • • Sub-Total: 69.95 • Discount: Shipping: 14.75 COD Charge: .00 Tax: .00 Total: 84.70 Customer Copy Page 1 . .. , . . : Page 1 1 C' 'r ITY OF RENTON. 4- - "-- + 1055 S. GRADY WAY y‘p— .....,. .y . Nrr0 .:,,,,,,::::''.;:::; IDATE:,'-:,`,<,'i.,:,,,,i,,I ,,.:.::,!;,,..';',',O.birN,OM:btli: RENTON, WA 98055 ','7,, ,,!-.1.. • 9/12/2002 12/0000022 VENDOR: 068843 SHIP TO: ROBB'S REPAIR 12815 NE 124TH ST .SUITE J KIRKLAND, WA 98034 FOB Point: Req.No.: Terms: net term Dept.: FINANCE DEPARTMENT Req.Del.Date: Contact: LOMBARD, SUZANN Pre-Assigned PO#?: Yes Special Inst: !S4.i3OO'S',611.tiL--:-:.• i ft'''.::: ::::::4,....:; ':;.;:;"::,'...?'::::;!,,A l.;....,C.;1. ..:.:!;:',',7i:!:,: ef,:e:.2::::..0.0':o4ii'lit,i, ii "::':,'.!::'':!::"'"›.:.-".•::.;:::!j:'.4::%;;;;',":-..,;:'!-,:':.',:;•.<-::::',:!:,i. :::',:;":'::'i'l:: ;.'4.,',:,''',f41,!!"iit':Fi".i.0.6:!)''''.:.': '2,11/:•:APit.et.iPec'i 'S,.:::', CAMERA REPAIR-PANASONIC-7/11/02 70.72 ,, ,,- 7,:::-,,,',7,77:2;r7,77,;;;,ni7x7.75v,g7,7:7;i:7-;;!7=7:,777.,n7V:,F7:,::,,::77:::::.",..g:;Vn7,'57,:::: '..:::"; ::',.:',,::P','.i:'1;,•'2,‘,' '',:::;.:,',,t,';',":i.,1;:3';;':',:',-;''':: :1.''''-%.,z:t,t!'')...,';',''i'''-,S.(:<F''',.;:i,A.lic.:i•::::.'''..::,1::,.•-',',::-1.:j.'.1::::..:j:i.i!'s.:,;L: ::-:::,,':',!::,„,:L.,,',l'z,,,;:, 3,,,22;,,•`::2,,,,2:,i,,21,,i,:r,,,,::::.:, ',.':,,,2,;y.-;'.:1 1;7";';',::,..57.'1''''A T7.7.7,.'::":7..F.7:,:'.:7;7;772;1:;:7':','-'i,-.!...:::?'!:,7P7.5.72Ili::;:7:i7ji.::::)';,i.,72::1':',:::;77::::17:7.:71';,:7:7:',;;C''.:'37',;7Fit.:74li7 ::'li-7--.:::.-::'7:',FFEI7FF,71'77': 77}::,717;',TIVz1:::';!;23:i • -,,,,,,,,,z-5:5:::';?:;,:,.,-,:.,:.-.-..,.Y.:/-::;`:7'f.i';',S,'''.,':''''',:':';',''': ::',.';:A'.i'::,gi...,:i';'::::‘"::-:-:.:',..7j2,,?,.71':','T,:',,;',,',T.::';,:,':',,,:",;', ,;';','" 7,;','7.-,,,',":•;;,';',,,",•••,,,'„,''',",',72',1,;',:,1:7=7,f!.7,,,'-'`.:',':;-',57.,',,c-;;573.F.:,„?;:-.7;;;;;;.,7,".771,:i':;'„;',r!,,,,:::::',,,%,;,:::;'...,:,';‘;'"=',..:Fi,,";:,;',7:-.:f•T:,',',7,,7,,,I,-7,,:,:ii.::::-:;;;:!::;7?-.7,;,..,;::'.",': .,.,,,;,..,•.,,, -& ..::',:2:f...:'.,:..:a r,.C.....i.z.:,;::::.,,,.,,i,..;,,,-,,,',,,:,...;',.;v:?....;'-:..-iK.,..,-....,,,,,.,-,..',...,,,'„,,,,,,;„,,;;;; ;-:,,,,,f2..,..„./,,,-.„,,,,;:%';;;.'-:,,,,,:-.„:"..1-1:....:„...--;(•:..;;....::,:,.L'..1,;1,;...=::,:,:i4 - '..:1:-:'•7 '''''',:-';';'''''17::.:7-5.:7:7:;.:1J';',7T.:?:");7'-'7i."';.'"::''''',7:R.:7".:5;i7..i'Z5:771,773::'!-::::,;'';;;;;T';'7"-77,77,777,::',.:;777.77.<7.'.1:.:'::7•7:7:7?:7.;."7,':7;77::',..7':'::':!,'7:7;;7:::.',7,T;:,2g'f':',:;:;:,-.:;,77;)::-J, 7."!g;:::::rf: 3';';''':',7•7-ji ",,',„',I,','Ll';?:rf,'1:::.;:si,,,I,,,,:„:;:,,..:.,:,:,.i:',,..''''''''''';:e;-:-...::?:,:i.':::i::::'.;::".,:i.,'T.::: :.;1;.;,:::::....:.-,i;.:: :::1'2';,.:?..F ..--':".:.!..;i:',.-...,,a'...'1:4';':, ;..c,a:.::::;,:.':::;1'._:,?.,L'''';:q•.:::"'":::''::; ',.,.'',Z.:<:?:,:.:;:::: ::,,I'L.&':.:'..xL:-.::::."3..,":,.,S,';',.‘1',.:'::;,.‘'::::1:,',Z,f3.::..;:2,::a 2Zi.L'..L.-:;:',.."/.:::::::',:,,a1;Z:',: ,;,,', ,,,,,',;;:' , ,7--. .:Y ., : .,, ,. ,. „'..„ , ,,--:,:-."-..:.7;7: ' ;7.,.'!'":. ::"., ,;' ,,.7c,':" ':: .5:;,i.F1,.... ; ,.-":; .,.., ... , ,:::•.. :..... .."', ,::' "-.:-.-.,..:.:. ..!,',,:...;,,•:;''..,:-...:,.'::: ''L-1.:'E',?,1:!,,1::'<:' ",' ''.;t''!'1):...,L::';:',:::„...Z'!: .:::i..,:',. ., :ii4 ,:L; -.,-',L--:‘:'.1;',1,i''.''..,,,,l',. :2,•:!...-.i.:::', ',-.'''..,',:,:,,.,,:: ..;,`,.:,,, ,•,-,,,,-,,. ,',;,,w,..",:::,.--",i.,;,•,'4.: *';',',7t`.7,7%.*:•.7,:.,;•i -",:;',:,''',7;',1:7:;•••”;3','''.,,--rz:,:-z, 44 ;; ,..7.1',.•,!',77.,, 73';',F,'F',r-7,7,',',-.:•:,'F'',-;7.:;'.:,,!:,7,y'.,:x:y,'::',7,,,,•?:',,-,7,71;';',',7712',YS;',':::-.'5,','::-;',',„:',;',!,7j7i.F. ?, . -2,1z>-,.,;;; -... '„y-'- , ,,,i,.. ,,,I:j,,, = --. -,f,,,, ,,?::rf 1.., • ,',,,,,,f,,•,•,,,,,,,,,,'•,if...4.•,,,,.; -„,,• :2,,-,'„;.;:;!i';',,';!.:,',.-:::.-e.',.::'„,.:,.:,,:,,,2',:'..5:i.:,.. ...::.i.';f„-., :i. '',',7'.:,,,,-,3,LI:t',,.',,,,.'::::';:;'•a:,,,S.I- L,c;!.-';`,.:.'i:„(L,i„:'-',:::,.', :,,'''''':::.7.i.P.;:':':,:',..' 57z72.„-i'.,7 ,. .,,, ,, , , Z; ,,"7,---;Y:::::2,,-,.:',,,..,,:g.)-,:.-Ft..,•!:,-.7.,:.i',i,,,,,,7,T,77,:7,-,,,z,c.",'!.7,7g,7::,-.2,:..,-Y-i..,,,-; ,...,::„..,,::::: 5':::,:'•.-•:>',:g:',. ,',?';','-.‘,.12; ,„ ...n','",.'''',',',',J,.',N;.A::::',,`;',:-/f.',,,i,..,'<:."L',",;:,':';',',',.',,i,,. ,O:,1,1.-,,,,. ,„:-.,f;..., „,, ,i,,.,,1;, ,.,„;, ', ':;='„,XE : ,:›,a;',, ••,';.;3;;;', ,i,S ,i.,`,„:,,„,i,,.::::,.,,;;;;,v;,,z,,,,,I ,, i,,.=-4,,:,' ;,,,:„,,,',,,,,,,...-,-;„;;,,,:',. 44. •!."%. ,+--':, ' ,77';,?.17,7:i:,,, , ,%,, . %, ,. 4?...P.:7'..,7iai ,.•;7:;, ,,,F,.'7,<`,,`, "7,",- 17:::77,;7,77!:P;:,/:,7:;';::::f:;Z:':'Ttis7f.f..';'k":::,'•X'c-',7;..:,7,F7F,,:j.7::.:;7::::::TT:':'':477::4'',,,7f:::F,7:1''TT:;7:::::::F.7:::':7:77.777;'''r,7"::C;::T 7::',,:: 7.',".7,!:,M7,7:::'1,77E'F.7,-:::::F.7;,7'..7,7,',,TiZ7::- ,7::::;77:,,,V7,7,;!::.:7,,..7.-i.::. :1:L::::;';:a,',:IY::,:::;:::::,n:. ...:',.;,,,,Vi.:.:;.;.:: :';',:,::.';:?•.;.•;-,':,'..',:,;;::::,.;'.:.,':::;..•,‘,":,. .:ar,;:•':i.:,',:f ,..3.z,,,,-,:.:,-,!..7.::::.'X'.,:%;.',.;?,''''''.J.-<:::::!'.:.'.,.;,.. ..i.i.,;:‘,,.,'''17::',2.:',:s31..i:',1!":1,.,:;2,:::.,:..,"...-,,,=:;.,,,-L,,g.,,:,;,:i.,,i.,..',,,,,2,.;; ,....,'„,',,..,,.';',',',';?,i;.,...:,'',.,;-:',';-:„::,',..i.:,,-;,"4,',..;'A:1:1",',,,,f. .1'..1;.,..'2.... ..:.ii',...;.;..,:::.,.',-;z:;,2. --,,,,r....-r.:,....--..-:,,/,.., -7.r.:,7.77,;;,..-.:,:,7 F.'---;-x7--:".''''',7:',''',`,:',,,',.•!,,,::.`,7-•,..--,-y.,,-",,f,..,:.,[;77::,:n•,-„.-,7-:,-,,:,.,;-,7', ,,,i'''.:,:::,-,,':- T..'''''f,-;::,:.'''.17,7),',;',: :::-....":''.:'.',7(4!;-7.7-:,7,c,Tk..1:-'.7,A".?,'-'774:".',?:',"7::';':'Z'::::;;T7-'77;:i''';';',';'::":',..;'?:''''',.;T:'',;';',.. ,..:'.'' .>:,"•:%!;;:'',:'..fii:':II.::-.1!;„;':..';',?:"."..'Z.'`,;.'2'‘.:I:::''''',:.'''-:..12":i.Z2:::;::::?-,":,.:::',:,,i1,,:-:iX..",,iL',:::.;"',I ...':;-.1:::::)::';..,: ,-,,:,.,..,.::..4'2. ..:':.-°'',.'.'';,:',.,L;''..2e.:.1,;:,''.-::2'.',-;,.':?.'3,.:::.:5.,;:i,,,,t,:.^;:.•:,..Z.?P.,ff,. ,.:'L:::,.%:,;.!,!.,...,i,-•:::.<2: .-:.',...•:,;'1,::.;•;;,:-.2.: ''':',":77q'f-.7:I.i--':-.,.1' ','7',.',7;i.';7;77.: ',77:77-7,..-.,''.7.7,2:47:',:-.;(:::', 5'17F!;;:,;:7:7:=:,'-':'"'",;:7=1".,-,-'°,';'7-7,-,,i';',,i;„•!),77-7,-,-•:,f,,-;•71'777,,,,f,7,77,-7,17,,,'":77,--7,.',7-777;:',,,:-',72,7,,r,7,;57,T:.',:,-,77;,?7,7,77,T,'',7,',„7.,,,,,77,Z5:7;:',-,7?7:7.5'',.;: .:,..]!...:4,,,,,,,...,.:,4-2-.;..-.1'. .,..,2: ,..:.:S.:1..,..;, . ..."...f:.f.44: . ..:,,..444i444-...; ;,,,: ..-,,,,..a:.,,5..g-...:,:,i'..--, ,.-..;;:::, ;L:4.a.1....:;,...2.:-.....ii/4-.?2,.2;;.:2.. .1. ...:...:.,;:;:.i.;..z,..i:,.,'..,;L: , ..,. :: ;1......17;'..7-,: ,?"7"7,i'',2-7.1?•;.,777,,,,7"',73,7..r,",.:', f,..;:.:,,:.,:f,'„'sif)i,':%:,;„-...:: ..:::.i',,',,,,r,'-':'Z,..-,.!•!-,:,.'":,, ,.',:,:li';,,A`;','..','..:',','i;.,:',,;:',,,',.--,::,.:,,.-;.:.,1, ',I`,,,'' '.1.,::::L''-',,,''rr,:::::„'',;','',?Z.,'Zi., ,i,, ,i'si,:',,;•:',.;',,',"2 ;'''',.1,.......':...:,:2.'2,,;''',-,..,:2S,:,:::-?.;.(,:.$:.:,.-. -..;•.;!,',.?,,,!:-;:•:;;;,:1',.....^.....,;,:.:;;:f.1.,',Y,,,,i2„:,2,.;;,u,-,°:.:ft:: ?1..: 4- -(s,-:. . ',..!:;;:;; :7" : ::—';-:''''727'S'T';':f•::1 :::•:: t ?:`.*K'' 7 7. :57:''''':'''''l . ......';...1:-..-'....:,,,.:,..,....:-:::-.:=?:,:,:::-4',.....,::.;.,:.,,,,s......:-..;.::-..;:,,...,:,.......f...,......,..J.:`,Ea,..:?.: ,..::..,.,.:at........-....:::::::::::::L.. ...-,..:::.:...........e-J,,;.;,.:,:,::z.,:iu....11:,11,::::',,,:ij,...'„5::!,;:,,,,,,,...,::;.;!,,, ,,::::::',,,,,,,,,,,!.:,....,,,,,. .:::.:-.:•,,5-,;,,,I,,..,:,:,,,:..,.:,......',...;:-,_,,,-,,,,,/..1.:::„„,',-.1.2,i;,,,,. ;17,7,-,:,,,,r1,;‘,...- -!;.;,:,,'-,-.7-3-7:7-?,-,,,7 r`,',',":1'.*:•:,-,''.',z'.,;.;•yr:!-; rz,,,,,::::7 7:s':.:727,77:7,'i':7.!:::•?,,777,-i'77,.7,,,7,',3:;..-;,...,--.,7-,:r?.---7,77;,77.7-;,---.,-;;F!,n7:-::7.,, ,, , ,,7-17:,77:'-',70-:37.''c-''.:', ,:?-:..'":,7 77..,2:4‘,. 7H"r;'7:3:57-,,:.':,77";:f.'7, ;:„.,,,,;',..:,,,;.,,,,,i;.:,.:,s.,..„7::::,.,,,,,:,,:„,:::‘,....)::?,ii,,,;,,,„;;;;,,,,,,..;.'.:`,,;:;,..:,,,,;,',,.• ;.`;,,,§^.4,:rr..:;k:!;,::,,"•i,f,,,,.2:'',C;',;:''.i:-,,:;i;:."e:,7:::;'.,;',";',,I,>': ,;...::,.: ,.... ,,,`5 :,,,, ,,f:--' ',..,' ' :''', 5 '.,.:, ' '.':; `;""',...',....,:::: ' .:3,';;;','",i SUBTOTAL 70.72 BILL TO: . TAX 0.00 FREIGHT 0.00 TOTAL 70.72 :::: . -;' .' :'' ',:c.i';;i:jj".,::::',;.i 'J:-.".'2:;':"'4..;.'-i'::''''',i';,°i':".,':`.•,::.;5,:*.W43.i-k'britOi:,..riiii61161-.i.,.N4:riii",6:rc,'...,.."!..:','":...!?..,::; ,',.',i ';','.:::', ;5:.`":':::-'-::.‘:i E 127.000000.004.5710.0010.48.000000 , 70.72 , . --ftA,,,tat-ThAL,G(41,4Avr __ /5,9n4rix)e,1„/ wae2,5A_) bEl-'-3.1J-21JVI\ 1d 1i I-1L1 ) 1. (5('/ 14.-H1K 0UVWXY IU 14254306516 P.01 V vAuAM3/6 RD OER FRr WRDA,INC.!NASD,P.O.D 717,MEC r4.cU;,',PJA�I170/(� C CALL TOLL FREE 1.8002d2.6678 FAX 1-717-697.709 eN NOT VALID AS CUSTOMER ncCEIPT IN CALIFORNIA aCAS& bic/1ID r/=br4)-i,.5 - CP 1' S 0 NARDA.1NC.i NAS0 0 LABOR WARRANTY ❑ PAR S WARRANTY (E040 WARRANTY �y QQCL�AIIM NOO..� BRAND a na n Qy»�, _ 529 1 1 B o (PLEASE PRINT) k JIf)� SERVICE CENTER NO. t CUSTOMER'S NAME(LAST FIRST) L IL FIRST NAME C 1`'�`1 ( JC7 O#J I I I t l I I l 1 I r ADDRE _ MODEL NO. J( jI1E1 '?- I1CITY STATE ZIP CODE COD PHONE NUMBER 1IAL NO. 1 1 I 1 U (�}�� CUSTOMER'S COMPLAINT J l DEFECT � } 1 4 'r 1 '1 o1 01" I'- 1 S I I 1 � CIA-CC.L A t`tD I a CO ,764riBLrz -I C 'Ar.J l'OMP� I i L I 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 D '3 NAME CITY - DATE PURCHASED l aK ^000 a. MO. I DAY I YR. c 1 SERVICE ERFORMED(CH a DESCRIBE BELOW) DATE SERVICE REQUESTED ADJU$TMENTB OR MO Y Y 0 ALIGNMENTS 0 LOOSE CONNECTIONS 0 PART(S)REPLACED Q OTHER (0 I I I 01 ,y,ko.,: .t EXPLANATION OF SERVICE PERFORMED MFG.CODE/REF. DATE SERVICE COMPLETED MO. DAY YR. ( 7 I 01 I 02 �` Clean ref ube adjust and tested CHECK PRODUCT WORKED ON TV STEREO OTHER TIME STA TED TTIME COMPLETED T TIME ON JOB COLOR ❑ D O O QTY. PART NO./REF.NO. PART DESCRIPTION B/W Q I CHECK REPAIR CATEGORY I MINOR INTER. MA CARRY IN SERV. 0 0 C I ON SITE SERV. q ❑ C l CENTER SERVICE ❑ 0 C t +k r CRT REPLACE. El C SERVICE AS TV.r ' +:> n U STOCK MERCH. 0 0 C z n''' L� 4 TOTAL laQR CHARGE K l( ! 0 'Z •UST. " . ;...* TECHNIC N' SIGNATURE TOTAL PARTS CHARGE N SERVICE CENTER - DISTRIBUTOR INFORMATION I CO Jam' . .- OTHER -4 R®8R'S REPAIR ` NAME 1 = 12816 NE 124TH 8T.,Sum J SALES TAX CV 1" KIRKIAND,WA 98034 E.7? 426$2D-1200 FAX 425-825-8109 CODE GRAND TOTAL CD . 701.72 • C0 COPY 1 e COPY 1� 0 . col G- O COPY 4 COPY 6 Y �' ._� ' 4s.-laS0-dS00.EVX 4S2-GSP-24Ga 4'f' i cAS- TOTAL P.01 - Page 1 1 0 cz '4% CITY OF RENTON . " + 1055 S. GRADY WAY '•'•'.;-:.-'::40.b,,N.UNialk",r,":• •Ab RENTON, WA 98055 10/24/2002 12/0000041 e• Air,c0 VENDOR: 068843 SHIP TO: ROBB'S REPAIR 12815 NE 124TH ST SUITE J KIRKLAND, WA 98034 • FOB Point: Req.No.: Terms: net term Dept.: FINANCE DEPARTMENT Req.Del.Date: Contact: CORNEJO, RITA Pre-Assigned PO#?: Yes Special Inst: QuanttW Urnt Description Unit )rice Ext Price Audio Repair for Camera (videe) 174.08 '' '..,',•",',„;17 77'7;1,7- •,t,',4;.;,•,:,•;.-,',•••;•„ • „•?•„;-, . ••• ;••• -;• •-,;••„•••••• • • ' '7"7C, "• rr';;',;.; - : • 777' '• ' ' ":' ' "• -••• ••,; ,r „ :"3:: 7-••••7•7::/,'• , r •-,•,•••••,-:-••"•••.-•-•••••••••••••.•:• •7, 'Tr, :7;; '''''''''' " ''•`• • , ""- . - •- SUBTOTAL 174.08 BILL TO: TAX 0.00 FREIGHT 0.00 TOTAL 174.08 • E 127.000000.004.5710.0010.48.000000 174.08 6511/4/t,Ge.'NZ/ 6)(i-lr- A.Ithnri,cari Qirinnfl Ira Authorized Sianature OCT-23-2002 09:47 FROM ROBB'S REPAIR UUI.JXY TO 1425430651E P.01 v FORM ORDER FROM:NARDA.INC.,I NASD.10 EAST 22NPSTREET, :ARO.ILLINOIS G0148(31?Z 95.3.8950 —ter - —. . L,J /C A Co l+ fl C.A UN �S'1 NASD 19e9 ❑ LA 3O.R WARRANTY 0; PARTS WARRANTY Il NO WARRANTY • BRANDS 1 l La �0 � ( I r • l CLAIM NO. �:. rJ6._g-..1-% A 2 yr 0-- .�F62744G-2 . (PLEASE PRINT) CUSTOMER'S NAME(LAST NAME FIRST) FIRST NAME SERVICE CENTER NO. 4 AD ESS ` . O �� I t I •i i i i i t 1 1 L.Q..Jcl c W MODEL NO. CRY . STATE . "' IP'CODE •'AREA CODE . HONE R UMB �f il CUSTOMER'S COMPLAINT 'DEFECT CODE SERIAL NO. O /i ,., /� V1 AL).D to 712-oE,t..�M.S . // E. WJRIX'.0. Z.1ES1Cot O - DATE PURCHASED Cj DEALER'S ME. CITY MO. DAY YR. 4't) SERVICE ERFORMED(CHECK AND DESCRIBE BELOW) DATE SERVICE REQUESTED .Zr: MO. DAY YR. ADJUSTMENTS•OR q ❑ ALIGNMENTS 0 LOOSE CONNECTIONS ❑ PART(S)REPLACED 0 OTHER ' O--) 1 1 l I 0 2 EXPLANATION OF SERVICE PERFORMED MFG,CODE I REF. DATE SERVICE COMPLETED MO. • DAY YR. a o •Rep l aced below listed- parts and .real ianmen CH Q8 PRODUG�T WORKED ON? Clean rel-ube adlu? and tested TV STEREO OTHER \ a TIME STARTED TIME COMPLETED TIME ON JOB COLOR 0 ❑ ❑ s QTY. PART NO.1 REF.NO. PART DESCRIPTION • B/W ❑ r`` U I CHECK REPAIR CATEGORY `' 5 I on MINOR INTER. MA C _1_ _Mir jack CARRY IN SERV. 0 0 C f 1 Headphone lack •• . . 5 100 ON SITE SEBV. ❑ ❑ C I O • CENTER SERVICE 0 0 L 1 �� f] --.TT REPLACE ❑ 0 • C ---_f Z9 `S r I STOCK MERCt1. ❑ ❑ C • )(3i Jf� o - ' SERVTI A �,'IL •+ PLETED • TOTAL ARBOR CHARGE I � -�.-� . 150.00 -�--g . TOMER'S SIGNATURE TECHNI IA GNATURE TOTAL PARTS CHARGE on SERVICE CENTER • DISTRIBUTOR INFORMATION 10 100 N _OTHER .....I 1ar16 Nei2f7H Br.,8UffE ( AID,WA Q` NAME SALES TAX 426'8 1200 FAX 426-826a109 14 108 1 CODE GRAND TOTAL N 174 }08 COPY 2 I Ht UkNUSI I tU YHUNtH I Y IS LJ I§NU I LJ INJUMtU UM 1'MU 1 tU l tU I U 1 r'It AMOUNT OF THE ACTUAL CASH VALUE AGAINST LOSS OCCASIONED BY THEFT.FIRE OR VANDALISM. ESTIMATES INCLUDE ALL PARTS. LABOR AND HANDLING ESTIMATE • $ UPON CLOSER ANALYSIS,THIS ESTIMATE MUST BE REVI: YOU WILL BE CONTACTED FOR APPROVAL TO PROCEED. • RECEIVED BY DATE TIME REVISED.ESTIMATE - / / A DIAGNOSIS/HANDLING CHARGE OF$ WILL BE MADE IF EQUIPMENT INVOICE PREPARED BY: IS RETURNED AT CUSTOMER REQUEST'BEFORE SERVICE IS PERFORMED PLEASE SEE REVERSE SIDE /L EQUIPMENT RECEIVED BY I HEREBY ACKNOWLEDGE RECEIPT OF THIS ESTIMATE • 1'1 r / • x O DATE b-�i• �,�1 TOTAL P.01 Page 1 1 C.) �'.4 CITY OF RENTON + + 1055 S. GRADY WAY :_r : �p4TE g it �, O v"tuMi3> R : �: NTo� RENTON,WA 98055 12/6/2002 12/0000177 VENDOR: 063685 SHIP TO: PROFESSIONAL VIDEO&TAPE INC PO BOX 23967 TIGARD, OR 97281 FOB Point: Req.No.: Terms: net term Dept: CITY CLERK Req.Del Date: Contact: CORNEJO, RITA Pre-Assigned PO#?: No Special Inst: `-ans. "i^ti.`Y� • %x: n,y,c yf.':•«.::..a^r'r "R�':»/„''�"-,�:�`% t"r ,. Fs,� .,,a.Z <.,,f ,.'"tr�:.�,;-;"c'' „,4 >p ., m'^;; �rzx�•>�4 . �;� �',. ,<,�, sari' `oi: ,,.€':Y,�;-� ��.. , �- :��,tl�riit�Pit" �,.,,.�s Eact��r,iccr:� tau�lttit}t,:'c,. ��.-�: •.�+ S c eta>.;,i+.r<.�ek�''.�C:r�-',,,. !.._._,. ..4., � "x:K°'`;+,.. ,:r,;�Y F:k^d �., __.-:..� ,...,. �.,aP,.. ... ., ,.,..«-n THIS IS A REVISED PURCHASE ORDER �',-�>;;;�.''R^ :.a«� ; ..MO�r-.r,��.�•°:.-r_."%�`�. �T.>.s;S'rxC 11VY3,GAxMf,CO�,42F,a:i`D.-.-,;lw'9tpzc�;�:''&'xi',sA`.•?^<:C,._E.SS�^��-;`Isn«�;t�?�:,yt;.s�. .2^3�,,1_�``':a'."-vrwY7..�',�t.a>.tr:�..;..,,<<a::;`«.F-'_;r�:t•as,`r,::��St_.<�<,�,...^_g','w;,'�:',r.<,.�::��.`.e�.�'.•..'-'.t:<� ., F g`- 7L7,x " -74,yt(3 h t,kr �.:...; t'�'C',:.= �w.,..«.,.,...M.�......,,L:r•�..9asx" h:L>;.:9:"� a ,..�..�.....i,,.» _ :t,�..s;a.......1 .,,».k..,w,�...w�£a:5:. krd........,., :`«�,.''z `!T'?>?,ah. 4'K�"'a,+,i"�. _ :5??si,:.r.^vr.�?=.x'%E�°-¢-„.fl• „s,.e3y?Y�,Gv`e _ kS?S^;,n.,<^tt:r.;,-,,.`."c'+' .''.'`,' -�y�":"ie ¢."r,-'�e.-,"',4z,V_�; . 'o:{,>:.}:.''- u.1 x .w�+S<�'".-A^':ri':.;�f•: " '„T a:?'.:d ,S^• Fr <r^�:�h'' v,_g E..?i. )'<a.,r 4,,:L W4�. Eo ,.#.-v..s•�'=--,: ,'?%4•t 'C <-'}., 4 JFz:k y,y"r'"r,,,,w"+°3: • - G.,�<..�� •:;d-,_'chr' '-;a}�'=�:. ti`'=.° ''4,- <- �-t°�- . :.�... ..nfi. > `�k_i:o +.F,-:..`.=;•u-. -¢�. „i;'c: ?r, � 4,, �. s.,,m'�:�).`-.., l� �+.:z<a:.'t`�3'a"��.``�w:z,r.'t 3a:zu,:.ss�.".y'•-.v��'<�'.�c,3k'.- ,. ,.rr..x:.r,-..>?s,L:'`'k,��L^:,ax''�°.�.,:'��,Y,.m.�s�::.i;:z� ;.;vM.,es�ro.<, .. .,.�., ,�,r,x:_.....,r>».~<«.n,,r'^�-a•;.s;;..., ., ,st^:`a«�«'rx»,•^�'S:xsar•�y:r. „"y.?:.r^ :";_;<., ..,;,y,",-;r'^,zz; ••--rz,,;s;»am a.5"K`.''>>. ,,.:.fj',x'an'_c":'..:;'.." :6;;9.;r,.;:475 ^r,.y,"::,r13,,, x2- h;}vi i';`n ,:hive v.<.,,•.=?';',;:.;-::}. a.....,..__..,..... '•3nriv.'m;aµa wc�M' -nn•.... >, ...';.x.'^+••v •,�. m:.. '.-gar^.;e,."pa,3..rn •-e.y..y»,r,+•:Ln,.:•��,.--'<,.:'rx,.:r.;-a,.<r,4.r„-.r>r ,�3,,<,,,,:•` ,<,.3 r .;,-_t^--;y,,Yri ::Gk: n.`--�::.' `:.''.,�:.a o:;t31:.:»'..F.iM.rf._, r i;':-"Y,.,.x.�.�...ci`7 ,w.._.,.w,.a,.�. - ww.<;i `-�':<.' ».._.-a�':'9• •�':::�::ase,' ,a r. }� .,yy..."<• :fe:vx-.;4's. .� ..g..,^�r°' ,'vca,-n:<-r'<e., �.sEyrs; �. 3;?��r":"." t..:'C,t m^�'1xh^',qT-:•v-r'?. 'rm: ; 4'. `� .ez��,r '",�.',.° .«a..e, ry:a'3a._"''.`...,C,"r::S%'.'.ui `bk'SLiVv<�''x'Fs.''':��.,ti',ti wsa_..............F:';:.J,,r%i• k+ \ :. c..i,v..:�':dXi':'}.+...,.w....-..t:;S.ti'.''.LSL'<.W,xbmia<X.vnn'::w',.C:+vCk;S;IA.<;S�a.'..:..�.:.:.,...»>i,.kko.'�h «?�"^,:•<'•Y'�i4.4 x - Yn...,..-...xrym ».-,-,.-yev;.;,p...< ......w,e...,: .w.-»..,y••X,.v-_.�.�,.. ,nw.- ,_..�»e'<-%Y;T,"i' ^am„�,n+m^ .^.T £,r<�i,,cC :?:`.�:..`J'y. ,<., ,y,a.�s-m; ,:4.5, ,fir ,r $.v'..n '".',':G":�,i',",.>',,C':emx r �.'°.' Y.:„:s' v c�.�''��-, %ytv a .t� �" ,.c2.4..Sr__.. aaV.w.-.,....v..v b,.va.`:i,#.S::.i,:6 l ..,..ax•t<7«�<Y ., a.w.£xw'"wa'W..'u.?.'4Wswi,:'i�,u..v�iLdm:•S>"'..a.n..»,.>sJii.i?i+:Y:wAw",..:.'1 ' '" s,..t we,i».ww,uraw+n,.k.,n^'Sk'di..bw.a':i,"i.,.4,]+'N:•:,...z.w,.u..'..:°�",u., '"l»�'...,W`;Wc•'..w':lu,aci« .'C('..Y :,alto- _...L m..¢ :c-+?":., v,;,�;... „-_.,..-'-��^''•s:*.;cns-.„.x.,;.n<"�„ 'Y+-tr ---•r-�.r, -r' .:::zr,'•:rsrr_-„�•z:' �pa„-r�,., ._ .I:.r>r.^+-- ,.w.Y 'a:`...`N,.*.▪iiz..o<-..aa.vbt�.e wrn::'r7..i..':r:,='.,..:..,,<.,..,.';,?c..,,..a>w...:e.'.,r:,:,r`iw.,.«aSC'w.::.__�%a.:«.,`-."/..•."v�»�zo-..b'.• a;:...taoaw„s:.vw.,:ma s,.h..,,..�.Y.;a„o-k,:::::o o�rhus<> _...a.W.,..,.,.,.,..zoa..'rv�4.'„a.,,ie:�.<::o,€,......,7.,a,y u.a`>F_.'.�.'"t_.4.' , 7;'ar7 ,a7 gip,., ,.•.-.-'-'.-S77,";�. 37,7;z;'-', ,mr,`R%,',- ',-a^ ,ra;.�„` ..;?s, - ..Y=" ,-•°»^';,q: 12'. ^,fMTT;� : .,... ,... . :<......,• , . ... <: ,... vy.5`w:.;a,, `h":1': a'v.i, a 4:: R.xn��;: :,<.<:-':,. l.. ..,..,. ,. ,. .:,... :t ., a�.'� F`.•„p. ,iTy..n :-t;,':;' >r 3, 3.. , ??t tf �+',,.»„v,r :foc�ej>_ h, - %;F'?.'Y .e kn ,.,...«..v.,a,..._....<..✓..«,a,.i.-«--".H...,.•.,,Kii:.m':,.atw,v'i•+'¢w>ui:=a-:r,>../..m..w-_..,.zw..,...wa.-....�.,. .'„'..L".+`:,: �.Y:tey«at+k...e+uYvs...Srv.,U+.tiiu..w:a 'rS� ^<`�;.-"'^• ",Y'"e' 9?rv•':S"-'.<"':'f- .rftir., 7J:'),—'nv,+?m5,+r'':TZfr.;r'?t"'}Yt",f;xf;."rw w"•`1. '%"-1Yc":,tz,. 5f 1 v.,-<«`,w,r•>,,,•,aX bCr;:.',v'0:*:"-n'`-t';:—wT'!G7".•M1^s+:;<w s.l�'_.<'""?.•.'°" ^'C:'i?;:9.y".- 7. T �'::ti`.-�'>'<� `i`<'i.' 1�y4. -; S 2. /,, w,� • -• Y,- .;!':7'i-2„> :'�Dj"FZ' •`ti•'.5`>D: z'i,M r... - �'K:""1 -e:k'_ •%»H.mw"-`r<",x'.;..:,�`--5•.' .,a:.,;,..:,u::.>r-...:....::.xuax::ak::..xc...•" .»..z...�';.,,<.._.-....»x.,,.:a.,:.� k,..... ay =n :.!-x�..,�:,, _ .a.tS.,a.,....« v'".:n�..='vi:> x<.,. :+, z�'_ r:rc<,= `�<x: -. �'r><"^"-x ') *tsea;}1r�+: c:;'7". �-:r. rnga'£:';r+.ati",'.pG)`:-,2;.+ .4<..:..,..: ..:..- .:4 ...,,'...< .,,a'..-;v«y,a..,,4•"z>.¢,.,. :s.,; ` .s '. �'.H•', 7 ;'F^.,,..,c:<:,�,,.`'a;, :.�.. .Fi.. ......,,:_-.�,.£,._......<.:.:,:.,..>+.r«,'.,.:<....-..,:.�.w<...<c.,.:.:�.'..:.,.:.,.r,...�:,.a...,:.Ywr<.�.�..,.a.:/,,,wzt�'.w,:a�...sm..�:.-, �,'{.r';:�i-..:..,.. ,..'�.a ,..m:7i.4�Yuk.� .w'=".._.:�:t'sti;�ii:.2aa;ru�'r wa.a.,,,...ww..�xL.�._.x.n;''u<..�...,..,,� .�M,`.�..sT:k...:.1.�e.:,"w`�,•.il�'::�: "?";S:";•L-> ^,"7'_rl *'ciFS-'-. ..,�.,,,.f.. .'Y<. 'L;�a_r• 'c,-.2'.'� "`:4T^?,S,z3-,.,ice vv-1-,. v..`"','�t;'vq"_•m•J:T,!,v"CS^ 121�"x ,S 1: } �' - c.y• e-^r. 'T"":tl., S'a-'L:.,. a4 t z� .r.. :-:n,".i.' dam;"'"ayw„i��<,•i".:E: '�.ec Yil>_ :�:„'�`."c--., ;,'e• „<;:%°:y'�.�;';:`:.,%,.,... `'"a '4 _a:r ;iS:dA�:?' '.,.,u:,,�.>..._.,.-s..>ex<.;'�u• -�,.aafM<-x:a,..,u;.4'`,::��.,,,,¢,«.,e:.a•,:., ,.,,U`�;,ry. _..,.a..... � .a. '..aw>. :„77 Tq.- ;,•s . ,Y;F'-c^.s�-•>< ..,xK., .fig,• -.P"',s., -•x`r Y £ .. d.,.,.sY .'s,a.«.St:,Cak'SG....:vS',At.,G;::u':....4......u•..>.v u.......tw..s.,.s.w,.«.,�,E! $':a4.�a?ww::w:L' na«,,......,,...,...,.,.,._'s.,...",at�.,<.->t,.,ox,.,.i2 �`ti'fw:iia� zi»':.,..,..,«��$t..,...°..,.w... ...'1`''..•.<,:.:2.w'$1m'�v"''`,:s:.:Y.".w:;wiv..�d:, ari:»:'::A'y 'v,.wt r_^;'q,y�,Ti,-.>vx.Ct"'z'..,'„", �.'v-S_:'^,C"^! £^q;`f.'Cs:¢'i f Y.tt 1€Vv ..Yi`^":.."",*" �e!.T_•:m� t}:v.0 "'S,`,a_.:^77'; • m:.f_,. .C'. .'.'"-tl('•-r"'y,.._•;C•F'» .S, • ..A. .rt.. :i:i�¢x'Y,.`... „`F..,,'1t'.'""w, 3.1 i.. .F,, .iu,xbz.� �.'ys M n4°L y,7W _4r .'`r,. gym,. F: n=nri'" C •}F'S A. 'k • , kC '�.' ..:A"'xi:''::'":"-• .e _ , '`:.lF'us,,•r, a+.ts �__a :a�'3':ti%�.>w:,s:,...,..,....r`......r.,."w„+s...M�-..:4s;...:..<.,,utt,,.'•��.<.%'', ro� ,_.s._,,,..:w>..,.k��"��' .su.^'• ^,"8..:+L:.-C<=^'Pre';-, 'a!" :Y::t'%•w;°:a,;� ,,,p-`>,,, •y,;, vYrw:r"°<4:4r;-+f?¢: ,.'C*;•r•F ,.4':r^.,.- s„'F:.w,Y.�.:s:.yr ,'*�,n i*',`3"".,,>:;c;^v.^,-'r„ `5'�4.. "4 "-,wxi.'•' ,.7: tiC mi"-^"v,"%:`"'" c;sT'..":;;;*Z '�.:3A'>',,�, v"� "°✓'",�;n, .:.-�,..-k;::.n- m<:�. .i,<-::r...ry., ,:a<.....-. le:s 6'GdiK. .• .<,. .,. .,..,..�~<_ .:-.:.,-...^-;'r..•�":•,..,.....x ;...,-.r,:z'y,✓ ..:a'_. ::.'��•:>:iz Y..t:^ -af:�..,c,. ,4�:v: ,�:o-::r.r :'t^a ''�''. '.1k.Y.�,.�� .*'Si+i�Y .. , . <..ry ,..�......<.,,...)..,,.,,,.,,,..._:......................•.;".,,r X•".... ,.v a.°..,,..,,,-,. ,..•,.......-t,),.:.:ba.:,xmiJ",:4'%s;,._',ur::'...,...: r .h. .,....c:"f.-"•.,��`,g;,>¢...., rrs..t<'',:`.Y}.,,..:, ...,.,. ...,. :'„�,i ^':F s,'"a':a•; .'�".n_>... SUBTOTAL 8.527.07 BILL TO: TAX 0.00 FREIGHT 0.00 TOTAL 8,527.07 - 3 _::'-�<'� �..;;.�=':::.�:,:�':', ,:;;=,1nlb `=0ril"e"r-.�uh�tionNurriber"�` �.a, Ami�unt�: :� � >�� ,,. .,.-..•!'4�... I✓<._ . ...,,.....,� ��, ��":,.,_� ... E 000.000000.012.5140.0030.48.000000 4,263.54 E 127.000000.004.5710.0010.48.000000 4,263.53 • • Authorized Signature Aut orized Signature p6 fr, )tiodadr , , . . . CITY OF RENTON Invoice `..' PROFESSIONAL YIDS.A TAPS INC i0i10 S.W.WA/SAVE A : SUITE1111 DEC 3 1 2002 fY11It[Sip) . ,. NV(»�(. , .. TIGARD,OR OI42 a3d1 • fins FAKI A8 6-T2 i CIT`PCLERKSOFFICE AG� 1�7 � -c s : l2 - 6ou, 000. 0/2.. $ b. 3a. 'ff. coao00 'Z G3..r't lrll L(i `,tlil I.Y. City Pe&filler' hr onRM721 71,% /2)7. o131). oo V.r-7l o,/u, ca, oo0 o.o SfZb 3 5 3 foss SollthGrniyW.y Renton,WA 9t0SS ' ^ Aden RomigV.Walton e rx.AQA r 44' 043 b S(- • • N:O IJI.rIs1.13F ft TI FtMLt', RF•t' !!..:H►1.', '. UIh�':: ' r.O 1t• • ,.(e,.."0•.(01 C • Yatb#f i NEt 30 ' Tit t 12/74002 I UPS nett i 1 (jI l AN II Fir..°:. •' .I1I h11't ('()}. •• 1)I '•.(:ItI I tO i ' t Ell{ 1 1 A( H .• ..:. f MOt11Jt . • . '. '3 t 0` . �i, ..... i; ., , • r,. i •: : •tii/101t' l �GIRdp1 .... ,105,00, ,, .Ms : . 1;AC1id • : ` . ., '. .. • • •.. `• 405p' -.: MOOT 1 $CW,15 ioay:e/.1611t 40.00 . 40.00T t :• . .••Z' .r: .r ., • .''' , . , • , . . , , ,K00;;r.. . .. .• ;.19s.0OT i • ;iii'y. ,` 20.0a y�220.00 I •;-r• ! • • • Y. •TiU . • r I: i ' . . ..y!•': + .._ e /• . ; •.... :I ... . , 4 1• • '686.07 , +VIDEO` I,. is; I• r•.. rr: ... ' r,. ... ii Stt of e `E ApsrovaL R ta1sUR O/ dItems :; r S 7.07 �� TOTAL $8, I. • • • ti • Page 1 1 • • ° �*"t CITY OF RENTON • A A r `a, ixc x;?i + + 1055 S. GRADY WAY :: ;I. AT£ s„' - E4 ; x)zwu BR yr • RENTON,WA 98055 12/31/2002 12/0000186 VENDOR: 040001 SHIP TO: JW TEL-TRONICS INC PO BOX 1282 • BOTHELL,WA 98041-1282 FOB Point: Req.No.: Terms: due in 30 days Dept.: FINANCE DEPARTMENT Req.Del.Date: Contact: LOMBARD, SUZANN Pre-Assigned PO#?: No Special Inst: ;ram.; n'3,-•. ;<. _Vf„>- r'i.'� ^'fk:: '<4Y'n„ F•i Ai,t¢-.. "'fa :y�"' f,.<;s i-i? ice'4J'J.,,.. „ r x,�:w�Quafiti„ty:��.=..,•U#�it.3�;. a...,...r,...r:'Y:_.fn,.�«r,..,",.,,...a;:�a?:'�a,.a.,,�'x�,:.t�,"Rescp.ib�::,,.�,�: ..«�., ...'�=�:��:>.<,.z...^, ,.,«..�f .,,>� ...:�. _....... . Ql � SERVICE-REMOTE CTRL-CHAMBERS-INV. 102666 326.40 .h. .-.:,:rr-•-.,.«• ,.rof'-" »r,,�,'<y:;'s^rr.;r:;�s-x';;F?g;a.;,r, „�w,.��7.., ;;�^c,"nr,«,.<s; 's>✓.., •F�<cs`�.,`^>,^,�-.>"'m r. •� "2;•, -�„=:.r: :�c`c�':;.'-• �< C rt • 4" n •zY":' "^:%�, '^�'��; . ..._..>,.ri.-5.:`i„5'�a.,.,.,r sl.�t^..sa'a:a:':.»u.'`n...q.;�a•.'i;a, °".ti:.:-.:...;��%�.«' `,•'..''.`a�r�,;�.i:�:.'�;..�:'•._ ..r:•,£..._...._•..�..._.,<,.«,.�.�...._«...,.<,..��..«:a.3a;.=.A.,;bcz«.�Z'war��:...,.,.....;.z;:e?a. _: '.rM-..`.."i;:;.ss`.��,-`�'""5;.::�i..ow:�x.ir:1`.' .>x<r: ..,,vi-ar=- ae.�e,...�»s'�:'«w.-.�" '"":ia.'�^•:"''ti".�.> :"7:.1:y`w �;.�'��':':�:y'" ^'a>°i"'"%. .z�:'i�'•.c;,�+-n�•r-��..a,:•;.�'."�,`: '�'�',c>E"s"f".,'.';M" r*a' .. ,,, ,.c r.,, ;P Lt.,.., ka'>z. i?�^^!t>.^ram. •'.4•... �':�i'. Tr�'r^'� --H.7..,< d%.. .vg:•.. _�,<^:4^ '$y�».."�z:i<.<h..;�,W,a ^F.,•�..e:w ..,4'.. »!,;<•.� .i't`�'a:. -4+0'? �-rz.r '-, _N ,z.^i'" a�, <r .>a�;..r<,.. •3.".� • `rca;e••'.• ..'S:`': <<. '<.a Y3t,q.:," ,-F... ;''4i'i:_.:.•,%{,_.�'.(;:'�:-•."i•, ;:.� :-' ;:'-�i`�v t_._.t s:?'. �;,.,oax, ��.:_e_M,-...-..s.'."n•,�r•.:+:,,..:y'3:;:u.;�s.::°:3:4".:::,.�_,...._H,;.:,:.�„f•..s..,bei`r..'-,:z,'2::�..,&:c::a,.,.,izaa.,.,:...'_�.,..<';.c,..a„y;,x.r;:';.��:,:._�`�_.....'.ci'-i.;::;..,x.,,a.�rxr.'y"4:•iii"'�-^_�:.:�:3t�.z..z<.<,:.,�•::�.x:-: �...<;��s k, �"d::.: .'• ,..,..wz .<>.r<,w''-• ;.,�.-,. _ <»rq-ter.,..,�.,-�..w."-..',,^,., -'^7'.«,y.-s'W'^^ ,.,i..^„' �..... aa,,-.: .�<,�.> ^"��S°9:n'-,'"'=:^%,;�`:='-'-'"`"<%".�- :^c,,•2^'f;;-,,';'-'zYz;r ccx 3""• -C} �'P'i s••3F; %lo ems'! bw..:.0".fi.�<'4,sw`SW• ,'•� °'�•. ''•\•'. //«�a '•::f�'a1:r'tii.'::iwa�C�'e,k,,"`sz^..,,:«<'N»"<ta�,`v�'":a.....3wi,.,• ..,�.sSS�:�:,°V,'d"6'dut...r«,w.Y'...:at:n'▪ �-u:w1 • s�a�"T��`�.5«u.1E<taxl....:».'k,...,.�<.�•:.cc:;:....,+_t...,.....,i•.«'..>:e'taf,.. xm,„..:,5.„<,,.zn.,. z;- «.1r«,n«- «e�;.<+x�.r !,,'::",' :a"',r?' sn-, .,�-'°7'S..,F<'_:""`- %4,,q<- :.r�• avw.- .a•:.;✓E,'? sR.,..�,.•�.,-t,.. •:**^<a..'ti<- .•_';;�'•r•.•,r'xr,n«;:.'a:' ,-�.� ">.,�•?` ,is "'.-', :P. ..s... :A.' �'F r ...•r' .k• ti. i4i ^ zy.'e'"•..�<ii:'�t.'er`'aixL..�l..u,•.<..�.asx.:ifvl,::'r:G"..aa"F�<'n'x. <a 1".w..-r>i.5`,.• 3-w:..<a:.n,<�3a..a.,. `"'L>au..'ek�.i:-ieG�•,<'"�•'Y'..,__aw:siSastia.'I.i:.>»...n•'i3i`•�• ir'u'c'•'.fact4x ws.,. ,:«m,.-.v-....,w,-:.;<,;;r.'.:rse«>-.;c•:- 't`7�:�-" ..:;,fir M�. ;,;, .,.f. -�.y.«m kd`C?<;^a:";;'t�,"+�°t; e`•'F;57'»""' s.�3..`M?v.•".":,a^"< '"?. " z`,'t' «d nr i�w'�: r�-'a„'•........'y*�'a.......«_M....a..,i. :.'.-.e,...«........:_�.,�......,a.,".:',,:�:�:f:•r�5.'•;'�•..._..:a`3as""'�'e:.::i::�i:'...:�.:..,:,.,«..."�a:::'«;...�.,ck:z�?...a�' ..r•'-;.ax.<v-.,r^-.-e:r-.m.,.wr.=rwu.,ae .y<.s,..r.;,,•.,;r;. .,.,, _-r.^•,r%,; ;z..s..,r»^.^•.,?^_.............:.,.. .:..2 E.�:-:,>-ie ".."°:.TY.a .irv�,z�-s•<.T,<.,,e.; ,§La,+.^-.e-c :,a,<;s�:'_..;.ti:,r :aR";�r qr,:+;.-•z;,�..,.:.g,;,xs.':v'X-.w','-,:` ri;." •.Y' ..s, `u-N::....i«x.•,:=i•; a`'-P.s:o+X..a,�''-'J • s<3wfr:.«.,.«..+.av;+.ei,::.:_.<.,.w.<,a"-r•. .� xw,,:..:>xi,,.....-...-,.:�'r-:.a-,r r:x:,•a,.<:....'.x.,ax7:�:x::.`..�a:k�^<.:.�'s�i:::.._..•x-,�rt..via=..�w..,.«ef.:'ai„�&.Ls3.�.-..�...., .a. ,_,:„~'�w.w .„.„,„w,;,;.;- .,yx.<•< a+r,n•-• _ w,••��...,.•x<r ,<-,rm• :.F z f'n.:u'*•' .:;,•e,»;W„'y,_ .a77,<�w,V ,r,''}: i y ITi wT^ `"�•; '-A '%';emu- "',a"i-."is,.. ;:...<,'.^..�. „`S.'a •'\,:y..Y:.>...s .«..,,,. ,i-'r, .,u..,-,,. «S.': - tC`^ :'d".,.. 'v}lie!:^>.:, ,3k ,;-r`i.., i Nr^ a�4M.. .�.'><tr..w..,:,>�`a•._,a:-''k'^'� • "° ".w .»,is;.:i'`-•s.��.,nn.::t.:.�Yi>' 5:;.�a�...:•zSi.c'w:;ai.:'<.:.:.�;«"<i.>:'..':w�:'o w <. w „.Y3..- _ ,^rz:'^yr;...','x-r<• 'c: .,, ..,"-:ya.' a•m.•. ,r r'`.. ^:'k":s`•.:N:;y�..^.,?' .g-i.<'„+,v ",,.-y�,l .sa?r:- ,..,^:;,m x;�,'c>',' :.;«�,..,,„,,,:r.•,c,<.r�.. .<t»•,,, .>..y;»rr .ry-.''?,"' "",ate>%�•:: x�.'".'>">"; n, x.-.e>...<. .{'.. .:",' ..�._:.i ':C,:.�,.,•.z,.,:r,<'^:.G: �:��.,ti.i.:�.:...s.-%�a:e,;.Mz:m:..u: ��a:.._.._• c::�5:>;�i..a<.ax.a �a-,...�v-s3Ei,.i>.�.«..aw_..,,.«,«.:e+.•r4ia•m u<::i°c:z8:'`�.'^''''is x..3,,:. +--f-�•.,.sv,p., ,:7"`"!-,Y:.l v„"^''t> N•x'%�"fF'Sc'A«' `r"•lp^,.�,3?Y`>'S'F," Y:«.'�'j ^",s'v"� ',l'? ;3,- ",�7 " .." ;.a..,�..n•-^rC' :i i•^T?:�,`s,:: i':e%C Y._ 'f'7';X",x.',i<;4a<`--a-'(:F,g{'•. .�' <x.: 'T"• ,a �;.<_ ..nv, i:ro< .s'.E..'�.sf:;,.9" . .'':`s-:<.:z •�.�wx'�,:%,«.> -a.'z-:%:w'e'%:.v...,,..=.N;,.:�«.';„::,'s.:a.a:.�.h,-�:z:^�.�"»:«rwwf;�`:�.``a"<'wsL:,.>..s...:,r,:yiaa...�;>;:` =•:;::::�'�� :;�`>:a' ...,.enA'.a.w.63r.»+-,3T.:3-rs_5•,F«S3.•.,ui«.,.«d.Ev>�.m:.:.::si�.:Y-E`>.'i..i'.:y"•i� v .<.. i 9 t•'t Y..f<?":.' .fiFi%i>r: ,t'i'.».--«_...W,..,»:'----m--rasrc--rr,-.,•-•'•..... rc.....---., ,•.r—<e.-^`:."•n•.�r'-..`,,':'a.-.>,. �a-. �.,»._,.C;^•y,-zC;,..y..;.-'zf;'a•— -'-^ex:l'Y^•t•,.._,.'^,«r,�xRTq:;'^5,>`k, r GS r'• L�'.� "^t'ra's,eS r_t-C':��•-,-•••T'"-S•%�. frvi' JJ a,_r,..`atwa:w'�c:�:',�..".w,_:.`>:.s,:>$.,:'..::.u�.:..::a�-'H.d'�'zl''a.::;«�.,.s,:i...,-.5:.;';..�"<:c'xc,,,s.':?z:::.�,'�:'�c`a.'"'�""�3.'a-�I:a.:..:.- �::::..;'::aa:`•A:-.,n..,,„< .v-uaxx.dcGCS , • t.,�.%r�x.:.w',.<.:,�ar<._..'�r,',;"^r.>�r.c'",'`ri b`;:A;;w:K�`,:e-'L.w.:n...aa.•.x,:..:....>"wr:s`'�.'�, ix,x;<.•a.<:.;.:r�.rx':�gl.::'a:e:•w�s'i:;;*,::y.._s...u.'9._;,• 4au.-,<<,d�.,•i�.y3..;;i".,,',,,:-y•.,,.,ti«,.-,d.,SrerYa'«u.;ir:e <::�.!",x%" ;':�•Y::`;:r<.... a•x:^'. - ' '• • ; ,».»,, --., -r,., rr<»•,.�-_.,_..-._ ..::•,<,s'-•--r r'x-. ,x••:v;,-•ti;>,-:-a";.�..-^,'rT=`-e- zy<C ;:t'f'^r.•,s-_....Y:m...<- „'�; ,•.o•,•yz•,a.»>'=';.n`;rs„saw^^.�...^.;'�';-•.,. Kti r-,n.<..t_,>.'--a7^rasa..� e:,--='a •TI :+T".-. »9 ry •3°S. ..y.. ...5.: ryry^^ A 5.<. ?',.5... s'�v.. .'f+v•. i`c- ,»' • b.,95 Y_. ;�:-,<.,a�,.,...:>,.�.,:�v�:s:k`:r:.....n,.,z:'s2 v. «,-«v�+�xa-':�..':..a`::E�,:<^sv�;s:.w.»�,.,.,....':a:.,..c'.;z'�-a�.."x^sia:aN:..,..A."' £•` -r;.f,.,.,..r, _-,: ...7<.;,,. <;' ..,., ;,.-v^ 77,-,..";^ea>'•, ., ^"n', ,�,.,y„ ',',F7 ». .,...1 ".,K4:3 v.. .-x.,Y ,;ram. - -.s ..;;y' : ,'•. ';£�. i. ▪ 'S' ,,y"- ...«,., n-<e.,ri'• �i:`vi`^..«, ._ .,..< ' �r�..x:ti,...Y.,"xrn,•:.., .<. :.:':;>,«_ '`x, °47:':;:., „i.: ' SUBTOTAL 326.40 BILL TO: TAX 0.00 FREIGHT 0.00 TOTAL 326.40 •/^. 'v:L:^ r�.^;✓; i :,:f a' �'F 4j r�(��n::f,3':-` s>p•i,_ h F.; n''ey Q ^7e•.��: ,Acirounf<�Ni�mt�'er_ ><�a. .� <▪ •a.: r_ .. .�:.";W eC . _.< .,,_,._,xp.. �,.,�s�=��<:r:.fi:..,..... ',: .�»>�.< � t ^s.�S� .,;v:�•.>r.< .:^''zz,...,. ..,.......,:.^.. .. ., ,.. .. ':Fti":..n,z.a3`•.. ?^ ,v., ,:�i:'i4,-,,. .. ....._ ..Y.,-,.,.«. n J'•, s s . S' E 127.000000.004.5710.0010.48.000000 326.40 • outhnrbed Sinnature Authorized Sianature IMial or * ()%too0/ P `. Z! pc 00 " c,A,f- Nw P.O.BOX 1282 BOTHELL,WA 98041-12b.. PH(425)485-4739 FAX(425)481-0703 Invoice JW TEL TRONICS, INC. ° DATE INVOICE# 12/18/2002 102666 BILL TO Lori Wood City of Renton 1055 S Grady Way {� Renton WA 98055 19 )21. DODODO� f7Dy Sys p Doty y�.600000 P.O. NO. TERMS DUE DATE VENDOR ID# Net 30 1/17/2003 040001 ITEM REPAIR ID# AMOUNT • Service Call 1151 300.00T Sales Tax 26.40 Total $326.40 Payment is due upon receipt. Interest of 1.5% per month will be added to overdue accounts. We now accept VISA and MASTERCARD. • Broadcast Engineering • Design • Support P.O.BOX 1282 BOTHELL,WA 98041-126.. PH(425)485-4739 FAX(425)481-0703 "Milt Invoice DATE INVOICE# JW TEL TRONICS, INC. . " 12/18/2002 102666 BILL TO P 0 °' Lori Wood i1000 0 8(o City of Renton 1055 S Grady Way .n dQ a r b Leo 0 0 Renton WA 98055 L , Z?. UV0. O0`16. -110 . c)0(0, '(p. 000000 P.O.NO. TERMS DUE DATE VENDOR ID# Net 30 1/17/2003 4p ITEM REPAIR ID# AMOUNT Service Call 1151 300.QOT Sales Tax 26140 Total $326.40 Payment is due upon receipt. Interest of 1.5% per month will be added to overdue accounts. We now accept VISA and MASTERCARD. • Broadcast Engineering.• Design • Support - Service Call /Installation City of Renton Invoice #: 102666 1055 S Grady Way Renton, WA 98055 ID #: 1151 Contact: Lori Wood Purchase Order#: Scheduled For: 12/17/2002 11:15:00 AM Symptom: Remote control systems aren't working properly. One remote control has lost its programming. Service: Discovered that the remote transducer that is normally on the front of the Sony Scan Converter was missing. I located the unit, hanging down inside the rack, and reattached it to the front of the converter. We repositioned the IR receivers in the Council Chambers, reprogrammed the remote that had lost its brains, and then tested all operational functions. Look good. Remarks: The flourescent lighting in the chambers has a tendency to"WASH"the IR receivers with enough IR light that they don't respond as well.as they should. We could install a system that isn't bothered nearly as much by-the lighting'. This system would be hardwired with the wiring run up in the ceiling, and no visible devices showing to the audience. Something of that sort would run around $1000.00. If you are interested we can work up a more accurate quote and equipment list for you. LABOR Technician Description Date Hours Hourly Rate Total John Waist 12/17/2002 2.25 $100.00 $225.00 Labor Total: $225.00 SERVICE CHARGES Charge For Description Date Cost Travel Time 12/17/2002 $75.00 Service Charges Total: $75.00 Terms: Net 30 Pre-Tax Grand Total: $300.00 DO NOT PAY FROM THIS SHEET Printed On: 12/19/2002 �VV JW Tel-Tronics Inc. TEL -T N O N I C S 18823 Beardslee Blvd. - Bothell,WA (425)485-4739 Page 1 1 CO't CITY OF RENTON +1 + 1055 S. GRADY WAY .PYIMIPNWiMilsW C;:iT*R-07-NOM13„'g RENTON,WA 98055 1/17/2003 12/0000209 •• Nrv0 VENDOR: 082979 • SHIP TO: TROXELL COMMUNICATIONS INC 4830 S 38TH ST PHOENIX,AZ 85040 • FOB Point: Req.No.: Terms: due in 30 days Dept.: FINANCE DEPARTMENT Req.Del.Date: Contact: CORNEJO, RITA Pre-Assigned PO#?: No Special inst: il;.1.1.aeriritiiika.AMtifiMZRierffailagEZZAPNWaSUP4,40:1120,0:10,,ailitta6,,,INKtega WO'agViikiee.05fi Projector Bulb for Chambers Inv.#758193 270.92 ',"-:7g5-71-7\T,,ZRTkW„'EM'K'Klzr.:7VC:aMRMRMT-Z-nrj7-rPTZXrrf-MMRPF'RZIWWI:Sitl-VW,W':' 7a177-S3'.7;77-4M7P.M.7 W`;',7,171, 3g.,17,4 iM,M2:13-5,WW:FriVfeilffiSN,7, v.W<M, A4-A,M774,72 ',.:t',17-P71:77:715WF-13,43577F07,1'..4‘; MIWZM-WF-77477:1:77 :7.5s,4:70, ),44V-V771KPP-,•.'"V7=ni'WeIVQ77,, TiVt2,P4q!&?i3O,7 ZYM,V4?-,1,:tr.N:ag0 7'.4**I'17-r-WiT:c1,NM,S>k ;;F:Z;ZSWEN*Ti 717;c4VA-M.,,rilarM,V,17,7*3=751§7.7*77457,'::FZ:=7";776rAML%%,--5;,„7-77.72WWW-.717437g;74:r.747XMA-77.44'74 7M-37,an-TP7C374 7:727'.',FMT,MVUV,-!,,4477, ,FiFt7rg,',:WWMFZZ:gr,.,17,4•ViekiW.A.-:?n7M1.57M,R7,11:111<7414V7:7 AtantgbraL.,.. `4,ia-vxim . • -PRPT7f 7127-77, RIMER7,77:7,17 ,77?"7. 777F.,7,7 777,:m.prz7,47.172V77,77.77777-Fqi5,`,7,771,:qr7g74•,:r7g7.MWTIWT:Mt77557F77.754 V-5,7 :-,47;p7:77!:74.0,,,-W,179,177;p:TARRel -S4'Iialf fr..1A'Vitaa2::=Z7a ••;1: r,777-7 717 7,'-74MTRTIM 7'7J",ATVV-7771:77-37P1,71.17-R55,r4VRTArTZ%:a77W,Mi757,1770.3:7WikVka3.'j':',:f-TA, st,4w TW'1,7771.777,'7aTT:*7774<17-ef*:27:7-4TFM703747.75UXMTW'S: : ::,M7,,T,T,%:;',7,147,7RT 7FAi ZsaYA-41&. ,:-7,m7.73755rar-nr,77.,,r37,-;*.fwarmm-P,“7-.4"frz9mrsia'477,01.77R:,%';-..1.gr,54xv Z.477.70P77,7,5711":71FA:7474:770z, 7PW7F,V;17;71177MF AM117,72:77.75. 'Z',555%,77:7;*4747M-7. Ty.777~,,T 777-77:Dilu9VR:7377r,' ?-iniMP7MUFV:Z'r1t7i4W1=7-37 SUBTOTAL 270.92 BILL TO: TAX 0.00 FREIGHT 0.00 TOTAL 270.92 CEWAWAHII0i3WitiOra:$001414:01i510000140-MMrWarlitIWOrigaki E 127.000000.004.5710.0010.48.000000 270.92 idea! Authorized Signature Authorized Signature . i PLEASE REMIT TO: INVOICE T R$ E COMMUNICATIONS, INC. Audio-Video-Sales•Design-Service-Installation No. 758193 4830 S.38TH STREET Date 01/06/2003 PHOENIX,ARIZONA 85040 (602)437-7240 1-800-352-7912 FAX Custoer I' / Qd O I ,�( Page m ��OF�RENTOPt • Vefle it 29 77 TIN /1 86-07161 14. ( G'V Sold To: Ship To: . JAN 1 0 2003 ?cc,i27,OD00�.OE / 5710.0O1D,'1.000001 ,I/ CITY OF- RENTON . 1 r CITY OF RENTON RECEIVED •CITY CLERKS OFFICE 1055 S. GRADY WAY01/4`' • 1055 S. GRADY WAY . • RENTON WA 98055-3232 RENTON WA 98055-3232 Pb /216M0 20 9 � t�Ktet:'bate:> ':<:':<Ter«:s:::;>?�`'>< ` » >< ':': ?»>>> '.�.::;�><:"'.�' <': >`:>€<' «><> >:.:;<:;;:;::<:;:::�:>:::;<:»r• >'> `:��>:::::::;:>::::�.:.�;;<::�'•> `� ' '�`� ;:•:>ome..P.O.. .os>> >:::::dale':;:;>;>:`> ' st Iy ...............s..::.:.:...., Net 30 .DROP SHIP 01/06/2003 267490 MAZ • 12/18/2002 12/0000178 4605 ........................................................ ':':` It:':n<�firtigi>f� ;:`:.'•.��`'. {li> � '`�:.`:»>��><': >i«'??Dese i tlon '#?' z >`'«`:`:�� <' ;;`:.`:.?>�> '> DYde� ... ...S / AVA EIK6102907698 LAMP REPLACEMENT FOR EIKI 1 1 0 249.00 249.00 . LCX1U OR SANYO RECEIVED • JAN 1 0 2003 City of Rent3n • Accounts f'a7 MEMO: 249.00 CONDITIONS OF SALE All claims arising out of or connected with the AFinance Charge at the periodic rate of. . SALES TTA ( ;' 21.92 above listed items must be made within five days 1 1/2% with an Annual Percentage Rate after delivery. No returns accepted unless of 18% will be charged on all accounts accompanied by this document. Merchandise returned unpaid after the last day of the for credit shall be subject to 25% handlingfollowingmonth charges. Seller reserves title to these goods until paid for in full. This invoice is due on or before 02/05/2003 iltMOUNT 270.9.2 PLEASE REFERENCE THIS INVOICE NO. 758193 ON YOUR REMITTANCE ,-($LEASE REMIT TO: TRO E COMMUNICATIONS, INC. ::•::.:............::.:.::.:::.:..::... p_• Audio-Video-Sales-Design-Service•Installation No. 758193 4830 S.38TH STREET Date 0.1/06/2003 PHOENIX,ARIZONA 85040 Page 1 (602)437-7240 1-800-352-7912 FAX(602)437-7265 • Customer 21416 N TIN #86-0716114 Sold To: Ship To: CITY OF RENTON CITY OF RENTON 1055 S. GRADY WAY 1055 S. GRADY WAY RENTON WA 98055-3232 RENTON WA 98055-3232 • Net 30 DROP SHIP . 01/06/2003 267490 MAZ 12/18/2002 • 12/0000178 4605 i i€>Iterrr i�li ri t er>> <`: <;z»;z>z`>>0511 > :.> :;;;.............................. ... .................................................... ............................... .......................Ocdere AVAEIK6102907698 LAMP REPLACEMENT FOR EIKI 1 1 0 249.00 249.00 LCX1U OR SANYO • • • • MEMO: CONDITIONS OF SALE ANI014.1[T < ' • 249.00 All claims arising out of or connected with the AFinance.Charge at the periodic rate of 21.92 above listed items must be made within five days 1 1/2% with an Annual Percentage Rate after delivery. No returns accepted unless of 18% will be charged on all accounts accompanied by this document.Merchandise returned unpaid after the last day of the for credit shall be subject to 25% handling following month. � ?N:T<ss> charges. Seller reserves title to these goods 41111111111 until paid for in full. This invoice is due on or before 02/05/2003 UN 270.92 PLEASE REFERENCE THIS INVOICE NO. 758193 ON YOUR REMITTANCE Page 1 1 • Y 0 • C.) CITY OF RENTON az, + 1055 S. GRADY WAY eT RENTON, WA 98055 8/27/2003 12/0000376 VENDOR: 007201 SHIP TO: B&H PHOTO VIDEO 420 9TH AVE NEW YORK, NY 10001 FOB Point: Req.No.: Terms: net term Dept.: FINANCE DEPARTMENT Req.Del.Date: Contact: LOMBARD, SUZANN Pre-Assigned PO#?: Yes Special Inst: Ut 2 SONY HEADPHONES-INV.#101054390 94.85 '17:17:7;‘,77.7.707-f,T737.7. . : 7.7 ixf,7 77:':7:77.75,77777 . .7.7177.7"7777.777: 7777,-777Z:7,77,77:77.7.7‘7717-77-'77 SUBTOTAL . 94.85 BILL TO: TAX 0.00 FREIGHT 0.00 TOTAL 94.85 .................................... E 127.000000.004.5710.0010.31.000000 94.85 _ 711A,C.i,Z4 )64 Wa,,, r ) Authorized Signature Authorized Signature 420 Ninf'h Avenue, New York, NY 10001 • Fax: 212.239.7770 • DIGITALT— PRO • p. r ,Y, 1-212 444-6600 P 1-212 444-6700 1-21c 444-5000 AUDIO 1-212 444-5070 1-800 947-9950 ,.ro 1-800 947 9978 1-800 947-9910 , 1-800 947-1183 PHOTO-VIDEO-PRO AUDIO To Inquire About Your Order Tel:212.239.7765 - 800.221.5743 • Fax:212.239.7549 -800.947.2215 - The P sfessiU"n—['s ource- _ www.bhphotovideo.com pp tapo043-76, CITY OF RENTON /�.__ Invoice No.: 101054390 - 1218954 Ve o C ° 724 i Rif; 2 5 2003 Sold To: T CITY OF RENTON RECEIVED �' 1,1CITY OF RENTON Accounts Payable CITY CLERKS O FICE '1055 S GRADY WAY 1055 S GRADY WAY U 7TH FL CITY CLERKS OFFICE RENTON,WA 98055 1 RENTON,WA 98055 Bill Phone: (425)430-6573 /17. 600. OOT. 57(o. oorol 3/, oo000o Tuvoce•Date. Customer CodC ......Terrn:s Order ler: ate Purclase.0 rder:yu�::.:ax Salesperson S h xpVia.:::.::::::::: .. 08/19/03 15416727 30 DAY 08/13/03 120000376 N7 UPS 3 DAY Qt Q Qt Shi Q Bko Ite m Descry tie >'>`.>><`:' •:SKU# Item Price Amo nt 2 2 SONY MDR-7502 PROF HEADPHONE(SML) SOMDR7502 44.95 89.90 RECEIVE® AUG 25 2.003 City of fken ble Accounts Ra1Q Sub-Total: 89.90 Discount: Shipping: 4.95 COD Charge: .00 Tax: .00 Total: 94.85 Customer Copy Page 1 Page 1 1 Y. 0 CITY OF RENTOisl f=1 + + 1055 S. GRADY WAY V V141 RENTON,WA 98055 10/25/2004 12/0000707 *Nr0 VENDOR: 040001 SHIP TO: JW TEL-TRONICS INC PO BOX 1282 BOTHELL, WA 98041-1282 FOB Point: Req.No.: Terms: due in 30 days Dept.: FINANCE DEPARTMENT Req.Del.Date: Contact: EVANS, DEBBIE Pre-Assigned PO#?: No Special lnst: _ EQPT SERVICE CALL, INV 104482 1,063.90 „ Y;" - 0;:," .52'`-) '"!•?,?7,''', '77727T77777,777777''"'" 7::: 7777777r:fT''7777',,r:--;77,PY•ti 22 22 • ' • • SUBTOTAL 1,063.90 BILL TO: TAX 0.00 FREIGHT 0.00 TOTAL 1,063.90 ............................ E 127.000000.004.5710.0010.48.000000 1,063.90 )8o-11.44.4za. Zdeita Authorized Signature Authorized Signature P.O.BOX 1282 BOTHELL,WA 98041-1. PH(425)485-4739 FAX(425)481-0703 qpirsimmilMai • 61-k-- f �� Invoice JW TEL TRONICS. INC. Date Invoice# iai . D00000, odq, CAA ` 10, 0oi o, 45, 10/4/2004 104482 Bill To �j Lori Wood 0 D ooO D CITY OF RENTON City of Renton pa /02/0a 7O 7 p 1055 S Grady Way `�•� 8 ?OA Renton WA 98055 VAth- o f00D P.O. No. Terms Due Date VendorlD# Net 30 11/3/2004 Item Description Amount Service Call 1538 977.85T CHARTER 116, LAWS OF 1965 CITY OF RENTON CERTIFICATION I,THE UNDERSIGNED DO HEREBY CERTIFY UNDER PENALTY OF PERJURY, THAT THE MATERIALS HAVE BEEN FURNISHED, THE SERVICES RENDERED OR THE LABOR PERFORMED AS DESCRIBED HEREIN,AND THAT THE CLAIM IS A JUST,DUE AND UNPAID OBUGA ION AGAINST THE CITY OF RENTON,AND THAT I AM AUTHORIZED TO AUTHENTICATE AND CERTIFY TO SAID • CLAIM, , SIGNED...,.�, 4d — Subtotal $977.85 Sales Tax (8.8%) $86.05 Total $1,063.90 Payment is due upon receipt. Unpaid invoices will accrue Payments/Credits $0.00 1.5%interest monthly. We now accept VISA and MASTERCARD. Balance Due $1,063.90 Broadcast Engineering • Design • Support Service Call / Installation City of Renton Invoice #: 104482 1055 S Grady Way Renton, WA 98055 ID #: 1538 Contact: Lori Wood Purchase Order#: Scheduled For: 9/10/2004 3:00:00 PM Symptom: Modify the remote control system for the Eiki video projector in the Chambers. Service: 8-17-04: Provide cabling so the building folks could run the wiring. 9-10-04: I arrived to make the necessary connections on the 10th. Wired and tested system. Disassembled the remote unit that normally resides in the rear control room and cleaned and resoldered the connections for the new cable I had just assembled. Unit works fairly well, but not 100%of the time? Try it this way to see how well it works. Also cleaned VCR-2 and checked its operation. It is handling tape fairly well but it really needs a new cleaning roller. 9-17-04: Returned to look at the system again. Discovered that the flourescents in the Chambers were interfering with the IR transmissions. The more ceiling lights turned on the worse the system would operate. I was able to eliminate the problem by covering an unused IR sensor and repositioning some others. Seems to work very well now. A second problem was that the Edit/record AG 7350 VHS machine is not recording any"Normal" audio on the right channel. Proved that the machine was at fault and removed it to the shop for repairs. The machine was replaced with the adjacent unit and connected to operate properly that way. It played on the air a little while later as programmed. Remarks: Wow, I was about to give up on this crazy system when I finally came up with a solution. 9-10-04: 3:30pm >6:30pm 9-17-04: 4:30pm> 9:00pm LABOR Technician Description Date Hours Hourly Rate Total John Weist 9/10/2004 3 $100.00 $300.00 John Weist 9/17/2004 4.5 $100.00 $450.00 Labor Total: $750.00 PARTS USAGE ID# Qty U/M Description Mfr Part# Freight Unit Cost Total 3938 1001 Each Cable,Teflon coated,2 pair 182723 $0.00 $0.39 $39.00 2987 21 Each Mini Plug,1/8"Stereo 30490 f 9, $0.00 $6.93 $13.85 Parts Total: $52.85 SERVICE CHARGES Charge For Description Date Cost Travel Time Delivery of cable 18/17/2004 $25.00 Travel Time 9/10/2004 $75.00 Travel Time 1 I 9/17/2004 $75.00 Service Charges Total: $175.00 Terms: Net 30 Pre-Tax Grand Total: $977.85 DO NOT PAY FROM THIS SHEET • Printed On: 10/5/2004 JW Tel-Tronics Inc. TEL -T R O N I C S 18823 Beardslee Blvd. -Bothell, WA (425)485-4739 Page 1 1 IVY 0 CITY OF RENTON A t= + 1055,S. GRADY WAY ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,( , ,, NUM ..a RENTON,WA 98055 12/3/2004 12/0000749 VENDOR: 040001 SHIP TO: JW TEL-TRONICS INC PO BOX 1282 BOTHELL,WA 98041-1282 FOB Point: Req.No.: Terms: due in 30 days Dept.: FINANCE DEPARTMENT Req.Del.Date: Contact: EVANS, DEBBIE Pre-Assigned PO#?: No Special Inst: ' ---- • • 2 „ P„ , • EQPT REPAIR, INVOICE 104620 284.50 • .•••• • • — • 77:,.71:"7:17 • ':T "•" .- .„ •- :•„•, 'e„.`-,;•%,• • , , , „ ••••—• ,••••••• , ••• g••"?'i;SUBTOTAL 284.50 BILL TO: TAX 0.00 FREIGHT 0.00 TOTAL 284.50 E 127.000000.004.5710.0010.48.000000 284.50 Authorized Signature Authorized Signature ' P.O.BOX 1282 BOTHELL,WA 98041-128c PH(425)485-4739 FAX(425)481-0703 /a60 Invoice JW TEL TRONICS, INC. oU°Uao 00471 I 6-7/0, Date Invoice# b : 48, 00062p62 12/1/2004 104620 Bill To Lori Wood CITY OF RENTON City of Renton DEC 0 3 2004 1055 S Grady Way Renton WA 98055 RECEIVEDp. CITY CLERK'S OPFK E P.O. No. Terms Due Date VendorlD# Net 30 12/31/2004 Item Description Amount Equipment Repair 17702 261.48T CHARTER 116, L'WS OF 1965 O{TY OF rENTON CERTIFICATION I,THE UNDERSIGNED DO HEREBY CERTIFY UNDER PENALTY OF PERJURY, THAT THE MATERIALS HAVE BEEN FURNISHED, THE SERVICES RENDERED OR THE LABOR PERFORMED AS DESCRIBED HEREIN,AND THAT THE CLAIM IS A JUST,DUE AND UNPAID OBLIGATION AGAINST THE CITY OF RENTON,AND THAT I AM AUTHORIZED TO AUTHENTICATE AND CERTIFY TO SAID CLAIM, /, &a PO f _[000 v 7 yq SIGNED,.` V/ Vd (5 °°° I o,00c1S 1la, oold . , oOe o00 CDC • Subtotal $261.48 Sales Tax (8.8%) $23.02 Total $284.50 Payment is due upon receipt. Unpaid invoices will accrue Payments/Credits $0.00 1.5%interest monthly. We now accept VISA and MASTERCARD. Balance Due $284.50 • Broadcast Engineering • Design • Support r { r • ' Equipment Repair City of Renton Invoice #: 104620 1055 S Grady Way Repair#: 17702 Renton, WA 98055 Contact: Lori Wood Purchase Order#: Group #: EQUIPMENT INFORMATION Description: VCR, S-VHS ID#: 9125 L Received: 9/20/2004 10:14:31 Completed: 9/29/2004 Make: Panasonic Model: AG-7750HP Serial: L3TC00215 Operate Hours: Drum Hours: Capstan Hours: Thread Count: Symptom: No audio on channel 2. Normal audio? Service: 9/27/04 Diagnostics indicate this machine needs new pinch roller and cleaning roller. The tape path is very dirty and the machine needs complete tape path cleaning and alignment. Needs new fan (discontinued), need to find a compatible replacement fan. The audio eh-2 problem was caused by an incorrect menu setting,fixed. Estimate$90 diagnostics+$40 parts +$135 labor=$265 total. 9/28/04 Estimate approved, parts ordered. 9/29/04 Pressure cleaned chassis. Installed parts as listed below. Cleaned tape path. Checked and adjusted alignment as needed. Checked functions, ok. LABOR Technician Description Date Hours Hourly Rate Total Dave Pinney Diagnostics 9/27/2004 1 $90.00 $90.00 Dave Pinney Repair 9/29/2004 1.5 $90.00 $135.00 Labor Total: $225.00 • PARTS USED ID# Qty U/M Description Mfr Part# Freight Unit Cost Total 2154 1 i Each Pinch Roller VXL1892 I $0.00 $12.92 $12.92 4459 11 Each Cleaning Roller Pad VMT0321 $0.00 $2.61 $2.61 8617 1::: Each Fan 24VDC 1.68W 60X25mm !P9730ND $8.00 $12.95 $20.95 Parts Total: $36.48 Terms: Net.30 Pre-Tax Grand Total: $261.48 DO NOT PAY FROM THIS SHEET Printed On: 12/1/2004 Jt,4) JW Tel-Tronics Inc. T E L -T R O N I C S 18823 Beardslee Blvd. -Bothell, WA (425)485-4739 • Page 1 1 .S.' -Y 0 „ C.) A az, ''e CITY OF RENTON 0, + NIL + 1055 S. GRADY WAY ','Yi.'e:"..V-':.1 -.PAiT:e.'-'-j'...::::',.1•:!;;.:3 i.::::'e,:4'0.'VOtititleWii,`,,,i -tip,— - RENTON,WA 98055 12/3/2004 12/0000750 • Nr,v0 VENDOR: 040001 SHIP TO: JW TEL-TRONICS INC PO BOX 1282 BOTHELL,WA 98041-1282 . I ...... . FOB Point: Req.No.: Terms: due in 30 days Dept.: FINANCE DEPARTMENT Req.Del.Date: Contact: EVANS, DEBBIE Pre-Assigned PO#?: No Special Inst: liif''..,'?:. WIRELESS MIC INVOICE 104650 543.99 3!;t:721;!--,:74'...--,F17,!2-?7.7c,;;;"-,i,7:-::;:7,R3Fi'F.F,-,,7iF,77:,Yi5,::::..7,- ,-:::z72.:.:,.":,:,-,:iT,-TiT,-7,1::17-,...',7i3:i=-‘PiTgr,-::',:,31'!7,',Y,.;;',N7 T i'..5.F,', .'''f;2-7, s:-.;:::o.3fq;7;:-:;'f.,y;:,,,:g,,,:'j.F:%y,-:N:7:'i-c,-,.fz-!:;',E:,„itgpF:,;;K.,,,,-.,,::;:',LF:::;,7:,-',:..2Y57.,':::;::TKT:-.''f.!Iiy.i:''F:::;::.::::;:::l , -- :K ,,,,T,.,, ,, ,, ,77...: ::::::::7,7777,:•f;<.f,....5:::::z;,--77,:- •,'..;i: N,-.. ,,;::::-. ;,'24i•:.,::,,,,13 ,. :4',...,'LIfe:,4a.:::,,,`;f ,,,:;'.:.'",,'',;:i:';''..":" :,.::;.:, ,'ft„.;;L',,f,!::,::::::L":!:;%"%-;1,:;;.;:r.'`::"..::";:a.:,i,r,'-':'34'ifi::: :-.' T.',:a;'s.'-.?'?;-:,'T:7:1.•?:!:-i.-7.''tc.R,'.:-'....;'?i',r:::.,-;;,..'...:-..:,.-)t:::',.,*.n,.-7.'..7.":::i..;':-!!!...-?".,,,:,:-::?.::::",',,!:',:-.'7;a1a-.7.7,',:gli'n'',7,',77-1,7,--:-.7.7.--;, '"?' '',-;';',7,:',7,:::•:::7F,,,,:7,773-,:,:-:::--:',27.77.,"..7;,;-;51771:::::::',17:7,7r,',7,:::::sn?1,',:::',".;'-:=,.?"::i.17,7-",'7,7:::'7,:;•g:F.,::.-7,1:73:77.3.'",.?,--; !,,,2,-.,......:',';i::::w;1,,;,,,,',:.,-,'...,:',Ai,'-f:',i'A.;:?,1..3-::-.,.:,:::t:3:: :-.n.,..,..,':A.,?..i,:::?,:f:???. V:;..:-."-',:.;2',.•;; I:'Ji.., :',1:2::':.:',......".L..1.-,"::::::,:Z.:1'id,::::',:21,,2:::-:"a':a"::::i:::..."'.7'"•:',Wz!,'S.:•::::::= 1",.tiz-'-i.,-.::,Iif,L,-.1',;,21.:f::::::;;;;;, ,,"!,if.i„"xii',.:-.,,,,"...":ij, ,:;i,:;,,,,,',. .Q.::: : ZU:23'‘:i lY :1 ig,:22,Elt;i7zT::::: i; :: : 11:#1:FFlFgr : • 2 5.-C17ig.fi'7) :Rii;,':',IT;77-:5:::‘;:, 47;:::::: :. .47:,;, il; rr.,-;,;]:;..-::,::,. ..;:,;,.,7.,..,: :,,', ••:,q5:,,:‘,";.:',':',''';'.>i,..';:,;),..:. -,:::"..:".,:•:',J•:;,...iT,,,,Zi';',,, '":23'",ip.::::-..-' ::-.-z777.7,::F,-77.-i:':-,":4';;T:' '`::::'n:!'..":':-.; ;',i,'':',:-,.".-:1-7'47Tif:.-',.:?:"V247T-..."-::-: !;';‘,,,7',.:;.,s,'..:Y.f '5j,: 2Il .t;',iis :; ;Off;17.::ifig:g ,; :yaggy:7, ,,7,:g.:;:::jj:::;,H.:::::3EFe.- :ii.';:3,-- 3,7 : 7.7<Ffg::1; ,;,1-,„::k,, ..,::,,A,'Z-:-.:.:.:x.,u0.-.::,-,:,.:•-'.".. :.,4,:i,..,:.:=.',i:...:-',:,e,:-:',.;,,,:--„":,'-'=":..;',..:::....',......',,-.„,,?.,..,$.,:t::::.,:''.."....:*.......'Dn;:',.;„'«:.;.:;-,'".I:.::.:,;„,,,:f.:::-.:„•„e.7.:7„a's_,-;;:Z..:.:x.:`.:.::,;:,.',.,‘,„,..,....,.'s...;:ad.;:tc.L.-x,-,,';.-,4;.;:J.>-,...,::,,,.:.......,r,ii.:s..4,..:r.,:'-.;,,,-,',, ';,•':.:.i',6:.i.„L'L;:r.,..'4'...",....1-.......:1',:?:;::.. '7•7.1'::::zra7. ,<*`•-•!::::',',n,:, -,, -- - ..., ----: ,,,,7737,-, ,77"-,, ‘. ... , .,,..,,,,T,-;'.'7".?,.;,,,, ,,.; .,v,i;..' ,,".,.>'‘,.',.:,,,,',.;;°,--';,.",:-.7" ..'•'•.;:-•',,,,73'..-,'„:7, .`-':•z,,,:. ':j'f:'':'.i Z ' .:',1.:::ili ';',:• :VA...k-.1:'::;:::!,:ii':?..=., aag,..',':?:;;;Iii,:g2L''..',„ ').2.C.„::,'a ''‘';'',.'::::,','.4,;fik!. ..S,,:i:";::.1.");':.',:;-.2- :,i..'...5,-;:. ..(;N4,i.V...±{ii',S;',.: Y:',.',,,:',';ii.;:;',;•'''':;;2',Vf.a«;;','..:::';: ::::,,i;rii. '..1;?,!°;:,.,:,.,:•::' .',..';',':,..:::::::;1,.., 4.'i,,,`,,, f,-Z7.%,,,';';''.7',",z1-T41:;,:74,,v,"'": ::;5',7,17`.7---;";Y:f,11.:e.:'','..",,.!::',7•J"),;YT...".7.7.7';',;;7,72,..",:-...-'2.-,.. .:F.f:TT.C?i:i7:0i:.'":‘;',',..''''...ri,";',',:',..;::r.,W5,7:27.JX:..-", ... g:77','F;;;`''la',.f.`;',.,7.'';',':.75..'':''''''',`IF:=K7": . .,:i::,": :'''.:''''hi:L;'",.::::,;,?;','Y..:;;.;,i,!.ff.Ikt:.;:a.i.Zi;',',;.,§In.;";-..;-:;?ZrZY:;:,;.2'„':,Z;t :::;)'I2'2_214.:Z.",-,, ,a.ki;.--.:';''''.-':;-K:-:,.:,:::2:"..f !: :i ii;,:::a::a''..',V`;',1-.17::.:.j2;Y:',',.'6'•''zi".1.,:..:,..-L.;r::::',':',:-..::Z::»4.,14-5.:'::: ?.';' ; :'!: iq'!' :,c: .f:, ,N13'. ,. Z', ":49: r:Tii1::::,:1::;f:7 :: :,;‘:':,Z4. ,-• i;' .;!7.;:;; T g. .1,.;,,,; ' ,-]i!,0."<,i;1•j : ik!!,,F47f::::E. :,71.:,i ,, , ,77::,77:,:l.7,,,iZ.'"; i;;Z; py:42ii.iir,i:NI;',..; .'f.i'L '"''', .,PR';'4:';!' ' :',';'1 . .', -:;;:'',;.: 1 : -fl': ,'Rj. . 7F,.' 7; "::• FIf;;.:..:iT:::',-;747CLZ:n::::'.1gF;"::-'' .17;:fg:''''''':;7‘..7,717: '; q :1{7;: SUBTOTAL 543.99 BILL TO: TAX 0.00 FREIGHT 0.00 TOTAL 543.99 E 127.000000.004.5710.0010.31.000000 543.99 • 1)1kAtjk. lx. MA-C.A-4.,rvLit.---knr•-- ' \tegio 'a. Glia€te-,-, Authorized Signature Authorized Signature JW TEL-TRONICS TEL :425-481-0MUS Dec u5 ,u4 1J : 1y NO .UUL r .ui P.O.BOX 1282 BOTHELL,WA 98041-1282 PH(425)485-4739 FAX(425)481-0703 " !!!!!!!!!1:111ill 6\V r21 7\'w frP Invoice dW TEL TROTVICS. INC, ©a • Date Invoice# __. �0 O 0 12/3/2004 104650 Bill To 2� e • ,?l Lori Wood � r�: � ©o0 City of Renton c p D 1055 S Grady Way Renton WA 98055 • P.O. No. Terms Due Date VendorlD# Net 30 1/2/2005 • Item Description Amount Parts Sale 578 499.99T CHARTER 116, LAWS OF 1965 C€N' Cr RENTON CERTIFICATION I,THE UNDERSIGNED DO HEREBY CERTIFY UNDER PENALTY OF KRJURY, THAT THE MATERIALS HAVE BEEN FURNISHED, THE SERVICES RENDERED OR THE LABOR PERFORMED AS DESCRIBED HEREIN,AND THAT THE CLAIM IS A JUST,DUE AND UNPAID OBLIGATION AGAINST THE CITY OF RENTON,AND THAT I AM AUTHORIZED TO AUTHENTICATE AND CERTIFY TO SAID , p d . 1.4060 7S CI d 8(GNEAII+AD -'& Le J- t 1? - � -b''- ay coo Q Ia7, o•-ooa, oo�l. 570. OcI/O 31, oaoadc (4A) Subtotal $499.99 Sales Tax (8.8%) $44.00 • Total $543.99 Payment is due upon receipt. Unpaid invoices will accrue Payments/Credits $0.00 1.5%interest monthly. We now accept VISA and _ MASTERCARD. Balance Due $543.99 Broadcast Engineering • Design • Support • !ttYiewO•pol****.?(O.`ffirD!: 4!'+'t'iNQer•!'h.'A'.'Qki;l.rrrti�r:J+.'M`r'tlfY6'CrNP.nliTrRync•.o�,.•. .. ,� :y. 1: • ...,• ... ..c. .. `JW TEL-TRONICS ILL :425-4t51-U rug Dec uJ ,uq 10 . 17 14U .uuL r .uL Part Sale City of Renton Invoice #: 104650 1055 S Grady Way Sale#: 578 Renton,WA 98055 Contact: Lorl Wood Purchase Order#: Remarks: City of Renton needs a wireless lavaller mlc to upgrade system PARTS SOLD ID# Qty U/M Description Mfr Part# Freight Unit Cost Total 87181 11 Each wireless cardlod lay I EW122P-02 I $0.00 $487.99 S487.99 Parts Total: S487,99 SERVICE CHARGES Charge For Description Date Cost Freight I 12/3/2004 $12.00 Service Charges Total: $12.00 Terms: Net 30 Pro•Tax Grand Total:' $488.99 DO NOT PAY FROM THIS SHEET • }�{ , Printed On: 12/3/2004 JW Tel-Tronlcs Inc. T e i —_.T.A,o•K.!c f 18823 Beardslee Blvd. •Bothell,WA (425)485-4739 • . ... ''.... .•.."{t¢'NN •IP.1 dTJi T'asN'A.ni.ruvf.;•1•;yi.e.:.: ... >: 11:F:D.r h:V.••;It.j �6ii�rf3�r?s:Wr!a�t�'a'•Rst+{;... d4'S�• . .�f!'. . h i. a r=r.r. ,.�,...,._t•,.. .. . :.a . . .. .�:. : :,. ,,. .n�•,i.,•.o•.... Page 1 1 'til( (? 0 f, a s CITY OF RENTON u0 + + 1055 S. GRADY WAY ;,',-,-:::',",':,.::-QATIE:`:,.!':;5:;.-:,:-::::'*,-; -•,?-,,!'-if?,(7.(NUINABEFf'-••;:::::C ... 141 , •• RENTON, WA 98055 12/28/2004 12/0000762 civrv0 VENDOR: 016776 SHIP TO: COLORTRON ICS 912 HARVEY RD AUBURN, WA 98002 FOB Point: Req.No.: Terms: net term Dept.: FINANCE DEPARTMENT Req.Del.Date: Contact: EVANS, DEBBIE Pre-Assigned PO#?: No '.. Special lnst: . ,;`-..OUatitlii,,,;:?;'-..:„.0niC:,,i;,;S-•:::7 ,.:;;<:...;),:::'•;1.4:::`:,•'':•:•:;:!' ,:::i::::::;: 1,'. :,;'),,,',: l';,DOSCriPiiiiii,-;:-.:-,:,,;::Y15::':',.'._:,:i:::!.'1, :::i.:.";i:"':::',.:1-i: ;',::-J?:N:::::!:!''..:13,,,:dliiit'tii ,,: ::‘‘:',':',",';'''''...:EkePike,::':' ,.:"•:- EQPT REPAIR, INV 60622 539.62 :•:: f.':',..; ' ,. , 7,:;-',.'„".:-: :::'''''':';'•:': 4.::::U.::'-2.,-.::.-,:7-,:.:,'::::: :',i:,::::-. :',7,:-ifi,---,-;:7 87 ''''7:::,,,i':;:7i,Zi::::,,,',,:',fi;',",7..:!.;;;;;,,,;.7,,fg',--,.:::::::,R..:7::',:;;;;'-,i"; ?,';‘.,:.- ',::,;•,:,:.::::::;,,,-,::::',:7;,. -,,,, - ,'.::.. .!: .;, . . ..::,:;'. 21'....:.::'....;:‘,:' .''..'..': -—. ,‘;',;:,,:i:7.27E':;::•;::::;;I:;.:'...:‘'.''::l''.:',:(;'''..7i.....i,i.:,;,::::-.'V''':',::.!,1E:',„!:,,i;i':.:1' ,.:1;;E::',7,Etg,d,,,,‘':::,':;. ;if'',',',,,!!<:.:::?,-;.:,7,L.::;1::;'',:f.:;51.Z;L:j!.;:,'Mc.'!F:,f,.:::;;V:?.:',Al',:'.:E,l';:2;4-::':;':1;:::;5;: :::::':;,;';':77'ZI':',.'',"...''.'::'!". .S.I'T.'':17:::::1:1:::: 4 :',7', ;-:':';':.:;:'.;::',:'5,: :::,:::.„ 244 .5."P .i.',., ,, . !4 : :: N. . .P :;;4 :?':•.: .; .: ..'?-i;I:'..:;?:,;',."'jl,;':: SUBTOTAL 539.62 BILL TO: TAX 0.00 FREIGHT 0.00 TOTAL 539.62 :;S*....,-:F:";.;,',':,•':';,-':',,.:',:',--;4004500tpiiiixitipi,'..2.,!.. . 'i::::f,".:'-'i.":::,:::.:'''!':.77fi.,•:1',,i",',-;.:-:'i::.: ,,,:',:,Y-il...,„':. :', :."•:',1::.]:!:%*tid(9rdFtititilqiiigiiiiib,0i-;*..,1*:1‘:,:-;,"'-:'-',,`C..„ .Ci.,,, ,,,,"j-::: :.,::,,,c;.::',,': 1,"Aili6.t.iiit',:::-.:',i,',:, E 127.000000.004.5710.0010.48.000000 539.62, :--fillit4) cyiLaM4e7t.i4.4.6-4. ‘(Age-er - Authorized Signature Authorized Signature • Co L D RT RO N I C L.' Invoice Numbe: 60622 1 Date Brought In:Invoice THE COMPETENT ONES Inv.Cust.ID: (425)430-6573 912 Harvey Road Auburn, WA. 98002 253-833-4030 253-946-1642 425-251-8676 Last Name First Name Home Phone WOOD LEGAL DEPARTMENT LORI (425)430-6573 Address: City: State: Zip: Bus. Phone 11055 SGRADY WAY RENTON WA 98055 Unit Description of Unit Model Number Serial Number PANASONIC ‘CASSTTE REC D647 F8TRB016 Pur. Date Store City and State Service Contract Provider Contract Number Auth.Number Exp.Date CHARTER 116,LAWSOF 196a 4rG,F RENTON CERTIFICATION IFICA!ION Estimate N I,THE UNDERSIGNED DO HEREBY CERTIFY UNDER PENALLY OF PERJUV ITI-II=-NIATI-Pl4 HA\/F ocEN �lyTppSED, I TaillikNeriiEttafRED OR THE LABOR PER FTvgripaApervices Performed N ItiEU HEREIN,AND THAT THE CLAIM IS A JU9$EI LID IN MECHANISM.REPLACED LI N; D OBLIGATION AGAINST THE CITY OF RENTOMAFECFFI YE PARTS.CHECKED AND ALIGNED I AM AUTHORIZED TO AUTHENTICATE AND �CERTFPT ER OPERATION.CLEANED AND CIAIMIGNE - G �� Z� agtee'LUBRICATED. SICNEp, Qty Part Number Description Each Total 1 SKX188111 DECK $225.76 $225.76 1 SMX188891 LOADER $75.21 $75.21 I 0 $0.00 $0.00 F_. 0 $0.00 $0.00 0 $0.00 $0.00 Pick Up Date: 10/28/04 Total Parts: $300.97 Labor: $195.00 Payment Type: Pick Up: $0.00 Delivery: $0.00 Sub Total: $495.97 OUR"NO-HASSLE"WARRANTY Your Unit is Guaranteed for ninety days after pick-up. If further Tax: 0.088 $43.65 troubles occur,we will repair or replace any parts that we used to make the repair. If the cause of the difficulty is unrelated to the Grand Total: $539.62 original repair,there may be additional parts and/or labor charges. This warranty does NOT cover incidental or consequential damage, Less Deposit: $0.00 or lighting induced damages. Signed: Amount Due: $539.62 p a tWarrert 7 c ? � - oi4T7 2 4 'bb" ia7• 000000. o04. 57to. 00la ,y,. boo 000 •,t• . Page 1 1 CITY OF RENTON + + 1055 S. GRADY WAY riL ••e'P..." RENTON, WA 98055 3/4/2005 12/0000818 VENDOR: 040001 SHIP TO: • JW TEL-TRONICS INC PO BOX 1282 BOTHELL,WA 98041-1282 FOB Point: Req.No.: Terms: due in 30 days Dept.: FINANCE DEPARTMENT Req.Del.Date: Contact: EVANS, DEBBIE Pre-Assigned PO#?: No Special Inst: .',,.L-i',.:Cii'i,iiiiiitV!.,"f,',i:.-',: l.1).ilft,i:.'-':;::If.:,- ;.:-.;:':q;'i'ff:7;..'::;; ;:;. :,,sZi-i.,:i'N'eii;.kf;C:.'' '',.::Z". .. .:: ::'b.',40:10.110i),''.:. '"'.:',.;:r.i'l,',..,: ::.;::!.:'::::;.:.;::':;.!:]:"1.::';:iL''''iF:,,iii'f':•': -(';',;:i!!iii.:?.: N.;itiiiii.J.0:e.j: ::::::U:?,:i.N:Aficlec*I. V'-57..:' WIRELESS MIC REPAIR, INV 104651 24.48 -..-,.--,:-77-;,..7.7,:rr,-,77-..:;:.7..v.-sr.: ;:i7a,17--...--.. --7,.,:,:y7.,,77-7.,--:;,-,71-7,-7,77,7•;;;;;,:-.,:,-.7.mvq:7:-?:,7,7-7,7•,-,,Trz,,,77-1-7.----.77:,5.:70.,,,77„7,07:757,',p7'.;',,,..777,7.'"..r..r..77',...,,"<,T':'.;..::::;':::".y:"f'.'.,?:',`_3.7:KO,„7,;7',777. ,r7.1'r,..1.,.;.,:., '..:ES ;:.'.',. : :'......................,...... Iii1;'..;.;.:F:'..::',:'2. ... ..:;i'it .'l. .... . ..'. . . ' ''.::.;-Xi ''. .':',; `' ''tt' '''.1.7.!;';'}ti.!.W!'.'.:::'1:?'''....',:-U:'.. 44 .g:,r ,. ' 4,' ,'.F.g,',; '. .k5),747;. .4.4.0 'g2q4. . 4?;:::J.k.V;:..f!.T?:!: TM''JqF:;:..:.! iZZIE ,,iF4f;iSAilimR:;,,,Afxig . , .. ;, ;:zf-,:4. 47.:,5',',7,k;:;'''.4g7-,71',,N.:1,7:',1-.. ,L'';.77gFg'z.::;:,,':':':-.-'',;:'" Ti ',:::,!.,7:!:J5YNF'..::21, :'TF:'-?iF47,1;:J:,'':c77,:gTig6:AT7.ftTa;g57: : :..;-Tyi'fph't,i:.. .,6',,,: ,..,:77 -,,„7.,;.,..„„y,:::;;,-77,,,,,:;,,,,:„....;7„:„.„),,,,7,;,-.7.1,,:;:::7;2:..;',--,;•i'4,‘...T1.4':',7;;:''','-'''''Z.7i:','/,,7,f7:', g,i7;;;;;."'"A."7-,:y..:NJ,":4:77"),'::::'7,:"„,'",,f:i i'''',7::!'"'Vi':FS',7::;;', ''•,.7:..:',0,',7r:'7:::7,7';'1"!/.:".-.'7),:-.:,N-';;;":7'.',•:::::'7": ;'1'1: ?2 ' •; ?:.,.;':',',2 ',,,',?..::;?k.:1",':.-";',ii;''':'- . .,::.'. .1, .`. ',,;i,:.:2f.W..:::::: . : : :',,:•:;,..-:;•.;i:, ,;;;''',::: .,'":'":2„ , ..?:,.... ,:ff:;,:'..:,::',';'•..!!;:: ;.1., ,,,e,,IL:,:',t;:.:;,:,.:;:e;!:.,;:f.f.:: :::,!..A):::?.. .";:'',.•.2 ,!••:".,:t'''-:::',.`:',','''s 'ir' ''''''', Z.',.:7:c..:11'1A7....','T?"-:.",?,,T, "7.777,71;',77:•K-N'':,7,'el-7:.77Fi.7,;$';'774:17;;T:7777,7i7-pr-7.f,';'T'':"•:,...;',.,',•'.'', f 7/..7§;,:7,:::;.: 7: &. ,,-..:ys::.7.:,,,7,5,-,-:, "....'..':::::::,.!....2 'j.,,..2j.;. "4:'-:::-.'2.,,,r.,3:: .- : . 2,..,, ,,....:...,:. .;,.n.;:::-.:Lz. :;:::,,,, : ... -2. : 2 ,.. ;:,Y; ''..1:. : ..„.,...:..'...-J.L."...:21. j.:"1 ::: .: ;i:;•:::la':'F',.-.....:..:,::',':-1, :: c.::::.1,. .P::::;,,, -.:•?.,'. %,":":•I'',,;" ..Z,^`,;-'1:7:7'- ,1''";77 ‘5'7;'27,::44 r1{ ^"' ':' ",',FMK,M,:,57: "-',71 ' ''F',:(.77•.77;....................................................... ...... ......... " ' ', 7 ':',i,5"2"::::.•";:; ;'',,:?..i;'::::',';::}'.';'„::::'E: ::,, -..• 4.:?, ;,,?,; ; ,,-„:;;;!j,::. ,.,:, 0':.•5' r'.::0 -'Zn,:q;!,.:';';;;...'i. :,:.';'.f..;,::::i';'.; i.6: :11, ,,,i;'i:','.);.-..,-;- ::1-,:,:.;; ii :;,''P.lr:':r:::":'-i:c :F.;;; '': :f':g'',1 ;': :.;,4:.O'iLIF,f;.:'f'c::,''';'',.,'':.:.';:ZL:l:k::j:"'I;::;',7:16,1gVZ::j'::?:';;.!:: i .4 '4 : : '::n:tt:' :F!:.-P'?'''''. :!'i:•'''' ''';:.'''''''':;"5.''''i'.:!'&.'i''''i Z5T;; 365,7;;,-7,;',-;i1,77.77,7:77, „ 7.7.7,p':',7:T:,;•27f.iT:7;'77-7:::',F i.:77;:::: T7::+,' Y, .,,,', ,.:r4 '4'-'i''''.33::9 ----..- :-:-.1- -,,-,..,-.54,,,;7-,7,:z,:,....z,-.:.::4.,;,5,?.,-,:',,,,,;-.,:::;,..,7,7,:-•-..7:7,:-,---,::e.7:ig;,-7....77.,:-,i7:,,,,7,-.7.;-.,:,,a7.7,7::7::?,,,--,:,;,..-.;::-,,z,,,,-7.:zF,"75,i,s,',:,,-,,,,.q§-,,,--.z.g7.,-;,,,,,T,w4y,fg,,a- zi-.;,-;w1-a,:,....,,,,:::::,K' .;.-..-,;(i„. .'..-....:.;. ... :i .,„ ,.,t,,I,T4A.,...4,;;:..,:....:,,,,.::,,.,,:.;,:.: ::,i; ,,,;,<,;.".,-,4,-44,i4'4 44;1144.;,:.4. ,4.•:4. ,44,K.4'-j:-g4:;1.:D1.:,44/4A4..:'.'4',i, .4.,044.1;,',,;-1!"1 ,::;,:.!.-- ':.--,--:-.,:•....:,.::-.•...• ---'.7)::z"'2,::'.:':::,..; :::7";;:;,7c;::7:7'?„'7.:,.-;:.?7-''.:7::-''7:.;:';`'''' :::-:.477.'; 'F;::::77 ''' i:,' .............................--, ,:,-,--,.-7:,,,,,,,,,,F 7,,,f 7,-;-,,,,,,,,...- ---7,,i,-;,-,,ici:{7!,:;-.7;•;::.71it'7:-•!:,,"c:i.,,,Z.:,?"."/.7:?:7:-:7,76,..,.,•.,,r„N,:,.. 0.,,",;,"• :,.. ;,,.,.,..,,, ;:i•-_,.;,,K ..,,,,,,,,2f.::,k,;•::;;;;',::„W",,-i:„,,;;K :; , , , .:Z. ,:1 :.,-4 :,:'''''1:' ':": .'' ::`,.".::',,..2 ;:::.;:- :,:.&Q..'„;. .., .: ;.;•,. .:: ,V1:;:Z.144C: =:,2Vj?!..',. ','..)•,.i•,,P .a.'•:',":.;;..'.'".;': 4.',:':'::.ii,7,;,..;:r;.,-.7,;,7:77 i;',.:7-.','-',",7,1',';.•7•77':•;;,71::',-,7,-:•;•<;-..',;:c7;7:),,,;7.7,-..,--:?7"-,77:-"'• ...?; , ; 5 : -, :!- ' ,::. ,3;, . .. ;.7;;`;'0.:1:;,-).i',',."7:Z',..1::.:'1',.s..''.'".:'''..' .; .,., : ,••2;:,!;.--t,"3 .. .,..‘ .,. ,,. ...i.2:., :!,,.2;r,.:.';-;.•,'..';',':::-.!:::':l'i,::::‹. -..i.‘.?2--.:,.'=.....',';, ?. .:f,:,•,' :';':„.. "".;,.Z.' -,.:: .-.%;:.f......,.z-,•:::.:•.:;....,...-.,e.-— ...... :JATW'RgNY4 ;:, q. ."0' '';''':; ','..':'. .6Z,?..:t.,T,.:.;:t.';,!;:::41:--;"...1 gfewp.:::..,,f.':;:). -t-§;.?,?::qii-Fgilt.;iF,:-,i',:::::::(1'.: .,..,;;,::::::;,!:.,z;:6::,51.:,413P:::.:;.i,M1::;',,q. ,i ":4Fi;;AP:;W:.:',"''';:.:,-;'f,:-... 'i.;P'S;,.:1i-ii:'..'.': SUBTOTAL 24.48 BILL TO: TAX 0.00 FREIGHT 0.00 TOTAL 24.48 Account Number ,'',s:',:j,;.,.,?::,,v'f,,,:.iv:.:;:,:;;5,: ::::,;:,,,,,,::wdrjo.i,,de-s,,20:iyiioi.,:oiiNiiifitio.;:: :,;::-';':':'::::::;',:-.:.:N,;-1::.;::.:;'<:i",:,P,'P;.,:::i':: ,;::;':i::Wdiiik,:::s::;l, E 127.000000.004.5710.0010.48.000000 24.48 . ' --)14,(4,ti4 -1(1 )A4,4fx-evit",- lete7/44A.GV. Ceiatti,-", Authorized Signature Authorized Signature 14 P.O.BOX 1282 BOTHELL,WA 98041-1282 PH(425)485-4739 FAX(425)481-0703 I fro ("it Invoice JW TEL TRONICS. INC. / Date Invoice# 12/7/2004 104651 Bill To • Lori Wood City of Renton 1055 S Grady Way Renton WA 98055 • P.O. No. Terms .Due Date • VendorlD# Net 30 1/6/2005 • Item Description Amount Equipment Repair 17798 22.50T • • • CHARTER 116, I 1965 clry OF RENTONJ I,THE UNDERSIGNED DO HERE.' . .., r L:. : °PENALTY OF • PERJURY, THAT THE MATERIALS :! '!i'NISHED, THE SERVICES RENDERED OR THL .. .RFORMED AS DESCRIBED HEREIN,AND THAT TF .!i ::...:_ST,DUE AND • UNPAID OBLIGATION AGAINST THE • '>:': ?N,AND THAT I AM AUTHORIZED TO AUTHENTIC- • ?TIFY TO SAID n I.7-(OOao 313 / -.. oyodel f ae.e. 4A7. odeood, doil, 5-71O. Od id. ve oaodoo Subtotal $22.50 Sales Tax (8.8%) $1.98 Total $24.48 Payment is due upon receipt. Unpaid invoices will accrue Payments/Credits $0.00 1.5% interest monthly. We now accept VISA and MASTERCARD. Balance Due $24.48 Broadcast Engineering • Design • Support Equipment Repair City of Renton Invoice#: 104651 1055 S Grady Way Repair#: 17798 Renton,WA 98055 Contact: Lori Wood Purchase Order#: EQUIPMENT INFORMATION Description: Wireless mic set ID#: 9172 Received: 10/20/2004 9:25:50 Completed: 12/3/2004 Make: Sony Model: WCS-999R Serial: 24260 Operate Hours: Drum Hours: Capstan Hours: Thread Count: Symptom: I believe the problem is interference...a lot of crackling going on...I think"Snap, Crackle &Pop" have a side gig going on! Service: 11/05/04 The mic seems to operate ok here on all three channels. I'll talk to John and ask him to call Lori with suggestions. Remarks: It came with transmitter, receiver, and mic,with an adaptor, all in a Shure black bag. LABOR Technician Description Date Hours Hourly Rate Total Chris I Tests 11/5/2004 I 0.251 $90.00 $22.50 Labor Total: $22.50 Terms: Net 30 Pre-Tax Grand Total: $22.50 DO NOT PAY FROM THIS SHEET Printed On: 12/7/2004 Ji1) JW Tel-Tronics Inc. TEL -TRONICS 18823 Beardslee Blvd.-Bothell,WA (425)485-4739 Page 1 / 1 CY 0 A az,Oft CITY OF RENiwN + + 1055 S. GRADY WAY DATE PO NUMBER •ep,— RENTON, WA 98055 12/12/2005 12/0001025 VENDOR: 043383 SHIP TO: MEDQUIST INC PO BOX 10832 NEWARK, NJ 08193-0832 FOB Point: Req.No.: Terms: net term Dept.: FINANCE DEPARTMENT Req.Del.Date: Contact: SETH, JASON Pre-Assigned PO#?: No Special Inst: Quantity Unit Description Unit Price Ext.Price 4 Microphone Stands 65.28 SUBTOTAL 65.28 BILL TO: TAX 0.00 FREIGHT 0.00 TOTAL 65.28 Account Number Work Order Function Number Amount E 127.000000.004.5710.0010.48.000000 65.28 INVOICE • . `' M ed ui st <:"INoti ::>.::>::DOCUIVIENT::DATE K:: s`: ADDRESS SERVICE REQUESTED 90349663 11/08/2005 5430 METRIC PLACE STE 200 NORCROSS, GA 30092 SHIP TO: CITY CLERK DIVISION 1 CITY OF RENTON 1055 S GRADY WAY 7TH FL CITY OF RENTON For Billing inquires Call: 856-206-4884 RENTON WA 98055 O BILL TO: REMIT TO: R) NOV 1 4 2005 MEDQUIST 47 IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII P.O. Box 10832 J RECEIVED NEWARK NJ 07193-0832 CITY CLERK DIVISION FEIN: 221850433 CITY CLERK'S OFFICE CI TY YOFR RENTON PU8Pli 85101:1 E:::; >' :<'<>«' ' N; E irtit ' '>?' >><:'<:> 1055 S GRADY WAY 7TH FL <.> G;HASEQ)�t�£R� .;;. :> PA�YMENTTERfI>�: RENTON WA 98055-3232 Michelle Net due in 30 days ...........:.....:..:................................................................ :..................................................:...:........:.Ii£1 ...... ::::::.:: . ::.;:.:SA......:01 .!E t...:... :.. ... .... ...Cf.EI€.# Y.............::::::: 0001452336 UPS Ground 5 Days 0000288973 0080163402 .:.:. .... ..:::: ;;.,;,;'<als#.: ::;::,,::M.:*; <> > '<' z«€ > ::'f zMATEi . ; tl1~ :MG>E:<:>» ': > tiMOII:;:<» < i. . . FLIP#".�. . ..................................:�IESCiR :•:: • .::>::>::»»»:::<::<:::>::>::»:<:»�>:>:»»::>:::>::»><:>:�::::>:::::.;:.:.;•:.::::::::::.:�::::::::.;:.:;;;:.;;:.;;;:.: .<::>::::::>::::<:::>::>::::>�:>:::�:>:::' ..�::>::»>:>.:::>::>:<:>� Order through our On-line store at www.medquist.com. Thanks...for choosing;,,Medquist • Elease�tMurray , <:.;; • 866;,.`542-7253 ext'.',31,3,:80 000040 41'64-212=2.: . 4.000 E'y,' UNI';8,00,NI MICR'OP:HONE'`STAND 1 EA 60.00 ar` State Sales'Tax 3.90 ¢it Sales Ti* 1.14 .r"7' .-`-`-�1. :. _ '.Other"::Sales-<•T'4x 0.24 TOTAL;.'AMOUNT: • . 65.28 CHARTER 116, LAWS OF 1965 Po ► zioo�L CITY OF RENTON CERTIFICATION IIL,0/j op_ . o to 3?83 I,THE UNDERSIGNED U0 HEREBY CERTIFY UNDER PENALTY 1 0 7 �� OF PERJURY,THAT THE MATERIALS HAVE BEEN FURNISHED, fir: I•Z 7, 000000. 049`1 : 5 71.0. & v 0, 4 THE SERVICES RENDERED OR THE LABOR PERFORMED AS DESCRIBED HEREIN,AND THAT THE CLAIM IS JUST,DUE AND . '/ UNPAID OBLIGATION AGAINST THE CITY OF RENTON,AND T AI t AM ALIT HORIZED TO AUTHENTICATE AND CERTIFY TO SAID CLAIM. DETACH AND RETURN THIS PORTION WITH PAYMENT THANK YOU! CUSTOMER NAME : CITY OF RENTON ACCOUNT NUMBER: 0001452336 To pay by credit card, please enter the information below CHECK Mom- . MINIS PLEASE CHECK IF CHANGE OF ADDRESS,INDICATE CORRECT ADDRESS ON REVERSE SIDE � L 0..< I I C 7 Make Checks Payable To: Number Expiration Date: Signature MEDQUIST DUE DATE 12/08/2005 PO BOX 10832 INVOICE NUMBER 90349663 NEWARK NJ 07193-0832 PAY THIS AMOUNT 65.28 lllnilnilndllilunllillnilulnillnllillnill AFTER / ,, PAY • AMOUNT PAID 02.2005110579701.00047 Med ed it tills 1. MedQuist Inc. 5430 Metric Place Suite 200 Norcross, Georgia 30092 To our valued customers: As most of you are aware,MedQuist acquired Lanier Healthcare in 2002. While the old name was still used in certain instances, for nearly three years Lanier Healthcare has been part of MedQuist. Over the next month, we will be finalizing the consolidation of all brand names into one—eliminating the use of the Lanier Healthcare, CareFlow and SpeechMachine trade names—and will begin using the MedQuist name on all services and products. For most customers, nothing but the name will change. You will continue to have the same products available to you, and to work with the same representatives you have always worked with. As for our customer service quality,we expect this consolidation to enhance our ability to provide the highest level of services in the health care industry. We ask that you please inform others at your facility, such as the Purchasing Department, about this change. Please also note our new remittance address on our updated invoices: NEW remittance address: MedQuist Inc. PO Box 10832 Newark,NJ 07193-0832 Remit electronic payments to: Chase Manhattan Bank,N.A.,N.Y., NY ABA#021000021 MedQuist Inc.Account#530930617 We want to ensure that every MedQuist customer has the most up-to-date contact information possible. If you have equipment at your site that carries one of the brand names we are phasing out,you may receive a visit from a MedQuist representative to change the labels on that equipment.You may also be receiving new communication from your MedQuist representative on MedQuist stationery. It is our goal to present our customers with one name and one face, and to simplify and improve our customer support. By consolidating the brand names at MedQuist,we are striving to continue the transformation of our company and to position it to help you meet the ever-changing demands of the health information management industry. We want to thank you for your continued support and welcome any feedback you have on ways to improve the products and services we provide. Sincerely, • Frank W.Lavelle President 678.824.3000 fax 678.824.3020 www.medquist.com meaLiuist meauuist Phone:(678) 824-3000 '1 5430 Metric Place, Suite 200 Fax: (678,824-3020 .4 Norcross, ;orgia 30092 www.m( Jist.com Packing List CITY OF RENTON Document Number 80163402 CITY CLERK DIVISION Document Date 11/14/2005 1055 S GRADY WAY 7TH FL RENTON WA 98055 Purchase Order No. Michelle Purchase Order Date 11/07/2005 Sales Order Number 288973 Customer Number 1452336 ITY OF RENTON Route Description UPS Ground 5 Days Shipping Conditions UPS Standard OV 1 5 2005 Incoterms FOB Origin RECEIVED Gross Weight 5.600 LB CITY CLERK'S OFFICE Net Weight 5.600 LB ett— —J of 1 Item Material Quantity Weight Description 0010 164-2122 4 EA , 5.600 LB UNI•&OMNI MICROPHONE STAND ****** This is your packing list. ***** An invoice will follow. ****** Returns:All returns require a return authorization in order to receive appropriate credit. Please contact your sales representative in order to obtain a RMA #. Returns must come back in their original packaging material and must be shipped in an overpacked shipping carton. Returns are subject to a 25% restocking fee. Y Page 1 /1 ec G A �� CITY OF RENTON + `� + 1055 S. GRADY WAY DATE PO NUMBER RENTON, WA 98055 _ 12/31/2005 12/0001047 VENDOR: 043383 SHIP TO: MEDQUIST INC PO BOX 10832 NEWARK, NJ 08193-0832 FOB Point: Req.No.: Terms: net term Dept.: FINANCE DEPARTMENT Req.Del.Date: Contact: SETH, JASON Pre-Assigned PO#?: No Special Inst: Quantity Unit Description Unit Price Ext.Price 4 Omni-Directional Microphones 339.39 SUBTOTAL 339.39 BILL TO: TAX 0.00 FREIGHT 0.00 TOTAL 339.39 Account Number Work Order Function Number Amount E 127.000000.004.5710.0010.31.000000 339.39 INVOICE �" Med uist- INV° .... :...... ................ 90345123 10/24/2005 ADDRESS SERVICE REQUESTED :,::;:,: , ,,:;:.,_:: 5430 METRIC PLACE STE 200 1 NORCROSS, GA 30092 SHIP TO: CITY CLERK DIVISION CITY OF RENTON 1055 S GRADY WAY 7TH FL For Billing inquires Call: 856-206-4884 RENTON WA 98055 CITY OF RENTON BILL TO: REMIT TO: O nnp 1� m MEDQUIST OCT 2 7 2005 �il1II �' II��1ni��1�� P.O. Box 10832 an NEWARK NJ 07193-0832 Mr CITY CLERK DIVISION FEIN: 221850433 RECEIVED ;::::CIT.Y..:•;C:l K:s.•:• •:;:. .. . ...�'fC CITY OF RENTON ::::::::� 1055 S GRADY WAY 7TH FL 'E.iDAIfFi` PA'Yf1MEt ''ERN RENTON WA 98055-3232 Michelle Net due in 30 days :;:':::'I:```+. ::::;:::;•':::::: ?::::i::::: ::::::::: ::: :::::::: >::::#mast::;::: :::: ` } ` :; ::: :'::'?��y%y:'r:?:::t:;::x:'s:s%::'::��:i:::::::::::: si%:s::s:::::`•::::::::::::::i:::::i:%::::::i ::: ::::::ii: ::::::T::'•:: ::r:':% ::::?::::r:?:::::::::::::::::;:::;:::;:::%::::: :'•:::;:;:::y';5::,�. :s:s::'::C.W:i't.Omit..i#:::::r::::: ::%: :t:::i:::::: .:. ..:.:.....:..:....•'::::::::::'::::::::::<::::::::n::::::2:::::'::::::i::::::::iiS_....... E ::':::::::::::::::::::::::: .. .. ......... ......... ....:.......:::. Miii........ .......................•.......:. ...:.ORbE>AE[#:BY.::•::..::...........U§.:i..........:........SHII?:.M€Ttii7;Q.:: ::iiii.':.::; .:ii:iiiii::; :::: .�tE ........................... . Y.............. _ _.0001452336 UPS Ground 5 Days • 0000285566 0080161938 • : : f21#. .. .>::• ittATERfAtAtt1 Nf. ArN'#.'i'f'•'.�':::>::::> :: :<.>.:.:.;:.; :: ..::::;.: t#Ef�::'.:::<::::::::::::::<>::<i:::>�::«<:�:: i::i::>:i>:>:<:>: <::isii::; :<::;:>:::r:::<:::::<:>i:::�>:::<:;:. . :: .. Order through our On-line store at www.medquist.com. - 00001pcv,-% ,t:>r;;x : 164-2103 75.00 ,�,,,s, 4 :000;'.EA OMNIDIR MICROPHONE W/XCR.."CON 1 EA 300.00 ,,00 1 000020 :. ;%' ( 164-211 2 iPa •,.. ,.,.,.:.;.,.a:.•. 1 00.00 1` "�.,�'� $TAte.:sales TO =,,.• 39.00 F x:;a't' City=Stales Tax* 11.40 =-r.t ;ti'' s;: c p�� Other;;Sales T%ax 2.40 -r; pY, a� d�-: '4 1i�!n., Frei fftC a �� 9. h `r es :•�� 12.99 g O ALAMOUNT. 665.79 CJIAK ER 116, LAWS OF 1965 — 316 D CITY OF"RENTON CERTIFICATION 33'9,31 D I,7HE UNDERSIGNED DO HEREBY CERTIFY UNDER PENALTY 1 Q 12/DOD 10 q 7 OF PERJURY,THAT THE MATERIALS HAVE BEEN FURNISHED, THE SERVICES RENDERED OR THE LABOR PERFORMED AS VC (,(:)2 ' p 4 3 3 ,3, QDESCRIBED HEREIN,AND THAT THE CLAIM IS JUST,DUE AND 5 i(.9 1 D Ot O, , TNA- 1 AUTHORIZ D TO AUTHENTICATE AND CERTIFY TO .IGATION AGAINST THE CITY OF RENTON,AND A��T : I Zi. 000000 t Od� . SAID CLAIM. I`4 '/ S►GNED: DETACH AND RETURN THIS PORTION WITH PAYMENT THANK YOU! CUSTOMER NAME : CITY OF RENTON To pay by credit card, please enter the information below ACCOUNT NUMBER: 0001452336 ❑ CHECK ❑ [II �+ '• • ❑ • ❑ PLEASE CHECK IF CHANGE OF ADDRESS,INDICATE CORRECT ADDRESS ON REVERSE SIDE Iii . Make Checks Payable To: Number Expiration Date: Signature DUE DATE 11/23/2005 LANIER HEALTHCARE INVOICE NUMBER 90345123 PO BOX 951282 DALLAS TX 75395-1282 PAY THIS AMOUNT 865.79 IIiiilililtnllililtiiltlinilliililltilnililliilII AFTER / ,, PAY AMOUNT PAID 002.2005101a79601.00044 • {.� MedQuisr Phone: (6"')824-3000 /� ed �, u[��1 u 5430 Me'a. .. Place, Suite 200 Fax: (t. • ,)824-3403 Norcross, Georgia 30092 www.medquist.com "�ie` i'g�G�'L� :4'J.a' t$,•:-'e .,;i'.�'i{`•W`,i+' .:•rye'.Yrv'•>i'i?1`"x�`� f+„ r::ti: �i ,,YY &.A-2'x��Ji�i`'C:t'.•�;'.�.-i"+F,„'...v>4:;�"%',:r VT�`5`i, -�t::.SS?,..'.,'. A 'i,r i ^i:"F:'�; _ ar;,z, z i:'x'xd�2-Y:^;Y•.,::';i: ._y�q'tr�<�` , A .. .L ,. e�::i >I�'3,may `^Yl•�/'>�� e:'�a^. s%j,'2.-.':::;<':r 6:�y.,,=-_`.:.;:,°+... ,•'.,t,,: r7rAL;' ;.g- ,ereZ ..$•.>tc,.. 'Y •OT'!... �.�"'' arvN.',.<�,q<.:,,� .,t'•.:.. m•:};; ....<_a..a�.,7&`.re......w�-a,,.._.',,,�x,...».,.,�.'<;..._.a,M.,:t�<:+�.:.::S�:;z�.szw.h, ,,_:.�-::..r,�,,,�s.'� �° ,f �r:,s<,'�.�x� rs'�sd�' ems.`••'•;,,. 3;::�a-� - - -: . CITY OF RENTON Document Date 12/15/2005 CITY CLERK DIVISION 1055 S GRADY WAY 7TH FL Customer No. 1452336 RENTON WA 98055 Purchase Order No. Michelle Purchase Order Date 12/15/2005 Incoterms FOB Origin Delivery Date 12/15/2005 Payment Terms Net due in 30 days Currency USD Gross Weight 6.800 LB Net Weight 6.800 LB Page 1 of 1 •} :'ivr.' <Y. '.-x:S:t �'"%:v .la •r� 'r.E•a .yt ' � ....tom..•. .t Item Material Description Quantity Unit Price Amount 0020 164-2113 4 EA 75.00 300.00 UNIDIR MICROPHONE W/XLR CON per 1 EA State Tax Amt 19.50 City Tax Amt 5.70 Other Tax Amt 1.20 Total Amount $ a26`A0 U r'<♦.....,...,.ie/'.�`'rt?in-.w...l.,r.>.>...a..Y-":.�:1'r..r....... ._'C'n.`.:: ::Y<W:1nY.:.X�an..rxF:,EV•-...._.—s...-a•,,.e..r....v.<_.�?L'a.t.a,3>��:i✓,..",�,'v.-."-ii:x,Y�'<.:?v,ki:'-,yi`✓'tti„�"<,:'!..c"ciZw^I�..`:..,-: AR SOP SRVC Supervisor: ($0 -$1,000) Area Service Manager: CFO: ($1,000 -up) President: ($1,000 -$5,000) ($10,000 -) From: <KISmith@medquist.com> To: <Mneumann @ci.renton.wa.us> Date: 1 2/1 5/2005 3:27:30 PM Subject: Fw:Order#285566 Hello Ms. Neumann, Thank you for your patience. I would like to apologize for the delay in getting this issue resolved. I have submitted your request for call tags to return the microphones that were erroneously shipped. You should receive an electronic call tag via email from UPS within 3-5 business days. ---4`to,(twe,& 4 pa.,c -Iv Upon receipt, you will need to print the label within 10 days to mail the �pS an I o S package to us. Attached is a copy of the Return Authorization. ti ;:, .'.`_ 1 AS tShould you have any questions please feel fee b Coil ao f ibil 6 .542.7253 ext 3055. $32(.40 (See attached file: City of Renton.pdf) Kindest Regards, Kenyetta Smith - Sales Support Coordinator Phone:866.542.7253 ext. 3055 Fax:866.497.2561 kIsmith@medquist.com www.medquist.com This electronic mail transmission contains confidential information intended only for the person(s) named. Any use, distribution, copying or disclosure by another person is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient of this e-mail, promptly delete it and all attachments. Forwarded by Kenyetta Smith/corp/medquist on 1 2/1 5/2005 06:12 PM Elease Murray/corp/medqu ist To Kenyetta 1 2/1 2/2005 07:49 Smith/corp/medquist@medquist PM cc Subject Fw: Order#285566 Hello Keny, Would you please check on this for me. We spoke about it last week.The ZRE was sent on 11/07/05 & 11/22/05. Let me know if you need me to re-send anything. Thanks, Elease Murray SR. ISR Phone: 678.824.3060 www.medquist.com This electronic mail transmission contains confidential information intended only for the person(s) named. Any use, distribution, copying or disclosure by another person is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient of this e-mail, promptly delete it and all attachments. Forwarded by Elease Murray/corp/medquist on 1 2/1 2/2005 07:42 PM "Michele Neumann" <Mneumann@ci.rent on.wa.us> To <emurray@ medquist.com> 12/12/2005 07:26 cc PM Subject Order#285566 Hello: I still have not heard anything from your accounting department regarding the above order. Invoice 90345123, with the City of Renton City Clerk Division, is incorrect. We were sent four unidirectional microphones that were not ordered. So, I need a return label so I can ship the unidirectional microphones back to Medquest, and a credit memo to show how much the City owes on invoice 90345123. I just received a past due notice in the mail today. Has any progress been made? Please let me know what I need to do. • • ,V Thanks, Michele Neumann City of Renton City Clerk Division 425-430-6504 CC: <EMurray@medquist.com> Np Med(,)uist^ MedQuist Phone:(6'4) 824-3000 5430 N _2 Place, Suite 200 Fax: (6. ,824-3020 Norcross; Georgia 30092 www.meaquist.com ,J i Packing List `%-:ry'":-ii>ji':i:`:�"rTjiJ:i?�i:'�'isS�iii::ii`1!;+ii:?-:i3;::{:::2i:isitiiii:4ijiiY:isvi{is'l4iiJi`.�:Gii:?•i?i?Civii:•i:.�.ii.:�i::::?v:-....-. :w:.�:w:::.�:n::v.::.n�::i:viiiii.:iiiiii••:iiiii:-::-+iiii:: 4:?J::_i:ii:^i:ti4'�iii:-?ii:Wi'}': ii:J:4ii:Li?:ii:•:i:•i::?::: :_•:: �:•isi?T:•:?:;iiii:?•ii}:•i}ii:�i:?::is4ijii?iiivi}isv::}ii:i':•:'.:::'?++.;.�:.�:j??i:J:};:':::j;:;�:.y. y ••:•••isii`iY:;i.i'ri:S-j:�X:iji:iii:>�iiriji::i???:;isi:;:;;:�:4ii:;::}::v;:.;�;::..;;v:{..;::::.;�.. .. �•..•�.:x..??�' .:.��•'.-�. :::sv:�,{.::•:.v:::':.::'r'::::::;•:.-::.:.?hh.}:y::.??•i::?..+:is i.?:ii}ii:?}i�'�+':... ��v::........:::r::•.�:ti::..:::y.:::::::::.::........... .........n�:::.... v .,..............:........:.::::.:.•fw:..: - ?.r:::n�....v..:::.�:�:??.:ti.} ., ... .. ::.:�iii::? n:::•.vv.:�:.v:•:•:v.::.....:..:.::::::::::::.v; .:.,......::: .�::......::::.:�xF ...... .f� --is:<\i%iY::•i:i:?i�ii:+?-iii:G iiv}::j:•iiii:?-i:4iiii:?4:Yiii??iY4:v -v..-::--:. :::::: >•i:3:4ii:•:i:�i:::i J:�Y-..:::.:viii•:::...vv i::i:�:�:n�:.;m}:�::.:::r.�:::•.. r::.�.r•:::::::::::. v..�::- v:::•':$ii:. CITYOF :........... .:......:......................................... RENTON Document Number 80161938 CITY CLERK DIVISION Document Date 10/31/2005 1055 S GRADY WAY 7TH FL RENTON WA 98055 Purchase Order No. Michelle Purchase Order Date 10/24/2005 Sales Order Number 285566 Customer Number 1452336 Route Description UPS Ground 5 Days Shipping Conditions UPS Standard Incoterms FOB Origin Gross Weight 14.800 LB Net Weight 14.800 LB 1 of 1 Item Material Quantity Weight Description g 0010 164-2103 4 EA 8 LB OMNIDIR MICROPHONE W/XLR CON 0020 164-2113 4 EA -B- f -urn/4 VLa U•Ps aA 17426110, ****** This is your packing list. *** An invoice will follow. *** Returns:All returns require a return authorization in order to receive appropriate credit. Please contact your sales representative in order to obtain a RMA #. Returns must come back in their original packaging material and must be shipped in an overpacked shippina carton_ Rail trno nrn c.aF.io..++.. .+ ')C o/ ..__...__. - UPS Electronic Return Label: View/Print Label Page 1 of 1 UPS Electronic Return Label: View/Print Label 1. Ensure that there are no other tracking labels attached to your package. 2. Fold the printed label at the dotted line. Place the label in a UPS Shipping Pouch.If you do not have a pouch,affix the folded label using clear plastic shipping tape over the entire label.Take care not to cover any seams or closures. 3. Drop-off o Take this package to a UPS location,to find your closest UPS location visit www.ups.com and select Drop Off.Drop Off Locator o Daily Pick up customers:Have your shipment(s)ready for the driver as usual. FOLD HERE 1-1 ------ mr_________________ __ , O S ^ I W 0 momium f/) CA ® Zvi 09 gici 1-1 g 0 ____. o. N. Mii.11111111 to N t Cl) _ 0 0 • OD ° c o a 0 cA a. a. 0 o O O V N .10 O H 00 a - 1 2 9 c.i M ›-, il_:::***4.. A__:It4. ..:‘,. ......... n, s.4. z 2, .. 0,,„008 9.1-..,41-1.- ..:: t:4 -,. _ao 0.;� 0.: 0 U n. o 0 Z Ww ccr% z vvz E-' c-i, N _14 , a 4 ,.W C4 x r�l, r 2 mu No.-ice V) t'? r •.•r r F-1 min c cd https://www.ups.com/u.a/L.class?7ER150A09042FHLxdBJa9Ss%3DOSA 12/22/2005 f Page 1 /1 Y C.) ea ��'et> CITY OF RENTON + 1055 S. GRADY WAY DATE PO NUMBER mg •1,N�o� RENTON, WA 98055 12/31/2005 12/0001046 •VENDOR: 040001 SHIP TO: JW TEL-TRONICS INC PO BOX 1282 BOTHELL, WA 98041-1282 FOB Point: Req.No.: Terms: due in 30 days Dept.: FINANCE DEPARTMENT Req.Del.Date: Contact: SETH, JASON Pre-Assigned PO#?: No Special Inst: Quantity Unit Description Unit Price Ext.Price Sony DSR-45 DVCAM VTR, Recorder VCR and 4,589.07 Interface SUBTOTAL 4,589.07 BILL TO: TAX 0.00 FREIGHT 0.00 TOTAL 4,589.07 Account Number Work Order Function Number Amount E 127.000000.004.5710.0010.48.000000 4,589.07 fly- 69-1444G1:✓ t!dai ♦. •y P.O.BOX 1282 BOTHELL,WA 98041-1,-,./2 PH(425)485-4739 FAX(425)481-0703 Invoice JW TEL TRONICS, INC. Date Invoice# 12/21/2005 105280 Bill To Bonnie Walton u CITY OF RENTON City of Renton D 1055 S Grady Way DEC 2 3 2005 Renton WA 98055 IP CITY CLERK'S OFFICE P.O. No. Terms Due Date VendorlD# Net 30 1/20/2006 Item Description Amount Parts Sale 615 4,217.90T CHARTER 116, LAWS OF 1965 CITY OF RENTON CERTIFICATION I,THE UNDERSIGNED UO HER=BY CERTIFY UNDER PENALTY OF PERJURY,THAT THE MATE!'IIALS HAVE BEEN FURNISHED, THE SERVICES RENDERED OR THE LABOR PERFORMED AS PO 1460010(1co DESCRIBED HEREIN,AND THATHE CLAIM IS JUST,DUE AND UNPAID OBLIGATION AGAINST THE CITY OF RENTON,AND U ' ©e) y 040064 40064 THAT I AM AUTHORIZED TO AUTHENTICATE AND CERTIFY TO SAID CLAIM, Ae,,f; I21, 000ov0,004i 5710, ODID 000000 SIGNED: 42�C,<� ((pp Subtotal $4,217.90 Sales Tax (8.8%) $371.17 Total $4,589.07 Payment is due upon receipt. Unpaid invoices will accrue Payments/Credits $0.00 1.5% interest monthly. We now accept VISA and MASTERCARD. Balance Due /�r$4,589.07 Broadcast Engineering • Design • Support P—Pcji:/4X-1/: C)Part Sale Pp % 0 City of Renton Invoice #: 105280 1055 S Grady Way Renton, WA 98055 Sale #: 615 Contact: Bonnie Walton Purchase Order#: Remarks: Equipment ordered on 12-21-05. Purchase authorized by Bonnie Walton on 12-21-05. Is scheduled to arrive at our facility on 12-28-05. We will deliver to your facility asap after arrival. PARTS SOLD ID# Qty U/M Description Mfr Part# Freight Unit Cost Total 9170 1 Each Digital VCR DSR-45 I $52.00 $3,987.00 $4,039.00 9171 1 Each Pro-Bus Interface,RS-422 PRSY9P $0.00 $143.90 $143.90 Parts Total: $4,182.90 SERVICE CHARGES Charge For Description Date Cost Delivery i 12/28/2005 $35.00 Service Charges Total: $35.00 Terms: Net 30 Pre-Tax Grand Total: $4,217.90 DO NOT PAY FROM THIS SHEET Printed On: 12/21/2005 J' ,4) JW Tel-Tronics Inc. T E L -T R O N IC 18823 Beardslee Blvd. -Bothell, WA (425)485-4739 UUPI,P CENTER RESOURCES The >L Jct Us >Upcoming Events 00. 06C>Fi .' 9 212 6615 >Return&Exchange >Request Our Catalogs 800.606.6969/ 212.444.6615 pttD1©-1,1 D ilm al.=tia >Sales Tax >The N.Y.Super Store >Hours of Operation >Product Resources >More Help Info... >Career opportunities L Ir' le inter Y+> y.11 c a r�it ;Track' r 3er l iv, l eti3 'Yilishti t o.xaMy:Cart OUDAl 'l.�ii- J JEws ce'y'•- �;i.Ya�P'4AJ..mezins'.r.�.. ._ u:�,.0 q.,..,wx+m.: _;R.». I~c: : yt : .i. �A if ; r ; : .44 Search Home< Professional Video <Post Production <VCRs, DVDs&Accessories <VCRs&DVDs<VCR Players& IAll Products al Recorders 111 1......._.. .. ..... . . ......._._. New!Top Searches Audio - Professional NY View List CI 39 of 54 El Binoculars&Scopes Sony DSR-45 DVCAM Compact Desktop Recorder � � VCR with RS-422 Control, LCD Monitor, i.Link I/O Books&Tutorials q Mfr#DSR45• B&H#SODSR45 Cameras/Photo Gear , • Price: $4,100.00 Computers&Solutions -# of Email me a better price .r. 9,t str t Darkroom Shipping Cost: 5 QICN ,Q�Digital Photography Availability: $1) In Stock Film,Tapes & Media 1 v.+ yfi Quantity akurt Filters&Accessories Add,b) !is Home Entertainment L4 Enlarge Image Print Page Lighting &Studio El Email to a Friend Portable Entertainment No Payments for 90 Days!leim Projection &Viewing with Bill me Later* click!ordeal's Underwater Accessories Features w Specifications Item Includes Video- Consumer f� - Video - Professional III I The DSR-45 DVCAM VTR offers comprehensive and intelligent features that make it perfect for linear and nonlinear edit environments.The machine offers the ever-present DV/Firewire/i.LINK connection. It also USED EQUIPMENT I gives you XLR audio outputs. For integration in linear suites, Component, S-Video and Composite Video inputs and outputs are present. Reference video input is there (as the one composite BNC)as is RS-422A, /0 Email RS-232C and LANC machine controls.The built-in LCD monitor is useful for menu set-up and video/audio confidence. In addition, the DSR-45 offers one-touch duplication and the ability to preset user bits and time Sign up for B&H news code. and special offers 'Enter Email Address I El Key Features 414" Wodd=g m • DVCAM and DV Playback and Record complete resources The DSR-45 offers functionality in the professional DVCAM format as well as the consumer, ubiquitous for Adobe Phc>toshop DV format. Both formats have their advantages. DVCAM offers superior picture quality and greater multigenerational dubbing performance. The DV format offers longer recording duration (maximum 270 minutes versus 180 minutes in DVCAM) and less expensive tape stock prices.This machine lets the user ""` to decide which features are most significant to the end product. Pam os nossos • Sony's iLink Interface clientes Brasileiros The DSR-45 is equipped with a 4-pin i.Link(DV) interface based on the IEEE1394 standard.The i.Link V HACKER SAFE] provides a digital link from the DSR-45 to a variety of compatible equipment including Sony DVCAM TESTED 21-DEC decks and third party nonlinear editors. Signals,including video, audio, time code, and control can be transferred through this port with virtually no degradation of image or sound quality, which is essential in nonlinear editing. In addition, when a DVCAM cassette with IC memory is loaded into the DSR-45, the ClipLink data recorded on the cassette memory can be uploaded to a nonlinear system. • Conventional, Old School, Linear Editing Compatibility The DSR-45 puts digital video in analog environments with ease. Component,Y/C, or Composite video are present, both in and out. Linear editing gear can be connected via RS-422, RS-232, and LANC ports. a a A/D .Y.11 nrlifinn nFFnn .-. -• .ro rnfnrnnrn rinnel TL.n I CD_A C ren ..ee ifr-�rnm.+..e-tifp.�i,�nn i.O Fnr..rn e� nc "11"' "- ----*Ajerl ntTtrr y-eircctl Icy UI1 cJ a laid c11l.c zuyi lal. I lic Lion.-YJ Lail uac Iw WI upvaI(c vlucv nI wi u3e'aa^ -r^ a REF IN. Jam or chase time code with TC in and out BNC c"—Inectors. • Easy Duplication Modes The DSR-45 has three duplication modes which can be set from the menu to copy cassettes: • Auto Tape Copy with Cassette Memory Copy creates exact duplication of the original tape without the blank segments,and duplicates the memory on the IC chip. • Auto Tape Copy duplicates the original tape without the blank segments without copying the IC chip information. • Manual Tape Copy is used to copy the original tape from any position on the tape.The IC chip data is not copied. • Built-in LCD Monitor for Confidence and Set-up While editing, working images are displayed on the built-in LCD monitor. You may chose to layer the audio level meters on the video, and system status can be shown to simplify the editing process. When setting up the unit for operation,the LCD screen will display the menu options. [Company Profile I Career Opportunities(Imaging Partners I Privacy&Security I User Agreement&Disclaimer] Prices,specifications,and images are subject to change without notice.Not responsible for typographical or illustrative errors.Manufacturer rebates,terms,conditions, and expiration dates are subject to manufacturers printed forms. ©2000-2005 B&H Photo-Video. 0.,�._.TOT AC TN71,A 14. ,..�—.....a T..-La.._T—.......1-- T. 1 ..4''7 RP-0 CENTER RESOURCES' The PIrofessiOrlB, sSource >Re,. _..ct Us >R >Upcoming Events eturn&Exchange >Request Our Catalogs 800.606.6969 / 212.444.6615 >Sales Tax >The N.Y.Super Store ptivIc.Ic [E<tirangis >Hours of Operation >Product Resources >More Help Info... >Career opportunities Lo eg stet' M yA'cco nt Track ider Live,Help ,'itishiist k,My" rt .-.rnff ,n ✓.tee x. v.sT.::i... ��`,� �5^t-.0 ;a_:Mve,. . .. HOLSbAY GIFTS -'Ik11�� : . ,tt B �".1 Ci !'S,' f t s:sti . *6.40: Search Home<Professional Video< Post Production <VCRs, DVDs&Accessories <VCRs &DVDs<VCR Players& All Products Recorders [__._._ ___�__ . __.__ New!Top Searches View List Audio - Professional El 39 of 54 CI Binoculars&Scopes Sony DSR-45 DVCAM Compact Desktop Recorder�� VCR with RS-422 Control, LCD Monitor, i.Link I/O Books&Tutorials x1- = r., Mfr#DSR45•B&H#SODSR45 Cameras/Photo Gear � - Price: $4,100.00 Computers&Solutions ,0 : .. K3 t Email me a better price GI Shipping Cost: Darkroom Digital Photography Availability: In Stock ((;; Pa Film,Tapes &Media Quantity L..__ ia ; qt ak Filters &Accessories >. i :ll .. , Home Entertainment ig Enlarge Image fal Print Page Lighting &Studio El Email to a Friend Portable Entertainment No Payments far.90 Days!sift Projection &Viewing with 8i11Me La clickfurdefaits Underwater Accessories if tea r . . . . Specif11atiivis'.:::. • ..i m In .,: Video- Consumer Video- Professional To add an item to your cart check the item then click the Add To Cart button. USED EQUIPMENT Displaying 1 to 8 of 14 Sony Email _ PDV-12CL DVCAM Cleaning MFR#PDV12CL (1�� Sign up for B&H news "� Cassette- Standard B&H#SOPDV12CL Quantity: 1 $ Price: 44.95 and special offers f< More Info Add To Cart D !Enter Email Address in • Sony -'-"-_ (I i, ,T2), • PDVM-40ME 40 Minutes DVCAM Cassette with Memo MFR#PDVM40ME ('1� 4r5 1 ; Memory B&H#SOPDVM40ME Quantity: 1 rorid's most :ov- Chip Price: $ 16.99 ... Add To Cart Mara Info complete resourres— forAdobe Photoshop Sony PDV-184ME 184 Minutes MFR# PDV184ME iik sa DVCAM Cassette with Memory B&H#SOPDV184ME Quantity: I _,ry r:ca:. Chip Price: $ 37.99 Add To Cart Q Para as nossos More Info denies Brasdein s *HACKER SAFE] FEC MFR#RKSSSDR1 TESTED 21-DEC RKSSSDR1 Rackslide Kit B&H#FERKSDSR20 More Info Price: $ 259.50 Drop Ship � FEC , RKSSSDR2 Dual Rackslide Kit MFR#RKSSSDR2B&H#FERKSDSR202 More Info Price: $ 259.50 Out of Stock O^" TOT) ACT[7r1AA4r+ •T -.LA 1 .i_. T),...-n ..cn 0 Comprehensive • 3-BNC Male to 3-BNC Male MFR#3briBP1OHR>•:. Component Cable- 10 ft B&H#COC3B3B10 Quantity: 1 `'' More Info Price: $ 37.99 0 Add To Cart - ti Mack MFR#1023 ��'�( 1''Fr, ,.,,' 2-Year Extended Warranty B&H#MAEWDVC22 Quantity: 1` *� �` More Info Price: $ 99.95 Add To Cart 0 \ .. Mack '`>Z`` .:"aj 4-Year Extended Warran MFR# 1056 s.p�; z 4. tY B&H#MAEWPDVC5 Quantity: 1�_..., 4:,. More Info Price: $ 169.95 Add To Cart cl 4 More Accessories It.A t4A9 .;vx [Company Profile I Career Opportunities I Imaging Partners I Privacy&Security I User Agreement&Disclaimer] Prices,specifications,and images are subject to change without notice.Not responsible for typographical or illustrative errors.Manufacturer rebates,terms,conditions, and expiration dates are subject to manufacturers printed forms. ©2000-2005 B&H Photo-Video. f:Lori Wood r Requested Price{_. , rya A. y �ri Page 1- v From: <webteam @ bhphoto.com> To: <Iwood@ci.renton.wa.us> Date: 12/21/2005 9:04:15 AM Subject: Requested Price Dear Customer, Our current selling price for the:Sony-DSR-45 DVCAM Compact Desktop Recorder is 3,599.95. To purchase this item at this price, click below: http://www.bhphotovideo.com/sitem/sku=249564&is=REG&m=Y AOL Users<a href=http://www.bhphotovideo.com/sitem/sku=249564&is=REG&m=Y>click here</a> Thank you for shopping at B&H Photo Video The B&H Web Team www.bhphotovideo.com 420 Ninth Avenue New York, NY 10001 800-606-6969 212-444-6615 Prices, specifications, and images are subject to change without notice. This is an automated email response and cannot be replied to. To contact us by email, Please click on the following URL: http://www.bhphotovideo.com/help , • - . Page 1 /1 --• fS x 0 • . . OS' '' CITY OF RENTON A 0ap + Nu + 1055 S. GRADY WAY ".. ATE:-,ii,. .e.p— . . RENTON, WA 98055 . 3/3/2006 12/0001091 . .z\Trv0 VENDOR: 076380 SHIP TO: SPL INTEGRATED SOLUTIONS PO BOX 951245 DALLAS, TX 75395-1245 FOB Point: Req.No.: Terms: net term Dept.: FINANCE DEPARTMENT Req.Del.Date: • Contact: EVANS, DEBBIE Pre-Assigned PO#?: No Special Inst: I,Ny 10082,7„PROJ S45559SE 7.REPAIR FOR, , ._ , , .., 1,162.47 bIt;i :i, Ot-rip7,&-igi'?-:Of .-0100T,4,7t;i:',11:n'i'::',,:'„-i';'7ZM7:::::05:fi:.5Fi't,Na5n FOR AJ-D640P ;:::,';,A4..-2:-,...7 ',:!':-c :i::-,,,,:,:::;,.,,... ,:,,....?,- .•,-,,,r,;',,,7?...'7,%7,-.,.:' ;',:7?x::•:',. '''.Ki" ,''"•''-2,-re,-;:-"",'-'1Vf,..57, 717'."'",i',"!:::`,,",,., .'1-, g'",f-,',', -,-',:,:-:,,,--,,,.‘,W:i17.?-7,,:r:' -,',,,,-1,-44-.1,,,-,,,,,,,'.v,,,r-;,31;7.,zkr,,,,. .7.<-.-z,m,-,?.-.737,-,7:-.,-7.;•7,:',:r..i-,,i-,-,•!,;,,,,-,7 1:',.:..:.:!L::::::.",-.2.:;',a.1:..1--!:: :::;..:11:.".k%:11.,:g.,';',...L...1".1.i..i•"',"'a(1'..-.TaZ4'''1;ijIi.;:,.'11'.:=z,',4,...';';'....-2::.!. .-,.1•:".':.:::jf..1', ,..;;.-1T,,,:rx•;.-;-.T,,,,-,:-,,:f,-E.7.?77;7r,:,,',L,f..;-;:s 7,'F:,-::::c,: :':'5'f.c:r.'::;..,;-,•;-,;y::,;:!,----z,R;..'it-'!.7.':„':f,'.':':'•':'T,7;°F:(';?..'-7:-':"7§7e.'--;-:'::-v.:•?-7,31.7';;;.,..7,'....e.T.'5,:';',77:7-7,',..77-7.1-:;,T'',-",;".7;:•.;X.'.,T n';-77:7-(57::?':. ,:s;':"'''''-''Y'",-"z"75".'''''-',7T"':'-'7,•;:','7,'''F' ,Li.,. ..',.:.,',i;:.a,.:.:::,:•._..-..1'z':-..-. :::-.4:,iia':..'.<:,,.,:z:-..-.-: :i...L..",F.I'P,:;:(..:Vi..--In'.... .,f.:;,-1;J'.":;!;:.:.:n... .6"...j.i...,t,"--'2.:',ii ,.:-.,:',f'''''.,,...!:.;'::::i:-,.:.?. .';..i,.',...,;.1,--,=',/,..&;:.,',1,4',','"':'::',.':',,A:`,.;1:...r,'-6.:i....;',,,-.Nst.S.:il.,:f1'-Fi.,::::,k".7::,?':.2...:7„4'''i''.,:r3Y•ii::§}5 2',?..(:,:('\''"f'!;.::;2:*.i.4 :,:,, ,•;,,:;;;',..c.,1:„.•,,,..::,,i1,-/,,..•,...;,,,:,,,,,...:;.,_,,,,,,,-.„:„;.E..,,,,;,,x:,,,,,;;;i;:,„-.,-,,,,f,:,3f:,„:::,ii-ak:::„:,J.:u.-..,;;„1.,,,,:. ;:,:-,„ ?...);:,-,i...,,z,f!',„:„,,,,,,,,„:',1,-..,,,,,,,‘,„„1,:.72.'„,:„:„:,,,_„,:z.::„.:,,L,".42.,!°,..t.".. ..a.,...c,LI!.',",::::;...:,,,,,,z'......&v'..s.,.',;', _'2.8:::::::;..:....i.zz:.., ...L'..-;-Z.,. ',..,..t.'..,'',<,;:::-:-.SA.J.cii:,...:,:::',.. i:';;;'-'5;'.:::::7-T!'-'?';':77Z".":"1=.77:*a';',"'".".;:,:,.',.,,"- -•;:', :;:,-,7,,,,';'-',:',,'::),f.;:;'.':°V.,1,-7A-',-:::5 ''"f;',7:.,',,"'",77,-;-;,:s.23,,,,.r,,::,72.'':,Xf:7"-;,'7. ,-;;,7,:,:-,!•,,,,,,,-,,,,,,,,:,c,,z,,,7„,„:7,,,,,,,,,,,,z7,,,,,,,,,,,,,,:n;,:,,,,,,,,,,,.,7,:t;„7,,,,,,,,r,,,;.,,,,,w,:r.,,,,:,:,,I,,,,,,;-,,::::,,,c,,,,r7,:;,,,,,,, ,y-:,,,:-T,,-.. ''k'f.i.,",::1,-..'iic';;,:i... .,,.... , -,,,-,;','",.;d;.;Y,'.3';',.';',W;',. .;;A",/,,2:',::,•::;:''' ','„,„;:,Y,1 -. ,,,'',„ .‘:,::„':'i;,:',...`„•,:"; -,:;,,:,,,;'''':',',;',Y ''''.:',:',"1"„':,:,c,',.:`',-';‘.:...,;:2"; .2 ..;;;',.....f,:: .-:-:::::':,-;,,..;,::::',KT.fii;;:',i.', .'--..1',: ji,',,:i'z':;',',,,,g,:-...T.;i::-.R.:,:7:-.;::::;;;;,-'z;:7,:,--_,F,T;;;;::::;,.R:77,,i7,-,:::,,,7j...-.,--..:',5:7,:.7,..,,,,,,,7,,,-;",::;.::::::,,T;f::;::-17:?-74 "EigLi.II:0) ..:,':::11::;:i'aq:::.:',--.7: ':-:::.;;:',Ti's:f'.:,-..,":4-!:.::s!..,,,;R:T.,;',:]'x..:IF'',;,,:„',:i•;::',:`5..,;:,:i,3; .":::::-;',7:',::::::::j.::!'::::::::-:,:]-::,,..;,,J..:.'.3:,:::::::!,-.-,'::):7?.;.:,,,,::;,:::,::,,,:,,..Fic:):,..,,,,,,,,,,[,,,::),;,-,7,:,,E 1g:,,,,2,:i'..::::::7:;',7:;1',74.7:7;','(::;';';', :.- .4:F......';,..47,0:,,,:ROF:,-3-..F::::J.,,,{Ia.-,:-:;;-7,.:::::: ,',.-,,-;;-2;,7,..:,!;',?.,72;,7,„';',::':::',;.I7.3,r1E,-:-.271-41',...71:7iF,7.7.:3--7;iZ';•;?...F7.7:::, l',.:...:,:f...7:',.;:ii';','-77.2::;:‘,F:f•'41'::',':".:-61e-','...`"F,F47-V;,.,„Ffr::n.', ..-.7,v,:.,,,,-,..7.-,,,:,,,,, ..,,,-,-,y,',,;,,:::„.-;,F,,-,?•...,,,,-..T.,,,,,'„::..-„,,, ,F:;....4,-,.;,:,•.,-.,,:.,:,:..,':„..•:.-:„:.,,,:..7.2.-,-;.,3-,....,,,,.:7;ta:,,:7,-,-:•:-.T,--,,,,,,;;":',:t?.f.,:..r7.7::,::574F,,,72.,-,7.,:;,',:',-;;;.;.„',,,,77..„-,7,1I-,-;4-7.},7,:.,%,zi.':.','.,t'of....-:;:v!.:':;=q."7,77,=:::.,-..,-!',,';.;;:-, i-:;;i . 3::.'.:z::-..:i ,, :, ,.:,-;:-.,• ,.,;,:.:..•: ..-:.-: ,-, : ,.,::-oii.;:::::,... ,):7:-.:::::;,. ,,,,P,1::7j!: !'.1 ...•,'' '; ' ', .. .,i`',,;',i ','''''_';',"',1':' ' '".''', ',...fi'41 .-,;.`<:fr:'0..:ii, 7a:''+',"' '.' —''''''''' '''''''''.''''''''"'''-'""''''''-''';',").";•'-!'-'2',':''''-.',';','?'''',1'"',3----::'',,i',.;. ...:1-`,".''-'.'-',-."---.i.',.,',. :'..-.7.?...F-,:.-=';'';'N'';',' " '.;,:-;'-'i. :;`,.;:'...,',-.7:-::,.:3k,:..,7-!'-'7,`:;,;:c:1:n1,7,;x:nr:M'',",-N`'-','''',',M",:',14:7:17.7:°V-,; :',:v•Az :'1,‘L':::::`,"j,;2.i'::•::,-:',::'?!":::' ,3',.!':::::','',.'„:::',',,:;-:::::A.,.::,g':,;"%:Y5.):: ,;":k.."X,: b'-',';''f .'.:,,4%,::::::',,";',2,:,;1',.::',: ',',:,, :'''',:::'..,):::;';,:::::'.:...::',',::.::,,'...., ,;i.'"::;'-'::;j::',;,,,; -,:i';',;5.,'.,, :;-',:.,,j.":;:,;f:-;2';:,'''..:1",?,<.'-':AL;',. ;0;',..:.'1';3.6;.f.',C,:?..K',':::'''.i.;:'::::).:4;,',.n:.:I%:.'(::::'Sk.';: :::::::,:;,„:7;:r,:,:--;.%;;::::::::;..•:•:,:-,z,;;;,7,;:-...,::,,....,,,,,t.77:,:,,,...,•:;:f.f.7,,:-.,,,,,,z:v,,,y,t,:,7,;,,,,,,.-:.,-:::,;:??...,:z. 1,-,,,,•,,,:,..-,:-.,f,;,,;;?;:::.,:.,1: ::...,,`;',.',..7,',.,."7`,MTT',.:7`;',.,-.7 1?1•7,,,:57;;I::::,,i,,Kir,"-54,7,:,5"-(:".,:.:4)c, T,-.•??,:',.::,-.'S,'„:.:::te,',.,e::: ::::,:f.:9,,,q*.3%;'ai,::::'.ii; :.:::a.,.,:i::4;:c...,:;i1. :". .:f;.;•:z':..;".:::::,"::::....i.;.:,-;:ia:::::',;7,;:,e;.:1;4, :,..N:,.,:;, ,Z,:il.'i-0,.2-::; -.'',.!.i.: 1,: : ili ::::i,,II‘, 1' : • : .::... ' : ;Y5S 3 :.CC :': 'i;;;P:F5, 1';'•::',;:::;::::;';::.7:::.;;, .,:i; g-: ,%: ,1 , k :Tif., :, : , ,,,f, ,F.: ,74?-27E;T:',.7. 17,:i fi,7, E1-i777; -..-75..,L,..;,. .....:.,.,-, -,,,z,,,, :.•.,,,,,,:,,,,,,,,,:•;:-.4.,..,7,--_.,,:vw:-..-:;(,,-,,:-,'"'::';;71',7:7;,;',...::/;;'7,7::',:"4.1:'''';:''..:::.',%:',:',:.,. ','..,,,7:',-2, .^.:L..,^,,r, ;17'.';',rr.?,,,,,,,:i.yrzy,;;,....:,.,.7-:•:,-.7.7.!N7y,,,,,,'7;-...:,rp:r;:17,-,tr7,37-0,,,,;rn:,-,,,,u,:,,,,,,,,71;:7;;;-.r.,,,,,,,,..;.-...,7,,N .f,:!'32',.',•7;,1.3,...--:-V,-,1, '.)::.,:.'-‘ ,',.',::','.i.;,::•:;;;,:;.,..:-;:'-',.,1-.;,:i‘,....,"•::,,j.:;:':';•,:',.--",,'::;:',.:.:',..•::';:- :2N;'..'5',^i';',4'il,:,':'r',",:;:t:.'":,:',i;.;-,),;',"6',,<,-;.„';',..,''.::::,i,4:1',... i.,-,;-','::'''',k.:':;":-:;,a ;:',:1,:',:?;';,V,,,::`:'i;:<.'; ',,';'i;:ti.,.:::Vc.:;::::::;.:.' %?','':''::%•:..:,<;?:',:::::: ,-',:ft 05:::,-;;:,,,i145"i:gii'li. :P•)1::::):°:, SUBTOTAL 1,162.47 BILL TO: TAX 0.00 FREIGHT 0.00 TOTAL 1,162.47 :;',,ii:i:','-::;'-'''': -.';,',.•:.'•:,."-:',:i'....):.."AC:aviiii.t*t:iiiif?.4i;..'";',,::.ij;$..c'...:,'j:41.k.';';'-'''jf,•:,-i. ;;;:-',2'.. j.fic-'2-j-i').W?.--:,,.*: ::::.;::,-,P-.::.'.'‘,.Yifioijc,g.i.i*it#4.nOgiii.f..0"iiri.iliii,",A .,6,:.*;6i.-:.;.:-,1,';:glk,', ..':'`.;'''19:5::',: ',;.•4i0t.i.iiCY.,:i:ft,' E 127.000000.004.5710.0010.48.000000 1,162.47 c-Thkeltdt. /141Ann1414'k • !g11-44..f.,e; J. Wait--101Y%-) Authorized Signature Authorized Signature INVOICE: 10r 17C-61—Ail Date: Re; To: SPL Integrated Solutions Project Number: S45559SE 02/22/2006 P.O.Box: 951245 For: I EGRATED SOLUTIONS Dallas TX,75395-1245 • Client#:C03013 SPL - INTEGRATED SOLUTIONS L- ' "] SPL Integrated Solutions CITY OF RENTON 1427 ENERGY PARK DR. 1 Service W.O. S45559 ST. PAUL, MN, 55108 Customer P.O.: VERBAL FEB 2.8 2006 PH 651 287-7000 FX 651 287-7001 E FIVE c � c � a� �rry�F��s E 0� _ Bill to: Project Site: CITY OF RENTON SPL Integrated Solutions ACCOUNTS PAYABLE Ngac Do 1055 SOUTH GRADY WAY 8661 154th Ave NE RENTON,WA 98005 Redmond WA 98052 Tel: 425.430.6606 Terms: 30 Day Net Invoice Date: 02/22/2006 ShipVia: UPS Ground Due Date: 03/23/2006 Product Code: S Authorized Agent: Lori Wood Qty Mfr-Part No. Description Unit Price Extended 1 ROBREP01-REPAIR Repair cost FOR AG-7350 547.50 547.50 1 Diagnostics &Repair estimate for AJ-D640P 93.45 93.45 4.5 Service Labor @ $95/hr 95.00 427.50 ****Three trips to site for servicing ****Troubleshooting,testing, removal and reinstallation of units listed above CHARTER 116, LAWS OF 1965 CITY OF RENTON CERTIFICATION Cyr jV�Q I,THE UNDERSIGNED(y0 HEREBY CERTIFY UNDER PENALTY FEe THAVE BEEN FURNISHED, HE SERVICES RE DER DF PERJ ,THAT THETALS OR'THE LABOR PERFORMED AS Z 12006 DESCRIBED HEREIN,AND THAT THE CLAIM IS JUST,DUE ANfA Ci_4y Of THAT i AM AUPAID THORIZED TO AUTHENTICATE AND C€TIFY TOATION AGAINST THE CITY OF RENTON, �bUnts P yab�e SAID CLAIM. / , �-" ' P b Plod o /0 `l l SIGNED_. &616-.ar`� a 76 330 1`].o doaao, aoy, 5 `1 10, oo 1 o,44, a0000a -DD Please note new Remit To Address above. $ - Sales Tax WA $ 94.02 Tax ID:52-1760942 Balance Due: $ 1,162.47 02/22/2006 SPL-INTEGRATED SOLUTIONS Project: S45559SE INVOICE: Page 1 of 1 INTEGRATED .SOLUTIONS f ,z Phone(425)861 5564 Redmond 25 86985784 Location Terms ❑Net 30 ❑ COD Inv.# ' 45559 ❑Warr.,-0 A l leaded• 0 Estimate 0 Redo N/C Date In In Via Date Out Out Via Customer P.O. • j o2- — c c ' Bill To: Ship To: . 1 USSR. S. t,Vra A t�(/ t 1 Contact Name A i Phone / 3 17 Equip.Type f. fY ? i Maker , l� Model Se # In With _ Marks ((� () `4 r• Repair Instructions o } `�, .. \) t .I c, tz,AR =ter'- 1 . ® L.P y�c�{-t? c..,-L. v Is 4 2)4- f}YIS (DM r : a.. Labor Record / 1 T L — ( I r 0 v)2 9, .i_t 't A k ci (1. � RA/It -t v 5 e-Y"L/i el_ c t••t",�i @-,'1 E;ca y a'S t 1.i:t.ct k- 1 C141-_ ^7 • Parts Record Item Code Lot Parts Cost t ?�' `fir ; , . �� ._0;r saleii :�rl n . t��rr�� tQ/c.� I 5 4-r- 7 . 1'1 P )4z. 1 ,.. `o" / 0 q 5 d -5— 7:-/1,)*, a se:_//, i,-0,2_,-(2 / ..c- 14-7-Si) Labqr Parts ~ Subtotal Shipping Tax Total Due 42••, ao L#-� . 7 1 Li_ic Tech Date Done Page 1 /1 • & �f CITY OF RE .,ON `� + 1055 S. GRADY WAY uF V a Is T• .., 3 �1: C' ' RENTON, WA 98055 3/30/2006 12/0001105 VENDOR: 076380 SHIP TO: SPL INTEGRATED SOLUTIONS PO BOX 951245 DALLAS, TX 75395-1245 FOB Point: Req.No.: Terms: net term Dept.: FINANCE DEPARTMENT Req.Del.Date: Contact: EVANS, DEBBIE Pre-Assigned PO#?: No Special Inst: •a - - ::-.�n�" •�`` : a`�` Kz_...`yss;'-x a=..•:rc . e� � � bmy�.��Ce. a y��R � ;,e <�-,..,,am.r, < < ' a a . f, . '0i - " aQ� ti4eS�Nuo��`i' ? � S +` < t>..�,�aa ��":,.`�� ,• r<. , -.,?.i . , .� an EQUIPMENT REPAIR, INV 100833 ROBREPO1 467.84 ss��.. --t'a'"t<`'->ca '. �'di'=`�z �.<w��a��'.� .'a�lE'`ti,��ti;7 � �� '`�`�;,�•`°`",__ $'•c;'�'i'`Z�t rn <T3.r=. �."..*:?:,,;.,. t�'•, :n-,,..Q::< <,�'+ xy • �.,.��.....,:,..:,°�5`a.-"•' .. ,"`w$.:,vo.�s.,:;,+. .�-,;,e'..se<arc.. ara `�' '`-'�tsu.'w�,.�4�� a .' � �"''.'_ ?;r-s'^;=u�' "-'Y+,'sx ';�Sre;.m; ,c. -,,,tea'^''�S°"`%• \,- t.. .im,wg- : `Z: «:vi,,r, r.:: -an, rvv A-v.g iin.=s�rs_gfr'r:•al , s^"' R:-. �n F Y 3,. <i=tfl •c.;�, MAW.v�.':8,- :-7•- ,�,, ,Y',,i .^.��wv. �1. '�� <�. St•' •:a.•} s°;';, :.'�, '• '��t'`•. i.,.?na<.:,3.,a _ � iy: ..•:w'sh^. S*,>. .e p:a>t Q::fry.. .>\. A •1-.:- ,":VA. ..S" e�`, �,.> '.., ,.s, °i� S�` ., "�<._.z..=.ca`' :#.'�-.-.,,a�.'`�� a "1,�'-. „3 w,< ,;;:�.>,i�'.«:r „q� y.,��. �:i`.:ww�...�tst«�,' < ,'a, 1, f�f�'`fa�'«� i> e...'��' s'� � ky. c. 3�< s``,. '° -� `Tv.,<.,�•,::��:a::>.��Gi...,5s�� .�:§``n' :'x.: ; :<. -,�. ;s.,.:1.:. '`dasx!.,-: ,,�'>.�` •'.�i'.f� f::.;,:_•�,,.;r ..� ��k�i»,s�.:.�. 4�'.,o-'�, •.>�:'a s_..'�,'. �._,.>e:L:.�.::�">:ai:_t `';8ziF...� ,�;, &yg � . : +`'s.`..1N- "->7^° tl �q� x<',':37�:.:.. rn": .:o,.-w.S•..r �, ;r5w: ; .�Ra . -;� 7a t .1.', r<s .� T �K. ;v �� e'£ ,x n -;:<. . a < - � !' :3z:6� � �,:'� "`i"�`. egw 3<'`r�� ;�"';' �`:t:,�:�;`;z ��'i� . :.', :a "` 3=-.�e�« Sa^ .: Y, �•7' '\ e ar�"�i ` a i.S"r� ar5.es< ,'" eta <f.r�tr :n'a'» .w.. ,,<� `s;. Fa`v�s Maaa�>,..r7: carz �dx<_'>r.-r.mk'.�» .4s»,b ,z?:aa4;�v.: f.rmi».�w�s, .x :.�ti4 .».« �... ..t.mt.. s.�.o. �£ra�,� : :.<..<„ ..<.. ..�,",,..:a. : -x r:,a,>-%r' -w<--e1,-- "C:'tr- \, a'aP•':,,,t::2 ,`"F'x..".'" - ,'-.',,'F;F =':^?,'W—'P Fig,"-°",:T`.a.'<`- :';s<i.,.^�,T,_ >sa,, .' 4",,,a ;'"''c>. ";'a.,•• :T'">'S.,`^c.-'- v _ ;:i,'^:,;' t'" n,..' ,'M: >v,• ,•* ,;fist,'",,A ,' <r., ',dx`.� .un:: a<i, 's ,x„a ,,,;, ' :l'' <::�w�. '::'° :.a'-s:`2�, .. , a`'i :-�i., c'`x;. :: .Ez„ `�.'.<<-.,. 7.c,,. ,.. �.s_" .�•'vu r�'v'"-`w,'" .� t,a?';n,;e' '.,..': :x? ';*q >`•'a"=;k'r'"`�°itia.•s�, r >:n"e`:`"'vF.r> ;. Yr .;m:: .''^.,=..�x`. ,.f..:'.*•�.x::e.3•:, as a�.a �::u;�:-:;" '{'��'�.,��=&�i.:�.-..s..:.,�as�;,;s;..•�a�.`-N,�w ��+!'i".;r:b_...'.�'a.`�:..,..m,,.:...�`k�� :s„-:.ta,:c;:.Y.�.t'�'�,'a4•:lr's,"x`?=a fiM%.�a:��+.w�.'�'��'.'>�',�'��''�� r � ;�:2:�3:.i.�':�;'s.`�'y.,.., ,•<' ::ty'"1Mpiro<' > .: - a,�;� ,,S":'tz.^<rn ,..n• e . t :F.,Y.. �}v�,,`hy II7., •`�,a }, c'� :S'.+` ,cy'�•t3`Gtr\.., '�.�_"`'@'^ 3 ,-.KE-,'.��`ati, «Y.�%ro ,.V. ,1 s. a>�x .`��. ': x..�, 'a�,ax.,,' v...sa.a.:,.,rx'i .. ;,.:2:i�.F'`',:''�.w..�a'. -"�:�._.k.•.. r.�tr:::n'x,..+�...a''t»..:.�.a::.,a.,,,�.-'.....` .'�""k.fsxrila �aa,'` .,:•* :".�,.xw._,..,.....w�,"�z.,'� -�.<'�y.`w6;,><..x..' s:t«,`.�>r',�a .�, �.- <.<...s„-t r ;<- w.;-, ...,'�`�'"'ixy,?t :a' :s}sr.::.n� ,•.,}.»x•.»,ark-�.;..M,tg,.,, , „"w„'__.'':, 1;77,,:t,..<,..r't'a'.'. "'-�•.�•, »*:c a^"- '�;r,,r°'A :7`a-^.. .a» .,a. -rem.,_' •:t` _;'v,.g=} "*,' «.;,. ,,,, -f, �:.Y'-�.x�•'t '.;�'^ kt-. ,,;Pn-< rt?s�v ,.�'e' ,.b".,.(Y .,..r° <-4ri T�`:'•.. :4�?'.>t`.a ;i`!.�a .:�;>ii. �s�,,. Fr, ''.''.%S:t.•.'�, t;;2, it:° ».�5. r ,x<3a E: >wv�,,``-°�''',,,..- _;Cn.-4P:,v ,.�,,. .�a<e>,s�.rx \T>, .r•.<: - �'i:�?...< z,•tc':� >,�..��.•�'�.r.<,_.a� �6a. ...,..a..i-?.�.. .; �.,m.«.e.:,.."::�$t, �.,x�'.�,:....._x....,:a�,.:�''�„'-,;tis n..,., >..�� :e�u: «u ,-:.-.. _ .,..� .« .� .°a `f,`'�`.'`'r ..w= ,..'i}",r,, *`�`>-,-a`-�"'�`'--'•_. LL� �, ,,,ri,;�r,.w..: :�, ,_ .,,`�§s.�_ „S`zf J«+�.�.,.:�w"�rY..a+�.�.a,-,.�`�.`�.ti..,,,<<'n,...»:.,,,>�,r,a-.:.»��•y,..�. � s.r�•.a '��y' `:Y k,_t�ry,,u';=.E.r'n"';1v.,.. ;.='t?-' ?a_`�`.x::;,,ii,°'d"" s�Tv4;, ^,.'�h ,+:�: �,:t". 'x`v",.ram ?<:p',: rk`,z:sy.',7n7.,;-,,,,S,', .:::z`;v':' 'nag,,,"_,t.,;<.,:-aa^r,'W:n,-- a ,,: w' @? .;(?, ui. .c •��: ,,-,.,_ .V...w,, r,:z,,,._ <.:" •k.,v �•,,,.,.c. .&�'sr•i:+o r°„'-.,-.',`--,•`-+a SM'3.::� -e 3T„5(<� 'a"r�' a-�Y.,. S'a,`<, `<a: ?ai a`�.<..• t,-r<. .. �_ ...1' i.x, ..1':W ,E`'`.� <,},,x ..lfi§-.<a.. ;,',cx: .-.�.: .,i�;'. .> ,t.'v., ..a:a>q,^:,^w,:„ a' .i. „,� ..�.^Y�.-5 c_{ „�:,s `,�w ,.`...ttz<`: '>..,T ,�iG'. ^,7':.. ` r•' ..:E• :EyrH.¢.;. -c.'T-;�,. . , .... ,N;.:J:.a.:,."•».,.w,:.,. . S.:.k,a.m's :: � 'a�,`ti ,x"r'3, s "' . <u. §;� �'`c,.r.«P vi }i 4`.5`�-�s_., Y,y�r_ k<_•,-c",,��a'd:.>:", 4�;,`a>,z,�.>:.�..i'i��5'.��v-`;�i�,.F...,0...2t.t�= :R..-�vx "`vv-.a:»'.,�,...�:�,x`<.iu'.: .s,^m _<.;.ia�z::i�ti,.:,a, a.tr...,.....n.x,:..,..3".,;a,.kaw.e... :.3a,,`',<-;....':@.».»_,a,-..,a,.esv».-..C..iax�m �<•.a:F;•"•�=��sC>€a*�s >"'yam '^`q""',�.+"re.-vi.:`_',,�w,°s9;.",'�,;...<>;�».'-� rx;`^vS':?Qi�>*«a'-•�,,,<r.�<�, _ .a, -'r` ::""`' _ .s:, ac•�i�Y,r�s';•.�.,;•-<e;�.:�� _.:"i� <irtr_.� ^;!"v��e"zic�-'�,<•�r.;,c:�.+>-�;,,+rz„�r:tm,:•„�, ;ry,�•... .x..,., ".'�.u.. s-e+3',T'r:' �' ..r:a :4"'":w._ ,':�, .'`=s�.:•;?es....� a.t„--.>\`'`` .. �':j:::3: ,�+,M. ,;t>, ^`.c�ir�.>� {`•..»-fir- ' ,a. •:a,<, ;r`: ...- y�?'.;,aiae .:,, ,z�s`«?» ;...sa c < ::3:Aa.`.»� :» +:i",,,.,::•a.i�+>^+�`^.<a-w. :�.a...v'.i-a;��i'" .ram{t;��:,:.:?,i`'x;•��,�FvxS,i ..i'.< :`.�:,•: p�. ,e''.:,.'$;:'HC't'v»'<+y, " „yy 2 ,f`� €. §„a ,�,S,.G��.,,,,`•`ak��:S�,�`=`. ..t,x,a,...,:.;:s_,aa,..,.s,.:...,:r'•>s:?.'`•"u:,::��+��:�ss:_.......,.._..... .a „><, ,,,.1»,ad..•Xca:`cCi,C. „,>,.., a r.�+�rr. � •� �r,• ::z�"�+:�•i��R9�'.e-,> �es�x5�� ;��. `+�G..a'�...::-9:.:a �Y,'��V`-<�'+. '•z.l:�>;v,.»gar.ux.;s,.^:<:,t;.,s�:.;�., _ .. ^* k ��RR 'R'.i �.:� :y:...zr`,,,. '°.Y•,,,-,. a.�e-'.\•''z,,.:,-.,.. .V•,.i-i�, i., ','^�, T-A, .,�'<!3: a fie.- <d.";>,'::wx„ :Yt`'` n�.g._ ::'e..t ;.j, ...�i-3:_a.•",y�..\ ',Y ^.�., � <'w„=av.:ti � .f3`.: .i :-,� .`�•v �r>. _.«..:.'?:,' ..,.%.Ns..iM,".....>,.....��T?-a;",;w<�.:•• .. ''r-" ;;�i 5 �'«��'' ,q-.aa``r�s``o- .sz�_t :i.�...- �-- �,. �3;?', � i^ '`3aasa: X:`::..�:wiJ;.aw,„m:N:�:,....,.,u.....=:t�..,.>4. ..�"s.".t�,5"xSaxi�.�� '.,d:,>.....+,.,.",,...�:.,r.a',��..Sa;.,'�`,:,...<c",a;:a>«.`:.H:.1::.-.,.,.,,r:�:cct a<,;.aa��w�'.v.�-aCa'i,:.:,F�.::_:��wi,�„a::»,.,'�s'.'M;a.,,�a.:a3'�i»"'"wS.a``'�.'awis ra.. - _>-""x':x:"'i< `�ar:.°'"C;'ir""" -<.<^vx.:w.:�'aa - .�='�,.'"M�.,< _>-" z.�, _ -rIt.7,..> -rn_s_,.....a ^,-li-% }';%�in�.Vie.;,n .;x i:,...:"\i`�"f w �>3"<�--:... -s•4«;;,;!s i.,i. :,ap_�-,c - ,'{;?e.e•'h:<+ �A:�.+ `�="? �� ,:._.1T_-°. .�_ .tR'.> e-.�:: - s" ..>><�'.+.'"'fir:?;' <'��ai�.,F`'•..a v n v3Y'.e_M �t\"'-X"i:a'w�.'..'�a-�.3:�i ,.._\vK':._ea�,s`:+.a».,w'_Sas3,.e�. e <3:•t.af{sue...-...x._ `` ia 'Si* ..u....w+».�:"'',3 ,•� ry,>.'"�: :_,.�;i zw�:;.��a.,...=... .x ,-.....=,�..�.<.»..,...�"...._,.». a..::�1'Mi« ,.i� :,<'.?x�`-..::"<.Ck:u.�iii:S'.`•?a•�`.� �r��' -�;�yi;>o—vet`:,,- "_" ::.:- ';�':�v'=;,•x;>:rt•• --xr�e: '<',-o-�+,:"`_.+.� ,za`ia.'a,°"..~_ ,.,.. <> r"•;�""" a=' r - „�,.,- !:rr.:s;"=r�:;.. -r.. yv_ :,it <, •:T 7--&-i> , " :,..: "•?k >. .:<t'5`_"FI <a?"" a•<�y,n:.�a:a`;'>.fl :,j Re-"+a. .i rxs-: .+a`-r., ��Y��yyE... ^'max,...`'�<,s»'`<5 •*, �,t .�< ^+4'. `,z',1., rs^:v.r>.:*:a'xC7:�+,• ?s.,;. :5 � �>>a - `i._ a :.� w:...-: n.t� .ass, lY" 'S F s:.<a_.....«mf.:;` :iax:_,.,-<,-c":S:u::i.>.,<,.vn.,wt.:,i•= .�,. moo'.'">,^:.., ?. ,S.».,.____.,,.�,,_,.�;a.s:..,, ._�».»:F z�.3�-a� <z,�.a�,,;��„zrc�':=a.:=�F.,�:.asw�,..,�..,.�..<.:,,��a�...-.r�=,,:'%�.: :�:2,M;�.;= i.:�<:;`c:�.:u�;�._ksss»a.,.,x ,.:,a a•,5�3�'' •C "n .>�rn,, c.^$.w:T2\y.:?:..`�.P6',"!7M 9•;• '<"s it'i`°<.',° -Q.; Y•S, "t;5;v. ,r wnm.- :L\^5 g'a.. rat' .'aC':Y„<.";W:•"',. 7-7-.Ry^SAP, ".`.t;^ W �5.r ��. '�'$`' ».e+a, „4\ ».,',n,5s- NR��,.. i.}°ri'•,' :`'S$ tu"f',�•3;+°'�:5:� Ys, `,yma �<'�`'<w.i M,i< :r+�<e,.. �' -max,.., "• :...t .;i. �s�5,' ,-J'r 3> ,...,, .'S, w q i Kam:: ,q'!';'-`.S..F= i'e.. ti.' .- .1, .,xZ;m+,t -, .:Z r. ..q< 4 +Y.. "+"L-`:a W..":"� ",'��£:.. .<•.v. -:-:: y.`..- >'w. , i%:5-'.,"• ":i'",'<r.:sz?:'».-.`:'4,r.<i< - ePt'"a't<'e«w;n �• i,,'`' yt:��•. ��Yd.i .N. �'fi:'�::x�i', � 'F't:,'V'l ....».,-.».,��>:t:<,,._..a,..�<,r�.:.�:..m.«�.a-..;.�U°,.�.."�v$'.'.T'.a•».,.»..»3'=_ -G:a�::`av'��.'.`,`�.;�.�.;�:.u:..._e�,.3.:a:t�u.�=k�:�r�:C��•i«`ri->'.,a«<v:b.; :... ��<.i.=''� u:.f�',:;W:w't, a.`;.. ._,ywe..a.•.,VtN`.,:h<-a �,x�=a`y..''a��>.. s "'e;» 1nt a:!:»....» :�:zi;:t 1:..ae,,...�a -v'� ;,�.�..,. <..:ixv.L^=u:R�,ia�. e.:;% i:,xrr.eo,s ;�>�?,� ;;••.c <, a:�`�:x'?"<' .-:t<.`aYt-:=x€,'»'"-m*`_ ';;s'.- ;YF:' ":,-7•"c'-`w .r?>.;.,:9_s-.. .:a "`-w `=r=x-. ",,77`l,r wr,7,17,.: t, µ„,:r. , ,!--.1•w :S i.Sj ?,;Z:yF�. 'i-a.'' -<:..:,• .`i`""f,.'!>- r`,M•,m-;.�<: Wit. .�.`< '�' -,::� ,�>�• � _.�� :s <{., .s .. ?:,, .<aa-E:'ra,.n, v . �,,.."o .- �:;-r,_�,a,•.."u ,.�, ><t� ,., .v.,:,�.zp `S'SticT^•=�r.,'is7'J; J :'\"�'�� <.§. :� i,�.-.�„�:av`s.�:.,,,,,.>`�..�C.�,�.L.?Y;;. ...+u..:,,�:au�,e:a�:.Das,<,,v.�t.�v...,,.-.,-:�T._��:u.w':x1"`'.✓"..6z:_a,a">isWlse`.;:4� . ,,y i,.- ' 'g`' :i.a>.<> , '%.: .,.. A.,i, i�mw.,..'ix•i ra. "...c` '',:1:.�.>.,.,,.�.�<.•.-:<� �„�•'�'.a-:a,'.te: :»..``i�FS ^��'k� ,.ate",^.'°._„ ix;-„>r.- t_.'. ;a n'>kr i• ..�JYr ?•' "'`i+ ML :Xz' _-.�,".'�'�' .i., ;,<F" ..tC'`:e£..�. Fa„>''\'S,� <\ S':�. i`�"< .S',�+ .� t S .FN'',z Y 1„ { y ., w,\x` :W Cif' .,,.,a,-:..<v,� ,.� - ....<,,..�.r„ .,... • ;:."..,,, ,�'." ..�! ".,\uS ...t.• .4. -,Y.:-E•, tt�F'rt• e:`'�'"...1 �<..a.:'::, . ,.,. • _., w -,r'F .�,- r'- t, ':•,,, r�.. ;�;;;; .<,.�,,:�=.. ;,�, r=�`�°r.:�.� ;'s�'`,•C''° a�`',, ,.,. .,. .`t�.a�a. £.i .7.. .. ... ... :.. •e=1 � ��ti., r�i<a->'3 �i s�'` =s�;•i...;i'v>':i�: i ;a"�>„a �Z ��i. „ w ?.'`�.°+�,..A.,. .. a, , SUBTOTAL 467.84 BILL TO: TAX 0.00 FREIGHT 0.00 TOTAL 467.84 -,�_�'''.Y ,�, �{" a�br '4�y'L.�"•"< -.�.`?.::t .,+ma`s"`:�, s� •,?l-�>�� ••>v,.;>:R,`�^ ,c;3r+:Tta .s`q->`. � `::%;,. `;,� `.AS,`,, o" 11 �� {t��yZya a::tT, �, "R.-�as:r,: �� s„t.•s:- ...r. M. >i;-`` �><`�.$�1. tP.,s',', st_` `�J49�=•` ` �a \5: �*...� ..a.,, tS ^6J�•v "�� U- .;\x• ..�c'°-- -�, ,. �"� :3°' ,. r .. ,,.'.,9` ' :,'`rTwGS,._._ ;;.h4 .�`.,�'S'a..,':_,,.;.:.,. ,p+ yY`r�'! ,,. ^ j{�{'' n$ .:..„:v„ .`•tftei:i3 -•C,;.l<:>aee`:':-". � ?w < .C.eS��`»,�� .<. .,.... ,.,n � `.4C �i^�'�E.�a:ti£3.'-< E 127.000000.004.5710.0010.48.000000 " 467.84 ---fitirk-/- A/64 607444.?.c V Wated - Authorized Signature g Authorized Signature INVOICE: 10P"' C (/r Ir ice Date: 'OPAL Rc Tome SPA;"Integrated Solutions Project Numu4r: S45578SE Foror03/16/2006 P.O.Box:951245 INTEGRATED SOLUTIONS Dallas TX,75395-1245 Client#:C03013 SPL - INTEGRATED SOLUTIONS SPL Integrated Solutions CITYOFRENTON 1427 ENERGY PARK DR. V-- V rService Order MAR 2 12006 ST. PAUL, MN, 55108Customer P.O.: VERBAL CITY 8LERK'S OFFICE � �� PH (651) 287-7000 FX (651) 287-7001 Bill to: Project Site: CITY OF RENTON SPL Integrated Solutions ACCOUNTS PAYABLE Ngac Do • 1055 SOUTH GRADY WAY 8661 154th Ave NE RENTON, WA 98005 Redmond WA 98052 Tel:425.430.6606 Terms: 30 bay Net Invoice Date: 03/16/2006 ShipVia: WILL CALL Due Date: 04/15/2006 Product Code: S Authorized Agent: Loris iVatC Qty Mfr-Part No. Description Unit Price Extended. 1 ROBREP01-REPAIRRepair cast AG7150P N&/(. * 240.00 240.00 2 Service Labor hours, $95/hr CHARTER 116, LAWS OF 1965 95.00 190.00 ***Picked up unit&sent to repair CITY OF RENTON CERTIFICATION ***Reinstalled repaired unit I,THE UNDERSIGNED 1,0 HEREBY CERTIFY UNDER PENALTY ***Verified unit functions with rack equipment OF PERJURY,THAT THE MATERIALS HAVE BEEN FURNISHED, THE SERVICES RENDERED OR THE LABOR PERFORMED AS DESCRIBED HEREIN,AND THAT THE CLAIM IS JUST,DUE AND UNPAID OBLIGATION AGAINST THE CITY OF RENTON,AND THAT i AM AUTHORIZED TO AUTHENTICATE AND CERTIFY TO SAID CLAIM SIGNED. . wS -po j2(000 nos RECEIVED uti o763So MAR 2 0 2006 1,.7, 006006. ooy.-7/o. oo(o, ca. oaa000 City of Renton `bD' Accounts Payable Please note new Remit To Address above. $ - Sales Tax WA $ 37.84 Tax ID:52-1760942 Balance Due: $ 'F ?; 03/16/2006 SPL-INTEGRATED SOLUTIONS Project: S45578SE INVOICE: Page 1 of 1 ,. 0 CITY OF REN-.ON Page 1 /1 .13) + 1055 S. GRADY WAY RENTON, WA 98055 5/31/2006 12/0001146 CATTO VENDOR: 082979 SHIP TO: TROXELL COMMUNICATIONS INC 4830 S 38TH ST PHOENIX, AZ 85040 FOB Point: Req.No.: Terms: due in 30 days Dept.: FINANCE DEPARTMENT Req.Del.Date: Contact: EVANS, DEBBIE Pre-Assigned PO#?: No Special lnst: PROJECTION LAMP FOR EIKI PROJECTOR IN, 314.43 FREIGHT INCLUDED) 7Firf, cc .7; • •:z ' ' ,,,,,, : Y.-f2.27:::>•.2f: ; , „ • • . •; ; ccc:1;„,„ „ • cv •• •-:;.:„ ' , • , T2, SUBTOTAL 314.43 BILL TO: TAX 0.00 FREIGHT 0.00 TOTAL 314.43 E 127.000000.004.5710.0010.48.000000 314.43 6,87,tA4-c_e"4. &IGLIZ, Authorized Signature Authorized Signature PLE/70--SE REVIIT TO: v.. .. , . ilIiiNINtOICEii. . ....................... ..... ... T ROSE El COMMUNICATIONS, INC. . ................................... ....................................... ......................... .......... Autho•Video-Sales•Design-Service•Installation No. 172526 4830 S.38TH STREET Date 06/12/2006 . PHOENIX,ARIZONA 85040 Page 1 (602)437-7240 1-800-352-7912 FAX (602)437-7265 C Customer 21416 N TIN # 86-0716114 8 . ,-1- 0 , utx Sold To: VIA- Ship To: CITY OF RENTON CITY OF RENTON • CITY OF RENTON • JUL 2 52006 • 1055 S GRADY WAY 1055 S GRADY WAY RENTON WA 98055-3232 RECEIVED RENTON WA 98055-3232 CITY CLERKS OFFICE Jr 44itiiigi5i;1iii;-;:::i.;;::i i:i::::::iRI:::0',:i:.! 46;*i4ii.. :.,. :;:i..---..,:,: giNotiiiiiiiiit:' .NIEtikiiiorlitiiii!:.:!:.:::iii i' ,..6i.i.ifWsti.iON Ediiii."'Z,0:10..isii ;............. Net 30 . United Parcel Servic 06/12/2006 632143 EEM 06/05/2006 12/0001146 4601 ,,:.:-:--:.::!:#01KNO304#1.,-::::ii..,:.,::-..:::.::::;:ii.:;..,:,..,:...:-r.::..1:::::: ::,.:::ii::.•!PO,Oir.ilki.l,,;:.:i,j;i.:..s.i,i:.,: i: ::";,:i .:.:.:a:i:.;:::: :.:-...:'::1:.#.00tOkl.:_:.:::iii .$1110.0.00.:::i...:::iiA.V..0: .:::-,],:i'.i Pt.1.60Mer:::-.-.•..::::::] - --- ••••••••-• - ..----••-••--- ----......••••------ •••••••• - •••••......-- •••••••••-•- •-•—••••••••••••••••••••••••••••-..•••••••-•------•-•••••••••••••-.....•...-----•-•••••••....-..----.-.-•••------•.••• ••••• •• ••••••-------- ............. ......................................................... ............ ............................. .................. ...............-....................--...-...........................--..............-•••••••••••••• - -- •••••••• • . ..... ....... ELK EIK6102907698 LAMP FOR LC-SX1U, 1 1 0 289.00 289.00 SX1UL,X1UA,X1UL UPS 1Z8718930314215191 • . RECE/VET)• JUN 1 6 2006 City-=- .. Accou.?!Nen ton tits Payable CHARTER 116, LAWS OF 1965 - • CITY OF RENTON CERTIFICATION I,THE UNDERSIGNED U0 HEREBY CERTIFY UNDER PENALTY OF PERJUF Y,THAT THE MATERIALS HAVE BEEN FURNISHED. PO I•7/000 I 11/(0 THE SERVICES RENDERED OR THE LABOR PERFORMED AS DESCRIBED HEREIN,AND THAT THE CLAIM*JUST,DUEAND VeTg b 0-a__f 0 7 2_97 . UNPAID OBLIGATION AGAINST THE CITY OF RETCDR,AND THAT I AM AUTHORIZED TO AUTHENTICATE AND CERTIFY TO 4 ce---C. i 7--7 t.X•004, 5-77 -00 10,4 46,* SAID CLAIM. . SIGNED. . *a tdage..d" (c b sr MEMO: ...................—- CONDITIONS OF SALE -A11400.4i7::: : -=i•::iii:: ,M 289.00 • ,iiiiii]Pi:'••%•Wg0iiii!iiii All claims arising out of or connected with the AFinance Charge at the periodic rate of SALES TAX 25.44 above listed items must be made within five days 1 1/2% with an Annual Percentage Rate after delivery. No returns accepted unless of 18% will be charged on all accounts ............................ accompanied by this document. Merchandise returned unpaid after the last day of the for credit shall be subject to 25% handling following month. -.: h.:..i::::i:i:::::•.:,:]:ii:::-..--i,:.: charges. Seller reserves title to these goods :-.i.i.::::::::•.i.i..i;Mi:0: iii . ,..,...,,,,,,..,—..,. until paid for in full. i:::.:-P::::::i*:::'0*::::ii::ii:i:*:•:, This invoice is due on or before 07/12/2006 :AMOUNT 31 4.44 PLEASE REFERENCE THIS INVOICE NO. 172526 ON YOUR REMITTANCE , . . . • . . . . .. . . . V „.....,.7...wle• _ . . . .. .. ° ..ir-S ,t4 • . . • . . • . .. • . PAGE CITY OF RENTON. - 1 • . . -.- - • • +O 4' • .• '• . . '...1055 S. GRADY.WAY — ifi:;iimiim :4:4:iaP0..Ntinibififtn R ' ENTON WA 98055 • . . • • • • II-UKi,. . . , . VENDOR: • i'l . .,.,_ ,,, • ',....._..a. Cenvyyti_‘4,c u C 6dit....e>ikfiHIP TO: 6(..i..j.,; . • P • - I . D 5.pk -3 -i'll -'.7t, ••o90 • . . . . . • ____, _ . 1 /,?4, A,5(',.,A FOB Point: .-.. Req.No.: Terms:' net-term Dept.: . • 4;411%; Req.Del.Date: -:: . • : • Contact: _. / ... . . 90E5 Specie!Inst.:. '• " Conflmilng? • •. • • . .. .. . , . • . . • . • • ... .- .. . •O•iiiiiiiitili. lideNNONSOMMANO"Vagegitg. lAl4tingaPagieginVigganigNiN anfrilt.P.00.1:iiiii agitiii5.0•1 '.:BigN __ _. .. oly,,tv ‘ ge767 .. .. t__•. ...........::::.:,..:::.:::..,:......„... ...:.:::...:,...::::::::: ...,. ::.•...:::: :..:::::.....::::::::.,.:::..„:::::.::,.:.:::::::::.:::::::.:,:i:::.:„...,..::.,.:::::m.:::„......._ . . .:;:ii:.ui!i:i.:i:i*i-,7'":•••.:...'.,. •;..i--•- - ..•..:7....: : - -• . --•-:-, ." : :::•.::.::.:•::•::. •:•-•.....::::-.. -:•"'..:xf::..K:.:•,•:-it:•••:,,•-:-:-::*.:... ... , .::.::.:f::.ti:x.:::!.:KM:K:i:K:K:E:K:::i*::::::i::;:iiii-51.:iiii:.:.ii*M-..-•-'-----7..:- •::iii:'.:pi:iim.M-:pi .::i]iii:. .. E-..i::•ME::ii..:i::i:i.:::iiigir.:ii:iaiii3:::::ni§:.!:Ei!i:IiiiEilMi:::i!giMiigi:il:ii::iiE•:::YR:Mi:,M.:.::§giiiii:i:i':?::AEi.:§iMiiMiRiiinii:iEiiii'.iv§:igiWin:Mggin.iiiiiEii:iigi:i*::-..E:::?:MIR-zia:•"•.:Vf:iiff::Eiii.:::ENV.ii::.,:m:i:?: ::v.:m::•:::::K;.:E.• ..-.•::.:::?.K:i::::Aaiis.giKi4::R]ii::•:-:i:•:.::::.W:li:::iii:ili::Iii•Via:.igii:iiiiiiii-:E:i:: :::iii:g:ii:: :::.ii::.:::.MigEigiii:iiiii":iiggiiRia':?:::i:iiMi:ii::iiiii:ii:i:::•=:.:VaiiVKi:.:Migi .:::i••,NigiigiiiiNgiiilgi!ii:::i:i:.iiig:i:::.ia Q•iiIi5:ii:i!§i';::.i-aiiiKM:.iiii•if. .gg..i6:.iii:.xfgi:ii::iiiiii::. :3iKig.:::ii:if:::-.- .:-;::::•w::::::::::::: ::*:*K:::K:::::15.:•::;03::::::i KoK:i;:.:i:K:i::::.:Km::.:=K:K:K:Km:§E:s:3•::!:Km?.K:f:i:K:•:::.::::g::Kom:Km::::•::::K:x:::::K:::i:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::•::::::::::::s:::t:::=:::m:i:K::::K::::•::imi:i:i: ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::•.:*E::.::::_•:•:sm::*::::.%::::::!:::::::::::::::::::::::,...: .:.:,..„.:::::::;::::::::.:.:.:::.:::•:.:,......:.:,.....:.:,•ip:•:::•,,•:::::::::•:::::::•:::::•••:.:•:•:•:•:•,,,,,,:,-,:•:::•:•:•:•:•:•:-:•:•:•:•:•:•:•:.:•:•:.:•:•:•:•:•:•:•:::.:•:•:::•:•:,•:•:.:•:•):•••:,::•••,:•:••.:•:•:•,•:•:::•,:•:...:::•••:::•:::::::::::::::::::::::::::x::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::•:::::•::::K::•:::::::::i:::::::::,::::.::::: :,::•:•:•:::,•:•:•:•:,••:•:•:•:•:•:,•:,::,:::•-::::::•:::•::::•::::::::::::::::::: :::,•:::::*:.:::::::::::::;•:::::::::::::::0:,,,:,-:,:,::::::: g.:E:,::.::..::.:„:5,:..i*Et....i*.ig:..,:.::.:].:.:1:..,..*,.!:iK::M.:?:1..:!..:W§I:i'•iigAg•MgiMii.*: ::::Eggi.Migiliing;M:::::ali.:Eininglii:::•:;,.!iKing.iNgiNa:.Mii]giNii;:::in:g:-MiEN: :i: •::.A:Ma:.:....K:'4:::ging:M5M,:•:::!?::gg•fi:*:i" g.g.f:ii.'s.3.::,zaii ••::',35:".:i.igii.E:iiiiMiiig:'•EZE:.:-iii::i',iiiKiniiiiii*:iigigiii•::i§iiiiiiiMiiiiiiiEigii:iigiii •:i: .:MK:Kg:iqi. iii:MgOK:WiRxiiPi:i::•:i::AlgiE:Mii:itAK:•:*::•:RD'-:iigigniii :::::6i*:::::§0 . . . _ . :::,]:::m:K:::::::K:gq.:::.:'::.:-::i:::::ig.i:::miK:3 ,:3::.iiiii!..,::!:iii]:iiii:iii!:::.:::iiiEi:f.:K*E::iE:E:i:mi:iEiliiiii::i:z!:if::i:i:KE:.:K:zi:im:IK:i:i:.K::i::::*::::iK:1:K:K:Ki:.:3K::.i:m:1:s-:::::.:KE•K:::K:::i:i*i*:.:i:i:;:x::f::!:-K:i:K::.:K::.:!:K:K:K:i:R..:::::iei*K:::i:::::?:::k::::K$.ms-::x:::.•...i:35...is::::m"..::::.:K:::K:i•:::?•3:K::..:m:?•:s.tiommss3E:K:K:::::?.::,:m4*:::.:::::::: : ,:::::*::*::::::0::::::: ::::::::::::Mi:::.iii:::K:*::%ki:::E:i:::*::i:::i:i:::::iKi:K:::::::::i*:*:::K:::.%:i:3k::::::::::i:E:3::i:KW;Kei*K*.:i:E:ig::i.i:i:M:K:if:ii:::::M:::i:K:K:i:::K:i:i:::K:i::;i:E:::::iKsiti"i:::KOK:s.i::i:kiii:::3:.:W.:K:i:K:i:i*E:i::g:K*::i:::K*•*:::: S. NR:i::.:::iAii:i?:if.ti i:iii::ii:giiiR00?::iWii:iii:-::iEi:.:iiEiiiMiiiiii::. :::;i:i!:::giigii:ii:Mini:iiig&:;;S::.::gi:iiignii'.gUi.S.:..iiiiiii.i:iiiii::Eigg55:ii!i:i.::::ii.:::gli?i:i.ii:e?:::::':?:::,ii:iiiiii:REgi:iE?:E:iiK':ii:::!giiiigi.:F:*i*.Z,::::.,-gK:K*KM:1*ES.*: i:§ii:i•Mi%:::::ii,.iii:i:iiiii?li::,gEiE:KEii::]. :iii:iini.:"Zii:iii:::::EEi:EiMini:M i . .. • ' . Ii::i:di.]:gli:ziEgian:::::i..:.i;:;g:;R:::': ;E::giWg.::i.M.EIR::i!igi.ilni.:iiill:Eiffilini:::: lil:•::::INO:I:::::fg.g.:M:::f•il?.::::Mi:::•;i.g:::::Mi];i::Eagnir•Ei':: ::::?iiiiiiY:ii?.:N.•::::::::::aiNENiiiR::::agg•i:::;.:;.?.:igiiiH:i.i?.?:iii.g::Z:ME'rin an::::iiiN§WiNain'f•NP.::::.:: • ••:••••'•s:•:-:•'•:,•:::::•.::,::,.::: .,:.::::*::::::::ii;Ke: :i!'•;i:Ei:•:iEigiii'ii::.:i:•ii§:.iiiiEi:::':iii:ii:Ki:iiE:::::ii:giii::::ii:::iii:::i:::: :ii::.::i:E&i:iii*i:::::.:iiii:agi:i:iiK:ii::i:::gi:ifRi:ZiigiiMigi:gni:::;Kii:iii:::Ein:::§i:i:iiiig:::::i:iiii::i:::ZEn5.i?.:giEi:i.:§i:EiiMiiiiSii:ig:i.iii:inni?:inigMr.:?.i.:Rii.:g':::Kg:V•iii*:.::':Egi*:::***:Xi::Et.:ii,ni';':: • • .' ::::::",Ax:,:,:$f':',"•::'*:":'-: :: ': :::: ::: :''-W°Z ::'i:Wgi ::::'W:i*XV ..f.::Z.:''*:'X:ii'•iV*":,.MMMW.,'M:W:.*M*:M;.*':*Kf,Pex•W.:KW'i:V.:M*'.:.MK::*M*ift*W,igW.W:kift:::*i!i,ftMiMK§*WW• . -::::::;::.:i"-E•i:K:i:',E:K:i::.:K:i• •:::X:7:i:3...i:X:i•S:i*i•K:i:i,•::i•i:::K:i:E::::::'.:.:F.*:::::.:::::::::::::::::::,::1::•:•:•:%::::•:-:•:•:•:-:-:,:•:•:•:•:.:•:::::::,::•:,:,:::::•:,:•...::•.,......,,,,,.,...,..,,,..:,..,:,:•..::::....,.....,:•..........,......:::...::.:,................f,....:•:,,...:.•....:•,•:,4...,...:',............................o.•,,,xa......x.:,...-:"......:....:•.•;: :•.•:•:,....:•:•;:•:•:•:•:•:•:•:•:•:•,:•;•:., ..... ±.100. 1 6 d • ffi:::inUMMINN-M-EI;;;Ri ::ii::.ww.;:: :m::ii::,i:::]::::::1:':::inii:::::giN,:%1::ing•-i:::i:.:::;::ini::i::V::.:10V:iliM: : : :::::MMI : '::: 'giN. WER.:•+- ;;;.•,•••,.,••••:•;•••:•:,:,..::••.:•:•:.:,,,,,K•ffZ.,::::,:,:*.::::,:::,:::•1:::$::.•"•:.:::::,::..::::::::::::%::::::,::::::::::::,:::::::::::::::::,:•.::::::::::::::::::::::0::::::::::::::::::::::::::::0::::k4:::::*::*:&•:::::::::::,;$0:::::::,:::::::•:::,:::::::::::::::":::::*:::::::::::.,:,:,..:::::::::::%::::,:k•X:.,..2•::••:•:::%::::,::::::.,::::k::0•,:%;:::*:::::,:,.:::::.:•i'i::*:::%::,:::k::::::::';:::::k:::::::,:::f•::;•:::::::*:::::*;:i::::::::::::::%:::::::g.'::::::k;: .....V .:1-4;........ e OZQ9-79 .......„,....„*.:,,,-,,::::::::::::,4::.i..ww::.::::::.: gx:::!Rgiiii::Eimiigi?:imiE:::i,:miygcEmgy::iil:;iii,-.E.E.Riggi=mmim:ii:iittigui!iiimmiiiimmiiii:y,: e:i4::.:i.Eziiii:i:1:13.::::0.:goiviimi.iiiiaig:i::iiiil:i!giiimiyiiiggii:ii.:iiilitiiimigm:iiii§:i:iiiiiiim o.igii:ii:mi :iigiii:,e::Kg:.:::iiiingiiiziamiiiii:m1:.iimiiii.:.:::::0::;:],..,i!iiimme:::i?::::,zinfaii?...:if.mii:.i,3:iiiiimi;i:iiiii:: ,,„,....,.,„:,...14.7..Ft-. o olf,5-7,0. oche :m ,q 4,. ,f , . . : • . - -..,.........: ‘,.. i . ...• m ,,,,,mi:E:i:K:K:K*K:::::K:ni,i*!*:::*:1::;w::::::.8,K:K::.:tiss,:::mi:K:iv::*:33K0.0. : ::., ::.:.:F:tm:K::K:3*,*:*,:!,3K:m ..,,....,,..,..., :,.............„..,..........,.........,,............... ..„.....„:„...,........,.......„.-..,,,,,......,,,.,.:.,..,:::.:—.:,.....,......,.........:::.........,,,,,,,......,...„.............:—......—„,,.....,......:.,.....,:.:*,..:......... .... .....,.:,..........,:.:„....,........,....„...,... ::::::::::::::::::::::::::4:::::*:::::::::::::::::::::.::::::::•::::::::::::::):::::::::•::::::;:::::::::: :::f3:::::::•::::::::•::•::::::::::::::::.:::::::::.::,7•;:x.::::::::::::::•."••"::::::•••:::::::<::::::::::::: .:Ki:.;1:•:.: ::...,=2.i.0'::in:iii:iiigiini C•ii:iiMUM5:.§ giiiEiii:•iiii:iggiiii:ii•?:ii:i:•:.:g".i %%:*:iii;i:•fi;i:E.:ia.:1::iff•ggiiiNU:igaigfaiiii.:MiiiMM?:MMiiii:a:::Mifi.i:PViaiV•§:iiiiig::iig..i:ii: 4:::kiiii•Niggaigiii:Ff'''' UR.,Iiii:Egia?..E:::::::% ................-....,,,,..................-...•••••••.,••••••••••-•-•••••••••••••••••••••••:•:•:•:•:.••••,,:•:.:•:.,:•:•:•:•:•:•:•,:.:,.,:•:•:•,:,:•:•,:•x•:•,:,x•:•:,-,:•:•:•:,,•:•:.•:-:•:•:•:::•:•:•:•:•:•••,...xio::::•:::•,:•:•:•:.:•:•%•:•:•:•*:•:•:5.,,,:::.,:•:,,,:•:•x.,:•:•:.74.,,:,•5:•:.,:.:::•:,•:•:.x.....:,:•:•••:,,,,•:$:,:•:•:,:,•,:•:.•::::•,,K,•:::•:•:•.:•:•:.:•:•:•,:::•:•:•:•:,;”,..•.-x•:,•:•:,•:•;•r,:•:::,:•.•:•:?•,:.•:,;•.:..sx-x:%:::::::,.:.•,, .:*:.::.: :::!*i*:*::::',1:i*Kg<*3i:KOK:i:i:iii:E:i"X:i:Pi,:i::::::::.§.::::::•:::::::::,::::••::::•:::::::::,:::::::::;:W.:::::::::::::::: :::::::%,:•.::*:::,::::::::: ::§&.::•:::k•:::::•:,:•::::::::::::::::•:::::,:•::::::::0:::•:;.::::•:.::::::::::::::::•:::::::::::::::::::::%•:•;::::::,:::2::.::::::,::*:::::i:::::::..::::::::::::::::::::::::: •:::•:'•:•:::X:k.,:•:;:.::::::::•:::::::::::::•:::::•::::::$:::::::,..:•,:;::;:.*•::::;•:::::•:•:•::::::>":::',::::-:•:-,:•:;* X:::MK:KGV:ii,K:E':*!?..:::Zi.:::.iiii.:ii::ii?,::iniai,ili:.iiii:Ziiii::iMi.iiii:M:Eli::iiiiiigi:Eiigi:f:i::iiininiE::.:iiiiiIiini:Mi?:i§EMigi?g:::::::NEE:RiKni:Miliiii:ii:i::::•0::::::§0§.:;•i::Zia:::•iiM:i::iiMiMiiiiii:iiiii :•:::3i.e.:iilianiaii:•1:faigi:.:iiMi:gi?::•:ZiKiiigiiiiiiNgi:§iiiigiii:i*: IiiiiligrAgi!Rail.;pasmagigmegaginesgtossounsionswevraggssongsess magestonalosens.migisi . . • SUBTOTAL 6C IC 7: lj EuLt.To:City of Renton • . _ • • TAX .1055 S GRADY WAY. . FREIGHT ( I'• • RENTON. WA •:••:98055-- . . 3232 . • • TOTAL 73/14• . ,. . . .. • .,::::AtiedgeingA46:0•6446:igitigalrEgailaiiiiita:•: iR:MiWt..Siiign Safigginglifien**45.61*.$446'i.iggen,-Keigigg SgC.*.fgiO•.ifiag: • . •. . . . • • • . - -- . . • •. . I • ' :.'. '-• • • .• • . . • • . . , -... I • -• . • . ,. . I • - . .. • • . • • . - •. . ' • .-._-,...... .• • . • . • • . • - PLEASE REMIT TO: .•:•::•::::::i••::::,i::::?0::p:::0::m::::i:..:: s: , ;;•i:1NVOICE ..:: ,....:,:.4i:.:::::.:,.. _..c. , TROSE II COMMUNICATIONS, INC. Au&•Video-Sales•Design•Service•Installation No. 172526 r 4830 S.38TH STREET Date 06/12/2006 , PHOENIX,ARIZONA 85040 Page 1 (602)437-7240 1-800-352-7912 FAX (602)437-7265 Customer 21416 N TIN #86-0716114 • Sold To: Ship To: CITY OF RENTON CITY OF RENTON • 1055 S GRADY WAY 1055 S GRADY WAY RENTON WA 98 055-32 3 2 RENTON WA 98055-3232 •*-- - ----"----""""--""""."-- ''''''''"" ":"•"-- - •—•"-"""""-- "- ""• - . Net 30 United Parcel Servic 06/12/2006 632143 EEM 06/05/2006 12/0001146 4601 % :•:-:::.:,-,----,-,:...: :,,,,, ,:.:-.-% .:-.:-%::::::::,----.-,%.-.%-,,,,,f,-.-:-:.-:-.,- ..-:::--,...-.:....:/:,....,..:,,,,,- ....,,,..:::.:::.:::::,,,o...: ::::.:::: ::::,: :::::::.. . A..i.-. ..,%::: :::if...:.*:::::i.o.i:i:i:':::::,..:,.... ....-.::-:)....'i. : : : - ;0giCil-ii .:.::- '' :: -:..--.-:::::'--::-::.-',6'..i14.'d:-- .'-:::giif iiiii::::i ii:ntitii:::i:i:l'i':':'i::' EIK EIK6102907698 LAMP FOR LC-SX1U, 1 1 0 289.00 289.00 SX1UL,X1UA,X1UL UPS 1Z8718930314215191 • MEMO: • :Alet;SAilt::: 289.00 • :: IO:: :i-ii CONDITIONS OF SALE .,AVIOUNTi:ii::ii::iii:::::.::::::.:,i:.:: :i..::,i_ii.,.., -:::,,i:i:::,:::i,::*i*:i.i:i:i:i:::i::::•••.:i:::.:,:.:i All claims arising out of or connected with the AFinance Charge at the periodic rate of SALES TAX 25.44 above listed items must be made within five days 1 1/2% with an Annual Percentage Rate after delivery. No returns accepted unless of 18% will be charged on all accounts ....................... .'''''. ••::i•iiii::i:i:i:iigii:::ii:ii.i:::ii:i::::,:::-: accompanied by this document. Merchandise returned unpaid after the last day of the . '„:„%::::::::::i:iiiii:iiiiii:i::*ii::•:,:i:.:iii,,:i:i:iiii: for credit shall be subject to 25% handling following month. charges. Seller reserves title to these goods .......................... . ................... .. :..................... ... :::•.:•,%i.i:.%%::!:i:::i:i:i:i:i::::::i:i*:-i.::.-..:: ............... ........ until paid for in full. ......................... ... ............................. This invoice is due on or before 07/1 2/2006 AMOUNT •.i,i.i:i:nuue::::.:::...,:: PLEASE REFERENCE THIS INVOICE NO. 172526 ON YOUR REMITTANCE :..i..*:::.,:i.m]::::i:]:::::::::i..•.:,.,.: PACKING LIST 1RO ELi Troxell Communications, Inc. • 4830 S. 38th Street (602)437-7240 Invoice No. 172526 Phoenix, Arizona 85040 1-800-352-7912 Date 06/12/06 FAX (602)437-7265 age 1 Customer No. 21416 0 Sold To: Ship To: • CITY OF RENTON CITY OF RENTON 1055 S GRADY WAY 1055 S GRADY WAY RENTON WA 98055-3232 RENTON WA 98055-3232 • Your Purchase Order No. 12/0001146 Net 30 632143 12/0001146 j. 06/05/06 1 06/12/06 `;;'i ':'f";:;:::[::::: : ::?: ::: ;' i<'i> t :;>;C::;>4:"":::G: ?:ri;_<;. :: ;..:>: • 1 1 EIK EIK6102907698 LAMP FOR LC-SX1U, 1 0 1 0 SX1UL,X1UA,X1UL UPS 1Z8718930314215191 SHIP IMMEDIATELY, BUT MUST ARRIVE BY 06/30/2006 • • • MEMO: • Page 1 /1 �� CITY OF REN►. ♦ * 1055 S. GRADY WAY <. DA'i '� -`>y'";: h�� r .-.:K rw' n>.:; ;�4. :s _ ` ?ONtJn1BFt;w"::' YP— rro� RENTON, WA 98055 8/1/2006 12/0001201 VENDOR: 040001 SHIP TO: JW TEL-TRONICS INC PO BOX 1282 BOTHELL, WA 98041-1282 • FOB Point: Req.No.: Terms: due in 30 days Dept.: FINANCE DEPARTMENT Req.Del.Date: Contact: SETH, JASON Pre-Assigned PO#?: No - Special lnst: 5aa'. <, d > .. ..a.tltYx- ,. , ,..," >.�=>> ,w�. ,. z9a ,.,<r� .,,•��.< �._�<.:>�... pt,n;.°`r.. \._.._�>: ;��;.�<sr..,. , :> _�.,t„ ,,t7riit;.Prlce':<♦:' ,x...>>�zti�P�tc� .�"-:� Video Equipment Ue��rade-(Sony DSR-45 1,017.35 ..'xa";•:-._ _=x. ,re"` "1.. .t,+,♦ ..' t��°s�,•y Ate.. •sub:>, .m`^- p->�_;<�t,�`'>.� .i;° '>#:`c•« r°..,i- r^ear,;.�., ',e�:a.;;b�:.:'._ ...r• R',"x'kP' `«fir- � 'r`<:.i,.t �.;;r :r•:'.;>4��`` >'>,<<-'f��:•e '3>�:.'•�»`8-�<. �:di`.�}�`fst�E'�. 7'IL3W"� ty�a {�,}��,�ll ll<. -�•tl: <{`� =e`."\.,... .,c A.,..r,,:.':iui:s::�r.`<,...w.'.-�.:�.sc..�__�f�F.+.....a^.,>a :, �+,>..w.•.2.`�'�3 w,.�'L�:tSi�,ws..��.,>a,«.<a._x.,..�,..<.,::a;...�:�Fa'' ,-w:+..>a�.ab:..:o.<a.:3ei;�ti'N'a.'v:,,;i��y":`•.�`.c...a ?�%`ia�z=�as.,�:..c_.,.':;:�.w:zi'.e.rxv'>"e'::�:::�:.sxs.ste�ai'.,2�;:'�,.�.�aMt.�i automation system) a,:,-�'".`"s. -n'ss ::3"' ?3�` "•=,: w ., k.,,^,.':'s'`:�I :S•"� ':a" ..g;;.,..Y ':a=4a• ee ,'awta..w. _...,_....aaor.:a;SY�' ..,, .,.,..J ,'ue'♦ x.''xX$.a.w...<.,..Y.,z3.'.•^` ,.. ':$i""�<: t ^at` _ < w:'av�mt�.:<:.,3_»...�..+<.GC,.'�,.a.:•<atl:.�x ':..�<,7.`�.:.:w�.::;.75' ,,.:�"-``-""' _.`.<x.,.aa....�.�s'..c::c�::.,t.��.:Cw°;,t<';^„w',»..............:f aa...»J▪ cx rt.4ax,_.�w.r,.x.,... q~wtr ,::"-,._ ;,�Fsa?�, .;..�<.+, ...r: <.1.r,';, :"-.. .-,'.i°s"°.,., ove•�� *tar_ _ .:'e�"4.f-y.,w«-.>s>r:`i —`-r;` 't'q.^--W, xx-.^,�-t^':"""':'^-;v.`n .-<+ ^.:\w':?'r - a.x•: z.- r.<<L �.-.�.,� s�,'�•' >•e.;,•a ,rr`"r"''-t` n3>� c: s rk'a k ^_,t....<:.:,,'ttl.'.::,.<31.35,:��'a",»�i:..,.>-•...wfic'.:•"iz,':.:1='s:E.:-R`•a``-i.:xz._.":°a.Y..."x„t'4<-...-.:.:'i�'>-.+sua x w<..>..-..a:��=:,,:ibiRw'1�L� su'" +Tol° 'trv$ ^v;"'.e<tx <,s'y♦^- :.��^. x,„ .. r'C :r"-, `Se',^" .^`ro°xx W k ...u._......':.tC: vaw4``C_? 'aai . .,.,,...w..n,,._e•_.._._ .tt ^a.,.s:ita..:'_....z..,_.a>:l.a:.:,::..'.:a>a.:a...s.,....>„_.a...a.v.,....,,L�,...:- _a....:`_'ti3:-'...'-`_.<.>z._+„_._,_<,.....-.,,...x».,..«s...•,...$.`S�•.n,....m.:.'1-s'd.a...ts>.,.at2;Z ''..:...s<mi ;n: F-,-»-, ae;r..E_ :< .;.•Z-a.,.:.ki; „£.:•f?'. r^.:<.`-` `wge5.r..'`'.':_'-e' s''i;;;tt`;•: ., ••:rRT,g;.:^" :<`.m'•;•;r ,fir-a•rr.— r'r• �:!"" .`i1'f,T"k-t Txa `'Tb�r'.. .Y...: ,y." Z„<.y..Y3.f.`e','<`.'.t:: .,:e<<�,.:.<i`'.:�-'_:> " t;�>fd`.i3• >ia,.>7,.. f1: re'Y" ice`; ,.�tii, `'zJk. 4"i' vt <,ety,.;, s.S .1, n.+.. ., ^+.>. a."< 1. :.. V>r.. p� -,�'\„ '`.:'�Si.'' er r':'.:T `:s".•v `:.]. `ems "ii of ". ,.tf)'r::^',e - 'v�'�'a ^Ynr.^.'g:'t'','>' .-.?<%m„r±E•-<` rw?..>y :p>y..w. ;-..f. ,-m.,r:.n. w,,,_,�;:... o♦t., .xuax,.....ry sc.i'..i.'S•`.::a. ''�tM +.....a. s c......1.«...s�..s, ,....:. '�S"z`": -,.,..,„.,;,,•..ic.„Z,x1 s,`.>.;<'xnc.<w��k�:s�'..rd..:tirvi.._.:.,_3a_>_,za....,.<Lxea._..,x..a..............▪ .3. a y-sR rz` ';,A:a^";K ii t - ev..T'a'i;G:tx'!',`a-"',a,`i •'4� a-}- r-eR.^'"`•Ee S�^'^T-a'.-4"'` i9 -.,.K,x_v'..Yt.��4'!Z. Sx g+`'4+�.> 1-< :L,'ct" '?�.4?m•' .\�,. `a!$°..<.{':;.i"'.t' ":":;C�'•'C�s^T'.?•;."¢. 1• "'F�v •� a ' +,.\ '.T"• "1.ssaT. :x:.'`vv`.'.:seaw.:wea«.w, ..„•t.„3t.,i3wL,=aw.u:S.n:.a.,w.-C-.vi...<«w:.x .,. - eJs•` ae' <..>w n,.x...v.,`.w..^.».w..,.a>...,x.w.tnau,...-.....,t..,.w.x.,.....:.-b',w�....-avE.wlc.nx.•.ma.,a.L',C:>`Yi`.:s::-.m,,,..,.>r.,rv..,.A.,,<.,..^..4`A:C-`.,r.texwl.,m`::u:�,' :,.w.,:-....>.v.."e`..-,«p�m.?- ..v.e.a.-.-emv.,-<tYrf �w�• :-:.._•-, ._. .en ': ':':.-.':... .'.,,.; „,..::':.a ,„->^-. 'fop• `"T..<'4`: e3CE,'<•^^-:L:: `-y r":`x+`_ ,-'">'f;nS`.'.:>ep'<-„a�s:!"`,"� :5♦ i,:3':' �L<:-`:. <v�:x'`:> T`t:. ::;^"Y'",... .-��C��•.:� zw y.�V '°`^ a�:�':,i-`i c^ti:- ,x� E.� r=r��,-•- rv:< '.Y`�3,,'•'^'•ys_.>.. ,�^, yo-,R e.;-.,. �.< .>,......:.:.s tlt. ... ",w^s...�,z.:.' a,.,t`t::>,.�.•:•:'r!`''�`CY`:. - .e�if"` ,:rt.,t �a.}"%3.,>: `'re.°i^ `1°`:2. '�: a nt:�Dfr ♦w...♦.'ma:a:..w..,:aka»......t k.>.,a-,..,,.,:c....rN.wavx.zt „x r i�� ,,ua,. �.. -at�s>..<ia.u:�5ic:a.„...,,,.e`.im:.=:\�,.>x_.....�.._t>,,...»»...�..,�:'�<"��:,�`�?,«..,_,�_:.z:.-„"......>.,.__,..,..:..a:a'»...,.,..�.♦x,_e_.._.,:',e+�'x...>::.'s�_....,<...,;-�`:s�'h�`:r:�a'.<::^,.z.=,">.....»w'�:u 1k"s•. -,r.;�v.am•;e• :;r„R` :,`,..^.s.r,; �E:.rx^.' :^�"< ...�.:<t�,,,':;`r'z,.r c•..♦ .,,:�- ':`x:r-;-�r't�;" e ,,"-` ,..:.;,s::r .�.v--a^" >,.v.=:t'.S,ad1..aaxaoG.>$..J:.,:.:x:3...n-JroY,i3x•$m..,s-xr>..Fa �`»,..a_!w'av��:r....w.aa:rl.:..�.,.,.e}.,.a.:_�'aa.' "-" •'' ,._...a.�..+ a .a................a^ a o~'x":= �y ¢t.e€:s %t- w3;�"i^"" ,^;�._ .w:C"�a'-z'.sa ,gv..•a•^a e;^z; --2°'�']7 .::fit^. <i�"'<"...>e\ T.: ,a.7 roar`.ate'^ :;';i'':t.• �.:.° �♦:�+.<,:i;''`. tet�: •\.. ..� z2r- 5.'....:�:�' „S�"H::a��„Sm.rs«.:..a...at,«,........°.<....>....._....."L.>l:.».x.:..:�.iN- �:.a�'.w"A�.ma.....x...a...�t..»,td>.<..a:..... au k:S:N\:^w Sabr a.:'.^...wtiA�'.'{.:i.i>',k:..aa:w.Wa.,W,..ax:..>,....,z.:...,><�`i's2.�.�.:�a.•'. ..3z:xg�s':e-r -= e':r- ,MF" — it'7,Z, „-•,rrM-`_ I«-;',sa.,: « ,.c.: .:'.''. :�:�♦ a :x';T:""- .;.�,.i-.`-`,, ;w `—a;'•�^ �:+{.a^ < s♦$.„� D^� '=.�:.':tl� - Y ..fi S .S:s'z�•sa,�xaa..>..,.a.axw_....«....:«...A.,,......>,x.,.:"A:>S.u.'[�e'S`s.-^:`.?:.:<:tL>.,i>✓,eZ,:u:.F::.::u..>.svfr%::�.,ia...>....o.5,.tea:.."o:.:.`L�_♦-<:,V.....°.3.;:::S:�,Vt?�e �'.`L"S=`'='Y•..er.w 'S,i",<^h:,e�5:7'iKr+ r�:'- ".'-'�,•a.;>�' ..9a`':� P\,°'S�i:�`+°➢'. ':e.h'<a:Yip a:."'.}M^:`Y"9:;. .n,x:+> .:'•i"''C• f'Y°iti `;Y'a^ '^��* ,fix.�`zy> •tS a,. t :::Y'x '�st: ,<S'•a•`a att Si 3• �={.i•.<,• ,'�+'=v„" ♦�::` •N>> s i>t:r 9S'-i r54>. E{.: <$'-R.� ° !<^♦t., .tin';„s+'W' �.v�it ,F;-]>°%'.:?`s�'� �g. �,» :4. <� ._�`� .'3`C;c. :<" :�„•r:-":b9�:':r.,',^.'-::�.�.�,;...t;tV.. > 3..ixS`.,, ...,,.:a,'.'a.xwz�..aII"vd�n,_]�:=;-,�B:•.,w...._.�.<>r,a,�`.C•��at:�Eiaa\�:.":�'�`..'�.5+�<,..�`,acS;a,'�:�'.w«.............`:"�T..t-...-:i:,+:.:><..<.«. >�>:.,. .,»,w"->r.<�,. >.t '� .•�•.,a,.. �' " ,.ia.�=...:.�,,.>^:> "a �:"iy-a'ts.;;q,:n: t,•�-✓.:.,_-:�>•r:<.�.t�°;^'-c 7'.sv",:<�"! ss^'-^•r:.^t'i """"^-: `::,s;,'i.>..-..r.,.-n ;r,�..�� __..*.;.,.: .,.:C9"' xeTi "t. ;.^ .r.. -r.;,. (:r s <».• *w.rr...;.,. :s�,, w max >.��N`:;;,_' di fl` t°?v.:.�.x :;,: r<t,..iz=w =: " S`'i`' TP� •`,(•. - .d•_ w F ♦^.(- :.y}`'d.: s a.q;.. .�.>s`ayd>=1'� xio:G'.rma"•t':.:�<�a..,;.ex:s;a<�`::rrti?:•,x`cas '�' "•-`'.�#^`>.�e8" .•'i:s ' �' ^.'y-'+•r�';\'�'� �'''`��'" �z,'�=:',•r >"'°x^rii 2:"';Sa mmewttt':',y' :x"'Y"':.uYti ::.t�V:<::3'+!,d"o'r,•^`gw;¢"-r. r.w�>.e'ta;`;•, <et,.:<'2.:sv='�;'-.t ...y,,, .•cN.'^T+:x.a '•ue'•.'rp-e•rr� ,"'ra'e`Me"';'vt'<,-'""`i._,"":`9.:M".Tt?; ':#st. e i.,x+�<,s,,'e :a'.\'1.Y:+,.,, ,qe• °•'`,l'iYi' Stv„ ii$� C�h:� «<N •.ek-`" �x .6b:r ''Y�-ta .`3iPt.34i -.a�.-,. ,t>^-'w.z.-- 1F.*;``.xt`^F•t.+��{,3t �� a., `':';K.�2;:'::_';aww,rx{.�a.,wi' .�v. a.'�i»tr4�...Xt>°'.. '.{!sa'•`z .C< �^':.. -k^�N ::1. :},n' ._S �3,--:5-, v Y:a]� .asT:a ry y,< '.� .a'= .. .>< .,,....:`at„ <. «:. ,.. s ,.. •>d `., ,tiz°f_ _ °tz" �, 'tm ...si�'::':rt„ -':�t r .� '=�:,.° ♦. ,.°�:t� :v`<:v ,...<..• .. .;jn;:�a.... <.> , -.<... , .,. ..> a, r=a�gtr,s'>rt�., SUBTOTAL 1.017.35 BILL TO: TAX 0.00 FREIGHT 0.00 TOTAL 1,017.35 :l.>..�. ."ti'= >.g\,: Nam_. .:)..1], .,.xqY .,y _ Uzi>" :�.z .'�» �\ ,:,.,.;:. .�t:a�, ev-.x•� ,'�-'`=:.:$F.. �-t'.°;7i•;:;'�' ♦ i" ,, °e xv..tl�C' p�, e ': R.C',"� .j> s. r :: ':4,,, sa<� t,�,. li ..a':.'Y:-,•'„�:. tea ,t.. r : .3;�aic;t;^>"ahRs;(• "T;�a y"'-`.�"'� �.Y`�.. �1�t1.<�6� �`��lY ..$. ,:£., 'r �{� p3'x,...r.. ,. . a < �"��x<•�.. x��,•, > :��Yt-<>, ,..+,2m��.'x>,.�`t� ��.zn o k��i�''.r:-�'S.s;??`tt:�.,»iiC E 127.000000.004.5710.0010.48.000000 1,017.35 Authorized Signature Authorized Signature i iA . ,. P.O.BOX 1282 BOTHELL,WA 98041. 2 PH(425)485-4739 FAX(425)481-0703 Invoice -0d) 9k- JW TEL TRONICS. INC. Date Invoice# 7/27/2006 105650 Bill To Lori Wood City of Renton 1055 S Grady Way CITY OF RENT®N Renton WA 98055 JUL 2 8 2006 CITY CLERIC S OFFICE: P.O. No. Terms Due Date VendorlD# Net 30 8/26/2006 Item Description Amount Installation 1810 935.06T CHARTER 3 6: LAWS C• ; �a z Ivdr� i2ol OW OF REN1ON C:ERiiFr / 1ON !,THE UNDEU NED d0 NEWBY CI TIFY LVDE,+ .1,;(.w. ljC.v►7D2 : �`�ODO( PERJUR IfiAT THE MA1T:R'ALS NAVE SEEN F-14%.4;;Tsb, THE SERI4CES RENDERED OP THE LABOR PERFORMED AS ©dqs 5710 .oa tO , ��. DESCRI9ED REIr*AND iHAT 14 CLAIM iS A JUST,DUE AND UNPAID OBI}GATION AGAINST?HE CITY OF REITON,AND THAT I QM Al1410RitE TO AUth'ENTIC11TE 144D CURVY Td SAIb c DO 6174 W Subtotal $935.06 Sales Tax (8.8%) $82.29 Total $1,017.35 Payment is due upon receipt. Unpaid invoices will accrue Payments/Credits $0.00 1.5% interest monthly. We now accept VISA and MASTERCARD. Balance Due C-$f,017.3 ) Broadcast Engineering • Design • Support Service Call / Installation City of Renton Invoice#: 105650 1055 S Grady Way Renton, WA 98055 • ID #: 1810 Contact: Lori Wood Purchase Order#: Job #: Scheduled For: 7/25/2006 10:00:00 AM Symptom: Upgrade their automation system so the digi deck can playback through the automation system, possibly input 8 on the Leightronics. DSR-45 digi deck. Renton has the Leightronics interface. Service: Installed new wiring between the new Sony DSR-45 digital deck and the Pro-8 automation control system so that deck could be controlled by the Pro-8 and played on the air with the rest of the automation system. The DSR deck is now called P2/S8 and feeds into the#8 input of the automation system. This gives you one more source machine to use for your system, and will playback pictures that will be much clearer than anything you have on the air right now. I had to disassemble and repair the NB remote control switch that selects which system can control the DSR deck. The switch had some loose components inside. I opened up the box and repositioned the loose nuts inside. It seems to be working properly now. Also installed wiring to allow the DSR-45 to act as a recorder during Council meetings. If you install a 184 min tape it will record for 3 hours non-stop. Remarks: 10:30AM >4:30PM LABOR Technician Description Date Hours Hourly Rate Total John Weist 7/25/2006 I 61 $120.00 $720.00 • Labor Total: $720.00 PARTS USAGE ID# Qty U/M Description Mfr Part# Freight Unit Cost Total 2688 1' Each RCA Male to 2 RCA Female Cable,6""Y" 35525/YP2PF I $0.00 $3.65 $3.65 8915 2 Each I RCA Female to 2 RCA Male Cable,6""Y" :35530 $0.00 $3.42 $6.83 733 2' Each Phono Plug,RCA 3502 $0.00 $1.46 $2.92 1342 2' Each Adapter,BNC F/RCA M 33510 $0.00 $3.86 $7.72 9378 1' Each I VDA,1 x 2 BNC 'PT102V $0.00 $97.94 $97.94 6069 1. Each I Misc.Cable&Connectors I $0.00 $16.00 $16.00 Parts Total: $135.06 SERVICE CHARGES Charge For Description Date Cost Travel Time 17/25/2006 $80.00 Service Charges Total: $80.00 Terms: Net 30 Pre-Tax Grand Total: $935.06 DO NOT PAY FROM THIS SHEET Printed On: 7/27/2006 _ _ Jt,i) JW Tel-Tronics Inc. TEL -T R o N'C s 18823 Beardslee Blvd. -Bothell,WA (425)485-4739 • Page 1 /1 0(cY . . CITY OF REN1 uN 8 1055 S. GRADY WAY RENTON,WA 98055 10/26/2006 12/0001259 VENDOR: 070019 SHIP TO: S &X PRO AUDIO LLC 913 INDUSTRY DRIVE TUKWILA, WA 98188 FOB Point: Req.No.: Terms: net term Dept.: FINANCE DEPARTMENT Req.Del.Date: Contact:SETH, JASON Pre-Assigned PO#?: No Special Inst: • Video Booth's Audio Mixer maintenance 152.32 f;';.;;;:7Z-77,77:7-72FM Z.; ,T7,7:7"7„„:7',Z,:;OFY:7::;',77.:T)7;',7,7,7.7<ff:',,,,,,r'- 777 ,-r":77"1'27.70"-5,77-7747,7,1"1:', ""F•,",'"7" .777 )2,2 nTNT.'• '• •-• , • f,"7,7,777;7,-17.7.--;C7,7377,77,777,,!•777-7-777,7„7:77- 77": "-:77'77177 • T•v•17.':',::;,7 Ts.; • 7E,,,,-7,77,,-;• , SUBTOTAL 152.32 BILL TO: TAX 0.00 • FREIGHT 0.00 TOTAL 152.32. E 127.000000.004.5710.0010.48.000000 152.32 sgoitpi,(4;.1. Authorized Signature Authorized Signature • Invoice # g§lF REMTON Ao S and AUG 0 2 2006 Product & Customer 40ED Service Center: S and X Pro Audio Customer: City of Renton LaurielTY clinics OM OE Address: 913 Industry Drive Address: 1055 S Grady Way City,State,Zip: Tukwila,WA 98188 City,State,Zip: Renton,WA 98055 Phone: 206-575-1704 fax:206-575-1708 Phone: 425-430-6573 Model: Mackie 1642pro Serial#: DN10594 Date Received: 7/28/06 Purchase Date: Dealer: Invoice#: Failure Description: left led ladder not working...audio seems ok. Action Taken: Disassembled mixer and replaced a couple ic's and transistors in the meter circuit. Replaced all internal cabling for possible intermittant channels and outputs. Reassembled and tested...Checked all inputs and outputs...test ok. Additional Comments: Technician: XUAN Repair Date: 7/31/06 Total Time:1.25 Qty. Part# Description Unit Cost Extended 2 op amp is $ 1.50 .$ 3.00 2 small signal transistors $ 1.00 $ 2.00 1 0002261 cable kit $ 35.00 Shipping Totals 1.25 hrs @$80/hr Labor $100.00 Carrier Parts $40.00 Waybill# . Shipping/Handling $12.32 Ship Date Sales Tax Ship Cost Total Invoice $152.32 Date Picked up: Cl TARTER 116,LAWS Of 1965 CITY-Or RENTON CCRTH'ICATION P 17iO OO I.THE UNDERSIGNED GO HEREBY CERTMY UNDER PENALTY OF PERJURY,THAT THE MATERIALS HAVE BEEN FURNISHED, 11 EA)D o 2: C 700 17 x THE SERVICES RENDERED OR THE LABOR PERFORMED AS `1 DESCRIBED HEREIN,AND THAT THE CLAIM IS JUST,DUEAND Ac.c- -: I Z7, , D 0 T,5110, Co I O, ;,( UNPAID OBLIGATION AGAINST THE CITY OF RENTON,AND THAT I AM AUTHORIZED TO AUTHENTICATE AND CERTIFY TO LARD SAID CLAIM f � - SIGNED: �,�eA• Ke/L2.I:.e-i."-› Page 1 /1 _ 1-'6Y & CITY OF RENT .,14 • + 1055 S. GRADY WAY Ing.001;IteBEk;:11 41— RENTON, WA 98055 12/11/2006 12/0001292 • Nrv0 VENDOR: 007201 SHIP TO: B &H PHOTO VIDEO 420 9TH AVE NEW YORK, NY 10001 FOB Point: Req.No.: Terms: net term Dept.: FINANCE DEPARTMENT Req.Del.Date: Contact: SETH, JASON • Pre-Assigned PO#?: No Special Inst: Video Camera supplies,(lamp,on-camera 366.95 7•1777:7X. kr,VgW4.V17.7'i.7:i2.5'3217/737,717.7.,f.:„,:0717:'7,r", '-•••.:V ‘^,TI N • • : 7:727.7NN 7,71S •• • , :737.7!r7:17.7:;77,,, visg,,migEmzglAv74esw,T;PruP:rn7.44:: TNTTgaATtggP#QJK'i;gNFgANg7;;g5fI3 -4,TPTiWtIVTWgNNnPgWig7g4TTZ.g7gqi'kqWOt'cna!RWWgj ;Ti SUBTOTAL 366.95 BILL TO: TAX 0.00 FREIGHT 0.00 TOTAL 366.95 E 127.000000.004.5710.0010.31.000000 366.95 • 77141.di )1,t&(7,9tf -- )8tyn,n,Ge:4 le)a.te",71-) Authorized Signature Authorized Signature 420 M"nth krefiae, New York, NY 10('41 • Fax: 212.239.7770 .1 • PHOTO DIGITAL VIDEO PRO ID & r 1-212 444-6600 Pa 1-212 444-6700 1-212 444-5000 AUDIO 1-212 444-5070 Wrt 1-800 947-9950 cy. 1-800 947-9978 IFf 1-800 947-9910 C, 1-800 947-1183 PHOTO-VIDEO-PRO AUDIO To Inquire About Your Order Tel:212.239.7765 - 800.221.5743 • Fax:212.239.7549-800.947.2215 4 The Professional's Source www.bhphotovideo.com Invoice No.: 184482480 - 25253531 `� CITY OF RENTON Sold To: CITY OF RENTON +� DEC 2 7 2006 ... ,.�� RRECCEEII pp Ship T©�> O�'ITE � i. ,I„� f:' i`.. 1055 ACCOUNTS GRADY WAY PAYABLE CITY CLERK'YSEr7FFICEs 1055 S GRADY WAY �� RENTON,WA 98055 FINANCE DEPARTMENT RENTON,WA 98055 Bill Phone: (425)430-6573 Ship Phone: (000)000-0000 d :::> ::>::> :::Te..:.:.V:.::_:>:> ::: .:de .::: :::>: .::.as;.O.; ;:: 41:0 pet:-.:> :>::»: ::::>::>:M.::::::>::i:'::; _:::.:.:..e.�a�� ">G+iisE�iuiieir.C4. e...... T er. ur rd .. .: ..::>::::>:< :>.::.: :::>:;. ; :»: u�o>�e . ... .. .�rrns.......... .O>r�.. .1)a.I�.....P ...eha�.U... �x::�umher....:::;��lespe�svu:.;::::.<:» ::;:>::::::::::.::;:::.:::.::.;Sblp:;vaa:::>:.::.;.::::;::::>: ::::::: : :>::>: 12/13/06 15416727 12/12/06 120001292 Sls UPS GROUND 5-7 DAYS <.<.> ::`i;;;G:.`:: : ; .';r, :;; ; . :z;;;::; :::;::;>:.;><.`ii:: :: .;:.:;:;:<:»:<:;:i5; :::;:S;:iii>::>::>::>:. :: ,Qt .Or. 42t ..Shl" .Qty.13ka-<:::>:.:: :::::::::><::::<:>::::>::::::>:>::::::::::>Ite '`:'Desrri:. o i;<::>::>::::>::»::>::::::::>?>:=::<:>:<.:>::»::::::liii:«:�:::;.:,: »::>::;_::>::..... Y...............Y.......P......X......:.........:.:::.::::::::::..:.....................................P........:.:. .:::::•::.::::::::::::..:.................................................................:...:...::.Item:Pnce..............Am unt::;::>::;: . 2 2 BESCOR KLK-624 20/40W DC LIGHT W/COMPACT BA BEKLK624 69.95 139.90 Salesperson Code: CT 4 4 BESCOR JC6V20 20W/6V DC BULB BEJC6V20 8.50 34.00 Salesperson Code: CT 2 2 VIDPRO 27"TRIPOD PADDED CASE VITC27 16.95 33.90 Salesperson Code: CT 2 2 GIOTTOS RHD-124 REMOTE CONTROL TRIPOD GIRHD124 69.95 139.90 Salesperson Code: CT ? /2,p / /2%0t2iL9 DEC " 2p06 6-� 007 Ze / CM tspala le Accxon ...n.Y.0®4$ 7s0, 00/031$ ,1 / If Payment Type • ' ' • - .Card/Clieeli'.'lern;1et' ::xli A ' = ' Amounti' Sub-Total: 347.70 :....._ !Fl(. NDEIt.:; <:::> :::>::,;:.:».;:;::::>:;:.: ::::;>;;:; .::;:::;::::.;; ;:::<:;:>;;:.;: :.1 T{iJv'#3Nl�ft&1(i{�._[xQ..1�........ ... Shipping&Handling: ;;;:.;:,::::.;: ;:.:. :: :: ...: ...:,::.;:>. ..;;;.;; .:.: ..::.;:.::;;::: . ..: Y::.. . <::HE'MA'IERIAkS:HAVE: <;;:;>:;?::: ;`::;::: .... ... ........ .. .............. ..... .... ............... ..... ...: 4F.Pl±RJttf;.:.THATT:::.... ..... .. ...,. !#�N.�JRN1S�l�. ....; . .:;:.: ED ;t3E12 ..1��.111� .I,i1f3012:: .. .. 0 HEREIN,:i1ND .:•T:: >:::::> z:'::: >:::<:::>::;:::.>:>;::: :'>:::>::>:-..: :s::>::::::::%:::::ti::<: ::>::.:::!<.'";:.:....., .:..A.....::A,. THA 1'I CLAIMIS` : .. .. ;.;;:. <.:. : :.;:::;: .;;:.;:. .alNPA1QE)Bt.t�A'F1QNA�A1NS:..7tiE.Cli...QF. i4N�• :A0?.; ::: : . . .: ::::::::::.:.::.::.:... . .:...:::.:::.::........_............. ::s»;;;:.;: ,::;.';::.:<,::.: ::;.;::;:.;::;;:..i*--i:.;.;.»::;;;.:;.::.'"':: . .:. . : :::> :*.i::< s: :Total:.Orderi...i:::>::<:.:::::'::': .. .: ..._.....-....-:.'... . .... .......__....TMAf.AMbIlTHdRI f37Q RENT ._....... ......................_ ...*] . ...........-3 6::::.:>:::>::>::::;:<:;:':.<:.::;>r:>: > ';:;,>;, ' `::,''. .^''`::<:>::;:: t ICATIr.IlPIE1.Ck'Ft11F!17�4._................... ...... ............ 6...�5. • Customer Copy Page 1 of 1 420 Niro,h Avenue, New York, NY 1000‘" • Fax: 212.239.7770 dtk •+ ' 0. PH0T0 DIGITAL VIDEO PRO 1-212 444=6600 P�Ta 1-212 444-6700• 1-212 444-5000 AUDIO 1-212 444-5070 . Ira 1-800 947-9950 ' %. 1-800 947-9978 1 1-800 947-9910 C, 1-800 947-1183 7. PHOTO-VIDEO-PRO AUDIO To Inquire About Your Order Tel:212.239 7765 - 800.221.5743 • Fax:212.239.7549-800.947.2215 The Professional's Source . . . . .www.bhphotovideo.com LL Invoice No.: 184482480 - 25253531 Sold To: CITY OF RENTON Ship To: SETH JASON ACCOUNTS PAYABLE CITY OF RENTON 1055 S GRADY WAY 1055 S GRADY WAY RENTON,WA 98055 FINANCE DEPARTMENT RENTON,WA 98055 Bill Phone: (425)430-6573 Ship Phone: (000)000-0000 e.: a?:>.:; .t......::.r::.:>" e::::::>>`:::«::::;:::' : ::>::»:;:::«;r;•. . �.>. • :>::::::<:<: :::::�>::>::>::>::>:<. >.>: 12/13/06 15416727 12/12/06 120001292 SIs UPS GROUND 5-7 DAYS Qt:?Ortl>Qt Shl . I..Blco_..:. :: :;':>::<::>?::»::>:' . It m..Desen �on;:.::.;:;•;:.:.;:.:;:.:.::.:>:.;:.;;:•::•;;:•;::.............:. .. ... 2 2 BESCOR KLK-624 20/40W DC LIGHT W/COMPACT BA BEKLK624 69.95 139.90 Salesperson Code: CT 4 4 BESCOR JC6V20 20W/6V DC BULB BEJC6V20 8.50 34.00 Salesperson Code: CT 2 2 VIDPRO 27"TRIPOD PADDED CASE VITC27 16.95 33.90 Salesperson Code: CT 2 2 GIOTTOS RHD-124 REMOTE CONTROL TRIPOD GIRHD124 69.95 139.90 Salesperson Code: CT • Payment Type • • - ` • Card/Check Number' Exp Di- Amount . • Sub-Total: 347.70 Shipping &Handling 19 .25 Customer Copy Page 1 of 1 +y-qr..,�...-,.,.'Df^s=^'cT:.-�s3'?x,.'°`:..:H;�1::"..b.w r,� �'•�,,:4' ...<, F�w..d w'� 9 ;g� ei -x:- l�' K ' 1 n; linth:i Aven? :. y a� Q r "_ `"J,.. '',• `d' ..b ‘' ,-„ , .�- ,v. r. .>. WeY n v mod. '+.��.n..'•k i'{�°nt%$r.•:�.i i.LWni✓E dih... a�. :c, `. . & i� 444-6600 D I GI TAL 1-212 444-6700 " -112 444-5000 '', r1-212 444-5070 M ►"�� 1-800 947-9950 �. 1-800 947-9978 1-800 947-9910 1-800 947-1183 , "e, PHOTO-VIDEO-PRO AUDIO 743 _ To Inquire About Your Order TeL•212.239 7765 800.221.5 • Fax:212.239.7549 800.947.2215 ¢ yK.y` ,-,y4,'. .AyG "a,'.3:' S3-° iFilY':-. a'y - .s:.w.nyS..... .f. ;,"vx",`.'',:',.,„$,:.„ ih^. ��y==�i-,'.�^*-`•,'^��P"s..rd>��• ^,s.;,µ. .:��`"?' .,�; ..c��.P,...>., ,af'i � r..- ..l �'i,^:>... +� ♦$a .,ti, AVi 'E. i✓•, #5,� «j'+ :'_ ?a.'q �r-sx Wt,e a 4 'I �io'.ffi'' t,p.� f,-5„�',.it{'' s�l�Y�-%'! :....,d.>✓ 4,f+�.".p�'"'="�t� .«&tr; �1.. 'i>�: ,��i+7a .r k`,C.�' a�rt�ft% •.�- �>1.+� y+.m ,aa-»'vas;:'•:b,,'h:,`".{;a.3 -.., ,. c. • .. >�., ;rr.�ni , .F �,.. ,.. '> ':..r' :',5�•r �..ar, .t;:s-a.�.? r* ,;t:^.. r .K..��b:+.err.,,.�'��`� _..., '�.- *«.�.^.n`.-�...,�., .fi�„.,. I t 0 ontrol No.: 184482480 Sold To: CITY OF RENTON CITY OF RENTON Ship To: SETH JASON ACCOUNTS PAYABLE CITY OF RENTON 1055 S GRADY WAY DEC 19 2006 1055 S GRADY WAY RENTON,WA 98055 FINANCE DEPARTMENT RECEIVED RENTON,WA 98055 CITY CLERK'S OFFICE Bill Phone: (425)430-6573 Ship Phone: (000)000-0000 y r:. e . Cus(uxne ::Cale;::>::> :::::;')~4arms:::;<:>:::<:>C)r:.der.:fake .:::I'nrcicaseUrsler::Nith►be.>k`.:;::;;.5ale .ergon;:.:::.::.::.;::.;::.;:.;.•..•.:.::::.:.:..ly :>V .;:;.:;.;:.;:.:;;::.;:.;:.;:;:.::.:::.:.:. 12/13/06 15416727 12/12/06 1200012.92 Sls UPS GROUND 5-7 DAYS Qf Qrd iii Sl l Qt:::Bko.::;:k*x:::*:::<::>::::>:»:•`>:. <.. ....esc ton::::::;:::::;:: >::;,.......... >::.:=>s:<:::: ... .. ........:Y.. p....:Y,.. p......:":::...:..:..::. S K U#t;::. ;;:.:..::.:...:.Item Price. Amount:::;:.>: 2 2 BESCOR KLK-624 20/40W DC LIGHT W/COMPACT BA BEKLK624 Salesperson Code: CT 4 4 BESCOR JC6V20:20W/6V.DC BULBF +..-:7 BEJC6V20'y' °i Salesperson Code: CT'- ,;;' `'• ,?, fit.,s �'��;yi ,� ;, ,N'; s';.tee:,,,.. 2 2 VIDPRO 27r';:TRIPOD PADDED CASE( ( �g . , . a` ,; GIOTTOS RHD°,`,s „..._.,,...,,,. ,..'" :, >-., ,::.: TARO 3TRIP0 c";:,-, -;; ,,, 2 2 :124nFiEMOTEsOUN 1 �D�' ;4`f>'�>'-•: GIRF1�3124,=' ��< Salesperson Code: CT'" :s , i',f.',q,` ,✓' a "f,':,t qc ,;1 .4" '1 DVS y;a5• Customer Copy Page 1 of 1 Page 1 /1 '.s,(V.Y 0 0 'et' CITY OF RENTON A cm, 0 . .. + i ji + 1055 S. GRADY WAY ''.:,;,:,,,,',I'•41-S..k.tg',(-:::F.''':',""''.:': ••;':::.?-:‘,.j:,...0.0,140MOtRI,:.V.'.!. . vp- ,e• RENTON, WA 98055 12/29/2006 12/0001317 • N--.r-r0 VENDOR: 048728- SHIP TO: MEDIA TOOLS 13256 NE 20TH-STE 8 BELLEVUE, WA 98005 FOB Point: Req.No.: Terms: net term • Dept: FINANCE DEPARTMENT Req.Del.Date: Contact: SETH, JASON Pre-Assigned PO#?: No Special Inst: ,),:';:::GVaiiiiii.''.;!,,41lila:.;';',;,."':',,-,:;.:: ::',::: ;f1'',1,. .")`'';,..-:,:i;f_4-:, ,,,•', .,r,';:;::,,. .i.',:::::,:-,;',64.:sVijiiitiirii,'‘kt-:-.;:,- -7:''':i',?.:.:?!?:IY'&4;::: ::::sg'F:: :::,-',i'":;:.,',.j :''' ''?,'':,,i:v•VOilitt.e.ti4e;,:o?,,,,,?, ..,..,:,,ig*,4:.,H; ,,,va, Panasonic DMR-EH55S DVD Recorder Player 528.85 ,.-:,-,,,;;;,:.;=:Fir,-,-1,:::,:3-,:,,,,,,,,s,:,, 77,-,•:,:,-f!',,,-,.x.r,,,p;,,,::,,,e7-.i-pF,,,7,3,-::,,?;;.,,,i.N,,,,':,7,:iri,,,T:77z,;:,,,!:,,,:i7,..:7,,,,-,zN,,--.....':7,,,7,:;::..fir.Tv:7,2',:::::7,:',',',"T.77:.Vn;f4';',7,5::'::::.7:',3',7,7- .71i-b-'079.•.,-,','". ;:::',".,:.5!:"':',A1P39,..131@Pq.,: ,',......,,,,,.:,,,-....,,, ,I...,;:::,s,',„:,,.•:.....,..f.:.,1,.::::!k:,,-.3:,.s,•,.,i::••:.... .,....s.-..t....:;.,•,,,:.;.;... ... ..,...:-.:,.;.:<.1. 5.,•.•;.G.::,,,,,•-)...,.,3•,.1.-„,:-'.L,„,,,,i.1-,...t...'.:-.::::-4'.. ...:,:‘',..:, -...."..),A3,z,3';.,.."!,t;:: :.,:..,,,,,,,...,Z:g Avid Express Pro Keyboard-1 ea. 90.62 -,„.:,„„„tr.*,,,,,,,,,:,....1.z. ,,,,,:::•,,,,,,4,7,,-,,,,,,,,,,,,,,r,,5,,,,,,,,,75,-:;7,-..,:,7:p.-7,-- ,--,0:,,,,,.1 ,-,-,,,-;;----,77-K-.7.7,,p-7- .7.;, ;T:" :77"7'.':::',:r4i7.5:Ri'leS-771,ZTT•i,,IT.,..>-::::;'',C;7'..-7,77.:'77','-'-',7':::a'.--,-PanasonicAGIAgQA(.1449,§"to.INE,,,-;, :,,, ,,:,i,,,,;-,,,‘:,E,,,, z..,,,,:::v,,,,e,,,,,7,:$,,;,1,,:tt,Li ::;,,,,,,,...::2:::.„,:,,,,,,,:);:„.„.,..I,:„.,t,sei4.1;:„..,::,1„..:,..;,,,,6,,,..„ ..„,1., .i__ti,,,,,,,11. HP XW8400 2XDual Core 2.66 GHz 5150 6,127.94 ,-- 1.,77,-7:::,..,.7,.:,,,,-7,77-",;,,,,,7,-:,-,;,..:7,1,_ ,,,;;,*".,17,, W6 „.:7,:cQA1.3..4.'..`",..i14.5i7iLV,Za, 17,. ....":"7.N5T...,7,17, :771,17 .Z..f;r7,7:,T-71777t7-:":::,-;'.:7-:','"IZAV::7C=c''''":t'-',.;'-7 77.7.:'''':':-.:'7'71-t,•*'7.7 ''';',7,',1:i '.',.?:`::' P,r9Y .W9 !!.-4.'n,!1.YY9'91:1,.1:rM!') 1111;, ::::'Y';:,:':L.,A.A., §t,„!i:.::t',1,-,,,,s.V.:::Z.YZ...;,'„:>;::::„., I;;,,:'4:-:.f.?3..W:...=,''.,',, 1','„,::',.1;.•<,,,,,;,.;.,;,..,',?„-,....„;',„..:,t,:2V2T.:‘ HD, HP DVD-RW, FX1500 Graphics,3 yr. ''''.:"1 §-.gW14ith? WjN:5d3ctikti-tthiift4-'fid , ,,-;-', ''--1::,.f-',:g•K',7:-.7-',;-7,z,,,,Fifq‹-iFzz,-,;-.K17,7 74;c 7.'3"::,-;Tc77..,',:=T,,,,,n-::;',',7,,y-:-. ,-`..,,,:^:,'''');:2,fj,F75,7F with Avid Express Pro(including setup -,•,•,--,,,,r;•.,,,,,,,,,,,,,,„:-,.,,:-•,.,,,,.,,-.7...7,7;,<,-,,,,7 ir,iviriiii51,447: 7;‘,7,,v,•, ,,.---;!:•,.,7r:M'-7. . .. -7T,•1'2, .;•:;P7?-'•:,.7Z7r,;:r,77;,1:777•71.:',-77:77.7.•7:17;77:;;r:';',.FTc-W,"1.',7:17:x.,''-141•7P-177; (Editing Equipment and Software) 7:vs-:,'".5,',7,'-',';';''',:".'''::°'?':',',:,:-<-i'S.W.'"v4`,.77'''',:-:.•'',..!r•-'''.:',*:-.2::;;-:'''',:::'V!''':''"'••••7;?•;r:::,'",r'''''A",-,:'-''''!•''''.;.' •::--'''''':,',/: ',-rn,Z.'7:::r."',:ln-q-S7-717.',-:';':7•::::. .';',;;-,.'?-..5',':',":-.71:-..7;''F'''.;77".";:-F,.'-v,',"':-;-'!':::';'';',7','',V:,",...1,?...';'",;:7'.1r."7,' . ,-7.,,,,,,,,,i.,-,,,,,,?,-:,-4,,,;,,•„;,:7,7.Fy:y:,71,;,:-.!,‘Z.:7,;:Ji'=',„::', 77.'-::::"'r:.''',.','',','"7"-:"'3,7"'',',..'77:,'•,:-:,''.''':!:,',`,•'!",;":',.,"'','1',7•'-'::K.•,'g.",•7•51'ip.r.g.•:,4',:',`,,F,".=,i,'7:.7:7;-,177,'":"47:r,',M,7,,777i, -;',7:7,c-,',:or,:).-•'--;-':,,z,.,,--,'.',,'•ny,3.-:,.';',:',,i,',;<:::' !,,,,17,7;,,T.7.,.,:, ;:iLi'''''-'''';:,•'•''-' •'•''‘.',•.:::> "'d.'":::2 1•::: :'.'''‘•';',",.'''":"••,',••:', .,',1,•:.,-',:'-'f.:,,'.,11:2L;,'••.:•r:.;.:',L'''.:,-''.'.?::aii:L.::::::,;•:::..!r;•.,-;:S:1•.?....k.:1•,•!.fif.4.-:,11iFE.,:'i,;"3..?,2,,I.i.';':iAP.,"''=A1'.. -:,:'•;',Za.:.i..:,•'''..L,-2,;:,-,;„,,,n,•,!,,,:::f,.,1.,2,,,,..A._,,,,L.,s1., ::;?-,,,7,37,:,7,7,?isii-'77,777-7.7,-.;7::,:',";;.-7.f„3:47Z5'.'.,:gri7::•,,''.7',2•7";',77i'', ;:•,'.::,•7:".t,',K,'':','-',7`;;;',',5•7•••7,..';_: •,`A'A',:::.;.17,7f;:77,i,;,;,',;::,77,77.7.r5:77P.:-.75-1,''''.7,77,;7:,::::::f..j'.3,:::•:,;:1,;-,"?",,.5,i',:77,757::-:::;':7,r,r,Ti.Ay.;‘,,mi.,1; ....-,z,... ....s..,;;,,,,,:::,:',.::,..,-.:.i.,:',....:,i,..:.. ,:::.....,;,...i:;,--,,....c.4,..3.,,,,:a,-.;,,,,:.:,,,,,::,,,z,.:.,,,%,-,:c;il,:-.,...e.:,-;;;LLii::;,:r>,:',.;:.,2;..f.`,,t,,,-;,.tiL...c,,..,.. ....L.4.,..A...,-,414.;.::;;,-.:•:,,-.,,ik....':,•,,,,- ,;;,,,,,,...Ca::2-'..-;4,2„;,,,;:z.L.-..,;„:".g,,,„:;.'„'„,..1,.,4.,,,2.-:,,t,,,3,:,;,;..;;;;.,:,,,,;:,,,,:.-X,,.:',;:,.-0,,'. Cr-',777'77r,77",747,,,,,t.'7''77,7''':-..'":7,,'„,.›.,..r..-';'-,7...F.•—',.:.t'si,--.:,r":-.,'-'r ' 7: •,,-,,,,v,,,,,,,,,...;z.„',- ‘:r';,-'';',...,,,,''''N'''','';".,,,,',';',.;',",„:;',',7....1,,::::.1;':?1,.;Z.",,,,,,,,r3',`,-zr,,,,,,y;::,..:„.,,,,,,,,-;:,:,,-,,,,,..1,,,,,-:,-Ef;.,,,:::;:.7:.,:,.,:zs-:..?:,!:,,,,,,,:-i.j.77,T:7.,;::yr::;.:,,,,-:--:,:ir7z.7.-y;.:7,,,.7',5-277..:7;707•77,177,T., -, ....ei;:7,''.•';',.."..7c7t:T:':7:7-;-•.:7:•72.:77,':. •:‘'Sf:, i'i,:',4'... •••.f.Y',-.':?.,.',.'L-1::=';';';i::;:e.::i;It'I'J'::::,I.'.'...‘,:;;;":::•.:: '''''..•-:::....,:?'. .1'.•:!i'.i'''',f',:i''S..1.:-J'',.:.,,..:•:.:2:7:'::,..:':;;:•1'.',7:.::: :':',::::-..!•'1.:,;;;i:•5z:,',84,,c-ii4:1:',..!:'..f.';',t'-,:i.-:',•;•..t.:.`,z1,:z.,:l.>"-,"•_.'42:','''';:lc,:',_i<ji:'21.-:::.f$,',;•-4:'•,3•X',..t'Llt,'';.'''.;.t.I''?!/,•,'',VL'il: ,,•;.•.--,,,,,,,,,,,-..---t-,,,, ,,,..:•..7,-,,,,v,,,:rs-,,::::,,,,sfr.::;;;,.:1•7,,r-,::,:,;,,,--.,,,,..,-.---, 75:,:-,'-';,"-Ai:x--;,"eq7-17,,7.',7',: i,:',"';37;7774::".4Vr7S7,7,V,F;;;,;Y"r,71',',;c71.s.1174,67 ,::,:lz,"7":'-';`,',',';',-:::"7,7a,:'::=7':‘,'...,--7:7.7'7? -7,Z7,7.. .: an",.,,,,Z,,,z,:.:.,,:...::: ,,,:a.IZ'.k.:,:„....:).,..,,,,......,1:,.:,,...w.-...'L:,,.,z,i,:.. .,-,5,:,.,:,..,;.:...,„,:z1..i,,,,:,2.::::::,;..,.. .1... A-:.>',,. .. -..1%;-...,4,..IL,(,.-,.f.L.::„.....a-..1,:::.,....L.:°e:',-....11",..:.-e,,,,N,I,....m.,,4-,-,::,..-.V.,:.:,..5,,,,,,:.,•-z-...:,:,,,,v;..Ats,:s „„,,,,,,,,,...:,-,,,-,--..;:—--;7,,,,,,7,---,..Nz.y7.77,-,:-...,,q;;,.:7,-,;:-..„c;:,-,,,,-,7,5:,,:",,-;,7;7,„7„.!::,5,-;,,,,,..-;-,75,:5);,:..,.:r:::::7,••••.:•:-.;,, -::;77:;.:,:-.7.7.7anD7,5:;,.;?:;.,7,17.7:,,,c,77,1::4,7,:°:i:7'q}:,,,:,,,,0;: ,7,:::::'77,:7;':','1.''..:7:'.:-.::::AV:::n1,7,Y.7,7-7.97.1,7e.7:,l'iiY,,2tilal:ii.: :',::::::::Z.,'':,.%.,'-'i,,a,::::` ,Z‘S.', ..:ta):7'''';,..'.:'.:::::! „,:4''',::,...''',L,',.‘;''&Z. f:''' ',V:;:d<:%'''X,'. ::::',..':.,'1,:•„:::,,,;',S3,2'::'..::•.,','"':..;;,..!', Ir:',.k.;:ifi:,244-if.;1Ais,;.:,,4,ta,.. k,',--;.Z,". .::,,;,'„ :::',;:zja,!'.2.`,;7-';‘',',:,:.',;:,:t:'i.,:.•",'-,.:1,,:t...;Q,,',.:::;.:,.;, i.,-7,:,,,,::-,,,,,--,,,, .,- -,: •pr--,..,,,-.:-p,..,-,,•:••):3-:-:-.,-, ,,,--,=,T::,-.1.'s'r..•-,'''..,'".T,'Z'.,'''.';`,17's;-: :::-:;'3.=',--2,'",:., ::,7",?,,,,,':f7.;"?'3 '"7":,':?,';,-,3;.;-,:r.:?7:c:',."-7,7n:'>'Zi';`",;z"7,7-'74-i,":!.r,nn,7'7,7P7,,47",V -,17:27N'74'''Y:, ,:::',7;',';',74-7,1.: .',:'5,;,':'-'.i.k!':';':',:.',:';':: :''':';::;'''/::.'", :fj::^':'f''',;:"'''f',:;C:::':,-e;,';„t*,i:;',''',;.:':::',V'.'.:',.';',1';, r,',"...."..,...?[':',',f,--::::,Y,..:::','./.:::f.',: i.::•':,' VS,',,V7.;:',',V..';;',':::'':e*.';-::,:,, ,1::::',..':;:,::,,,,:';''','Ir.,k:1;;•: .!,',',9 ',:,:';f:3'..,7,,;i:6,!,',Y:?. .":,i15:,,,, -."Z:,:.:.:::.iek::;:,',,,t,',',,,•:"•Pai-'3:','',;• SUBTOTAL 12,851.46 BILL TO: TAX 0.00 FREIGHT 0.00 TOTAL 12,851.46 r''-• .-i?-§';:-.i.'",t:T.:.•:'il-:fki,''-,-44:0:01144:i'liii)40,4•1;:: :•,fif,:•;'/,k'.:',''-i•i'i',1;a0-''','-?:;'qf,',.:::::•:X-;:•:;;::••X'':g;;:-'', Fi;•-W'.:i?:fi,i4AAiftirlig,'t.I':'lOOY..iii.'Zja;':-fk::i.t4i;i;;.:•. '41::4VY:-'',?fr.,LiA'44.tiiWtitU.';-Lf.-i,:fii,: E 127.000000.004.5710.0010.31.000000 636.47 E 127.000000.004.5940.0071.64.000084 12,214.99 .DA,(ikAitt-ThRiAkritAl/x.,y\- %thit,/1-Zi V teiattfi7 Authorized Signature Authorized Signature m- ..,,, ,v,z,s .. Media Ttiols 13256NE20ST#8Invoice Bellevue, WA 98005 DATE INVOICE# Phone: (425) 603-9000 Fax: (425) 614-0615 12/7/2006 2484 Bill To Ship To City of Renton City of Renton CITY OF REPir City Clerk Div.,Rm 728 City Clerk Div.,Rm 728 1055 So. Grady Way 1055 So. Grady Way DEC 21 2006 Renton,WA 98055 Renton,WA 98055 Attn:Accts Payable Div. Attn:Laurie Wood CRY F1F1V dmcE P.O. NUMBER REP SHIP VIA F.O.B. TERMS FK 12/7/2006 Best Origin Net 30 QUANTITY Item DESCRIPTION PRICE EACH AMOUNT 1 Sales Panasonic DMR-EH55S DVD Recorder Player 485.00 485.00T 1 Sales Panasonic AG-MX70 Video Switcher 5,575.00 5,575.00T 1 Sales Gaffer Tape 2"x 60 Yards 17.00 17.00T 1 Sales HP XW8400 2XDual Core 2.66GHz XEON 5150 5,605.00 5,605.00T Processor 2GB RAM 2X160GB SATA Internal HD,HP DVD-RW,FX1500 Graphics,3-Year 9-5 Warranty,WINXP Pro,Configured with AVID EXPRESS PRO(includes Set Up and One Year of Support) 1 Sales Avid Express Pro Keyboard 80.00 80.00T Subtotal 11,762.00 1 Shipping Shipping and Handling 50.00 50.00T Tax 8.80% 1,039.46 pp W/at).13i3 • Ivc/U l c f `, C 4g 7 ,, Z�,i-s CHARTER 116,LAWS OF 1965 a RA iZ-7i oot90oo,00ct' ��`��ula' 31' �11, 00 CITY OF RENTON CERTIFICATION 1 Z7 z o e o coo,©©g,?(O,c)a()i 51.#• Y I,T4•E UNDERSIGNED UO HERE BY CERTIFY UNDER PENALTY ZOF PERJURY,I t?, 000QOO .Cott (5-7/c , o0(C.'. 5/r , go`( _ .____....--- HE SERVICESR THAT THE OR THE LABOR FER UF{MED AS t, �/ / - ----'� DESCRIBED HEREIN,AND THAT THE CLAIM IS JUST,DUE AND ir .' 1�7 (f 0Ooo0,oo [ 594o, D?1olp [ n®op '/ �,d 77 D5 UNPAID OBLIGATION AGAINST THE CITY OF RENTON,AND AUTHORIZED TO AU`HENTICATEAND CERTIFY TO IZa po aj0qi5-9V/c O07(, a00084 - $�,i i7. qV SAID CLAIM �'�yll,,yt a.SIGgED: Thank you for your business. Total $12,851.46 i• , Form �.9 � , Request for Taxpayer Give form to the (Rev.November 1999) Identification Number and Certification requester. Do NOT Department of the Treasury send to the IRS. Intewol Revenue Service Name(If a joint account or you changed your name,see Specific Instructions on page 2.) a Media Tools `o Business narvegfterer2Ottrh StaPaiffc Instructions on page 2.) c Bellevue A 98005 a Check appropriate box: DI Individual/Sole proprietor 0 Corporation 0 Partnership 0, Other ► J J—„ '� . w Address(number,street and apt.or suite no.) Reque-•-_'--•^--^^- •"--_,.'^-"--" o ar O. City,state,and ZIP code Part I Taxpayer Identification Number (TIN) List account number(s)here(optional) Enter your TIN in the appropriate box. For individuals, this is your social security number Social security number (SSN). However, if you are a resident alien OR a sole proprietor, see the instructions on page 2. 1 I 4. I 4 I 1 For other entities,it is your employer OR Part II For Payees Exempt From Backup identification number(EIN).If you do not have a • number, see How to get a TIN on page 2. Withholding(See the instructions Employer Identification number on Note: If the account is in more than one name, [� page 2.) see the chart on page 2 for guidelines on whose `1 i ( �• '1-31 41 SI qi s 19 number to enter. Part III Certification Under penalties of perjury, I certify that: 1. The number shown on this form is my correct taxpayer identification number(or I am waiting for a number to be issued to me),and 2. I am not subject to backup withholding because:(a)I am exempt from backup withholding,or(b)I have not been notified by the Internal - Revenue Service(IRS)that I am subject to backup withholding as a result of a failure to report all interest or dividends,or(c)the IRS has notified me that I am no longer subject to backup withholding. Certification instructions.You must cross out item 2 above if you have been notified by the IRS that you are currently subject to backup withholding because you have failed to report all interest and dividends on your tax return. For real estate transactions,ite 2 does not apply. For mortgage interest paid,acquisition or abandonment of secured property,cancellation of debt,contributions to an individu I retirement arrangement(IRA), and generally, payments other than interest and dividends,you are not required to sign the Certification, ut you must provide your correct TIN.(See the instructions on page 2.) Sign Here Signature _ '` __ Date ► /7 -( Purpose of form.A person who is What is backup withholding?Persons 5. You do not certify to the requester required to file an information return with making certain payments to you must that you are not subject to backup the IRS must get your correct taxpayer withhold and pay to the IRS 31%of such withholding under 3 above(for reportable identification number(TIN)to report, for payments under certain conditions.This is interest and dividend accounts opened example, income paid to you, real estate called "backup withholding."Payments after 1983 only). transactions, mortgage interest you paid, that may be subject to backup withholding Certain payees and payments are acquisition or abandonment of secured include interest, dividends, broker and exempt from backup withholding. See the property, cancellation of debt, or barter exchange transactions, rents, Part)I instructions and the separate contributions you made to an IRA. royalties, nonemployee pay,and certain Instructions for the Requester of Form Use Form W-9, if you are a U.S. person payments from fishing boat operators. Real W.9. (including a resident alien), to give your estate transactions are not subject to correct TIN to the person requesting it(the backup withholding. Penalties requester)and, when applicable,to: If you give the requester your correct Failure to furnish TIN.If you fail to furnish 1.Certify the TIN you are giving is TIN,make the proper certifications, and your correct TIN to a requester,you are correct(or you are waiting for a number to report all your taxable interest and subject to a penalty of$50 for each such be issued), dividends on your tax return, payments failure unless your failure is due to withholding, ct to backu - 2. youo are not subject to backup withhold ng. Payments you receive will not be j receive will be reasonable cause and not to willful neglect. subject to backupwithholdingif: Civil penalty for false information with 3. Claim exemption from backup 1.You do not furnish your TIN to the respect to withholding.If you make a withholding if you are an exempt payee. false statement with no reasonable basis requester, or • that results in no backupwithholding,you If you are a foreign person. IRS prefers 2. You do not certify your TIN when - are subject to a $500penalty.you use a Form W-8(certificate of foreign j status). After December 31, 2000,foreign required(see the Part III instructions on Criminal penalty for falsifying must use an appropriatepage 2 for details),or Form information.Willfully falsifying persons W-8. 3.The IRS tells the requester that you certifications or affirmations may subject Note:If a requester gives you a form other furnished an incorrect TIN, or you to criminal penalties including fines than Form W-9 to request your TIN,you 4.The IRS tells you that you are subject and/or imprisonment. must use the requester's form if it is to backup withholding because you did not Misuse of TINs. If the requester discloses substantially similar to this Form W-9, feport all your interest and dividends on or uses TINs in violation of Federal law,the your tax return(for reportable interest and requester may be subject to civil and dividends only),or criminal penalties. Cat.No.10231x Form W-9 (Rev.11-99) k Media ToolsCITYOFRENTON PackingSlip DEC 2 9 2006 13256 NE 20 ST#8 DATE INVOICE# Bellevue, WA 98005 RECEIVED Phone: (425) 603-9000 CITY CLERK'S OFFICE 12/7/2006 2484 Fax: (425) 614-0615 BILL TO SHIP TO City of Renton City of Renton City Clerk Div.,Rm 728 City Clerk Div.,Rm 728 1055 So.Grady Way 1055 So. Grady Way Renton, WA 98055 Renton,WA 98055 Attn:Accts Payable Div. Attn:Laurie Wood P.O. NUMBER REP SHIP VIA F.O.B. FK 12/7/2006 Best Origin QUANTITY ITEM CODE DESCRIPTION 1 Sales Panasonic DMR-EH55S DVD Recorder Player /1. I Sales Panasonic AG-MX70 Video Switcher ✓ 1 Sales• Gaffer Tape 2"x 60 Yards ,r 1 Sales HP XW8400 2XDua1 Core 2.66GHz XEON 5150 Processor 2GB RAM v 2X160GB SATA Internal HD,HP DVD-RW,FX1500 Graphics,3-Year 9-5 Warranty, WINXP Pro,Configured with AVID EXPRESS PRO (includes Set Up and One Year of Support) 1 Sales Avid Express Pro Keyboard ✓ Subtotal 1 Shipping Shipping and Handling Tax Received By: Page 1 /1 çY 0 N't CITY OF RENTON aD + + 1055 S. GRADY WAY RENTON, WA 98055 12/29/2006 12/0001316 - 1\Tr-c0 VENDOR: 040001 SHIP TO: JW TEL-TRONICS INC PO BOX 1282 BOTHELL, WA 98041-1282 FOB Point: Req.No.: Terms: due in 30 days Dept.: FINANCE DEPARTMENT Req.Del.Date: Contact:SETH, JASON Pre-Assigned PO#?: No Special Inst: 1 ea.-Sony,UHV Wireless microphone 579.91 7:2,77 • •• ' 4 ' , „;„ •....ga.A•Ca, , • ............. .;. ••'.°. • ' • f:..: SUBTOTAL 579.91 BILL TO: TAX 0.00 FREIGHT 0.00 TOTAL 579.91 E 127.000000.004.5710.0010.31.000000 579.91 7)1 -it /1-." ---)11iL-61vk41 \golL/LC0;>/. Authorized Signature Authorized Signature .J411 Vr- U/ U:).V I ) .JIIII ♦7LUIUIVCIIL 44Q-40I-U/UJ FJ,L .v --- t rIMAiralli ill P.O.BOX 1282 BOTHELL,WA 98041.1282 PH(425)485-4739 FAX(425)481-0703 Invoice JW TEL TRONICS. INC. I Date Invoice# - - - --- 1/2/2007 105971 I Bill To _ -- (�/l,/ Lori Wood I CITY OF RENTON City of Renton Y /I ��.� 1055 S Grady Way JA�! 0 2 2001 �'"" Renton WA 98055 RECEIVED R 1)[111 OfTY CLERK'S OFFICE P.O. No. . Terms Due Date VendorlD# 1 Net 30 2/1/2007 040001 Item Description Amount Parts Sale 641 /vi g4,c-�S5 ro e_ fop_ I iELD 533.00T LI " • CHARTER 116, LAWS OF 1965 CITY OF RENTON CERTIFICATION pc ib D®{ii.(o I,THE UNDERSIGNED DO HEREBY CERTIFY UNDER PENALTY OF PERJURY,THAT THE MATERIAL HAVE BEEN FURNISHED, THE SERVICES) ba2 ; D 0®pi DESCRIBED HEREIN,AND THAT TH CLAIMRED OR TH PERFORMED AS �'t✓iuIS JUST,CUE AND UNPAID OBLIGATION AGAINST TH CITY OF RENTON,AND THAT I AM AUTHORIZED TO AUTHE ICATE AND CERTIFY TO A CX---t SAID CLAIM. 12-7' 46: 00 o51l t? , 00to, 5t, Sf3NED: I(14 A II _ I Subtotal $533.00 Sales Tax (8.8%) $46.91 Total $579.91 Payment is due upon receipt. Unpaid invoices will accrue Payments/Credits $0.00 1.5%interest monthly. We now accept VISA and MASTERCARD. Balance Due $579.91 Broadcast Engineering • Design • Support Jar; 02 07 05:01p Jim Sturdivant 4?5-4ts]-u(Us p.o Part Sale City of Renton Invoice#: 105971 1055 S Grady Way Renton,WA 98055 Sale #: I 641 Contact: Lori Wood Purchase Order#: Remarks: Lori, This microphone is the sister of the one you've got. PARTS SOLD ID# Qty U/M Description Mfr Partfi Freight Unit Cost Total 9103 11 Each UNV Wireless mike ?UWPC1 • $0.00 $520.00 $520.00 Parts Total: $520.00 SERVICE CHARGES Charge For Description Date Cost Shipping 1202006 $13.00 Service Charges Total: $13.00 Terms: Net 30 Pre Tax Grand Total: I $533.00 I DO NOT PAY FROM THIS SHEET • • Printed On: 1/2/2007 �VV JW Tel-Tronics Inc. T F L —T .o N 1 C S 18823 Beardslee Blvd. -Bothell, WA (425)485-4739 UPS Internet Shipping: Label/Receipt Page 1 of 2 v UPS Internet Shipping: View/Print Label 1. Print the label(s): Select the Print button on the print dialog box that appears. Note: If your browser does not support this function select Print from the File menu to print the label. 2. Fold the printed label at the dotted line. Place the label in a UPS Shipping Pouch. If you do not have a pouch, affix the folded label using clear plastic shipping tape over the entire label. 3. GETTING YOUR SHIPMENT TO UPS Customers without a Daily Pickup . Schedule a same day or future day Pickup to have a UPS driver pickup all of your Internet Shipping packages. . Hand the package to any UPS driver in your area. " Take your package to a location of The UPS Store®, UPS Drop Box, UPS Customer Center or Authorized Shipping Outlet near you. Items sent via UPS Return Services (including Ground Returns) are accepted at any UPS Drop Box. :: To find the location nearest you, please visit the 'Find Locations' Quick link at ups.com. Customers with a Daily Pickup " Your driver will pickup your shipment(s) as usual. FOLD HERE 2 ) .. CDw U 1 c z o 0 Z c O0 N 0 mimma 4., � c/) U v C C) 00 't oi M ra W co U v` 0. N. L.n 0 0 0 C' O W< A d E P 2 z trAtve-4144:: 0 , :.:- .z.....:-.. 44 N immi y74 y` a„ P Ln Mv �• �/ " 0.,V'..S.n m QION O dl-dM ,.., .r K :r Y~ z z :r https://www.ups.corn/uis/create?ActionOriginPair=print PrinterPage&POPUP_LEVE... 12/11/2006 DHL: Prepare a shipment: Print waybill Page 1 of 1 o CD o may, - z0"co`L aye Ii 7 vim ° m26c_ . N H -� �� rrn�r 1. 0 -c, . 6 mesa rn�U1 ' W u,0rnCO = $ , i CO m CTI 'C rn o m E y 4 -N, a- ri Al (p IIIIMIIIIMMMIMIIIIIIINI r N U7 co ammleimmilm. 6 Ul CD IIMINII a c m at GI) i g CT, 1111•1.11.0111111MININIMIMI N 01 2 d 0 IIIIMIDNINI O D 7 a v srn INEMMI MEMINNI.Millif DJ v, co5' o 7 '5 Nog iii mCDoo v ...1eau jsommo * .1.< co - O m '44.`w CD 0 N rnv w NO Io u; m v C7 K I w r Please fold or cut in half — DO NOT PHOTOCOPY Using a photocopy could delay the delivery of your package and will result in additional shipping charge For Tracking,please go to www.dhl-usa.com or call 1-800-225-5345 Thank you for shipping with DHL Create new shipment 101 (r View pending shipments Print waybill CI • 1,f+ne•//irahehin rlh1_11eo m/ehinmanfrinrnmanfe/10- 1Ann Oen inn Q/')nnc Page 1 /1 0 CITY OF REWI ON cm, + 1055 S. GRADY WAY vp- RENTON, WA 98055 3/12/2007 12/0001367 • Nrv0 VENDOR: 040001 SHIP TO: JW TEL-TRONICS INC PO BOX 1282 BOTHELL, WA 98041-1282 FOB Point: Req.No.: Terms: due in 30 days Dept.: FINANCE DEPARTMENT Req.Del.Date: Contact: SETH, JASON Pre-Assigned PO#?: No Special Inst: MX-70 Switcher maintenance -(Rerouted 1,577.60 andaddedwinngsoneDVDrecotder could play and record to the system) ‘'.-• • , ‘:•A :„; • 7,, 7-7-777:7-. 472 SUBTOTAL 1,577.60 BILL TO: TAX 0.00 FREIGHT 0.00 TOTAL 1,577.60 E 127.000000.004.5710.0010.48.000000 1,577.60 7)ILVik/1/ '—i7Let-t4/YLd4 ), _ )63e7444.(1..ki Zdf24,_.eaux•-) Authorized Signature Authorized Signature P.O.BOX 1282 BOTHELL,WA 98041-1, PH(425)485-4739 FAX(425)481-0703 Invoice ow OF RENTON JW TEL TRONICS, INC. FEB 2 7 2007 Date Invoice# ----- — CITY gaEKYg® CE /21/2007 �106050 Bill To Lori Wood `\'` City of Renton ri 1055 S Grady Way Renton WA 98055 6(1 P.O. No. Terms Due Date VendorlD# Net 30 3/23/2007 040001 Item Description Amount IInstallation 1891 1,450.00T • CHAR R 116, LAWS OF 1965 • CITY OF R NTON CERTIFICATE I,THE UNDERSIGN DO HEREBY CERTIFY UNDER PAIL OF PERJURY,THAT HE MATERIALS HAVE BEEN FIRNU P c t!eke,G 13(a`7 THE SERVICES RE DERED OR THE LABOR PERFORMED DESCRIBED HEREI AND THAT THE CLAIM IS JUST,I �� UNPAID OBLIGATIO AGAINST THE CITY OF RENTON,AID c 0 4 DD I THAT I AM AUTHOR! D TO AUTHENTICATE AND CERTIFY SAID CLAIM. e 'Ei rr Z,7i)k , 00q. S—? 0 E O0l2} e r SIGNED: • I VDfi r � Subtotal $1,450.00 Sales Tax (8.8%) $127.60 Total $1,577.60 Payment is due upon receipt. Unpaid invoices will accrue Payments/Credits $0.00 1.5%interest monthly. We now accept VISA and 'MASTERCARD. Balance Due $1,577.60 • Broadcast Engineering • Design • Support Service Call / Installation City of Renton Invoice #: 106050 1055 S Grady Way Renton,WA 98055 ID #: 1891 Contact: Lori Wood Purchase Order#: Job #: Scheduled For: 1/17/2007 10:00:00 AM Symptom: They just bought a MX-70 switcher and need it wired in place of the MX-50, which only has 4 inputs. They want the following signals feeding directly into the 70: Cam-1 • Cam-2 Cam-3 Cam-4 Elmo must go through scan converter to projector. Monitors for council Computer DVR Deck 8 x 8 Knox router They also need me to connect up the DVR deck so it can record and playback. Hope it has SVHS in's and out's. That would be the best with their system since their gear is all S. Can feed the DVR from an output of the Knox. Will have to reroute the current video lines that appear as inputs to the router directly over to the 70. Service: Rerouted wiring as necessary to feed the new MX-70 switcher as suggested above. Added wiring for the new DVD recorder so it could play and record to the system. Removed some unnecessary wiring to help clean up the area. Added new wiring to the audio board for the DVD. Remarks: Worked continuously on the project from 10:15 AM to 10:30 PM less some time for a quick sandwich. Managed to stay to the end of the meeting that evening in the council chambers. I think it had something to do with rules for cutting trees in the city. LABOR Technician Description Date Hours Hourly Rate Total John Weist On-site installation 1/17/2007 11.5: $120.00 , $1,380.00 �......_.._._....__ ... ....... . . .._ Labor Total: $1380.00 SERVICE CHARGES Charge For Description Date Cost Travel Time_._. ._l- _................._.__...._.... ._._....-_ 1/17/20071 , $70.00 ; Service Charges Total: $70.00 Terms: Net 30 Pre-Tax Grand Total: $1,450.00 DO NOT PAY FROM THIS SHEET • Printed On: 2/21/2007 JW Tel-Tronics Inc. TEL -T A O N I C S 18823 Beardslee Blvd. - Bothell,WA (425)485-4739 Page 1 /1 0 CITY OF RENTON + 1055 S. GRADY WAY NrVO RENTON, WA 98055 4/9/2007 12/0001390 r• VENDOR: 082979 SHIP TO: TROXELL COMMUNICATIONS INC 4830 S 38TH ST PHOENIX, AZ 85040 FOB Point: Req.No.: Terms: due in 30 days Dept.: FINANCE DEPARTMENT Req.Del.Date: Contact: JOHNSON, LONI Pre-Assigned PO#?: No Special lnst: • PROJECTOR LAMP-MARCH 2007-INV. 314.44 ;:"". -77' -7'77:: 7:7•777,..7:77-77:775: • ................................... ; • • • iT77:177-7777.! „ Z • •• • -•.•• :'.;•7-7 2,;:" '',7f;‘,0'7.-5,-;;;;57 •,• .2 • •.; 't "‘" 7:770 SUBTOTAL 314.44 BILL TO: TAX 0.00 FREIGHT 0.00 TOTAL 314.44 E 127.000000.004.5710.0010.48.000000 314.44 I. telat6f,". Authorized Signature uthorized Signature ..,, PLEASE REMIT TO: INVOICE. :-::.i.::::., ...:..,.: ..: : , s.,....-- TRO E !i'r 1.1. COMMUNICATIONS, INC. Audio•Video•Sales-Design-Service•Installation : • .\ DNo. 244686 Date 03/23/2007 , - . 4830 S.38TH STREET tt\(7---- 't J PHOENIX,ARIZONA 85040 • Page 1 (602)437-7240 1-800-352-7912 FAX (602)437-7265 Customer 9,14iTOF KEN4 6 111 --tw TIN #86-0716114 TON Sold To: Ship To: MAR 29 2007 • CITY OF RENTON CITY OF RENTON RECEIVED CITYCLERKSOFFICE 1055 S GRADY WAY 1055 S GRADY WAY RENTON WA 98055-3232 RENTON WA 98055-3232 s.''!..:-....:•::;•:.;:;:';,...i.::.-i,i; :::.•;..,:.;:-Otili.O.V.0i''..;i:..j:.:0::-.1.. :.1::...,0:40:i$1,1iPii.0.0:0V i' :::::.::0.0iiti:01140,....,-:-....,::iii?:::••::Of.00:1).00:.':•:....:.:COotoitio,P.:040::-.::•-: S.41e -*.,: Net 30 Drop Ship 03/23/2007 713642 RW 03/16/2007 120001371. 4601 :,•:.'i-,i:.?.::::•::•::::i:: :':.,..i- -.-,Ii._.i•--,,-.:''':•:',:::..:::::.:. . ;..:...•:•.:.. .:: .; . ::;::•:i,;.:;:i:;:: ...;;:Vi : .:::;:.... ::;..:;: :..; : :;:.i.:...;,„„.: ,:::.' :..:;:. „,,,..,•i: ::i,i:.: :,.:: ... ..:....:i.:::i ,, .•::::;, :::::::.ii: !V!!1:1`,!!,!LTIP9/:*:::::;...:. •',:i.i::-...-:•- ::::: .::,::'.::::';::•::YPAPFIPAIq!!•'-::::.:.:::*..:::.:-:•:.:;i::;:;:::::: :•.i:i:•:.:i.•. :;::;:i;MI'10,0fW:i : :: fil!PPP9..::::•::::.:'P.N.:.::::-:-::.::.-•::::"rr19P!-r.Pr.:-..:.:: •:FXt?::-0119unv.:::....:, EIK EIK6102907698 LAMP FOR LC-SX1U, 1 1 0 289.00 289.00 . SX1UL,X1UA,X1UL RECEIVED • MAR 2 9 2007 City of Renton Accounts Payable • CHARTER 1.16, L.,,\A#3-Or 1 9,..'..,; • • CriY OF RENION CFR-PFC.'''' -'".• — I 1 •! ‘,.'1\1 I, rhE UNDMIONED uo H 1:i(E.?Y CtRIIFY UIDE-.--- :'.:,., i• .•A-:. PERJURI', 1HAT THE NbitIERIALS t,AVE BEEN FIP,:sg:,,D, ":NE SER ACES RENDERED OIR THE LABOR PERFORM AS N .:RIPED HEREIN,AND IHAT II,c:.CJAIM 16 A .311ST,DUE AID R) /2 AnD Lboto tx,11-,:.iD 0/ILK-ADO V AGAINST THE ER OF.i.E:ri-jCiAl,AND Tli; I V I AU,101-67..,:-D TO AtITHENTiCW: ANO C.:ERWS/ vIdor_-1* `C) c 2-q7 1 . c,,, IC SAID -SlzielvegiSt -,,o,,, r,rs Li ji 2 ..i,,i30 0 0 L ,,,ju' r.11(),,, S Hc< : 1)t 600 , . MEMO: .. NET SALES CONDITIONS OF SALE --- - :. .AMOUNT.. 289.00 .-.......-.., All claims arising out of or connected with the AFinance Charge at the periodic rate of SALES TAX 25.44 above listed items must be made within five days 1 1/2% with an Annual Percentage Rate :..li!:::.:::::...,:. after delivery. No returns accepted unless of 18% will be charged on all accounts -••-•-• accompanied by this document. Merchandise returned unpaid after the last day of the .:,:•••::.-.•••••,:•... -.....::,i:i,::.::;:i for credit shall be subject to 25% handling following month. _FREIGHT charges. Seller reserves title to these goods ... . ...•.......• - - ---... . .. .. .. -- until paid for in full. ::..:.:;.::::.::.i..::..:i.•...i.,.i.::,:i-,:-•::--: This invoice is due on or before 04/22/2007 .AMOUNT , :.:.,•!: .''. ::n;::: :!'.*: 3 1 4.44 : :;:..::::..-:: • PLEASE REFERENCE THIS INVOICE NO. 244686 ON YOUR REMITTANCE tjt ) PLEASE REMIT TO: ...":':...i..:, ...i..:1 :: : . .:: • • J' TRO E COMMUNICATIONS, INC. INVOICE.., Audio-Video•Sales•Design-Service•Installation No. 244686 4830 S.38TH STREET Date 03/23/2007 PHOENIX,ARIZONA 85040 Page 1 (602)437-7240 1-800-352-7912 FAX (602)437-7265 - Customer 21416 N TIN #86-0716114 CITY OF RENTON Sold To: Ship To: MAR 2 9 2007 CITY OF RENTON CITY OF RENTON • RECEIVED CITY CLERKS OFFICE 1055 S GRADY WAY 1055 S GRADY WAY RENTON WA 98055-3232 RENTON WA 98055-3232 i;::W;;Mglitiiib:;;;.;:;:.;.:::•,:!:i;::i .ii'' '; :::0; :iS1-ii-jiiNii6;.••••:::.• ---::::'-:i-:::]:::,-.-i:DOtii:SFOpPed.::i:::i:i::•-,••••.::•.:.:,C09-11•91::No•:.:::::.:..:.:.:i:„.:]::arciecp:o.*::,ii j:i:::i:co.$19,00,.r.ilm.poiii:,,,:*i:::]:*]:,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, Net 30 Drop Ship 03/23/2007 713642 RW 03/16/2007 120001371 4601 :1!:6i4'a;.',...4 ::' EIK EIK6102907698 LAMP FOR LC-SX1U, 1 1 0 289.00 289.00 SX1UL,X1UA,X1UL . • Ce'' `i 4etp A C/f 00?, . -Kbotr Oft, 1417/8 Arer'10 c9.k,017 0/0 MEMO: .. . . N 04,4Lt. ,..•: ...:„.:..., 289.00 CONDITIONS OF SALE AwogNr:.:!:-.::.,.,, All claims arising out of or connected with the AFinance Charge at the periodic rate of SALES TAX 25.44 above listed items must be made within five days 1 1/2% with an Annual Percentage Rate after delivery. No returns accepted unless of 18% will be charged on all accounts accompanied by this document. Merchandise returned unpaid after the last day of the for credit shall be subject to 25% handling following month. P#0.0.4tM. charges. Seller reserves title to these goods • !!;P';':.:E.i::;j:*:!1;•;;:-.':;:-.-i;!::;:i. ... .. ... . ............... until paid for in full. This invoice is due on or before 04/22/2007 AMOUNT 314.44 ::::' ...?:::::!:. PLEASE REFERENCE THIS INVOICE NO. 244686 ON YOUR REMITTANCE .::.'i:::.,:-:::-:0U.E.:i.......::::.:*.:.;..-. .•.'.. PAO< LEST Page a Print. O3/11/o. 7 L EIU INTERMIT W'UL, 11C. CITY OF RENTON LIAR 2 2 2007 RECEIVED CITY CLERK'S OFFICE CETV OF RENTON 03/I9/07 1055 S ORADY WAY 03/19/07 PO *12()0O 1371 RENT ON WA 98O55—3L 32 It.en No/Des,c-r i at.iark Order alai a EVO �# Carr},er: 6ruur d LAW§ ASSE1414LYILE—X1/sxise ies, 11 Frei ght CAI BETE • Page 1 /1 .•••• • 0 •et)fa CITY OF RENTL,01 a 1055 S. GRADY WAY _ RENTON, WA 98055 6/11/2007 12/0091435 VENDOR: 040001 SHIP TO: JW TEL-TRONICS INC PO BOX 1282 BOTHELL, WA 98041-1282 FOB Point: Req.No.: Terms: due in 30 days Dept.: FINANCE DEPARTMENT Req.Del.Date: Contact: SETH, JASON Pre-Assigned PO#?: No Special Inst: ;7';' Unit Price Ext Price 2 separate services calls- 2,815.07 • —• 47 -2,-,separate 71,7 c7; 7"- „":7 ' ,' '77'7' • F,•—••••,77' e',S'•''';''JL LS.LL;:::•:: Repaired Eiki Projector Monitor :4.4714-7.,77-77,c,77 -7-17777:77,777.777,,,:• 77.77.777:7 777—77.74:77:-7:7747',17: ••F•'•i'•717 ••-!:,„• '•'••••;:'.••••••:!7•••7:777,77:-:,•;;•fr;•••;•'• ;' , •,„ • ,77 777777 P'• 7:77 7, 757---.7.7 kJ, ": ;7777'7777 7:"! -•4:4,;744;7777.j 4.4.,,•„ -7777 ••-•',17,444477-77; •„ . ••• • ::.,,,4zmmr;,,• „ .-".7"- 7-7.: 7 77 " '7-7777' 7- •.7'7 7-7777 7:47, T:7 177 7:17:77:747.7 '1! '''''—7;77•'7--7777,777: '7-7 7,",-.7,77,47,7157,1:ci"- ; ,, 'T 71. 777 .2C•• 7 ":1 7:777.:71-; -:-.7P77.774777,777 7-7 7%7.7,:h-:-'27;77,7:7 -..r, 77'7:77 ; ,",,V7 :7777 "11 7 : " "• ' • •"•, ; -— 71:" ••• - • •-.- • SUBTOTAL 2,815.07 BILL TO: TAX 0.00 FREIGHT 0.00 TOTAL 2,815.07 E 127.000000.004.5710.0010.48.000000 2,815.07 186-44/4j, Waite Authorized Signature Authorized Signature ~" S P.O.BOX 1282 BOTHELL,WA 98041-1, PH(425)485-4739 FAX(425)481-0703 ‘" vo Invoice JW TEL TRONICS, INC. e% Date Invoice# I _ 6/7/2007 106242 Bill To Lori Wood CITY OF RENTON City of Renton 1055 S Grady Way JUN 1 1 2007 Renton WA 98055 RECEIVED CITY CLERK'S OFFICE P.O. No. Terms Due Date VendorlD# Net 30 7/7/2007 Item Description Amount Equipment Repair 19749 1,095.00T Equipment Repair 19817 510.00T Service Call 1948 430.00T Service Call 1951 5.50.00T CHARTER 116, LAWS OF 1965 CITY OF RENTON CERTIFICATION D jD�U l L1�� I,THE UNDERSIGNED Go HEREBY CERTIFY UNDER PENALTY / OF PERJURY,THAT THE M ATERIA_S HAVE BEEN FURNISHED, THE SERVICES RENDERED OR THE LABOR PERFORMED AS tie DESCRIBED HEREIN,AND THAT THE CLAIM IS JUST,MEAND V 1? �N (� O E� THAT AI I G AM AUTHORIZED TO AUTHENTICATE AND CERTIFY TO SAID CLAIM. ~ SIGNED: )l 14441, (�.)40" iz /,4( 100 ,., 5"11,0 , 0©[0, 1-k8i ( D / ( Subtotal $2,585.00 Sales Tax (8.9%) $230.07 Total $2,815.07 Payment is due upon receipt. Unpaid invoices will accrue Payments/Credits $0.00 1.5% interest monthly. We now accept VISA and MASTERCARD. Balance Due $2,815.07 Broadcast Engineering • Design • Support Equipment Repair City of Renton Invoice #: 106242 1055 S Grady Way Renton, WA 98055 Repair#: 19749 Contact: Lori Wood Purchase Order#: Group #: EQUIPMENT INFORMATION Description: Scan Converter, Digital ID#: 1E+0 Received: 4/30/2007 3:44:39 Completed: 5/10/2007 Make: Sony Model: DSC-1024G Serial: 2101983 Operate Hours: Drum Hours: Capstan Hours: Thread Count: Symptom: John went to site and removed the unit from their system. He connected the computers up so the computers can still be displayed onto the projector and side view flat panel monitors. What will not work now is that the computer images cannot be recorded onto tape for replay. Faint herringbone lines from all inputs. Ask JW if you have any questions. Service: 4/30/07 Electrolytic capacitors are obviously the problem. I will replace (10)caps in the power supply. If the problem is still there, then the main board will need all new caps (there are over 100). Est for that would be $800-900. 5/4/07 Replaced the 10 capacitors on power supply circuit board. The symptoms haven't changed. 5/7/07 Lori called to approve the estimate. Please see if you can fix it and we could have it back by Monday the 14th. AS 5/10/07 Replaced all electrolytic capacitors (total of 136) on main circuit board. Fine tuned output levels and tested all inputs and outputs. LABOR Technician Description Date Hours Hourly Rate Total John Weist I Disconnected from system. 4/30/2007 I 0.51 $120.00 $60.00 Chris Diagnostics 4/30/2007I 0.5 $100.00 $50.00 Chris Power supply repairs 5/4/2007 0.5 $100.00 $50.00 Chris Main board repairs 5/10/2007 51 $100.00 $500.00 Labor Total: $660.00 PARTS USED ID# Qty U/M Description Mfr Part# Freight Unit Cost Total 1502 10 Each I Capacitor I $0.00 $2.50 $25.00 1502 136 Each I Capacitor i $0.00 $2.50 $340.00 Parts Total: $365.00 SERVICE CHARGES Charge For Description Date Cost Pick-up I I4/30/2007 $70.00 Service Charges Total: $70.00 Terms: Net 30 Pre-Tax Grand Total: $1,095.00 DO NOT PAY FROM THIS SHEET • Printed On: 6/8/2007 .MVV JW Tel-Tronics Inc. TEL -T R O N I C S 18823 Beardslee Blvd. -Bothell, WA (425)485-4739 Equipment Repair N„.` City of Renton Invoice #: 106242 1055 S Grady Way Repair#: 19817 Renton, WA 98055 Contact: Lori Wood Purchase Order#: Group #: EQUIPMENT INFORMATION Description: Multimedia Projector ID#: 1E+0 Received: 5/30/20074:03:22 Completed: 6/1/2007 Make: Eiki Model: LC-X1 Serial: G8601301 Operate Hours: Drum Hours: Capstan Hours: Thread Count: Symptom: Dirt in the optics. Clean optics and filter; check operation. Service: Disassembled projector and pressure cleaned chassis. Cleaned filters. Manually cleaned LCD panels to remove dust. Tested functions, ok. • Remarks: There is one blue pixel stuck on in the lower-left quadrant. Location: 104x372 @ 640x480. John Picked up the unit on 5-30-07 and had to move a couple of cables around in the control room so everything else in the system would work properly. John delivered the projector on 6-04-07, repositioned the wiring changed for the removal and tested operation. LABOR Technician Description Date Hours Hourly Rate Total John Weist I On-site projector removal,wiring. 5/30/2007 11 $120.00 $120.00 Dave Pinney Labor 5/31/2007 1.5 $100.00 $150.00 John Weist I On-site hookup,projector setup,wiring. 6/4/2007 1 $120.00 $120.00 Labor Total: $390.00 SERVICE CHARGES • Charge For Description Date Cost Travel Time I To PU projector 5/30/2007 $60.00 Travel Time I To Return projector I 6/4/2007 $60.00 Service Charges Total: $120.00 Terms: Net 30 Pre-Tax Grand Total: $510.00 DO NOT PAY FROM THIS SHEET • Printed On: 6/8/2007 J,AJJW Tel-Tronics Inc. TEL O N,C S 18823 Beardslee Blvd. -Bothell, WA (425)485-4739 Service Call / Installation City of Renton Invoice #: 106242 1055 S Grady Way Renton, WA 98055 ID #: 1948 Contact: Bonnie Walton Purchase Order#: Job #: Scheduled For: 4/13/2007 1:30:00 PM Symptom: Lori is having problems with: Intermittant audio to ceiling speakers in Chambers. Audio on recordings was all okay Wavy lines from the Elmo copy camera. No video from the pc to the MX-70. Service: No video from the PC was caused by a cable disconnected by the SPL folks that had been in there recently looking for an audio problem. They had moved the Sony scan converter and had not noticed a loose cable. Wavy lines in the elmo and computer pictures are being caused by the Sony DSC1024G scan converter. It has an internal component problem that will have to be repaired at our shop. Let us know when that can be taken in for work. The audio was working perfectly while we were looking at it. I listened to it for the entire time I was there and it always sounded good. Remarks: We spent a good bit of time trying to make the audio system act up. If this happens again please try to call me while it is happening. My cell#is: 206 818-2388. We may be able to figure out what is and what isn't working at that time. LABOR Technician Description Date Hours Hourly Rate Total John Weist ; 4/13/2007 1 31 $120.00 $360.00 Labor Total: $360.00 SERVICE CHARGES Charge For Description Date Cost Travel Time [4/13/2007 $70.00 Service Charges Total: $70.00 Terms: Net 30 Pre-Tax Grand Total: $430.00 DO NOT PAY FROM THIS SHEET Printed On: 6/7/2007 equiJw JW Tel-Tronics Inc. TEL -T R O N I C S 18823 Beardslee Blvd. - Bothell,WA (425)485-4739 Service Call / Installation �. City of Renton Invoice #: 106242 1055 S Grady Way Renton, WA 98055 ID #: 1951 Contact: Bonnie Walton Purchase Order#: Job #: Scheduled For: 5/11/2007 2:15:00 PM Symptom: Return the freshly repaired Sony Scan converter. Reconnect it into the system and test everything to make sure it all works. Service: Reinstalled the Sony Scan Converter. That took about 45 minutes with all the wiring. No problems there but when testing the system I discovered that the Dais monitors had no computer feed. Since there were no known drawings I traced out the system and tracked the problem down to a Gefen VGA to DVI converter unit in the Dais. There were proper input signals but nothing coming out but the menu from the unit. I unplugged power for 15 seconds and reconnected. It worked great after that. The picture on the Staff table was very blurry. After following the wiring system out for the staff table I reset that Gefen VGA to DVI converter to clear the problem. Everything was working properly when I left. Remarks: It is too bad there are so many standards converters in the monitoring system. The picture quality could be a bit better if the system had been installed with less complexity&less conversion. It would have made better pictures, been more reliable and cost a lot less, both in parts and install labor. If the proper computer monitor had been purchased none of the DVI or scan converters would have been necessary. $2000.00 in parts and a considerable amount in labor could have been saved if this had been planned better. LABOR Technician Description Date Hours Hourly Rate Total John Weist j 5/11/2007 41 $120.00 $480.00 Labor Total: $480.00 SERVICE CHARGES Charge For Description Date Cost Travel Time 1 5/11/2007 $70.00 Service Charges Total: $70.00 Terms: Net 30 Pre-Tax Grand Total: $550.00 DO NOT PAY FROM THIS SHEET Printed On: 6/7/2007 JW Tel-Tronics Inc. TEL -T R O N I C S 18823 Beardslee Blvd. -Bothell,WA (425)485-4739 r , . .. . Invoice Invoice#:092601-01 Invoice Date: September 26, 2001 Customer ID: City of Renton Bill To: City of Renton Ship To: City of Renton 1055 South Grady Way 1055 South Grady Way Renton, WA 98055 Renton, WA 98055 Date Your Order# Our Order# Sales Rep. FOB Ship Via Terms Tax ID Sept.26,2001 Marilyn Petersen 092601-01 Monte Stroh! Delivered Net 15 91-21108749 1 Quan- Item Units ' Description Discount Taxable Unit Price Total 1 IC200 M 1 InfoChannel 200 Master Server Yes 3,200 3,200 1 IC200MS 1 InfoChannel 200 Master Software Yes 3,500 3,500 1 IC200 PRM 1 InfoChannel 200 Rack Mounted Player Yes 3,900 3,900 1 IC200 PS 1 InfoChannel player Software Yes 1,500 1,500 1 IC200 DIA 1 IC 200 Deck D( Yes 599 599 1 IC200 SEX 1 IC 200 Switcher DC Yes 299 299 1 Cables 1 Cabling for player&Deck Configuration Yes 200 200 1 TVPRO AV 1 Tview Pro AV Scan Converter Yes 1,850 1,850 1 UnityTR 1 InfoChannel Training Yes 1,000 1,000 1 Unity IN 1 Installation, Yes 1,000 1,000 1 Unity SPT 1 1 yr phone support,2 yr Hrdware Yes 500 500 Subtotal 17,548 Tax 1,544.22 Shipping 0 Miscellaneous 0 Balance Due 19,092.22 REMITTANCE Customer ID: City of Renton Unity Communications Date: 13720 68th Ave. W Amount Due: Edmonds, WA 98026 Amount Enclosed: Phone: 425,742.7051 Fax: 209.882.5038 Email: mstrohl@unitycommunications.net 17701 17th AVE.W. LYNNWOOD,WA 98037 (425)745-9544 FAX(425)742-9483 CITY OFRENTON Invoice T E L T R O N I CS MAY 2 7 2000 DATE INVOICE# RECEIVED 5/23/2000 100360 • CITY CLERK'S OFFICE BILL TO Marilyn Petersen City of Renton 1055 S.Grady Way Renton WA 98055 • P.O. NO. TERMS DUE DATE VENDOftI Net 30 6/22/2000 ITEM REPAIR ID# AMOUNT Service Call 388 2,497.81T Sales Tax 214.81 Total $2,712.62 • Payment is due upon receipt. Interest of 1.5% per month will be added to overdue accounts. We now accept VISA and MASTERCARD. Broadcast Engineering •Consulting, Maintenance and Repair Service Call / Installation City of Renton Invoice #: 100360 1055 S Grady Way Renton, WA 98055 ID #: 388 Contact: Marilyn Petersen Purchase Order#: Scheduled For: 5/10/2000 11:00:00 AM Symptom: Install wiring so the New Media 100 can be interfaced with the existing video editing system. Service: Installed audio,video and control wiring as necessary to interconnect the new "Non Linear" system to the existing equipment. Instructed LeAnne and Lori about the changes. Time&materials are indicated below. New system drawings will be available soon. Remarks: Some time was also spent troubleshooting the poor sound quality of the "Music"feed to the Chambers. I discovered that the Proline installers had fed a line level signal into a microphone input without the proper attenuator. This causes.a signal overload of approximately 40db, causing the distortion that can easily be heard in the overhead speakers. A 40 to 60 dB attenuator should be installed inside the microphone audio cabinet to eliminate this problem. I have, in the mean time, reset the controls on the audio board to minimize the problem until the proper repair can be implemented. LABOR Technician Description Date Hours Hourly Rate Total John Weist ron-site installation. 5/10/2000 I 7.5 $80.00J $600.00- John Weist 1 On-site installation. 5/12/2000 5 $80.00 , $400.00 John Weist On-site installation. 5/18/2000 1 8 $80.00 L $640.00 -- - Labor Total: $1,640.00 PARTS USAGE ID# Qty U/M Description Mfr Part# Freight Unit Cost Total 30401 352 Feet 1 Coax Cable,1505A,RG-59,75 ohm 11505A $0.00 I $0.42 $147.84 60591 24 each Crimp Connector,BNC RG59/1505A 75 ohm 1 1505DUBNC1 $0.00 1 $3:80 $91.18 30391 2401 Feet Cable,Audio 9451 9451 $0.00 I $0.20 j $48.00 61911 4 Each XLR,3 pin Female,black NC3FXB $0.00 I $5.53 ,- $22.12 61921_ 6 Each XLR,3pin Male,black - NC3MXB i $0.00 1 $5.12 $30_71 2186 2 Each Phone Plug,1/4"Mono I NP2C $0.00 $5.42 $10.83 21871 2 Each Phone Plug,1/4"Stereo I NP3C $0.00 ! $6.17 $12.34 733 2 Each Phono Plug,RCA 3502 $0.00 1 $3.23 $6.45 6735 21 Each Transfer Switch,9 Pin,X>NB I GWB92 $0.00 1 $22.60 $45.20 3605 11 Each Audio DA _-- 1 RUDA4D $0.00 I $183.95 I $183.95 3037 1 Each Power Supply,24vdc PS24A �- $0.00 $19.15 I $19.15 67561 13 Each Phone Plug, 1/4"Stereo,Rt Angle 1 NP3RCS L $0.00 $6.93 i $90.03 Parts Total: $707.81 SERVICE CHARGES Charge For Description Date Cost Service Call [Travel time to site. 1 5/10/2000 1 $75.00 Service Call Travel time to site. 1 5/12/2000 $75.00 Service Call I Travel time to site. 1 5/18/2000 I $0.00 Service Charges Total: $150.00 Terms: Net 30 Pre-Tax Grand Total: $2,497.81 DO NOT PAY FROM THIS SHEET Printed On: 5/23/2000 iiirwAJW J.W. Tel-Tronics Inc. TEL -T R o w,C S 17701 17th Ave W.- Lynnwood,WA (425)745-9544 . . ..,. ,., CITY CLERK DIVISION • : VIDEO EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE & REPAIRS • • , • DATE P.O.# COMPANY AMOUNT DESCRIPTION 2/19/96 95608 J W Tel-tronics $ 205.58 VCR Maint. &Repairs 8/12/96 105687 Vision Video&Audio Prod. $ 140.00 Equip. clean &Adj. 9/6/96 105708 Vision Video &Audio Prod. $ 73.04 Repair robotic camera 9/24/96 105710 Proline Industries $ 316.21 Repair ELMONis. Presenter 10/7/96 105724 Vision Video &Audio $ 111.50 Repair Focus, Syst. Repair 2/10/97 110570 J W Tel-tronics $ 673.50 Video Equip. Maint&Repair 9/18/97 7120025 J W Tel-tronics $ 385.53 Audio&Camera Rep. • 9/18/97 7120025 J W Tel-tronics $ 385.53 Receiver Repair, etc. 12/3/97 7120072 J W Tel-tronics $ 541.71 Repair Sony CCD Camera TOTAL $2,832.60 Prepared by city of renton 12/3/97 ! � | - . ! | ` | i ! -----'----- - - - -- -'- '�- '-- �--� -- --� '- -' - --' - | . . | ----- - -------- - - - - ' - - -' - - -- -- ---- - - ` - ' - - / � . ! ' | � -----'- - - ` - ` - - � � | 040001 JW TEL-TRONICS. 095608 02/19/96 DEPARTMENT FILE COPY :::DateM:::.: ::•;;Vendor:>Nor:>::>:�::>::::»>:;::::::::::>::>;:::::<:::»>:;;<::::>Ve.[odor.::::l�ame>:::::::<:>:<::<:»::?:;::>::>::>::>:: :. PO No. >:>:s>�::FO.. ....... Chapter 116,Laws of 1965 CITY OF RENTON Purchase Order City of Renton Certification • I, the undersigned, do hereby certify under penalty of perjury, that the materials have been furnished, the services rendered, or the labor performed as described herein, and that the claim is a just, due and JW TEL-TRONICS unpaid obligation against the City of Renton, and that I am authorized to 17701 17TH AVE W authenticate and certify to said claim: LYNNWOOD, WA 98037 Signed FINANCE DEPARTMENT STEPHENS, LISA ..... ...,.. ................. .. .:. .......... ::.;:.;:r;;::<:>:::»::>::::>::>::::»::>::»::::<:«:::»::>� t�'� umber>::<::>:::>::>�:>::::::>::»»'::>:::<:::>:<:::>:::::::::�::»:;>:: . :::>:::Qty.:»:<: ::>:;Untt::»::::::>::>;;::<::::::;.;:.;:.;:.;;:;.::;:.Descnptton:.;;:.;;:;<.;;;:. :;.;:.;:.;:.;:.:;.:.:.;;:..Urnt:Pnce::..:.�::Est,..Amount.::::.:::.....................................Accoun ..N ..... VCR Maint./Repair 205.58 E 127.000000.004.5710.0010.41.000180 205.58 • Authorized By 205.58 205.58 I • Accounts Payable Div.•200 Mill Ave.S.•Renton,WA 98055•Phone(206)235-2618•Fax(206)235-2513 DP 3119 11/94 w 11_-. 1 I,1J,ir-...v , ...r r • r.. - ...... ...... . _ _ . _ • • .• • ••• •17701.17th AVE.'W.. LYNNWOOD.'WA 98037 •'(205).7 4944 5' ,5 ' FAX(2q6)742-9483•, ' • `" "'f ; a 41. 'pbi ' INVO CS.':NUIdBI R�• 95,605' • : • •o I c s b r•;. ., . . . P:0. NUMBER; . • . • ▪ s tT,°.; •:.----�• CURT ; • :f:1••;•• •:;•••;::.;;:•• . ;: • ` • BI1jLINCi DATE: 10;:1,'3-95• • • . f:•.r. ,a, t. ... .•°+~ •f... .,,•'•a :r•r :e ,is • ii• c' .t•S! : St•:::Rq.ri :o.n .. • • •••t• .•:':' • ••• TAX.: I D..NUMBER: - . •. • • - , 1�,� ;:9$ ;:55 PHONE: (•2:05t. ') .r235-.2619 XetT.N ,,�_? '►�i •�3 Witt • DEPARTMENT.: t.V.dep: :. . • .^.. t • :.. .. .. -P..L▪ t•',,_•IV9 II:,':f .:I r.�'•t:''}r. v J 1• 'y .. . •"' •.7.••: •f.. t:.J.. .1, .• • • :,...A.:...•lri:: �,•:'.1.•'.:.•••5... . . ;•r • • • - • • •• 1• •r^+.,.i••S +•' , S'. • ,..:,; ' • • •TOTAL 'PARTS .5.0.00 .x. `: ,... :;• • µ• .. :TOTALLAzO$;•:. ' •$1'4.0:.0 0.: • :;:%k1ja'':'• :': '''.:'_ • • ••:' •• +s.;T AIi.'P, RTS.•AND jI+AAOR'a•:'4,..•'• "A.... .$].`4�1::00 =t.' • •• .'�yy;Iy .'fit .i;'•I}.:. t .,: . •• • , f;:• . •' r .,,. , 1. . "' , I.i• ' '• • • :•TQ: �;''I Pink'?:;•ip ,'Del'#,very:• `Service'•..,... ,:,' ...n4/b,r shipping. •Char 09::" $50•..00, . • ,:,''.-ty '•::'- • '� • • • •''•''' ' • • • SUBTOTAL :: • <,;.::ga :•••I: ,• + •. • •, Renton•;TaX ,e* 8:•2%: :$15.58 •_:. • t . •:t,• • • • .. : •.;'•;ri :=.�:•••--.c ... • • • • `••e•TOTAL•::, •$20,0':.58 t!; • •l•.7u.•hl•.l' t,.t,'•=.,,•.•'Iiy I, • • • .. • •i...: • ' tiJUS M •. • •r; • .. �,.'„r;•>' :.t '• • ' • ' t . ' my THIS AMOUNT; • +;•.•y520.5. 5.8 ..t: yi.:•v•t4 :• • �- v.. - / ,.1. /. .► id_ r .', t4 Post-If Fax Note 7871 Date a Y of '? =:S' ' :ti,1:4'.,"rt:Kti'�U''7yi,ti•.:'Y.ti: L',G.}pl c•'•.•5t }Yt•z 4?-1..•i•1:t:; 1.7:1 .t, papas .5;•••'r. :t. y•:•;1:�. .• ->,t'�. � is};'ai•:t:? "r�..naxti.;::• • '•''��:�ti••.9• • ,D`,1 Pet FrDtfl Y //rr ` / ' L r'••f= .t,,jiy,,•••t•,'.•• 1• K, '1..y..J1. Yr,?,.' .;f ;. .•..,, ��., . ••',: :: ?}i y h ri e Fy Y.4a z 0 L, YV,M1s'L ..,.•r.: •', , CO./De /^ 11 1 /1' ;, I ,'a•'.J• rt. Pt• V F C. .1 �• i_J ' _ • A. .. J...2.... :' .�..r;,•:.,:•vic .f+'wK :'1: ?:k�¢'': Y _ �Y�'�Oy CS • ..'•• ;,..,!::•'r••••, ^;;gip'•1�'4i y.:'n.l.. r ';•c: S•h:1! �7 o �• Phone p Phuna it ' ' ',• ,;•:i.'..;;..`:y:'}"y. N::;,c.:r,`d+:i+:1•=..:._;:y.;,,i: yet.. ? a.;�, aoL aas-,�G�9 :10� >ys-T�.s�yy . . ;:• . :••°„ :.c� ; ,::�,: • •. •,• .a. �.�� .. •.144•; Fax l! s.Fax 4t /y I' ,:▪,'• '•:'•''�::/.•:;�,'' :y• :,4.•yr:y:•:N•`,'.t}.i;:•:..•1.•;,..,1+•.:.;::✓•. r:'••: •:i'<: • b.. •}': ••.'�vL. .'t ems' aSl 3 Ota 7 y9-9 vIT3 1•.• • ,• :,. u..i.;.,' , e.,,.. _..• :,•'' y...j.:'{?.i,f' •i.•. I+• .'. ..1.•• .4.•• ;,.:t•.:,r''':i'_ .'••...+;I.t,: le,•=I.1;•=•'': . }',. ;•gr • ':h .S ••.. / :"•a '1..'ti••'•• ':• .t^1:tre....I'.i ::.�•'•1,• . f::il.. 1': • ;;i. .,'•',' .. i; r 'i.,, ! ..+_.-• .n.• •. r.P'•.J. 1•• <,.fk! al • ti`' N' lt''.:}••••1 •a'1..1:�:.? -:$4tfi, yiS:f+'b l•'•4, . {J t .��+p_•.,+7!t'!•3;, 'if,(i, 3:C.,y: t•qi• '• .,. •t �.,• JC..•: -....,...,,,,.: 1: -(. .,F)v ,. ..y.• . '!• 1.7.▪ 11.: ':f'.▪ ' ;} C•: • ;+'_.. ... •!:?.•.::;.!..,;. ',: •t .. . •,,. 1, .T i.!':' 't.S,.: .�' L' ,' '• 'c • V'IC CHAItOS..WILta •NEB`ADDED:•TO' ,AY +1'HNT''Vit.:UPON •RECEIPT.. ' . •1;1%.•`MONTHLY •.SER E ' . ..• •I• Aol uN 8•; , 11..'30' DAYS'!' , PLEA$E1'`•:`;I'ND CATT. OUR :INVOI•t'"E:INUMBER•';ON,;YOUR ':CCHQGK.<' ._; • ''; ▪ ",",i1:t,,i'dtPr i;•i;":r'''••"••' •• • Brcodc it En�tnvarinu:•Ccrieu)tiny,,Maln(anance.and Repetr•, ,, ••' , :,• - .• ;, • ':1'•:,'t:l,• .S ,: ='i.i';!'''' • l i• „ . . : '',�:.1;•..5;.,•, i,:•: • • �r .. • ', •, . 086257 VISIOVIDEO & AUDIO PROD 105687 08/12/96 DEPARTMENT FILE COPY P >:>:Vendor':Nox::;:::�:<;y:>::�<>::>::>::::>:::<:>::>::»::>;:.>Vendor:::CVam » : :::: ::_»::: . O No, :::;......... . ;) © Chapter 116,Laws of 1965 CITY OF RENTON Purchase Order City of Renton Certification • I, the undersigned, do hereby certify under penalty of perjury, that the materials have been furnished, the services rendered, or the labor performed as described herein, and that the claim is a just, due and VISION VIDEO & AUDIO PROD unpaid obligation against the City of Renton, and that I am authorized to 4078 148TH AVE NE authenticate and certify to said claim: REDMOND, WA 98052 Signed FINANCE DEPARTMENT STEPHENS, LISA .:.. c ::;::>::::>:::Est::: oun:;:::::.: :::Qty.�::::,::£init.......:......::.....::....,,...Qescnpt on............:................_...Urnt..Pn e.....�:. ,.Am t..........;,................................. Clean/Maint on Equipment 70.00 E 127.000000.004.5710.0010.41.000180 70.00 Removed Equip.for Pro-Line 35.00 E 127.000000.004.5710.0010.41.000180 35.00 Reinstall &Adjust Equipme 35.00 E 127.000000.004.5710.0010.41.000180 35.00 • Authorized By 140.00 140.00 I • Accounts Payable Div.•200 Mill Ave.S.•Renton,WA 98055.•Phone(206)235-2618•Fax(206)235-2513 DP 3119 11/94 Invoice VISION VIDEO & AUDIO PRODUCTIONS INVOICE #: •.) 4078 - 148TH Avenue N. E. 11208 Redmond, WA 98052 DATE: (206) 867-0495 August 2, 1996 Customer PO #: 105687 SOLD TO: SHIP TO: CITY OF RENTON 200 Mill Street South ::I i`r OF RENTON Renton, WA 98055 .p ryuAi396 „ :%':EF KS OFFICE • SHIPPED VIA TERMS N/A NET 30 QTY. QTY. DESCRIPTION UNIT AMOUNT ORDERED SHIPPED PRICE • 2 Hours 7/31 /96 CLEANING, MAINTENANCE & ADJUSTMENT OF BROADCAST & PLAYBACK EQUIPMENT $35. /PH 70.00 1 Hour 7/17/96 REMOVED AG-7150 SN-J5TC00108 FOR REPAIR TO PRO-LINE & REMOVED ELMO PRESENTOR FOR REPAIR TO PRO-LINE $35./PH 35.00 1 Hour 7/31 /96 RE-INSTALLED AG-7150 SN-J5T000108 AND ADJUSTED IN RENTON STUDIO $35./PH 35.00 SUB TOTAL 140.00 WASHINGTON STATE TAX @ 8.2% TOTAL AMOUNT DUE $ 140.00 086257 VISION VIDEO & AUDIO PROD 105708 09/06/96 DEPARTMENT FILE COPY O No. >::>:...... . Date ig Chapter 116,Laws of 1965 CITY OF RENTON Purchase Order City of Renton Certification I, the undersigned, do hereby certify under penalty of perjury, that the materials have been furnished, the services rendered, or the labor performed as described herein, and that the claim is a just, due and VISION VIDEO & AUDIO PROD unpaid obligation against the City of Renton, and that I am authorized to 4078 148TH AVE NE authenticate and certify to said claim: REDMOND, WA 98052 Signed • FINANCE DEPARTMENT STEPHENS, LISA ...:..................... ....:..:::............... n i tJrnt::.Fnce:::<:::>:<:::::.F-sts;:>Amoirnf:<: :€<:«: :::><?»>€:<?>:::>:>:`•:>>:� Account: • Repair Robotic Camera 73.04 E 127.000000.004.5710.0010.41.000180 73.04 • Authorized By 73.04 73.04 l Accounts Payable Div.•200 Mill Ave.S.•Renton,WA 98055•Phone(206)235-2618•Fax(206)235-2513 • DP 3119 11/94 Invoice • i VISION VIDEO & AUDIO PRODUCTIONS INVOICE #: • ) 4078 - 148TH Avenue N. E. 11229 Redmond, WA 98052 DATE: (206) 867-0495 September 3, 1996 Customer PO #: P.O. # 105708 SOLD TO: SHIP TO: CITY OF RENTON • •• `` l'iE`3TON • 200 Mill Street South Renton, WA 98055 .._. .Er•:P:l. • SHIPPED VIA TERMS N/A NET 30 • QTY. QTY. DESCRIPTION UNIT AMOUNT ORDERED SHIPPED PRICE • 1 .5 Hours REPAIR M.P.T.V.-151ODT CAMERA 45.00 67.50 ROBODIC CONTROLLER SERIAL #84144E P.O. # 105708 • • • SUB TOTAL 67.50 WASHINGTON STATE TAX @ 8.2% 5.54 • TOTAL AMOUNT DUE $ 73.04 063690 PROLfNE INDUSTRIES INC 105710 09/24/96 DEPARTMENT FILE COPY ::z'. :<:_Vendor::::1Vo<:::::::::::<:::>:»:>::::>::»::::><.:�::::»:<::Vendor::.Name:::>::»>:::::<�>:<:>:::::::<::<:>::::>: PO No. ::<::>:::: PO.. ..bate::::>...'...... t.� Chapter 116,Laws of 1965 �� CZ, CITY OF RENTON Purchase Order City of Renton Certification I, the undersigned, do hereby certify under penalty of perjury, that the materials have been furnished, the services rendered, or the labor performed as described herein, and that the claim is a just, due and PROLINE INDUSTRIES INC unpaid obligation against the City of Renton, and that I am authorized to 1233 - 120TH AV NE authenticate and certify to said claim: BELLEVUE, WA 98005 Signed FINANCE DEPARTMENT STEPHENS, LISA ... ...:.:..:... :.:.::.:.:.:...::. .......:.. ..... iiiit>Number::: :: :::::: :<:>:�....::: ::::>:::>::«<:>: Repair of ELMO/Vis.Present 316.21 E 127.000000.004.5710.0010.41.000180' 316.21 Authorized By 316.21 316.21 Accounts Payable Div.•200 Mill Ave.S.•Renton,WA 98055•Phone(206)235-2618•Fax(206)235-2513 DP 3119 11/94 EASE REMIT PROLINE INDUSTRIES, INC. INVOICE PAYMENT TO: 1233-120th AVENUE N.E., BELLEVUE WA 98005 (206) 451-1999 FAX (206) 637-9558 1 0308430000 (:ITY nr PPNKMINi BILL TO /CITY OF RENTON H(CITY OF RENTON ACCOUNTS PAYABLE ;,: I RECEIVING 200 MILL AVENUE SOUTH - P 200 MILL AVENUE SOUTH ATTN: JOE PEREZ T ATTN: JOE PEREZ RENTON WA 98055 C RENTON WA 98055 PURCHASE ORDER N.On .. ...,, : :•I"ORDER DATE, -,,' ;'SALES ORDER,NO f;,INVOICE DATE. .. '' I••INVOICE NUMBER 105710 C, 9/04/96 0079291498 9/04/96 I 79291498 DATE SHIPPED,,-;:• • t s:. �. �r,SHIBVIA•,: ':' ;s ':, ..• :TERMS ,� : . ..�.• . .. -.; _. . :SALES REP. ' • •. REGION.`a 9/04/96 WILL CALL/DEST NET 30 DAYS NGAC DO . 4 •OTYORD'D' ...OTY B.O.' ••. :: MODEL NO. '¢ . DESCRIPTION OTY.SHP'D : UNIT PRICE I . .AMOUNT, THANK VOU FOR THIS ORDER!!! ** ** ** ** SO THAT BE CAN BETTER ASSIST YOU PLEASE ** i -1 :r ra�� • ** REUIEN THE "TERNS S CONDITIONS" PRINTED ** "1� ** OH THE BACK OF THIS INVOICE. ** iiECEI'/Eb ** ** CITY CLEI?K'3 OFFICE AAAAAAAltkAAA* SOD '6764 1 BELSERUICE PROLIHE INDUSTRIES, INC. 1 150.00 150.00 SERVICE/REPAIRS - BELLEVUE 1 . BELPARTS PROLIHE INDUSTRIES, INC. 1 142.25 142.25 PARTS FROM BELLEVUE INVENTORY .r.,. D N N M R SALES TAX NA 23.96 • J j 0 I996 TOTAL AMOUNT DUE 316.21 Transportation Maintenance Shop • • PLEASE SEE REVERSE FOR TERMS &CONDITIONS OF SALE I ORIGINAL PROLINE INDUSTRIES. INC. 1233 120th NE BELLEVUE? WA 98005 W/CALL (206) 451-1999 PO#: ` ��1 [�, WORK ORDER: SD16764 BILL TO SHIP TO CITY OF RENTON • CITY OF RENTO VISION VIDEO 200 MILL AVE W/CALL RENTON WA CONTACT: TIM RASMUSSEN PHONE: 867--0495 DATE IN: 08 07 96 IN VIA: CDO DATE OUT: OUT VIA: DATE DONE: 09 04 96 TECH: 64 LOC: W/CALL EQUIP TYPE; V I S P ;SNTR MALE: ELMO MODEL: EVSOOAF SERIAL NO: 151938 IN WITH: MARKS: REPAIR TYPE: REPAIR INSTRUCTIONS: NO POWER _ABOR RECORD: REPLACED BLOWN FUSE & LIGHTING UNIT BOARD. TESTED FOR PROPER OPERATIONS. ARTS USED: (-'RICE LABOR: 150.00 _I GHT I NG UNIT BOARD 138. 00 PARTS: 142.25 -USE 4.25 SUBTOTAL: 292.25 SHIPPING: • TAX: 2. .96 TOTAL: 316.21 PACKING LIST ONLY. INVOICE REPAIRS ARE GUARANTEED FOR 30 DAYS MAY FOLLOW. TAX AND SHIPPING MAY BE ADDED TO THIS ORDER, FOR SAME PROBLEM. . RECEIVED BY ___.. 1 L �l_1!- 9_LC1 DATE: 1 Invoice .0 • •4 VISION VIDEO & AUDIO PRODUCTIONS INVOICE #: • ) : • 4078' 148TH Avenue N. E. 1 1250 .. ;01 ' Redmond, WA 98052 DATE: ., I.,:)'(.. September 30, 1996 1 (206) 867-0495 Customer PO #: _ -wc c`P0E P.O. # 1.05724 SOLD TO: SHIP TO: CITY OF RENTON . 200 Mill Street South Renton, WA 98055 • SHIPPED VIA TERMS N/A NET 30 DAYS my QN. DESCRIPTION UNIT AMOUNT ORDERED SHIPPED PRICE I L. .5 Hours RE-INSTALL ELMO & REPAIR BACK 45 .00/PH 22 . 50 FOCUS ON CAMERA # 2 I- 2.0 Hours SYSTEM REPAIR ON COMPUTER SYNC. 45. 00/PH 90 .00 TO DEMODULATOR UNIT L10.0 Hours RENTON CITY COUNCIL MEETINGS & 15. 00/PH 150 .00 COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE - . I (SEE ATTACHED TIME SHEET) SUBTOTAL 262 .50 WASHINGTON STATE TAX @ 8.2% N/A 1 . ; TOTAL AMOUNT DUE $ 262.50 0 (ASEREMIT PROLINE INDUSTRIES, INC . INVOICE PAYMENT TO: 1233-120th AVENUE N.E., BELLEVUE WA 98005 (206) 451-1999 FAX (206) 637-9558 • J 0308430000 • r,ITV nr Pr-I 4'IrL'2?,i BILL TO CITY OF RENTON S CITY OF RENTON H ACCOUNTS PAYABLE ' , ;;:.. I RECEIVING 200 MILL AVENUE SOUTH P 200 MILL AVENUE SOUTH ATTN: JOE PEREZ T ATTN : JOE PEREZ RENTON WA 98055 O RENTON WA 98055 r`;'PURCHASE ORDER NO.,,:., .. .''ORDER DATE,•'' .... • SALES ORDER NO ' , .',„:'INVOICE DATE .',:;`-`• - INVOICE NUMBER•.:«' 105710 `' "J 9✓04/96 0079291498 9/04/96 79291498 ; . . 4 �''QATR.SHIPPED,•. .' '•,� •. ; .,SHIP-VIA�:'•,. t •:, . ; • .� ,,' :, .L ..,TERMS: ..±•,r(•. , • •;'•`+SALES REP. REGION, 9/04/96 WILL CALL/DEST NET 30 DAYS NGAC DO 64 :OTY ORD'D'.. OTT B.O. .'MODEL NO.', ''_• ,'• DESCRIPTION;,, . - . ' QTY.SHP'D ': UNIT PRICE I AMOUNT, • ETHANK YOU FOR THIS ORDER!!! ** .s ,** ** SO THAT PE CAN BETTER ASSIST YOU PLEASE ** ,;j:.;.r i =I .:rt.,c3 ** REUIEA THE "TERNS S CONDITIONS" PRINTED ** ** OH THE BACK OF THIS INUOUCE. ** 1-1ECEIVED ** ** (CITY CLERIC;., ()FRCP **********A.*** SD# '6764 1 BELSERUICE PROLIHE INDUSTRIES, INC. 1 150.00 150.00 SERVICE/REPAIRS - BELLEVUE 1 BELPARTS PfiOLIHE INDUSTRIES, INC. 1 142.25 142.25 PARTS FROM BELLEVUE INVENTORY 0 R P M R SALES TAR AA 23.96 J n'l f 0 igg6 TOTAL AMOUNT DUE 316.21 transportation MaintenanLces! PLEASE SEE REVERSE FOR TERMS&CONDITIONS OF SALE / ORIGINAL F'ROLINE INDUSTRIES. INC. 1233 120th NE BELLEVUE, WA 98005 W/CALL (206) 451-1999 WORK ORDER: SD16764 BILL TO C:ET' RENT ON OF SHIP TO '�i='c-, �!.EL!_ VE CITY OF RENTO VISION VIDEO • RENTON WA W/CALL • CONTACT: TIM RASMUSSEN PHONE: 867--0495 DATE IN: 08 07 96 IN VIA: CDO DATEDONE: i�� c_�n. � DATE OUT: OUT VIA: 96 TECH: 64 LOC: W/CALL EDI_.JIF' TYPE: VIS PRSNTR MALE: ELMO SERIAL NO: 151938 MODEL EV c i�iA,F I DO: EN wI'TH: MAR} S REPAIR TYPE: REPAIR INSTRUCTIONS: NO POWER LABOR RECORD: REPLACED BLOWN FUSE & n L. EGHT.i,J: G UNIT BOARD. TESTED FOR PROPER OPERATIONS. 'PART:l US Ll t�i-!r I!� Ui,.l:E T BOARDPRICE LABOR: 150.00 cusE 138. 00 PARTS: 4.25 142.25 SUBTOTAL: 292.,25 • SHIPPING: TAX: 23.96 TOTAL: 316.21 PACKING LIST ONLY. INVOICE 'i;:rJ't?IR3 APEi;Ur=tF:AhJTEED FOR _;ci DAYSTO FOLLOW. TAX AND SHIPPING A FOR SAME PROBLEM. MAY BE ADDED TO THIS 01"�DER, J • • . E1V EC BY(41.1.,_ L -. .. _._.. LJ.ln_ ...1. .1E-.1.� ______•_____ DATE: Invoice VISION VIDEO & AUDIO PRODUCTIONS INVOICE #: • ) 4078 - 148TH Avenue N. E. 11229 Redmond, WA 98052 DATE: (206) 867-0495 September 3, 1996 Customer PO #: P.O. # 105708 SOLD TO: SHIP TO: CITY OF RENTON v` .'.`=i:;1E YOB` 200 Mill Street South Renton, WA 98055 • SHIPPED VIA TERMS N/A NET 30 QTY. QTY. DESCRIPTION UNIT AMOUNT ORDERED SHIPPED PRICE • 1 .5 Hours _ REPAIR M.P.T.V.-151ODT CAMERA 45.00 67. 50 ROBODIC CONTROLLER SERIAL #84144F, P.O. # 105708 r ' SUB TOTAL 67:50 WASHINGTON STATE TAX @ 8.2% 5 .54 TOTAL AMOUNT DUE $ 73 .04 Invoice VISION VIDEO & AUDIO PRODUCTIONS INVOICE #: • ) 4078 - 148TH Avenue N. E. 11208 Redmond, WA 98052 DATE: (206) 867-0495 August 2, 1 996 Customer PO #: 105687 • SOLD TO: SHIP TO: CITY OF RENTON 200 Mill Street South `:f 17 ;''1"RENTON Renton, WA 98055 :',LB i.l g 1996 SHIPPED VIA TERMS ;;,.. :f=;1<'fi OFFICE N/A NET 30 QTY. QTY. DESCRIPTION UNIT AMOUNT ORDERED SHIPPED PRICE 2 Hours 7/31 /96 CLEANING, MAINTENANCE & ADJUSTMENT OF BROADCAST & _ PLAYBACK EQUIPMENT $35. /PH 70.00 1 Hour 7/17/96 REMOVED AG-7150 SN-J5TC00108 FOR REPAIR TO PRO-LINE & REMOVES ELMO PRESENTOR FOR REPAIR TO PRO-LINE $35./PH 35.00 1 Hour 7/31 /96 RE-INSTALLED AG-7150 SN-J5TC00108 AND ADJUSTED IN RENTON STUDIO $35. /PH 35.00 SUB TOTAL 140.00 WASHINGTON STATE TAX @ 8.2% TOTAL AMOUNT DUE $ 140.00 • JW It.L— IKUN1L) IGL •LUo-14L-7400 I-Ci 17 ,70 lU"UG IYO .UUl r .Ul 17701.17th AVE.•W.1. 1~.YNNWOOR,,WA.9$037 ••(206),74.5.9,544.i,• FAX(296)742-9483,. ; • :�,rsrk; '•I �' 'bd� ' •INVOICE.':NUMSIPR'� :95,600 • • ,v �..�.,-' 1 s b.: oi?En;• P.O. f1UMBER: ,. . ., BILLI'NO DATE; :30;-3,•3-95• . •,• 'f^ •• '`' ..Y: '> 1• •.t'... •to- .'7• , • C' .t '•••:.:01:::R9.rty:Qaais;' . . • TAX.: iD 'NUHB R=• • R•{‘to•Xt? ;.".;wA.. 98ii:55 PHONE. • ('20-6) 1.235•-:2619 • Afifiki: '"'P:ht ..3ewi t.t DEPARTMENT.: '.Vi..4.89. : : �' . . •,. 'r;`:r • • • • •SUMMARY .OF..'CHARGES. ' • :'.'r: ".i,• •TQTAL 'PARTS: .$.0.00; • •g.. ''';:z • .. , •:• • • • • • •`TOTAL•`L•ASO$:.•... • • :144:0.;.00• .ls h:` +:; • :�::TQ. 'AL•::P, RT$:•AND iLAROR ::+: $140,:00 . MA.L: .Iiiak•:::up 'De34,very,. Service''Ca1I.., r4/0.r s)dppii'�9"C z rge8 $50..00'• . ;,:�.t; . • :s::. ' • • • • Rentoti'T:Tax ;Q'r 8:. ,. 58 : .: • • 1 ,.: ' : • •T. TAL-::. ‘$ • ':ADJUST ENTIN;. • r' .. +t;;.?, • : ;',. • • PAY THIS I►MQUNT:' ,.• •• •520.5':5.8 s,,,•` • • Fax Date 'r`' *• •4r''. �• •.' f. :. t•ir Fa Note 7671 of ;•.t •i• r:N,::.••. ,. •:�'�.',�`i;t!. I?•':M,•'•:1'.!ia:'••. �c? al,..,��s1,` ' +4•,' (11 •: : I\`r — - /( � �pages� A... :�".. •v;', tP r� r :.1 �?.r.,.i�.'.4s, (t•ti. yfy 1� � 'i•'.. ;'y.i i�:'•"•t+•5{.',::•�i".)�1;5••, .Gl�••ii ':fi'!;::1., .�..�/..i..t • 111; �"+V To '�r j L//1 F Y / ` • L "1'•: 1�. '•.:..:,• `•'+.': 't:.L 1, •',•,,�•:.: .;e...,, yt;;• • • • , , �1 ti :•ti- {• .'i:= :':..1;•:r•i,�.fit,• r;:. i"h , ,.. \i>. . i k�`y Phone 02r;` ,V3S".G/ Phonafl i'o••'':' iS,.'°;`•; t.•`.;,;s•• ''.••,.'"` iv i;r: ^ i:�.• e ''.�. Y•'; Fax H Fax p • .. : ''•"''°•' +::..-:rq...,,:•.:..•:t.`i' ••:f:; I• -.?o(� �:ys asl:3 e'7 04, 7 y.7 9 vcpa I' 't;s '`�•;y:`'l r'S' ;.c' • 04t. .{i. NYge.�7!l�i:e:iirid•,f: ..,: i•.;... •,..?;...,....,.......• .•'',A,t e4t.f ,1;,.•`.ept.;ial:l, ..1.:f'..1•%L*,:/i if?;72.v Y�t,!.Ua:: :.-4:c,!1? +, 1 R,;�fi:.,e:, • ECEIPT.••' ]:•:'( •':MONTHLY .SERVICE„ CFIA�2dE 'WTLL i3E `ADDED.' '1'O O 1YM$NT.'DUE''•UPON .•R :A.. 5 . ..1 CDuNN! 0•'-'#,KS�':'30` DAYS•!"•' PLEASE •'I•$DI.CATE' OUR :INVOICE;NUMBER•';ON:°•X•QUR t;SHE,GK.. .:; . .. y /• •;:.,,!:,< .e. • .•• ...• Broadcast Englnvering Conaultln7,.Maln(er once.and Repelr .• • :'is :. :.i•., .. 040001 JW TEL-TRONICS . 095608 02/19/96 DEPARTMENT FILE COPY PO No. %• © Chapter 116; Laws of 1965 CITY OF RENTON Purchase Order City of Renton Certification � c • I, the undersigned, do hereby certify under penalty of perjury, that the materials have been furnished, the services rendered, or the labor performed as described herein, and that the claim is a just, due and JW TEL-TRONICS unpaid obligation against the City of Renton, and that I am authorized to 17701 17TH AVE W authenticate and certify to said claim: LYNNWOOD, WA 98037 Signed FINANCE DEPARTMENT STEPHENS, LISA . ...........:......... . ... ..... .. ............................. :>::>:::. . .::... <.:::::::. .....Qty.......unit...;�,.............:..:.........Descnptrort.................................Urnt..Pnce.:.......Est..Amount...........................................Ac o .:. ..... .. .... .... VCR Maint./Repair 205.58 E 127.000000.004.5710.0010.41.000180 205.58 Authorized By 205:58 205.58• Accounts Payable Div.•200 Mill Ave.S.•Renton,WA 98055•Phone(206)235-2618•Fax(206)235-2513 DP 3119 1 1/94 040001 JW TEL-TRONICS 110522 11/25/g6 ORIGINAL PO No. <�:PO. te'.€�:?'»: :;;::Ventjor.:;Na;:<:>:::>:<>::;<�:«<>:«<:::>:::::<:>::>::>:<:Vendor Name::>:�::>::: :::>:;::>::>:.::::>:::::<:>::::> .��• •• ..� :»:..... . • �.y • Chapter 116,Laws of 1965 • " © CITY OF RE. NTON Purchase Order City of Renton Certification ..11. • I, the undersigned, do hereby certify under penalty of perjury, that the materials have been furnished, the services rendered, or the labor • performed as described herein, and that the claim is a just, due and JW TEL-TRONICS unpaid obligation agai st the C.y of • •nton, and that 1 am authorized to 17701 17TH AVE W authent' ;to and certif o s:'d claim: LYNNWOOD, WA 98037 Signed/ !��PP, FINANCE DEPARTMENT STEPHENS, LISA :.;;:.:;:. ;:::;:.;;:.:<.;:.;;:.;:.;:<:;;:;•>:: :Pr ce.:...:.: ::.:.Es Move production and editi9 e wpmen& 1,000.51 •E 127.000000.004..;710.0010.41.0©0180 1,000.51 in Council Chambers, re-rouff cable E 127.000000.004.5940.0071.64.000084 • • i • Authorized By • 1,000.51 . 1,000..51 Accounts Payable Div.•200 Mill Ave.S.•Renton,WA 98055•Phone(206)235-2618•Fax(206)235-2513 DP 3119 11/94 • ,.y.r 17701 17th AVE.W. LYNNWOOD, WA 98037 (206) 745-9544 FAX(206) 742-9483 wr INVOICE. NUMBER: 96851 T E L - T R O N I C S CUST. P.O. NUMBER: BILLING DATE: 11-13-96 City of Renton TAX ID NUMBER: 200 Mill Ave. So. Renton, WA 98055 PHONE: (206) 235-2619 ATTN: Marilyn Petersen DEPARTMENT:. City Clerk • SUMMARY OF CHARGES TOTAL PARTS: $109.69 TOTAL LABOR: $750 .00 TOTAL PARTS AND LABOR: $859. 69 TOTAL Pick up-Delivery, Service Call , and/or Shipping Charges : $65.00 SUBTOTAL: $924. 69 Renton Tax @ 8. 2%: $75. 82 TOTAL: $1,000 .51 ADJUSTMENTS: r 11 PAY THIS AMOUNT: $1,000 .5111 • Marilyn, This invoice covers the labor and parts costs for moving one of your cameras to a new location. _ CITY OF RENTON NOV 151996 RECEWED CITY.CL RK S OFFICE PAYMENT DUE UPON RECEIPT. " A 1.5% MONTHLY SERVICE CHARGE WILL BE ADDED TO ACCOUNTS PAST 30 DAYS! PLEASE INDICATE OUR INVOICE NUMBER ON YOUR CHECK. Broadcast Engineering •Consulting, Maintenance and Repair 086257 VISION VIDEO & AUDIO PROD 101067 04/09/96 DEPARTMENT FILE COPY P No. €II>`E?O'€:Date::<> >:: :::«<1�+�r1�Tor:::No:>::>:::�»:::<:>::::::>::::>:<:::»::>:<:::»>::::>::::>Vendor.:>:IVame:::«:::»>::::>::>::>:::«:;>.:::>::»::::::: O >'........ .. ......... 4 0 © Chapter 116,Laws of 1965 CITY-OF RENTON Purchase Order City of Renton Certification I, the undersigned, do hereby certify under penalty of perjury, that the materials have been furnished, the services rendered, or the labor performed as described herein, and that the claim is a just, due and VISION VIDEO & AUDIO PROD unpaid obligation against the City of Renton, and that I am authorized to 4078 148TH AVE NE authenticate and certify to said claim: REDMOND, WA 98052 Signed FINANCE DEPARTMENT STEPHENS, LISA Install Svcs/Playback Vide 75.00 E 127.000000.004.5710.0010.41.000180 75.00 Installation supplies 24.49 E 127.000000.004.5710.0010.41.000180 24.49 Authorized By 99.49 99.49 • Accounts Payable Div.•200 Mill Ave.S.•Renton,WA 98055•Phone(206)235-2618•Fax(206)235-2513 DP 3119 11/94 INVOICE 111111/1111111111111/1111111117. ...41111115111131111111.1111111=111N. -111-111111111111= • .- -1---- } VISION VIDEO & AUDIO PRODUCTIONS • ) 4078 - 148th Avenue N. E. .No. 1 1 1 03 i Redmond, WA. .98052 (206) 867-0495 • .,.- --.::...,..:., ....i.. . , :,:...„:•.: .. . .,......).. Aigri]CUSMER;•1 :1996 ....-...-''.. ...:•"•.-1:.r*:•• .•••••••••:,.:::.: _ S . [IkORDERf10..-•:::°:••P-.0:::#101067.-i..„.., . .... .,... ..,"yifs:r*:•::;:•:,,..-ki;74, ,... ,. .4,- . . • .. . •':- NT',:iN • • . . . .-. --..: ... ,,,.. .,:,.......„.,.-,....,,,,. ,,,.:-.,,,-,-,..i.-:-,i. ,q•-f.. ..,.::',... .......ii,:- cSHIP..TO; •:::. ...• . ..:: ;. .....,.,,:.,... :•,,...:". .. •• TSOLD TO:..1..*:::”:7,.::-**:-'.-...:::::::-: : "I'.--:..'1••:: :-.* : •••••,.•;1.;;Z'';'k*.c:* * ***.:i.. .A.1..,...** s',.. ;.:.-,..,•,„ir.-'•'-!:*-.'F ".:-,i:- • -.. — •• • :, -;;-. *: . • ' ":•.''.'..:.* '"':..- •- ' . ..7!-...-f- ...:.'* '' '''' ' •-•-•-•-lAril'U D 1-IUM,-!:;• . ... ,..., .. - .CITY OF..RENTON ..- .. , :is:- ....• . . -.. *..--. . - '-*L'':iA41VED :..*:- .:- * • 1 Orr(CLERK'S OFF1C • '-' 200 .Mill Street South - • r • Renton, WA 98055 • \ • \ • . ‘ • • •....•.• .• • ,....: SHIPPED VIA ' . ,. , RASMUSSEN :'•:!--•-•:•.*- .,-:::•,:.,.- -:- .•-..':,--••v- •.•:.:::' .!::.-..::..iff.-;,:. ,'..:.,,•-..-.,...7' ••. ,::.• •, .::,.:... . , •• '.• : •... •..... -• — • 41 ,.- - .... . MOUNT --.- - . . ':: - i• A -- ..1-Y.".0ADERED *OTy:dHIPPED':4 " -:. -- .- ' UNIT._ ,. , ..„., . 5 HOURS INSTALLATION OF PLAYBACK VIDEO SYSTEM @$15.00/PH $75 . 00 . ._ . (Install 2/Each S-VHS Playback VCR' s to the Cable Channel Auto Playback System .. Including: • Installation VCR's into Rack - • • Wiring Leightronix Controls into Auto Switching Network Wiring in Video & Audio to Playback Controler Relocating the On Air Monitor to the Master Control Table • ' • . . • PURCHASE INSTALLATION HARDWARE ' ' $24 49 • - . (RECEIPTS ATTACHED): .. . .. . • :.:. •. • • - • - - - • • - .• . .. . •-• • ....:.• •• ,i•:.•ii........ .:.;,•:..i,',..-...„..',..,':::.•„„••;-•;,-,•;.:2.-••:.:::;:::•'•*;-..j.f-.:-: :!..::•. •• :- '....:::. -- • • - • • . . • . • (P.0. . # '101067) ..,:: ::...:**,.'... .• : ...•;*:,.. .,-.:r.-•::,,...':-i•Y- -. ., •* ..•'.• *•*:.• .. '..• .,..:', '..• • ' . . . . . . .. . . . . .,: . ' ..".,- .::;: ;,.:.'.. ;,...-• .-.-:-.;•.,..",L -,:.:.4,-:'..,,:::s:::- -..,,f;',,,T.;;;-;-:'F:!,'......•, -•;:;;;','''. . •-; *', -',•'•":-'.'r':.SUB :,TOTAL '7:' ..-: ''.', •..• :. ' ''"...1'$99 49 . - •• . ' ::.. ....,.". 1 ..' . ,'.•..':..........:l''•.:'. . -...-7.2:',••••:.' ,:.;':'::7-',:.:' ';.•':.::;1,••:.-.'.'..Y'i';4.11?-'..'1-:•::;',':7":'Y---...-:.-,....:'''.''.4i',7'. ''','-''':*-1.-: '-"' :i..1 :.:.: '... ".•' '' ;:l'-::.-:-. .•• -',":.•.- ... • ..... '.•• '- ;..-.::-::::-'.-.";:.----7;•.''...51'.•::• ',7,:::':'.'„''''.... ::1,::::.'.':':.-::.• ':.,''':,:.....:,!..,•..i.--::!:--;•:'..:','1. ,i,'::';',.-.:'.;i?..:"::,-.:•:.'.•;.,-:.":-..7.........•.:f4..,....:i:';'::;;f`-:',;•7::',.......: .-,•;:'::.;.•..,- ..•''-• :- '.7 .j.::.'• :.k 7.-..,,t'',•,.., . :• :..•.- ':;.. • .. . .•%... .'..:'. -..."''1.:......:f .T.':-..:,. ::. ....":::::•:... ..,.,:`'.'s:. :i J....,...i,j. ;',:%; :i.-:::Y.,:,.....,:...",.......... -.,•...'...*,.:1,5?,;:...,:......;1±1A)t Id @ 8 ,2% .....i. -:::i.:;•••••....,...:„. •••••....:•::1-:;;;,.. :,is.N/A.. - ..,.. 2...•..:••:',•: • '.-', ••• •-•-..-.---:.;••F.:-.:•if,..:..-7-:- :.;•i..,.'-.:,....Ely,, •:.--,:fi.:. -1,-..:':,-...i!,,.-7.::-.,.:;,.. .,..v-..f:i. ......,;,.,.q.: ::.:i_i„::::.:. :-.....i. •:,•::•:•.;', •,:,...,-..c:..*;.....--..,••••1-••,•.:*,-*' ••••,'• :. ---•.' :;••••..,..,.'::- ,:::1.:)..-:-..-- *;•••l'• .- : •-•-•...: - ••••••••••••••••• ,- -•-•-••-1- •• •-•••••••• •••. ...6.-...c,,••,'•-•:;-••••,?,•-•`•• •4•", :-;.:.4.:::t,.: :::.,lif.,I.•:;,:....,.1:......-si=:•.:•!...:....,.......,.;.:,-..:.:..•,;,:-.•:••,,: t.,,,,,,-...f.,t,-...:,......--,...,..,:,••:!:,::.::::4.:..: - :...,: :..„.-..,.:,..-•,.ii..,.... .,:,....i.,-,:.,• .,.,..... „....;..... .•..-- •-•-•-•.- ...,-. •.:.„...:-.:•.,.-..-,..-,...,.:•.....-.,,,..-• ,:,,,i4.,F,i,..,..--,.:,---.::::5•:,-.0.,:::.,;••,-,;,.?.:-,-;,".r.k47.• •_44:*,,,::.:,7..:.i.!":,C,F...'7,..;',,:e",,,..'....:P......!...:'.''.i:-: V.,-..,••..-...,. .k,... .:.•,!:.•,:...X., .. ..,'•...,.::..•••..•.!: •• „...., •I....I-. r..f.,,,,z-,•,.,.,•,, ;..-;!..-.:.i.r..,,,•.„...,.4.::..':::::.'":• ..-'1...!,''%.1,2.•.,...?:',...n,':,-',, , ,..,, 4' -1,:';'.i.,1':or.'::.7:1,-2...,..:..g,'P-'''— -"'•..--- • '""' : tj • .. .....1..3,-. 1•••:.'4. .74.i. . T. Z.:5'; ',51'..71.,4.;:li::;',V.,,i4,-;,..t:i.;:...,,:::*.-Nf'.4:,‘, .1.,,TOTAL AMOUNT DUE. . . . .._... .99.,.'714.9 - cii.4,..cf1.4.,-; AW.,-Ici;4;k:....;1:- .:,';-i.j,e,:!$:::::.-ii'.;...-;:f4V`,.-A:;t:-..i.:4.:!!4".;:-...'stli:,=-.iti"a;7i.:;-.".:--...-ii. ...':f),M,;;.cf:.:,..,, ;',,Ii .i...V.::•;c.:•g•-: -'',..5. '4,f.,...-.;7....F .':.:F':z.:i .P::'. .;:.:'-'-.:.:71.::.'.%.,$.4i'A-; --...--.V.:.;'..--4.J.i.,z`517Z-...41.,2:-.-7.-ii;;.=4-,:g.:g4t;,-IZt:AV-23.':':74::'',4;-.! :.:42..';',..;!:47's,f1..i..Vili-c---t-sli.,:lz-f- .-:"i'78:-.:::::.;::.,-",?:, .1,17e,;*.::::. ......--;-::: ..,.....',F..:.,;. ,.;.:.,•-•,,-;', ,..-..«- z':. ':''''''.:-i ''''''•':1;=4 :.%-rk.'".':'.-L;..-.....Lit:':Ti.7!;', '.-.4:t:i.%1'.4"1;;.‘5.it.c.......:;7i'.70,1:::,';:P.%;;;W:::jk,pict:.,.1.'i..t..;q1,%.....7.:,''...tP,i';',.ifi.r-;7•4',k-Vfk.,,S,..i E;''..,..:;,....4.sei.':!i:, ...,.....i...f,:r,,!:;,.-! 1,..';71;'.. ..:.:42.%:..... ff.t.,‘Z/... ..„j::,..;...t.,.:.., :1'...'.-'... .....:,....: .:......71-:'.....-.;;:',..- ,.":;,:..:.'i''.2'..;..1.?..''... ....:..-„Xi;V: Z.-1..7;;...ii.r..g.. .*'..i.4-4.f:',;:.4'.'fri,%."ZIKg';iti'?c.".t'44,"*",..:R.Ifep.,;1'44.1;ig.:;•;: -. ...!-I:Ililk...1.?g,"ff,'..,..,...fst.',....,,,,:::;:r.:71...,;;.',t;.'eii).'; "; ,I.I.f.:-.f'.'.1.ttY:•!.1 ';;4.':A'::::::.:........1.::11?. ...: ' . ,,.' .'...•-:'i:i'L.'.i.. ',2;'?‘'a.....4-..?: -.'..?1,1,17.:7.;',.*:-;'''..''''''....:Fe3f:'?Zi.i.' .r...k.tZflAlei:;i,,,V.;;;1'04-5.;:k.i5...1‘-i.:.1"2:§17..r-ii:;•4.:%V.3.:1'53J:t.W.•1..'1V..-VIN..`‘'.0.$'4•:iitt''..01. --.S.'L...:i.r-::•":.-t-'.k.£1..';'..'4.1 Tik::::.:e. :47.:-;:. ."1:-:.reA---....:i•i'ri.,. .:"7,':.:- 44",:.;:::...::-:s-,-"";.:::P,;.4.E.'•F:-._:,-!:', ,-...'^4-ri?:i:,/';:;.:".7,!,-„;-<'.2,4:,,:.'-,.•: ;.:74A7,-,-2:-:fp'sffiR,ii.,;:.67',..'34.,7.•:'q,;-.1.14;.-.;',,,Atc,-; _,2:0);#-:.,::t'A-iF-S?',e-F-17.-1114..Me411-1;P:-Zs..tt,41,4;s':::?,.'--,--t;',g..;--i-,:1-1,1-,-.:-'.t ::149:VS::tter,;;; iiip-,-;•,,,,:iy:7:-.'4.,,e,-; tj-..,.,•=4., •1•':;,-:;ti-:-.7'-e's'''..2-:5-14.:"3,1 iz..'51•!'::T?;!-;14'-'4:0'.,,,'-':;.4-ft '-.1,;1/41-ii-li. -4. ,,,4,,lil,`,1.e.ii....4t1-1:Nti4;;-Wi. •S'W,11:4,-il.:kk:tr,Ti•Z:j"3-4ZWq;-1-----?ii::',4-iZ117-15-C:141:: 1.`;',Tre-14:V--:••'. .itik",',-It,,,.....1t1-.?;:i -,•it,'-;.-,..,,, "-. .4.t'',•: :::-Zsi-7-tiMT14...iej*i.: -,WW;,-'4'.,Aii.:t.Ar';:rati11.4Wt-7P-atrPikeii.V,zft,I.. .;=_%._-.-17,14k-114.4_,_` tA:,?.!•:1.,'It:44c ,-,„,',",%k„.g. ,„'•-'1'4-1F,";•.:f•-' • 4 .•5:7;-; ,,n71,44;:g,i7ON:.i: W.4.0.'-1iitliA5,R.,..eis4 ,1)4:47.0.;:72; .s--", -- '_4cgi.:7.04' .! '.--tif:ri Xi. c:44-V.1, :gr: ::fs,l''. .;'. ..-4::.:-,-ti.Wit?;1"tf, if.' iNgliAtf;*%-,:: -toiW7-Acr,fr -irif;i1,--.40,5-1. V: tf-:.i' V-,"..F44.--..45g.1-1,3%.,-,-. 7:;...iA31,?„11.4.,:ivgi itAisiip4ie,-,-.ilign,.:1 F-VIttet,404.:,-;titeri?,..i3tkON,*•%;: tAlg.14,k,'4.t.kii,,e:vaT.T.61k4.(te..1..tki.,'Ittilt44,. .',41.-.-,i- -.1::$::;3 .141.101-17.i.-35R-'4.--..,-.'g'ti IY,:ic;-,1-N-:-,:e,lt•fh.x:f Is,t,,,!:.:,3:v.--,,t4t1r4C-= tilfv;:ii.6,.WX;::--t..=-•ItPiztiP'-‘1W?..-WitAwilr..44 vapIA41,,,,Wfi--se 4a,S4-evi, a,i4xrcitAtAlt:- • , Arz i,..,:•-,s.,:_•.:i7,tit:::.t.:,,,,,-:3,,,1%,•,;,.4..xitva3;..4:: II -..44-i•ovz,-......1-4,r -, 7.,-, • ., :.,,,41„,..,,,,._ ,v, ,. . . ,4.y.ii.a.„., : ,...;-,.:-._„,..:,..?.4.,,v. ,t,.._ , e,_,-..,....„ .,,,,„4...4.„,,,,„;.,,,,,o.. ,,,..„4.,.,._,..A.,...„: :„.„,..:,.•.•.• ,..,.::_. .,:..,....,. ..„11.;,....,_. ,:w.,6....4 .0t,„•cf ,...1.1 ,,.... Ix.- ft„.: •,.... .,„... ...1.,ite•; i, :„.„ .,.;,„--i..,,..w..y,f t)74..„,„..„,1„„,..ix::,..,4 .--.‘4"7.....'.;.V..,7 k7?.`... .4. 71;k.,k: '-'11.'-. *,,,€-,`"er-0.-,' ;..1. F.''..‘....-t'in. /, ' ....•. ,.. . 4,-',••,., ,,.v,m.A.;;M;1.e.,- .-.... ....v.hg. .. ...,?... ..ft,NAlit,',..t.,ezat.i 1:;%.:.4.eq.;'-',4;3..`"V.raV:% ''s4NiiittAl,:kslIfP.-;,'SkIsi',1-4. N.a1,45‘t ..:'...ric-, ...it:','&,. ,ds-na.,, .7:,%, '4..A..i. . ..-.. ,.:. • -. C Adams NC 4815 Invoice . • 086257 VISION VIDEO & AUDIO PROD 105724 10/07/96 DEPARTMENT FILE COPY Vendor:Name:::::>::>:»:::<:::..;;;:;::::::>::::: PO No. . - t% ® Chapter 116,Laws of 1965 CITY OF RENTON Purchase Order. City of Renton Certification I, the undersigned, do hereby certify under penalty of perjury, that the materials have been furnished; the services rendered, or the labor performed as described herein, and that the claim is a just, due and VISION VIDEO & AUDIO PROD unpaid obligation against the City of Renton, and that I am authorized to 4078 148TH .AVE NE authenticate and certify to said claim: REDMOND, WA 98052 Signed FINANCE DEPARTMENT NEUMANN, MICHELE nit.Pnce . . ........ .... .... u m be ...... .. . ........ WO/F nc.9/96 Various Video Service 262.50 E 127.000000.004.5710.0010.41.000180 262.50 Authorized By 262.50 262.50 Accounts Payable Div.•200 Mill Ave.S.•Renton,WA 98055•Phone(206)235-2618•Fax(206)235-2513 • DP 3119 11/94 Invoice ��JVL`� VISION VIDEO & AUDIO PRODUCTIONS INVOICE #: "Y• ) 4078 II 148TH Avenue N. E. 11250 Redmond, WA 98052 DATE: (206) 867-0495 September 30, 1 996 c ,jrD Customer PO #: rhHl.E P.O. # 105724 • SOLD TO: SHIP TO: CITY OF RENTON 200 Mill Street South Renton, WA 98055 SHIPPED VIA TERMS N/A NET 30 DAYS QTY. QTY. DESCRIPTION UNIT AMOUNT ORDERED SHIPPED PRICE .5 Hours _ RE-INSTALL ELMO & REPAIR BACK 45.00/PH 22.50 FOCUS ON CAMERA # 2 2.0 Hours • SYSTEM REPAIR ON COMPUTER SYNC. 45.00/PH 90 .00 TO DEMODULATOR UNIT 10 .0 Hours RENTON CITY COUNCIL MEETINGS & 15.00/PH 150. 00 COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE (SEE ATTACHED TIME SHEET) SUB TOTAL 262.50 WASHINGTON STATE TAX @ 8.2% . TOTAL AMOUNT DUE $ 262.50 • 040001 JW TEL-TRONICS . 110570 02/10/97 DEPARTMENT FILE COPY :>:<:>.: .::: �•:<:>::::<:»::»>:<:>::<:<>;>:::<::>.:>::>:<::;V.e.dor:>Name::»:::<::<::<:::>::>::::>:a>::>::>::::>:::::<:: PO No. > >:>>PO. .......... �0 Chapter 116,Laws of 1965 ® CITY OF RENTON Purchase Order City of Renton Certification I, the undersigned, do hereby certify under penalty of perjury, that the materials have been furnished, the services rendered, or the labor performed as described herein, and that the claim is a just, due and JW TEL-TRONICS unpaid obligation against the City of Renton, and that I am authorized to 17701 17TH AVE W authenticate and certify to said claim: LYNNWOOD, WA 98037 Signed FINANCE DEPARTMENT STEPHENS, LISA ...........................:::..... Video equipment maintenance 673.50 E 127.000000.004.5 .0 .40 673.50 and repair (Camcorder, VCR // /fl (b/D QoOceO misc. parts) . • • • • • Authorized By 673.50 673.50 I Accounts Payable Div.•200 Mill Ave.S.•.Renton,WA 98055•Phone(206)235-2618',Fax(206)235-2513 • DP 3119 11/94 r.. k: 17701 17th AVE.W. LYNNWOOD,WA 98037 (206)745-9544 FAX(206) 742-9483 ,Y 1INVOICE NUMBER. 97049 I. CITY OF RENTON CUST. P .O. NUMBER: no D 570 •1. s. Iv a.Ye' n . T E L T R O N I C S JAN 3 .1 1997 BILLING DATE: 01-29-97 RECEIVED City of Renton .,t1Y CLERK'S OFFICETAX ID NUMBER: 200 Mill Ave . So. Renton, WA 98055 PHONE: (206) 235-2619 ATTN: Marilyn Petersen DEPARTMENT: City Clerk ' 1?.1 SUMMARY OF CHARGES • TOTAL PARTS.: $107 . 46 • TOTAL LABOR: $450 . 00 • TOTAL PARTS AND LABOR: $557 . 46 • TOTAL Pick up-Delivery, Service Call , and/or Shipping Charges: $65 .0.0 • SUBTOTAL: $622 . 46 Renton Tax @ 8 .2%: $51 . 04 TOTAL: $673 . 50 ADJUSTMENTS: PAY THIS AMOUNT: $673 . 50 • 11 • • • • PAYMENT DUE- UPON RECEIPT. A 1..5% MONTHLY SERVICE CHARGE WILL BE ADDED TO ACCOUNTS PAST 30 DAYS! PLEASE INDICATE OUR INVOICE NUMBER ON YOUR CHECK. Broadcast Engineering •Consulting, Maintenance and Repair 040001 JW TEL-TRONICS • 7120025 09/18/97 DEPARTMENT FILE COPY e dor Name>::> <:>:::::><:::>::::>::;::::::»:::: PO No. ::::Vendor:Noy :° <:�<_>:.>::»::>°::;�::::>:::>: V n .. :-:.. ,.... . ��i Chapter 116, Laws of 1965 `� CC, CITY OF RENTON Purchase Order City of Renton Certification o.LL I, the undersigned, do hereby certify under penalty of perjury, that the materials have been furnished, the services rendered, or the labor performed as described herein, and that the claim is a just, due and JW TEL-TRONICS unpaid obligation against the City of Renton, and that I am authorized to 17701 17TH AVE W authenticate and certify to said claim: LYNNWOOD, WA 98037 Signed FINANCE DEPARTMENT WALTON, BONNIE . .. .................... .... ;::::,,..:::.:.::::::.:..: :.: ... .. ...................................... u Number:�:;:>::>::<:>::>;::;;.;<:::>::>:;;:.:;:::::: :»;>:.WO/Fiint::� . :::::.:. A oitnt:... • ;.:::Qty..:::::; :.:;Urnt:,:;.;:;::,:�:>:::;::..:. ::..: Description.,.;•::.;;::::..,...:::::.�:.::..Unit.Pnce:.:,. ;. Est.:.Amount.:... ..:.::... .:..:«,.. . ..::::,:.:..Acco nt 7/17 Sat.Audio Repair 385.53 E 127.000000.004.5710.0010.-3-1.000000 385.53 (IS • 8/27 Sat.Audio Repair 385.53 E 127.000000.004.5710.0010.-3 .000000 385.53 48. • • 771.06 Authorized By 771.06 Accounts Payable Div.•200 Mill Ave.S.•Renton,WA 98055•Phone(206)235-2618•Fax(206)235-2513 DP 3119 11/94 17701 17th AVE.W. LYNNWOOD,WA 98037 (425)745-9544 FAX(425)742-9483 INVOICE NUMBER:. 97643 CITY OF RENTON T E .L T R O N ( CS CU ST. P.O. NUMBER SEP 1.71997 BILLING DATE: 09-14-97 RECEIVED City of Renton CITY CLERKS OFFICE AX ID NUMBER: 200 Mill Ave. So . . Renton, WA 98055 """ . PHONE: (206) 235-2619 ATTN: Marilyn Petersen . DEPARTMENT: City Clerk SUMMARY OF CHARGES . r'\9. , 60 • TOTAL PARTS: $0 .00 1\ TOTAL .:LABOR: $300 .00 TOTAL PARTS AND LABOR. $300..00 TOTAL Pick up-Delivery, Service Call , and/or Shipping Charges: $55.00 SUBTOTAL: $355.00 Renton Tax @ 8.6%: `.$30. 53 TOTAL: $385.53 ADJUSTMENTS: j PAY THIS AMOUNT: / $385 . 531j • PAYMENT:DUE UPON RECEIPT.` A 1.5% _:MONTHLY .SERVICE CHARGE :WILL BE ADDED TO ACCOUNTS. PAST 30 ':DAYS!.; :'PLEASE INDICATE OUR INVOICE NUMBER ON YOUR CHECK. . Broadcast Engineering•Consulting, Maintenance and Repair • 17701 17th AVE.W. LYNNWOOD,WA 98037 (425)745-9544 FAX(425)742-9483 11111!!!!!!!!!1:111] 1]! INVOICE NUMBER: 97642 TEL T R O N I C S CITY OF RENTON CUST. P.O. NUMBER:: SEP 1 7 1997. BILLING DATE: 09-14-97 RECEIVED City of Renton CITY CLERKS OFFICE u.-AX ID NUMBER: 200 Mill Ave. So. Renton, WA •.98055 PHONE: (206) 235-2.619 ATTN: Marilyn Petersen DEPARTMENT: City Clerk SUMMARY OF CHARGES f opt: r �` Ci TOTAL PARTS: $0 .00 TOTAL LABOR: $300.00 . °\' TOTAL PARTS AND LABOR: $300.00.. ... • TOTAL Pickup-Delivery, Service Call , and/or Shipping Charges: $55.00 SUBTOTAL: . .$355 .00 • Renton Tax @ 8.6%: $30 . 53 TOTAL: $385. 53 ADJUSTMENTS: / � PAY THIS AMOUNT: $385 .53 PAYMENT DUE UPON :`:RECEIPT. `.:A 1.5% MONTHLY ':SERVICE;.CHARGE WILL BE ADDED TO • ACCOUNTS ':PAST 30 DAYS! PLEASE INDICATE OUR::INVOICE NUMBER°ON.:.YOUR.::.CHECK.: Broadcast Engineering •Consulting, Maintenance and Repair . 17701 17th AVE.W. LYNNWOOD,WA 98037 (425)745-9544 FAX•(425)742-9483 INVOICE NUMBER: 97863 T E L T R O N l C S CUST. P.O. NUMBER: CITY OF RENTON BILLING DATE: 11-24-97 DEC 01 1997 City of Renton RECEIVED TAX ID NUMBER: 200 Mill Ave. So. CITI(CLERK'S OFFICE Renton, WA 98055 PHONE.: (206) 235-2619 ATTN: Marilyn :.Petersen .. DEPARTMENT: City ..Clerk- • OF CHARGES j SUMMARY TOTAL PARTS: $108 . 81 TOTAL LABOR: $325 . 00 .. TOTAL PARTS AND .LABOR: . ,. $433 . 81 • TOTAL Pick up-Delivery, Service Call , and/or ..Shipping ,Charges: $65 .00 SUBTOTAL: .. $498 .81 Snohomish County Tax 8 . 6%:. $42 . 90 O T TAL: $541 . 71 ADJUSTMENTS:. PAY THIS AMOUNT: $ , .;� . .: 541 .71 • PAYMENT DUE UPON:°RECEIPT. :•.A 1. 5% MONTHLY .SERVICE `.:CHARGE WILL BE ;ADDED :..TO" `_< ''::; ACCOUNTS PAST .30 ..DAYS ' PLEASE INDICATE OUR INVOICE NUMBER ON YOUR CHECK:: Broadcast Engineering•Consulting, Maintenance and Repair= '> INVOICE NUMBER: 97863 EQUIPMENT REPAIRED INFORMATION Sony DXC-930 Camera, CCD SERIAL NUMBER: 11720 ID # : 4743 RECEIVED: 08-28-97 RETURNED: 11-21-97 MACHINE HOURS: LABOR HOURS: 5 . HOURLY RATE: $65 . 00 LABOR FEE: $325 .00 Pick up-Delivery (PU) IService Call (SC) IShipping (S) l (SC) : $65 . 00 SYMPTOMS: Picture is not sharp . REPAIR ACTION TAKEN: Our tests showed that the camera was out of registration, which is very rare for a CCD camera. We used a second camera and traded out parts to determine that the problem was in the CCD block. This is a $2000 . 00 part . Green is the color that was out of position and it seemed possible that the problem could be in a circuit board that makes up part of the CCD block and is associated with the green channel . We ordered and replaced this part with no improvement . With nothing to loose at this point we unsoldered the actual CCD enough to move it closer into proper registration. This is not a normal repair practice but seemed reasonable since had it failed we would have needed the $2000 .00 part in any case. The picture is not perfect but is much better than it was . REMARKS: We are still not sure what caused this failure or how long the camera had the problem. If the problem returns it would indicate a failure in the green CCD and we would have to replace the block. PARTS USED FOR THIS REPAIR ID # DESCRIPTION QUANTITY UNIT COST TOTAL 4913 MCB 1 Each $108 . 81 $108 . 81 PARTS TOTAL: $108 . 81 VIDEO EQUIPMENT IN CONTROL BOOTH Panasonic WJMX-50 Switcher/Video Switcher(1) Panasonic WJ-KB50 Character Generator (1) Panasonic AG7750H SVHS Record/Source Decks (2) Panasonic DVCPRO AJ-D640 Digital Video Deck(1) Panasonic DVCPRO AJ-CS750P Cassette Adapter(1) KNOX RS 8x8 Routing Switcher(1) Sony DSC-1024G Scan Converter(1) Kramer VM-41S Input Selector(Black Box) (1) Switcher for hanging monitor (1) Panasonic AG-2550 HQ Video Cassette Recorder(1) Tascam 112MKII Audio Cassette Deck(1) Panasonic CT-1384VY 13"Monitors (2) ARCHER Video/Audio Selectors (3) Leightronix Mini-T-Pro (1) Leightronix Pro-8 (1) Panasonic AG-7350 Video Record/Playback Deck(1) Panasonic AG-7150 Video Playback Deck(3) Panasonic AG-A850 Editing Controller(1) Mackie 1202 Audio Mixer(1) JVC TM-9U 9" Color Monitors (2) JVC (Model#?) 9" Color Monitor(1) Panasonic WV-5203B Video Monitor(for first 3 cameras) (1) Model 120-3r System Controller(Joystick control for cameras) (1) Sony RM-930 Control Units (3) Panasonic TR-124MA Video Monitor(for 4th camera) (1) Sony RM-C950 Remote Control Unit (for 4th camera) (1) MPTV1510DT System Controller(Joystick control for 4th camera) (1) CMA-D2 Camera Power Adapters (for main power to robotic cameras) (4) Computer used to program playback decks (1) Amiga—InfoChannel (1) c • T�N, leif VIDEO EQUIPMENT IN COUNCIL CHAMBERS Sony 3CD DXC-930 Cameras (3) Daiwa Camera Mounts (3) Sony Power HAD (camera by door) (1) Canon TC-CCD (camera by door) (1) PELCO Camera Mount (1 used, 1 not used) Mitsubishi 27"TV Monitor(1) Panasonic 13"Monitors (10) Computer w/VGA splitter(1) ELMO (1) EIKI LC=X1U Multi-Media Projector(1) VIDEO EQUIPMENT FOR OFF-SITE PRESENTATIONS Sharp XG-E65OUB Projector(1) HP Omnibook 5000CT laptop (1) Sharp QA-1200 Color Computer/Video Projection Panel (1) DUKANE Model 4000 Overhead Projector(1) VIDEO FIELD EQUIPMENT Panasonic AG-EZ1 DVC Cameras (2) Panasonic Camera Bags & Accessories (2) Sony ECM-44B Electret Condenser Microphones (2) Lowell TO-95 Ambi Light Kit (1) Bogen 3063 Tripod (1) Bogen 3046 Tripod (old one) (1) Panasonic AG-455MP SVHS Camera Panasonic AG-750 Video Cassette Recorder(1) AG-BP212DX 12V Batteries (2) AC Adapter AG-B21P (1) SURPLUS VIDEO EQUIPMENT (NOT BEING USED) PELCO Camera Mounts (1 in box in booth and 1 mounted in chambers) Editing Controller Power AG-A770 (1) PELCO MPTV1510DT (2 camera joystick controllers) Bogen Mixer/Preamp Model CAM (1) Panasonic Editing Controller AG-A770 (1) APR-29-98 WED 16:58 TOI CABLEVISION N. SEA. FAX NO, 206 526 1618 P. 02 • ADDENDUM A Renton Municipal Channel TCI equipment purchase list 4/30/98 Panasonic AG-D640 DVCPRO Studio Recorder AJ-MA75 Rack mount adapters RSK-DVC Rack slide kit AG-750 SVHS Portable Recorder AG-B21 AC Adapter/battery charger AG-BP212 Battery X2 AG-A850 AIB Multi-event Edit Controller AG-2550 VHS HI-Fl Recorder SVC TM-MU 9" Color Monitor Knox RS8X8YC Component Routing Switcher Leightronix PRPA-WA Pro-Bus interface for Panasonic AG VHS VCRs X2 Tee-Nec YC-401 Component,Switcher SV4-2BF-6 Y/C-BNC Adapters X24 Mid-Atlantic MRK-4026 Equipment rack w/power strips Belden 1505A Digital Video Cable total length for completion 8241 Audio Cable(gray) total length for completion Kings 2025-51-9 BNC Video Connectors total number for completion Neutrik 3X Series professional Audio Connectors total number for completion All video interface assemblies for mounted cameras. All parallel and serial VCR control cables. All professional quality phone-phono connectors for this system. ADDENDUM B Renton Municipal Channel Renton equipment purchase list 4/30/98 Panasonic CT-1386Y 13" Color Monitor X10 it� Mitsubishi CS-27205 27" Color Monitor/Receiver ty„e - Extron P/2 DA-4 SVGA Distribution Amplifier //�o 4' e ` • a ��r((rJ/ • CITY OF RENTON MEMORANDUM DATE: September 11, 1997 TO: Lon Hurd, Cable Consultant FROM: Marilyn Petersen, City C SUBJECT: Inventory of Newly Purchased Video Equipment Attached are invoices for video equipment purchased by the City of Renton since the original installation by TCI: April, 1997 $9,223.16 Equipment for field video productions (2 Digital Camcorders, lights, lavalier microphones, misc. battery packs, cables, connectors, headsets, Sony Discman) January, 1997 $3,411.57 60-inch Mitsubishi TV monitor and cables, adaptors, etc. (Replaced new video projector) February, 1996 $4,955.56 Sharp Video Projector (Replaced original video projector) December, 1995 $5,509.54 2 VCRs/2 rack mount system&VCR control interface TOTAL: $23,099.83 PLEASE REMIT 7PROLINE INDUSTRIES, INC. INVOICE , '1,•::'. PAYMENT.10: : 1233-120th AVENUE N.E., BELLEVUE WA 98005 ,.. • . . (206) 451-1999 FAX (206) 637-9558 , = ::::.--4,.;:.:-..-,":09843P.90.P 1 ..::: ,...,---:,i:.: ,: .: -.. .,: , . • _/ BILLT0):: CITY OF RENTON H CITY OF RENTON ACCOUNTS PAYABLE • .., ,. '“ . I.,. I WILL CALL/BELLEVUE P ..j.. '...:,: 200 MILL AVENUE SOUTH BELLEVUE WA 98005 ATTN : JOE PEREZ T 0 ' s '-': '•.":' RENTON WA 98055 • --.--,' PURCHASE ORDER NO. - I ORDER DATE SALES ORDER NO. • • INVOICE DATE - $INVOICE NUMBER 115533 4/21/97 00803621 4/29/97 803621 DATE,SHIPPED ! I 'SHIP VIA TERMS I SALES REP. I REGION 4/29/97 WILL CALL/DEST NET 30 DAYS CHARLIE NIEMI 4 S OTYORUD OTY B.O. MODEL NO. DESCRIPTION OTY.SHPM UNIT PRICE AMOUNT A. •• - , , ,., . • ,, '-' • ' *r 1 • r . -: ' I ...'":• * . . THANK YOU FOR YOUR ORDER Ont • . - . '''.i;.'.',. • •- • . ; ** .So that,we can better assist you please • ** • - :,...,. ** review the "Terns 1 Conditions" printed ** .., ......40, ** on the back of this invoice. ** ....,• . . / '4, • " _ L •,, 2.t 3,050.00 AGEZIU PANASONIC-P.I.C. AU SYSTEMS . 6,100.00 DU COMPACT CAMCORDER PACKAGE • " ) : : • • .... 392.00 's 4 PANAGBP15 PANASONIC-P.I.C. AU SYSTEMS 'll 98.00 • •, . • 1.25AH BATTERY . , . . •,,—... ....,. --•.. 1 3181 BOGEN PHOTO CORP. . 1 199.00 199.00 : ,LIGHTHEIGHT PROF. CIHE :MIN ) 4-..-::-:-.t:..4..-.:1-.•. 5t42'.,.:'.:... ..',-f.....t.:-...3/id-72t.77-...,..t:-Z.7Attfg."44:5137(r.T.ORF .7 ....7.1F.::::-.777:77: 7'',:.-:::1.-.'''":':-..-..112.1 00 11vet)--4t. MINI FLUID HEAD 1 3189 BOGEN PHOTO CORP. 1 29.50 29.50 MID-LEVEL SPREADER . ., .. • . 3 ECM448 SONY CORPORATION 4, 179.00 , .. . 537.00 • .. LAURIER MICROPHONE . _ 3 XLRPXLRJ25 COMPREHENSIVE VIDEO GROUP 3 22.00 66.00 .• , , . .XLR PLUG TO JACK, 25 .CABLE ... , ....:. 3 1 ' XLIIIIP25C **********QUALITY UIDED******* 2 16.10 32.20 ' * . _ XLR JACK TO MINI PLUG 25'CABLE . ::. 0110 .: LOWEL-LIGHT . • 1 145.00 143.00 .!.. s.-Y, --'," • • . 011til LIGHT .::?,:: : •••••,.•: .: ir -..''' .• .. . : . 1 5e .00 ; . 58.oa 1 :;,..,f.:,:t:;!-:. ;2;0120 ; • :; 111EL-LIGHT . • • , . • ''''' ''' '''.•:'':''':,". ' ' :.:' •••::.-1 '. ' ERILIGHT ;• RtiDOOR . .....,'::::-;::•: -• ::•••7 : .',:l - •::::.' ,.:' ;,?1:: ' :' P , ' - •••2k F-:: ",':'•'. ' :' A ::;..:,h....:i::•;,, : 0113 , ::...,.-,. , .....,•;.0311474cHT , ..:,:,. c:i•-.. , -, : .•..., - ,. :. .. . •:. \ •:- 85,00, •-:','::: . 85:4)° i.;:f:: • '• '.•'',''.- ' ;' '''-',"' ....'' ':.;.*-1 • ::''...... r ....'.: 0111i1.5#1.103 ' '''': •'-' '' ''.' ' •• • ; -: : ,', ••••, . ......-:.:.1., , . ::;f,::',-: _.: :;..;-•: ];'.: •::::,,, ?;iFs,,•,', ::, :- -.%'21::: •::.'itr:: • :::i:-,';.:.... ::;. ::-:;!-6....:-.? "-W!. .,:,::-:5:.? PLEASE SEE REVERSE FOR TERMS&CONDITIONS OF SALE ':'.. :• '..—. P''':7 .-'—':,'A'•'.:2 ,:'::•'. 7 .7:•' ./ '' : '.':-.; ' ‘,Y'''. •'1.:1; : .:‘ ,'.'"'•: DUPLICATE .E• i") b • � PL'EASEREcMIT . PROLINE INDUSTRIES, INC, INVOICE PAYMENT^' O: ' 1233-120th AVENUE N.E., BELLEVUE WA 98005 , . . (206) 451.-1_999 FAX (206) 637-9558 .0308430000 • p• • BILLTO- CITY OF RENTON f \ H/CITY OF RENTON \ ACCOUNTS PAYABLE I•- WILL CALL/BELLEVUE 200 MILL AVENUE SOUTH P BELLEVUE WA 98005 ATTN : JOE PEREZ T RENTON WA 98055 O - - - PURCHASE ORDER NO. I ORDER DATE SALES ORDER NO. INVOICE DATE I INVOICE NUMBER - --- 115533 4/21 /97 00803621 ! 4/29/97 803621 DATE;SHIPPED' SHIP VIA I TERMS SALES REP. • REGION 4/29/97 WILL CALL/DEST NET 30 DAYS CHARLIE NIEMI 45 . OTY.ORD'D I *CITY B.O. MODEL NO. I DESCRIPTION QTY.SHP'D UNIT PRICE I AMOUNT . 1 TI30 LOUEI-LIGHT 1 21.40 21:00 , ` .TOTA CLAMPS - 3 . BBC10 COMPREHENSIVE VIDEO GROUP 3 12..00 36.00 ' BNC TO BHC 10' CABLE • 1 "‘.. 2 BBC6 COMPREHENSIVE VIDEO GROUP 2 9.50 19.00 A 0 4 ' BHC TO BBC 6' CABLE ' SALES TAX IAA 4 673.53 TOTAL AMOUNT DUE •. ..8,505.23 _.............:.._..a_ ' .,,..,. .. : ' . .; . •, .. .. . — :..iw.�w..n<.c-.t_...:.•+:=v[ri`_:.a........... :..+n:.sirs:-........[.... • +, .4 • _ • �AF . !: . PLEASE SEE REVERSE FOR TERMS&CONDITIONS OF SALE DUPLICATE i STOCK UP! Invoice SEATTLE'S PREMIER STOCK FOOTAGE COMPANY BATE I INVOICE NO. • I . / I 6/30/97 I • . 11 I I I I • I BILL TO • I I SHIP TO ! Marilyn Petersen I I 1 City Clerk j I • I Renton Municipal Bldg. I 200 Mill Avenue South I fRenton,WA 98055 7t /A7. . a i. 5-/o . Rio . l• Hi- - , I TERMS I REP •SHIP DATE SHIP VIA I JOB NAME I ; Net 30 . I JCW I 6/30/97 I • I Equipment June 1 i DATE ITEM DESCRIPTION I QTY . RATE , •AMOUNT i . 16/9/97 Reimbursement for 2 volumes of CD music for 105.00 I 105.00 I I video magazine • ( • 6/19/97 Reimbursable [Reimbursement for cases for audio equipment 31.46 31.46 16/18/97 I Reimbursement fors in compact discs • I 6.00 I 6.00 shipping P� I Washington State Sales Tax 8.60%1 0.00 • l • 1 i I • I j I I ► I .• • I I i• .1. - i i _ I i I • ► I , • • Total - $142.46 7026 21st Ave. NE, Seattle, WA 98115 206-522-5497 . Fax 206-729-0488 E-Mail Stock UpQaol.corn • Stock Up! Invoice 7026 21st Ave. NE Seattle,WA 98115 DATE INVOICE NO. 6/3/97 6 • BILL TO SHIP TO Marilyn Peterson City Clerk • Renton Municipal Bldg. 200 Mill Avenue South Renton,WA 98055 • TERMS REP SHIP DATE SHIP VIA JOB NAME Net 30 LGJ 6/3/97 Equipment for May DATE ITEM DESCRIPTION QTY RATE AMOUNT 5/8/97 Reimbursable Reimbursement for 3 Omni bulbs for lights 62.55 62.55 i 5/9/97 Reimbursable Reimbursement for RCA audio cables 5.41 5.41 529/97 Reimbursable Reimbursement for 1 audio connector 1 2.70 2.70 /0 . 072/e. 3/. !f'0—tt • • i Total $70.66 • Stock Up! Invoice 7026 21st Ave. NE Seattle, WA 98115 I 'DATE INVOICE NO. 4/30/97 1 • BILL TO SHIP TO Marilyn Peterson City Clerk Renton Municipal Bldg. 200 Mill Avenue South . Renton,WA 98055 • TERMS REP SHIP DATE I SHIP VIA JOB NAME Net 30 I JCW 4/23/97 h DATE ITEM DESCRIPTION QTY RATE AMOUNT 4/21/97 Councrq Mtg. Cablecast of City Council and Committee of the 2 18.00 36.00 1 :_' .. Whole Meetings . 4/21/97 Travel time? Travel to Renton 1 18.00 •' 18.00 • 4/22/97 Pre-prod. Pre-production services:Picking up equipment 1 40.00 40.00• including CD player,gels,power cords,headsets,... • 4/22/97 Reimbursable Reimbursement for 4 Radio Shack 5-channel 225.83 225.83 communication headsets and batteries 422/97 Reimbursable Reimbursement for Roscoe pre-cut lighting gels 11.40 11.40 4/22/97 Reimbursable Reimbursement for Sony Discman,one surge 177.51 177.51 protector,two 50'power cords,clothespins 4/23/97 Pre-prod.+.7 r Pre-production services:Preparing for meeting with 0.75 40.00 :30.00 interviewees 424/97 Pre-prod' Meeting with interviewees and touring City of 3 40.00 =120.00 Renton with Brenda r_wa-a ?r 4/28/97 Pre-prod;t Pre-production services for Senior Revue,video 1 25.00 till: magazine 428/97 Council Mtg.Mtg.1.1f Cablecast of City Council and Committee of the 2 36.00 2.00 - • Y Whole Meetings• `r.:s'.y 4/28/97 Travel time Travel to Renton 1 36.00 • B6.00.' 4/29/97 prod Picking up equipment from Proline 0.75 25.00 18.75 429/97 rod. Picking Setting up and testing new equipment 1.25 40.00 50.00 4/30/97 Pre-prod Picking up cables,connectors,video tape 1 25.00 Zrs: 4/30/97 Pre prod .i Disconnecting and picking up equipment for 2.25 25.00 r`°`` location shoot of Senior Revue - Total Page 2 Stock Up! Invoice 7026 21st Ave. NE Seattle, WA 98115 DATE ; INVOICE NO. 4/30/97 I 1 BILL TO SHIP TO Marilyn Peterson City Clerk Renton Municipal Bldg. 200 Mill Avenue South Renton,WA 98055 • TERMS REP SHIP DATE SHIP VIA JOB NAME Net 30 JCW 4/23/97 DATE ITEM DESCRIPTION QTY RATE AMOUNT 4/30/97 Pre.faad.:. Testing equipment on-location set-up 1.25 40.00 4/30/97 Piece g 7.n Packing up equipment to take to Renton for 0.25 40.00 :r10 00• on-location shoot 4/30/97 Reimbursable Reimbursement for video connectors 17.31 17.31 • 4/30/97 Reimbursable. Reimbursement for video cables 72.76 72.76 • • • • • • Total $1,616.31 Page 3 046285 MAGNOLIA HI-FI . 110552 01/23/97 O RIdTIC»L endor No >` -• ..Nameaseum. PO No. MPO:DatN: :<: . 4 j ,, Chapter 116,Laws of 1965. ..al CITY OF RENTON Purchase Order City of Renton Certification • •• I, the undersigned, do hereby certify under penalty of perjury, that the materials have been furnished, the services rendered, or the labor performed as described herein, and that the claim is a just, due and MAGNOLIA HI-FI unpaid obligation against the City of Renton, and that I am authorized to 16600 SOUTHCENTER PKWY authenticate and certify to said claim: TUKWILA, WA 98188 *************************** Signed * CONFIRMING * *************************** FINANCE DEPARTMENT - STEPHENS, LISA • <::: Q :•.'•:�<:%�:>Unit::; :::::::t::E::s::#>:<::}r;:;:;p ..::. .. ..:.>;:�.;:;.;:.;;>::.;::.::;::.::«.::.:;:�;;>:.::-;;:.:;,. ..... .......::.::<•;:.;:..:.;:.::;:.::�::.;v;;:;::>:.;;;>:�::::::<:»: .:::::�•.::.;;::.:-;;::.::.::.:: •._,.�:..::.....:�.;::;:::.. . . ty:......... • 1 ea 60" screen Television • 2,799.98 2,799.98 E 127.000000.004.5940.0071.64.000084 2,799.98 for Council Chambers • Mitsubishi - VS 6043 1 ea 8.21s Wa. St. Sales Tax 229.60 229.60 E 127.000000.004.5940.0071.64.000084 229.60 • 1 ea 8 meter Standard Video- ' 34.95 . • 34.95 E. 127:00000.0..004.5940.00.7.1•.64.00008.4 34.95 Cable (#11436) . 1 ea 4 meter Standard Video- 29.95 29.95 E 127.000000..004..5940.0071.64.000084 29.95 Cable (##0.9326) •• . 1 ea• 8.2% Wa.. St. Sales Tax 5.26 5.26 E 127..000000.004.5940.0071.64.000084 5.26 • • • • • 3,099.74 3,099.74 Authorized By 3,029.51—'— 3 020.:0 Accounts Payable Div.•200 Mill Ave.S.•Renton,WA 98055•Phone(206)235-2618•Fax(206)235-2513 DP 3119 11/94 040001 JW TEL-TRONICS 110594 03/12/97 - DEPARTMENT FILE COPY PO No. T _ Chapter 116,Laws of 1965 ® CITY OF 'RENTON Purchase Order City of Renton Certification • I, the undersigned, do hereby certify under penalty of perjury, that the materials have been furnished, the services rendered, or the labor performed as described herein, and that the claim is a just, due and JW TEL-TRONICS unpaid obligation against the City of Renton, and that I am authorized to 17701 17TH AVE W authenticate and certify to said claim: LYNNWOOD, WA 98037 Signed FINANCE DEPARTMENT STEPHENS, LISA .... .......... .. ... ... .. ... ...... .. ,;:.;;;;::.:;::::<:::;:>:::::>•:;:>:»::;<:< :: :::.»:::WO Func`<:> :�::::<:Amounfi::<:::>? ;;:.;:.: :;.:�;;-:::. : '.;;::.:; .;;;::;.:::.;;:.:�;:.: ,;;::.>:.:.;:.;;:.;;::.:.;:;;;;::.;:.: :;•<:. ::.;:. .;::Est.-Amount.;::::::;:;:;:::::..:::.::.::<.;::<•;;'.:.;:.:.;;:.;:<.:Accbunt Number.:::.::::::..................... .... ...... /. �::;�:>:Qty;::<::: :.:Unit:..::.:�;:.:�;:•;:;;:.;:.;;:.:�::�;:.;;:.Description.:::::.::.::::::::.�:,::::::. :.Urnt Price... 1 ea • Cables,. adapters, connectors 311.83 311.83 E 127.000000.004.5710.0010.31.000000 311.83 for installing large screen television in Chambers - • Authorized By 311.83 311.83 1 Accounts Payable Div.•200 Mill Ave.S.•Renton,WA 98055•Phone(206)235-2618•Fax(206)235-2513 DP3119 11/94 17701 17th AVE. W. LYNNWOOD,WA 98037 (206)745-9544 FAX(206) 742-9483 111111151111 1 - INVOICE NUMBER: 97148 CUST. P .O.• NUMBER : }--1-0-5-5•7 I )0S91f CITY OF RENTON T E L T R O N I' C S BILLING DATE: ' 03-03-97 MAR 0 51997 City of Renton RECEIVED TAX ID NUMBER : • 200 Mill Ave. So.. . C(TY CLERK'S OFFICE Renton, WA 98055' . PHONE: (206) 235-2619 . ATTN : Marilyn Petersen DEPARTMENT: City Clerk LIST OF PARTS SOLD • • ID # DESCRIPTION SHIPPED QTY U/M UNIT COST TOTAL 3040 Coax Cable, 1505A, RG-59, 75 ohm 02-06-97 195 Feet $0 . 38 $74. 10 176 Coax Cable, 8241 , RG-59U, 75 ohm 02-06,-97 . 26 Feet $0 . 25 $6.50 3417 Adapter, S-VHS > BNC Female 02-06-97 1 Each $17 . 38 $17. 38 3345 Adapter, S-VHS > BNC Male 02-06-97 1 Each $17 . 25 $17 . 25 2872 BNC Panel Mount Barrel 02-06-97 6 Each $8 . 93 $53. 58 1093 Adapter, BNC, Right Angle, Male / 02-06-97 . 3 Each $6 . 38 $19 . 14 824 Adapter, BNC Female / RCA Male 02-06-97 1 Each $3. 74 $3.74 3107 Crimp Connector, BNC. RG59/8241 , 7 02-06-97 12 Each $2 . 00 $24.00 -23 Labor 02-06-97 1 Hour • $65 . 00 $65. 00 TOTAL PARTS :. $280. 69 • SHIPPING CHARGES : $7 . 51 SUBTOTAL : . $288 . 20 Snohomish County Tax @ 8. 2%: $23. 63 • TOTAL: $311 . 83 ADJUSTMENTS : 11-TAT;1717-ZOUNT: _ $311 . 83 Marilyn, This invoice is for the cables and miscellaneous parts that we. supplied for the addition of the new large screen TV in your council . chambers . 'Some labor time was also necessary to measure out the cables and install connectors as necessary. • • .PAYMENT DUE UPON RECEIPT. A 1 . 5% MONTHLY SERVICE CHARGE WILL BE ADDED TO ACCOUNTS PAST 30 DAYS! PLEASE INDICATE OUR INVOICE NUMBER ON YOUR CHECK. • Broadcast Engineering •Consulting, Maintenance and Repair • . ORIGINA L INC • � � /: 6/96 •'.`.:,` � . - PO-No. ate'.`<> ::;VendorNo�<�::: .:::::::::.::::;:.:::::::.�::.....en or..N tr1 ........ ... :�� >-" _ `/ • • _ Chapter 116,Laws of.1965 © CITY OF RENTON - . Purchase 9 ride/,',- _ -' City of Renton Certification • I, the undersigned, do hereby certify under penalty of perjury, that the materials'' have been'.,.furnished, the services rendered, or the labor - . - . - , performed as described herein, and that'the;claim is a just, due and PROLINE INDUSTRIES INC - unpaid obligation a ainst the Ci o e ton, and that I am authorized to 1233 . - 120TH AV NE - • - - authen• ate and ce ify to ea' claim:•- - ' - Signed BELLEVUE, WA 98005 2 FINANCE DEPARTMENT _ STEPHENS,. LISA _ " - w MOWN:..... .. ................................ •::::::::.�::::::.�:-�::::g:::: :. -:.�.:.::::. :.�. . ::.:;.;:.;:.:.;;;:-::.::.;:.;;:.;:.;::c;;:.:;.;;:.;:.;;:.;;;:.i G:::::::::>:::::•:::•:::k::>:::::::>::;::»>::»::>:- >::;::WO u...�,ii::-.>:::::='::=::::,::- ,:..oun <:::::: ;::.::. . ::::: . . ::.::::::::::::.:�::::::;.;:.:;.;:.: :.::::.:::.::::::::.::�:::::. ::::.Urnt..:.nce.:.;;::.;:.;:.Est..:Amount..�::..::::::.::::.::::::::::::.::::.:::::::::.Account.t�um6er............................................._.W .ZF � .......-:--.:.:.:...m. :::::Qty:::::. ::Unit.:. ::::.:,.::::.�:.:::.,........Descrrptton........:...:................ .. ..:P. . . � . 1 ea Sharp Video Projector 4,580.00 4,580.00 •E 127.000000.004.5940.0071.64'.000084 4,580.00 1 ea sales tax -- 375.56 375.56 E. 127.000000.004.5940.0071.64.000084 375.56 I _ .;G 2 • • Authorized By . 4,955.56 I 4,955.5E Accounts Payable Div.•200 Mill Ave.S.•Renton,WA 98055•Phone(206)235-2618•Fax(206)235-2513 . r DP 3119 11/94 t e CITY OF RENTON MEMORANDUM DATE: January 17, 1996 TO: Jay Covington Victoria Runkle FROM: Marilyn Peter, SUBJECT: Purchase of Data and Video Projector As you know, I was awaiting authorization from Victoria for the funding to purchase the subject equipment. It is sorely needed, not only for training purposes but for the Council meeting audiences as well. The image clarity projected by the existing equipment (which was provided by TCI as part of lour original package) at Council meetings is very poor; however, the monitor projects the images very clearly to the television audience. We have decided to purchase a Sharp XGE-650 data and video projector for $4580 plus sales tax. Our consultant, Tim Rasmussen, has obtained a price quote from Pro-Line, our major supplier, and this office has ordered the equipment which should be delivered this week. This unit is portable and can be used off-site for training purposes and seminars. Once Tim and I are satisfied that the new equipment meets our needs for all purposes, we will set up a demonstration for all City staff, including Information Services. The vendor guarantees satisfaction or the equipment may be returned. I contacted Victoria regarding your request to purchase a portable computer with power point which can be left in the Chambers for use at Council meetings. She confirmed that the request has been handled. • Tim Rasmussen will not be available for the Information Services training session on January 31, 1996, to tape the session for future reference. If taping is desired, Tim's backup, Lori Wood, will operate the equipment. Vik should contact me if this service is desired. If I can provide additional information regarding this matter, please let me know. And, Jay, thank you for authorizing this expenditure. • o��Y o� CITY OF RENTON 4 ' FINANCE& INFORMATION SERVICES DEPARTMENT o� MEMORANDUM DATE: January 15, 1996 CITY OF RENTON ON TO: Marilyn Petersen Jay Covington .ktv-ci R3; q L+ .;n r FROM: Victoria A. Runkle,Administrator SUBJECT: New Projector for Council Chambers 'C!w CLERK'S OFFICE We have been using the Council Chambers for training for several months now. The projector • that is currently there is not adequate for computer training. It does not provide the resolution to be able to read the thing from the seats. It was purciased to operate through the television software, and it does work adequately for that. However, we would like to replace the projector that is currently there with one that provides more than adequate visibility for training, and excellent quality for television. The cost of the new projector is estimated to be more than$4,500—I am rounding the cost to$5,000. We made more than we ever imagined in investment earnings in the Cable Communications Fund. I have outlined the financial picture in the attachment. We are asking for approval to add $5,000 in expenditures in the carryforward ordinance for this purchase. If you are not comfortable with this request, please let me know. This is a necessary expenditure for us to complete our mission for training, and need a new projector in there before January 28th for the Equip Mngmnt Training. If this source of funding is not acceptable, then I will go through my budget and make the necessary adjustments. It will not be easy to do that this year, but it is important we have this invaluable tool. In any case, I would ask that Marilyn please continue to allow Steve to work directly with Tim in getting this purchase made by next week. ' Thank you for your consideration. Attachment CC; Steve Dennison • Eric Iverson Attachment • 95 Beginning Fund Balance $187,469 95 Revs 22,901 95 Exps 8,754 95 carryforward (for Nov. Billing not received) 1.000 95 Ending Fund Balance 200,616 96 Revenue 8,000 96 Expenditures 12.000 96 Ending Fund Balance 195.616 Request for New Equipment 5,000 Estimated New Ending Fund Balance 190,616 1996 Budget Estimate Fund Balance 174,969 Thus,we are still above our 1996 Budget Estimate. maIL 0 CITY OF RE TON F.,.rchase Order • • Accounts Payable Division•200 Mill Ave S. •Renton,Washington 98055 •Phone(206)235-26F.8•Fax(206)23572513 INSTRUCTIONS • 1. Send invoices to Accounts Payable Division. Purchase Order No. 96595 2. All prices are FOB destination unless otherwise stated. 3. Indicate the Purchase Order number on invoices and all labels. 12 07 95 4. Label all shipments as specified on the Purchase Order,and enclose packing slip with each shipment. 082979 TROXELL COMMUNICATIONS INC Ship To: 320 108th Ave NE #600 Bellevue, WA 98004 . ' • • • — ::.;';::�i}{::::.;is...::ii:i:iii:J:::}iiiiti::i:''�`::<::::i:i':ii::i:i'ti:i::i4:;••^iii:ii:•:;'::'::;>r;,::;:':;;:::b::::'<.::.:.'•a::':f:i:.::.i::::;:;i;::':::::':':i:;:5:rir:::;::i:G:::Y.•:i:::.�.::::;:'::!;;:::':;;•j y,;.:::•Y:i::a:;::5:ii:':'::i:;:•::`:isi:::•::>:4:5:::>iii:,•';'i:::::.i:':':•:::i::.. .... ........ . t•::Quart .; »�Un ............... ..D l ....... ...............................................Un t t ....1 2 VCR's/2 rack Mount systems 5,303.96 5,303.96 • • • • • Authorized By TOTAL 5,303.96 CONDITIONS 6. The Seller affirms by the acceptance of this order that to the best of 1. No substitutions or changes in this order will be accepted unless its knowledge. Information, and belief, the prices charged herein do not approved in writing by the Purchaser. exceed the maximum price established by any applicable government • regulation. 2. Purchaser reserves the right to cancel this order or any part thereof,at any time without penalty and shall be the sole Judge of its decision to ASSIGNMENT OF ANTITRUST CLAIMS TO PURCHASER cancel this order. Such cancellation may be based upon the failure of • • Seller to comply with the terms and conditions of this transaction, failure Seller and Purchaser recognize that In actual economic practice to perform the work with promptness.and diligence, or failure to make overcharges resulting from antitrust violations are In fact usually borne by shipment within the time specified, the Purchaser. Therefore, Seller hereby assigns to Purchaser any and all claims for such overcharges as to goods and materials purchased in 3. ALL SHIPMENTS MUST BE PREPAID. connection with this order or contract,except as to overcharges resulting from antitrust violations commencing after the date of the bid, quotation, 4. Warranty. The Seller warrants that the merchandise will conform to or other event establishing the price under this order or contract. In its description and any applicable specifications, shall be a good addition,Seller warrants and represents that each of hie suppliers and sub- merchantable quality and fit for the known purpose for which it Is sold. contractors shall assign,any and all such claims to Purchaser, subject to This warranty Is In addition to any standard warranty or service guarantee the aforementioned exception. given by Seller to Purchaser. DP 3118 11/92 bientreeimellaiilaailidil INVOICE • • . . . 77.-s.." ••••• 7,...sn,••••••srx••••••••••••••••••••••••••;•••,•••••,•• .. ip,manrumr••••••••,,,,,,,,,••••••••rtn••,•••••07.7.77•••Va••••••,••••••• , . . . - . . .. , 4„....,........ . .. COMMUNICATIONS, INC. • ."7":-'77" 4830 S.38TH STREET 602.437.7240 cl•NVO I CE-tin':•• 292745'2,1'1' PHOENIX,ARIZONA 85040 1.800.352.7912 ' i',L4Y.iii4:41-'s.i`,.:DATE,,:4 • • • • •••• !,IV•i,1/4A 01/0 /96-', 11 ' FAX 602.437.7265 • A G E\" 2-:•-•-•.'•''..'t1t.'°c4S ..1••:-'•e,:fili.,-,•.V;,r.?:41,-.'*,P .,.., / -. ..=1,,l'ftl:Atr;',,ir,i44,-41A0,...:1 C.103, 7- 9 CKAE-h1467 - •':.''''•:-'*:;4'.•••'-,C:'•4•f71-1.9 YP: .....—;.....„.,,A i 214 S,... .vg...:•:,,,:a...,,N Ski SOLD TO - • 0 c-."-', ...- ...) 0 AN SHIP TO '5) • • ATTN: ACCOUNTS PAYABLE 6.,' .(1 O.*--" "7 CITY OF RENTON CITY OF RENTON < '',-. c-.3/ '(/•N '-'''. 200 MILL AVENUE S . .0 200 MILL AVENUE S '63 ... ‘ A. ,r /- •t,O,-, f= -A l• (P N,b ‘51 RENTON WA 98055 0 RENTON WA 98055 A‘ .0 • ..,••••,5-..,,,,,-..:,•., r./'',;o.,-,"'•st,+.-,r','.fNwvr,M,.rn.errg>p.,•w'x',.V"r,<r*:r,'"'Ir,C;r.'r,,t4v.,,''‘,..IF-..t.,PVI•',7•T.;Ynev.,,IWL;Z,;t ;,::19M'r''r''P'"'n TERMST:&,7:!nti. ,,t'k',ITC!''':,r?",r:7:73.•:,71,i'S.;; ii4F.,Sirk P.i.;;PF,M1!::,1,, 4i..,b At E-S H I P P.E 62..„,0,7901.4jvcr:::k,,,'„eRe*:-.ORDEIT DATE::,T4N.IpusTo.plE,R,P::9%.pp.:%Aelifsgip!i?L.,E, ,41 ••':;:::,..'•":-',,,-;14.;•••••••4..:;,=. ;•,.,....;,--;:iil',:i.,:•1,:.-•,:?2,',:i-ir,,,,;.,:'....•.:•'',••-2.:•.:',.:..:::-...•,.."; ,..-,..:..--.,,, . ..4,44,..4:,"[:•,,,,I.d.Tit: : . .."...i.,,A .,, ,‘,.., :::..,,,... fie,„..........;.,.:+?„,..,:. . , ,,,:,‘..:,-„,-;:,.,-;*.w.i.ly,p,Iri,,,,,,ni ,,„:,?..1.,„?,,,,7,..v4:vz.zi,,,,,r,r .71.3 N64t30/...:' ':!. ::s•'......''' .- L/PS-. .1:.•.:. ' '''''. : ,..':-'. ..:''.. ;';;': 20i/0-41 96;.:S39.200'."-MPG......".'r1213/95..::(. 9659S::•. .. .....',!•!'....:C.'.. .:,. .:,,.:-V;.i.!•;•.,1.-fl3a''.':•'`:.",'.- • • • - • ••-•... •• .•. . • . ValiFaMraii7:07:77".'-: ,‘.- .-:.44.1%1T."..S.-.:-` 4:.'•,'' DRS R P110. 11f6,-: :. i':` ,;) Ar915301.4tC4.91,1;:„6 I ITE5.'rtq74:1152§ADMEMELIMArEM.-(TEMP.tit—altalial . -,,,.:,-.:4-....:i-,..r.:••;,.-,, ,--,3,:',=;•,•pi.,.,;(..;!'-:,•.i,•'-•-to,-7..'••••,,,.,..--;-;',',-.1'.•:,,J.:::•,ivii.:,•;7:4:•,, ,,,;:•,.;,.= •:-...,,, . . k...,:i,....,1i,,,.-1,.e.::,:,.....,,i?...)•.;;;;:...-i?. . .. • C-1?•il''''l'.::i).:',.,'•`...,;Y.,..'''41,'`',.. :"4,1,1S'TAi,,,-;•!,..-1:',Cr..,,,,:.':i'...`,,.,1,-,A7.,‘,,, .,.•,,,,.." • • • . '',.',,r-ir,7-.4-'--`,,,-,:',,'''-v-ik.•%'''''t;e'-' 4"..`"•*.i'''''''° it,,...%:',..',. •:',.o!,',.'"...'4 . ' * .; . • .N.4,..kz..........1,41,','A;',,,,'Vel ' . .' '. ' •.. . .. .• PAN AG-7150 • . VCRi..-,S-VHS Y.-HI-F.I4.:'.PLAYER,:.WiE X V"../.,:.:- .2 -3 C- 0 .' ,'":V,230.1- 34-, [602'..68 • , ::•-::-..,,,_;,...,';•,ri-....f.''''•-;''''":- , .• • SYNC , , • • . •''.4',.:....-.:;4:,:,<,;',.";.'"'7!'.'.7.‘:=;:',Ii.; . ' . ••. • %/T 1 mN.,',••,-P"'..".',4''''''1'3."-'1'.':...C.'";•':.':..'..:-.',:'•,......, .1.'2,',.::.:,‘,•2.,,,,,,,,,,,,..,.,11..;.,••:. • • ... . ',.'''.':',1,,i,:•.,.?,•:,i':.%,i..‘,."&>21.. '. •.',.:''. 'i ,..' .....*•..• SER I A L'4fJ ST C000728:j ST C.001 0 S....1• :......:- ',.,.•.'1,•11;'.=,.,'-',:,.?:,:,,,,-••-:,..,',,;•.,,..',.;...."--•-•,:,,.'., ,•:',i...--,.. ' . .-. . :-- ..•:. •', !".Ni',,,,.Z,. ...,..:53 „:,',-,:,,!,,.;.t ikfh, ,-..•.•,., ..:, ,. ,:,:-,F - '' .' ' ..'.••.• ' ••• ' • '''14'.:,:l'..• :•'-•r "• " :''• '''...-Y.'..,',....•: -•:'...":-.'',•..':.'!''*'"''' '''''''.. .''''''''.-5.',:-.'''.',':' ''''').::,',':: .' "''...;',',::. ''.'f',7.'''''''''''...:'..:-•;"1'.'i',--..i.i.A:.,,6''.7.,::,:,,,,,,'','Z,',,:W-I,.gw:;,•.:'.t.i‘::'?:.'..:::,..;.:''..",..-.:• ...:-: '-.-. . ,...." .-- •,....'!..q,,z,-'---:'4:."7-';4••;•,:.s'.:'•','"'' g '-.•':•'':T.:.''•';,t,!,•',-.,.!?2'''.1';'',-:` ':r•"•,;•'',...-' ERG% EIP73S0J RACK' vOUNrrACG'SLIDERrr s 2 - 2 0113703427-•4-"..•-','1. 0.• 6.".'''....;,•.i..•,.::',.,., . ,". . : .,•.•:.;•••;‘,::,,..,.,..,.....,!:,f.i,,,.,;'5„,s.,..,i,':....'',..i,',..„,..,..,;:,,,o.,,,..,•,'*;-2,,:',,:..,i,ii,,,,„.:, .',..:.,'',6,,'•,',•.:.^:.,--,,,,.,;it...,,, .„.: '',. .-: .,,.•- .,':,',-..,, ,:,,,,;'. .^,'Ai?.f..,V,',;•,.';':,5iti.?‘I'''•'•,,,,,',:',...'''''...'•';,,,,,.;:'•:••;,.'.......',',": .,,;,,,,..'s-,...1,,,,7,:t:;t,.',-•.:,,;,;:,,,.' '..;E:.;";•-•::'::.,...,i'.„:,::•„,.....-2.••. ,•,-*:::.11.5;',*."•;,...,• "%;,':%•',-,5,-..!,%;...:.1,,:*-•::":;;;•,:`,::.,,,,: :'',',..q;.:, ,'!‘::•„,...y.1,7•:::,:',-..,n1.,.:;..,•:•,,v::„„:;,..:;,,,, .....„,,,':--?.;•,:•;..:!...,,: s.,;,,,:'..i:..,.... ,f,,,...:.;>.,s.;,..-,•7:7t,,,,,,,,,,,, ,;:.:,1,Zir.f.,;,•,',':-::.:••••.;...:::'-;..:.:.•,r','.•.,,•,:.:.,;,•,‘:' .:'•''•::''',.*':;.;.:.",'-'••''''',..;,-1. : ''''.,',':,';:..i.......,1::;,:,:::::-.•:'...i ' . . ';-.''';2.•,:;-,..;..;',:,./.'.. i'::'.'''.::':','''''';.'-'..,:::';V',;!., •IV...;.:,;;;;1."I''.'•. :;'•:!-,•1:-.''74:: 1.Y'",!'1;3'" :'!'r%'r:`;'-"::'-.:',:f,;.'''',:.'. ....-');.- ,ar,..:*M4, 41,;•,,r'NL.,'•-,`%"::::..-''.1.'-'-!-.P:.'•`,..'''W•.'..''''•,'" ;'',•-::,,,..'',.%;''.''''.,'"V''',,,,,:'..;:,;,-,'2,`' '''',"•%:'.: ' !'`,'',`-'''.>,'-',C-i"';.''.:',1::';•-`'7,74,"'•-•i,,,;.'•:':'''',.-•,'',•:-':,.',1-.1,;",.•' ''•'•;.,---,::',.....:'',...,:'.,,•:•:, 61r,,,,...,;,'..,„)?:...?,;.i6;.:-.. ..,..,..,,.....,..;:,c, „,.-;-•,.:::;;,-,,,,fE:;,:,,: 7Z- ,:1•;.,: :.:;.. .- ;::.;,.,. . .--. ., ...-•••,,,. .;,....!-,,r.:75,1,, ....,,,i2:-,,i,:4,,,. .,-..i-:,i,14:‘,:,-,;./. ..i.....,,,..f.:1.i.;...z..<4 ! K;-* :,,;i4..4.,,,:,:Z,,i,,,,:::E:;-F.;:.;-.-,,,,;,,,• ,::(..,/, ; ;,,,,•:-';,-.--;,,::.-..•,,,-,4;,-.1.-;:.!i,,..;,‘,:;' ,!'r••,t. ';'•',6'll,AiiriW7.`7S.;,-','AN .'••'..4.S1',..1;•.4!..''':1-'74-'',W'!,:l ,:.."Z',.,';,.',..,i,', .;.?;:.',,i'',6,',•,.ti,?-r",,,,,,?;•.','Wg;',:•:,.•,...0.:''''.,',.;';',',',:,'.-2',..,.',.,,f.,rj,,;;;?;:i.,,,,%;,..;M::,,,,V=g'..-:','4,`:;1:;‘;',V,',1',,•;,i,', 1",'!:,,'1;.•.:`:',',":4`1:',rf,`•,,,.1.',?t,„•:•?:',`, •,:,:,-,....,..i,,,;...•.;'''.'...t-,,',...,.ti;,,.',..;l.',:',-,',.:.;5;':,.:,,c,,i:.;.`.,,::,i'';.:.'...;t!;;'.',:;)..;.';(;;:;,:..'t-.;..,,.:".•.:si,'.,...‘.A.i.,:ic;^',,.:...,':••::':,',,:..•:..-.,',.;:.,:,',,'',.:"'2'',.:,.,.•:iJ.,.". ••••,:..v!. ......'4,..,.V.,:•Y.:',:eZ4;'.:,.i.,,:::>::,;.:;,,:,,•:k•? 41';!!;"'.,,.1.,'::,..,,•T,,1.:"%:0,A6; "..':<','1;. V-?-;',,,,,,,;'•.'.2-2',:-',.,-.,.S,..n;;P%;A.;,,A.A:,„,:.:;.',;,.,/•1.%.:•.,''„'',....;:"'-,,./,;'.:.1.?.,;';,'.':'':;,,.,7,•:,j'';."=;':<.;;'-'',!.:/-i".•,'.1?.•:;',,,•E!;)",:i-;lt•,,;:^:,,^;;?',.•f•,'.,.,!'',,!;-;`,.:3.,,:W,V-..;".,..,t:.;--;'-„,;'"A,1:;;'''!,?"V,',;fti.3.t.(.:71„...:.,.'.a.1.,;r,.-,1?4.'4',.4'',:•;',Q%-.'!.:•';:":';•ilq“;".,.,‘7.,?I,4',4,.i;:,eW•;:..!,:;,:••:`•;!i''ai:,-:.t.;'-..t,g7'sh1,iz.,;,:5^;":.',::'1..T,4.1.:1t1",,4.::7:-.'.:.'ii::1;: ft :;.''''..."':''''':':-.).::'''''':..'f'.:-.::••:.•''..::::'.:-':'''' ' '.1. . ' ' ‘:7-•.:.:.'":::-`....•:.:" :.''':-::-.''''.':' . ' - •--,'1....''' --.W•.:•:'..••••;''' - I:,3=1::,,ff,,. : ,;,.;+,)4i,'.,r,::.. .iii;!ri;.-::i:,:tri,-4i.;,!:.';',: ....:,-;::. ;: f.,;:::::.-..:,:y.:,,,•,,i?,:•::::::::.,-...,;,.:,:.,,..,,,,.:,•,',..., .-..;:P::::-...,i..:,.;:-.,.;..,:...: .,.::::,-..,:,...:,,... ,;,..i .!..- :,,,s-.,:t4,,,..4.,.:,,....:,;::,.....„,:z..,i,,i,i ii,),,...i),..?...-kt.„;/,;v.i1;:.:,.4;,ww,,,.:;.i'..; 1,-,2,\ ,..,-..!. :,...!;... .-,-.!..:::., :,5,.?,•`..,:,,';',,,l:;,-.A.,r...=7-::7::,s;r:.:Q.:...E"-A'.‘,?1!-:•-'2...;: t:,tW,•:::,!:" 1/1-C,..,c1,1 c"?"g44.,?;.:;•1- *?I',.:=-:-!,;" ..-- ,.. - i . ,,..:•1,:: . . .!P'f, ,.1.:.1g.:-•%i,i; ',...;?:..r:,.4. -J:•:,• .•:.; .i*:'•:,;*7`.,.",..1*,6?::::;;.;;:z.'fi_4!':(17^11:/';,.';:::,::-..1,';';.,';!...7'f,,,,, :::!;1,J,..7!..•.,.10 ,.,;;:,-4.in:t:.f?!.,1q:ft,„.7:„:=.1i;,,;N-.,;,,',-,,,,..t,f, ‘'',1,-..i.:-1.,.i..,..-'1'..,':1/4,4'',:',.,;:i.'4,..,,.--.:f:':;.'...ri‘:!.:'...1..,:,•;.,-..,:;,,'-'2F.:,'/..".•::,'.. 7.:..:;":,:k:.;.i.•:: .,...f?.,'..'" ' •:;':Ail.,'. .;!'t',::',,..!:•-•-'....-.,.,*',•';";" : ,;:-.:',',:.;•.,1:',,„".ti.=,4;:i.. if,..P.!;,T'41:ii',..:.,&.-::;•2,:t&.^:" 14Er,-.,'.,;',':,=,-'4i',.'.4..•'1f,.4..:t1:',:,:",1.,W.::..‘.,,.2':'k,'','''.:.,,'.,:,'W:.:'`F,,.l?P:.,...1.*.:.'i:,,:',,-:V,0':t-:':;:r.i..-.;.'-'-':%:;,:'41.1.,:i:.',,.34,4.:,-''..;.';.,-,,;'-,;:'.%,;f:1:,'.,.-.7,:-',,-;.-.,.•'..":,!.:,:..,'•'.•::,..:..'2,.;.,,..7;:..i...f:t.;i'V,.•:',:'.'?:','-..,.•:.,!::;;,.''..:1.'..'.-.;'4.'...',:-Y,;`:;;..;i''l'-''•'.',';%'•;.':'',,.';Z''.4':%...•!,•',J:-'.,,;:'.,';;f--.i.:.'',,,-.7.'.--..•l:;',''..:'.'..%':'.',;'').,:.:,..'.:..*::j•.--..--,•.,....,:.*.s..•.''.•i l'‘':.,;..%,.J.•.,'..:',*!';'.---'::,',1,',..'....,,',.n.:,;'''.,.;,.k'...;;;f'.,.';'.'.;...-`":.-:,'...'.1'''.'':..':.;''.•'•.:•;'r‘'.;1':':;V;'''‘':'i1'7...,...:,•':.`.'.':..'::-`:;::,:''.4..-:.•.:.::;.!''.i.;.,.'.:.,','.!;.'.:t:*.,,:*?-j:.,;:;;.:.:--..;-'2'Y':‘.','..;'...7?:.`,0;L'.'.'.';0,..4i;^):'2.,'e:rX',.!,4`1:.1,%.,!.:',..'•,-.‘'.,cT..A.4 t''.;.,:-.P'"7,..‘..L.•,i:.....,.0.:"":,".,r.,.,.ij..,.:.,..5*',:,.f.!..';'•.•':','';',:',:,:;'A',:..Z:;:..'::'',>,'',•,'%".?'':.':.'%.',c;l•':':I',)0.'4,,i4\,,.''.'.':.•'..-,.'),4,,1,,,'1,'.'..,tM't:.'•`;..t''•r':V'",..'.1.';:-,i',..i.:.r'.e6:x O,,i?''.r.,.'4:ft l';;.,/:'-,.:;':2.'.•I'4.:7;!.),(!•.'),',w,iY;!;."gpi,;.1:.fcA',:''tr.l,e•iV'-,,f'4 5 1l;%..'...4,1 ; , , ,i A . ' S!,")11 ';, 26 ' ' i : 4 V ' ? ' ' 4 V '' . ' t ; ::,,r,',.?:'.‘;.1,--,4. !'lk..':d..1':e•,'A'.‘t1,-,, f•;.-Yee.",.,.••.?`,1.:,-,t,,q"1-:,7e..-..,, ,-,.:,••,:.!::'4,:r.'.;,:-.,..:t%'s-..-,;--.;..•.,:..;-(:.,:..:,;,,:;ffi.,.,-..-,...:Z,.,.:.,r,.,----:.,-;.,,':.m.-•4,,;1.....fa*.,,;-..,::..,1.r;'-‘',:;.:.,.:.3:,,-i>!-,,•%;;.-;.,,g..i..,z.A.,,•::g:...;,:.kk;;--;,•;•-...3;, 6.i:;,i;4..;r.'..,',s-, 4 ,.:..:i:s,,,,-f.-.1,,:i i1'It.:;.:.:'.;,t..;k.,v"-..:'.Jy.A,N,,'.,-.4.,.'..!••'.':".-..,,!..•,,-:-.:.-::'-.,::-,..•..*:<".',..,.;;.'.:..,:::.,:.4Y,.;:;,,.,`,-:,.,..'..•‘•,'.:,.i:.'...:•.,-..-"--.•.',,'.,'..;-::. ',.,-.-,-:".:,'.-.•'-::-::r:•.',-..',':'.,':,.•,'':,:!:.'*,..;'.'..."5-).. ?."..,n,I;3.;'f.2 i':/.',.'c.'.'.''.....•i:%'.'.,'-;-.,,....;.':'':'.:,2..,,,,;'...'..;:.':,'::.,,".:-...,„'.;/',<-:•..:.,-.".;,'....'.:,-..;...•.‘•'.•:':'.;;.''",....'-.;.'.:,''-....';':,-.,,:,-`'..,.;.-,'-".:.1;.•-.1.:.,'1'!..':;...A';''',.:.;.''„,','...'..'..,'::'.,,..'..--.;:•'-..,.-.;..:.q•V:.,,':'.-,.'.,'':,;,l,:.i.,'..;. ;..,:i3,..,,.-..„,•,,.;."..,,;,.,'.?,6i;..$.:4.•'.,,,.,,....:;:i--,:'.;i:!i,'i.:-..:...'.,-;.,',,.....?.:,;.r..,,;4i,::.*.:'•,•",.;.'•;".:..,.i.:„:t.,•.,::..?'.:,.:....:,:-.;.;:,..-,:..,,:;.,,,6...,..?:.:;;;.;,%...:,.,:`..t.,,-..,-..,,..,;-%.,,,:.-.s..,-..;.:-.,.:,-..:.:e.;.,,.;...;,-,;.?i.:,.i,;,,:i.,r,,.::,-,-.,.-,..t:.,-.,.,,.I..'.-,.:'I.f,,4,..,..:.:;°-..;.,.:,.'?,:.::,.,_.:,i.:.;:..,:.,•t.,,..,,...!:-,.'..;-,':‘:,..:.o';.'..•,.,','2.,,,';.;..:.":':.•.g.A.-.::..,.:.',::0;:f T5 " , " 4 ; i 4z "4# N , !,;;1,'-....3v.'.;:q:.-:'•,-:i.."P,.,«;=,,.•:V.1V•e4,:--:-t'',p.,..41,.V›-.=:4,,.'.,-.:.-..,':,Zr;-t.?,,,=,-,-.,:1,,.,;,'4'.,:1.:,,,j,:3.•-4,,•!4:36 < . 1: ' • -.. ' ::-"' . - " '' • - .-::-'.,s,..- , ,. . . . 4 .". .s. : .:. , ,.,:„. j .. .: , ,.:;E . . i: 1g,' V' ft..-r;'•''',,ii•l;.,.‘;'.',.. :'.!,r;','..i.ties'.•-.•':-' ''.;. •'-'• •-,.;-"."•.':•.` :k;,:,•i ..•.'•; •' .• .•-: '::::•'. •• ••;.';•'i;',•:,,,,,:..-r'..?,'1.,,i':-:•••'..,,-'•7-.-j.i-:..<.":1.4.:,,•••i••;!1!•, .. --„•*, .,:•.,,,.--:.:'..•.,:::::. -;,1VfiAiy,71,p5-.;•;,,,,,,$,.,-,,.:.•,,,i,(,.+,,::;1 1.."2:-.„`:',...4,..,,,f'..-,c,..c.;;-14!;.:,,*,,,..;,,;?..:!..',.,....,.::'P,' 7r,f,;•Z:,:*;,....C.- ''''. .. .•'- .. '''''..'.;". ':' • ''1'..'.."... ..'-''. '- •.?..,''''.. '..':::':li,`::*:'"5:',.t.q.,..3:.C.:"),...:ii•?- ,Li,ri ili'r.,;,)',':'..' "..,'•',';:::•' ::';''',I•r;lr•'' :•: ., ,2:'...*`,'' `•.:-,::,ft .....?L.-,,,,,:,,,,n2R,--,'•:fi,:.-.7,,..,,, ., 4(r;i;'xAV','..144-V;,..4%.4sT 9..4i,r1,.;44*-.1..).•,l'-,,O';;.'i;.At:'h,ik'..:2'iTO;il7.*nV'iittlg'1"4;i.igOline1g;,;';Igt;tiIvftLlAA*i.r:CN;N.'.1:, , , ,7);t,•.i;x....l,iif.'Ik:sNit‘3t'q;:.:iP:i.::1t=,"(.'V:::- N4 Y'''•::IM:Y',4 ':,i;':.•iI?!j"::.F.:4,,:..:.::•:;;.:.;:.-':;;'',:--",.t•-•..".....V'-.2'iS....':':'.:,..;':','',;;.,'.i:.:i:3Y..4:.,k".'...,'...i,'....:;C C-'-:"?:::T:•.:'.-r:,':`'.'`;:Z•'.,.Z.::-,;.''.''':.;..•.':-•:.;:.:'::'.:•.'..'-:1.,;-'';C:::&::::::.:::;:'.'::..:'':','...‘;;.';..*;.'-;,T•'1;.;'--::..:1,::::1-.4:;':;:.:'',::;;::'':,'..:';.;::-,'.'r;,:1'iii--''',='.1'•',;.:)1..:I;::.:'7i'.,.'-.:,•.':..:'.:C*-:';:.*;,'0...';''-:•''5'!:/'I';'•..7:',,--':.".'.'7:6'?.":''','',:'.;7:....•',:"':.'-F4,,.!','...•.''I''i.""e:,4.;:-;-'.'-,':'C':,:'::'',P..i,..',.1';,-.'I'...1.Y:;;g:;.:5,';/:,,•'..j',•.:;:2:7,:-::,:.,,1..Z',,.':.4....';.",1,;:.i::.56;r;:.,,•f11.;-eN'V r';•A-,:,g-:i;1eti:1;\',;1I'i i7 %,i,•'z.,l:4-?4iVi1,4‘li.; ,1A..'.41:0.'..tC,0p2i;a.::-'-:`.,;i..,k`:,=.z,z:i;,,'.:I,.::';,'.-.:4..C.:;.''',,:rR,..i:'•,,'•,.,',,.;':,''.-4.!;,.,.47,:•s:;:;4.Vs;'.'.•;:!.,,:''.':s24'c-).1., ':•,L.'4:k?:A-,i';CA;l-I!.i!,=,,0,1*,4i.'.T*t,P,hKh,i'1,::.A;11J%"lg.,-,V.4";i..ret0r0j:?r;&l$t.47yi1:4;7tff1.c1.;:.:ka,.,10"14t*Si':,-%,T'44'4Ri'1.g!s1,I*t,*,ii,.OVk:,.-V1!?.48.s-ke$i,1fci_t,gv'iS,Af,1.;1k.. 1 ::1-.,': . ' ; ,- -' ;'I4%-' ':''i' . 20 4q - •4i 'ir: W4 > P % 5 : ' : 11 ,fiil 4 ,4 k , io . 01 4 ' e ; SVa ; ,..7.q •;;T .g • . , . ,: , , : kv,,,,,,ftV •Nz`,1$41,144e,,,,,,s-Wop7.,4-??,,,R;,:tkfAs.4. -4..:::-!.. .7 . •;:•.7.'i,,.•-t.}.,-,&:-:',.. . ..:Xf,',:s's;•• •i'l';',?:4-',.:1:eq:/f.',.1?;-•.'s4,4,:,;,tr,4.0.4;4:15-1T-41.c72.1*,5P-,•png-,1-%_%.?,.;R%;:c:53.,t.;R:',1:y.Y.fft.:::•?,&w,V2?'...Tfo7,,,,iipw,„Teap kWil,-,&&trzatia :2•4v.;•*,-e•,..A=23,:ttkuliA'algizif2=;,.'.-.,a,f•Ni :-.4..i'..2.,:vfof.2•:,-4.,Q!,,;.v. i::aiv.!:,',.., i'n.;:;.,:Z,';..w..'k:••- ',...,..,i.:.;...v..t,Zrr,404;,.,ia,:.,,.!Alik,:i. -;;A•4•Af,,g,,4- :AD.,,,, 7.4.-A::;.:.,:-.4,0!Ai;r).4,0:0.,,....-u- - ••••• '4' '' • . NET SALES AMOUNT:i - -.''SALES.TAX lik' :'* .',Y FREIGHT 4fitV.Vi. ft • 'AMOUNT..DUE . 4,?:.C.t;M',c!rWitigAg':;•CONDITIONS..5,',0 F.:',:sALEY,t:,..,4--V?g,..,i-4:i.... 0. •4 .ig,,,-;'•-•,•;., . .. .. ..:::,,:',;.';f!1.0.3.,,i..,.1. •• •:',..;:::'-‘;5AP.nss'.q.1.-;', '—,••,1•';;.. .i.:1,,,7.."';•-:,,,*.M.-::•i:2,''' ''''.1:4$,:•:',,V0,-54.--1 , ALL CLAIMS ARISING OUT OF OR CONNECTED PATH THE ABOVE A FINANCE CHARGE at the periodic rate of Ili% with : 4876•,..741A -... ,1 399.:89!'',',• :. .,::::..::,.....,,..:•-,:-:=,„•-v:•:',..- .S276:•63 ••LISTED ITEMS MUST BE MADE winim FIVE DAYS AFTER DE. •an ANNUAL PERCENTAGE RATE of 16% will , ...-'••. •;,...k'XI -..:LIVERY.-NO RETURNS ACCEPTED UNLESS ACCOMPANIED BY THIS ch fa d on all accounts unpaid atter'the last day of the',..". -:,.•DOCUMENT.MOS.RETURNED FOR CREDIT SHALL BE SUBJECT TO.:, - a-e .,„ - • . ,, ••,. ....,...,,,,.‘5,,. Vr-42.5eti,HANDLING CHARGES:SELLER following,RESEFIVESi„TITLE-TOJHES ........ , ,71.!.`",7i,,!„,,..Vii ,,:•••,.iyk:-,17c;„.. .,:. :,•";',..1:.1.;:,•,:i•W„.3i.:7_.r THIS INVOICE IS DUE ON OR BEFORS02/03/96 • . . .. • a, r�Ys - ,.< ... .... :r:.:?:: ... .�` .yn v'aY;:b,.ai•.5:9..ar v'ie:FJa7:LSO:i • i•...,.e:�:;c.....,t•t,;r,:. ,._...�.. ,.._^a;.�,,..r1:C.uP�L:u'.ix;:.n,:c.Yr,.-va .a:ro.'C Y vi�:As,.,=,%t'•.i;=!.. .,. _ ._•. .,..r••te.`4,t::�;m:r..r.«r>.:i;::��i.�::A;.,.,..n•r:.,:utn • � COMMUNICATIONS, INC. T ROXE Audio•Video•Sales•Design•Service•Installation 602.437.7240 800:352.7912 FAX 800.752.1299 FAX 602.437.7266 4830 S.38TH STREET ..4 ro; ::n«%;•_',.'f PHOENIX,ARIZONA 85040 PACKING LIST • •i -- C ik7.�j?-(0N �EN•TI_:•N invoice No 2 4•: L r Date !�71/04/9 Sold t�_: CITY OF R Ship It : CITY CI RENTON Paa';ee ! � "tk1J ii ^ � 1Ti f RENTON ;4[r�,�`�••.,,)•)`F _Tali IV *s �.= ti itasi._t,i1•:_j. No 17145 - i! >_ t�4�S1:�� .. Printing Dt t'•_, j41% 1, :AA AM )I fY CI E I('S OFFICE RENT ON A 9RO55 `NTON VA :5 Our Order N F.9 O0 r 1• se Orfi N i ---- Terris: NPt. 20 tlrn_r • . 12/I.jr% _ t nn N : 20 _I:u it t,�3; __-�-. ._�;, P;:� I':,1_c � =r t-". _��7�_ _ _ ,., r �•3_i_ti QUANTITY item No rd'e:tuse P r:-0, :I No Description Or.P_rt_j Prev-Shipped '•tPr'S tppd Sark_; Lrzd 1 1 DAN 1 '71t,j !1_:P` __t�c HI-F �I .'.'•��C_ int:C i _ 0 ,.. _ 1 SYNC:` .. _ : ```IA :.TST 0O; -'$.14 00108 Mr. COtIPt 7,r:._; RACK MOUNT it'l _i tCiI 0 • • • • • • • CUSTOMER MUST COMPLY WITH LOSS/DAMAGE PROCEDURE ON REVERSE SIDE. 1 Iv _ .1,el C,00 ' 0.05 49) ,5I7G c21.2 . 0 b ‘c . • .. h•2" . LL: 7-3 S, • - D 082979 TROXELL COMMUNICATIONS INC 096595 01/18/96 DEPARTMENT FILE COPY ,, PO.N 0. .......... 4 © Chapter 116,Laws of 1965 CITY OF RENTON Purchase Order City of Renton Certification I, the undersigned, do hereby certify under penalty of perjury, that the materials have been furnished, the services rendered, or the labor performed as described herein, and that the claim is a just, due and TROXELL COMMUNICATIONS INC unpaid obligation against the City of Renton, and that I am authorized to 320 108th Ave NE #600 authenticate and certify to said claim: Bellevue, WA 98004 Signed FINANCE DEPARTMENT STEPHENS, LISA ;;:.;:<..: ::;.::;::;.:: ........................ . ount. umber-::...:.:::.�:::::::.:..:............. .::::.:Qty:.::;::::Unit:.::::::::::::::::...:.:...:......Descnptton.................,....:...........U F. ........... ... . ....:.::....., 2 ea. VCR S-VHS w/ext. sync 2,301.34 4,602.68 E 127.000000.004.5940.0071.64.000084 4,602.68 2 ea Rack Mount acc slidekit 137.03 274.06 E 127.000000.004.5940.0071.64.000084 274.06 1 ea sales tax 399.89 399.89 E 127.000000.004.5940.0071.64.000084 399.89 • Authorized By 5,276.63 5,276.631 Accounts Payable Div.•200 Mill Ave.S.•Renton,WA 98055•Phone(206)235-2618•Fax(206)235-2513 DP 3119 11/94 ' _ . INVOICE 14 PLEASE REMIT PROLINE INDUSTRIES, INC. �: ;:T.,.• • •PAYMENT TO: • i.. ; " , tq 1233-120th AVENUE N.E.; BELL,EVUE.WA 98005 ' (206) 451-1999'FAX (206) 637-9558 :• , }. f Kzt� `` . .,. :0:I0(3430000 ..,, ' i,:,,;r,1 .i: '. :e' ck' F„ r:ya l.'r �J tt•' `';t"'' :; ; .«;�': ITY' OF RENTON 1'tS'ITY OF RENTON—NUNICI SETA• •4 °k;?r ,BILLT�x, ACCOUNTS PAYABLE H' ATTN: MARILYN PERERSON.!":fit:-. ,,—..' GS:" , . •!0"..fks<• -• 200 MILL AVENUE SOUTH • 'p MRK FOR : VIDEO VISION r"{G . 'krr,`l,i"_-,ATTN r 3.OE PEREZ 200 MILL AVENUE SOUTH •`" , zi;RENTON t..�«:�:� '�'t•��:t' - WA 98055 T. RENTON • WA 98055 G3'.yae:::.ry 3,1 i:}�•':: ,•-,..<,•'i :.. : • t • i". _. , 1.. ;!'t,::"-''.. •, ,. ,.. :'.;!•. „. . ' ,.. .•. r PURCHASE ORDER NO. ORDER DATE SALES ORDER NO. INVOICE DATE I INVOICE NUMBER ,: 4; ;g' 6•: ..,',::;_:: • :� ,:_ •.. ,�._,:,. ..1/2 4-/9.6--_•,.�. • • 0.0.78.0.0.2:2a>,.--._ .,2,1�12/t:6 —..;�'._7_a-0-O'' -- ;: . DATE SHIPPED I SHIP VIA TERMS SALES REP. I REGION Irl lir!�,��w,..;±jj '�-;.•.1 ••'1`/26/96 UPS/DEST NET 30 .DAYS S. MARGARET SPENC • •1 a,-'.; ,.3 4 A4 Ufa' 'S-it33:t: :Cyvs,.SS ,r C "5' rt - C. 'iv. t`-;-sty,• _ :4• !1 p t�' .7.rx• .t 'a5'. � .9-.. .'i�`1�•. nr:`t ��•:^ .4=+.+i••��'.sn7 r, .5�. 3x�..,. • ,is.,.•. .. bii' .: t ,r, .'.h'•,...r.,l: F`iiY:..r�. ., :t:,. o'tiv; ;i;�'." � .-•.: ,v't'-et.i.. .. . . r., .r•... ._ ,.s„± .u'.°:�.>c ytaSciiS'sti .. .-..i:a — >9i':•:y:::f.. ;;.:.,; .i MOTY ORD'D' OTY B.O. I MODEL NO. I DESCRIPTION OTYY SHP'D, UNIT PRICE AMOUNT •' ' ' ''-"'' ' ''' ' -NOTE: PROLINE HOLDS TITLE TO THE DELON LISTED tlERL�HANDISE ITEMS UNTIL •Fx.•. .• • • THIS INVOICE HAS BEEN PAID IN FULL'. • .TU.TL(FOR MERCHANDISE s`° ITEMS (EXCLUDING RENTAL ITEMS! HILL pats.TO THE PARTY LISTED •"`t"• ,t"'` '" ', ` -'r'n•'•':. IN THE'"BILL-TO" SECTION ABOVE'ONCEfALC'FUNDS.HAVE CLEAREE THE k=-J•, '',•';,•'' `°'•/'`<APPROPRIATE FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS?, AT NO TINE MILL TITLE OF • • 'itir,s l'_5 ` ..'','...i' •.` ` *:.iRENTAL ITEMS BE PASSED TO "DILL-TO" LISTING UNLESS SPECIFICALLY `'' 't , • STATED. • ! ,;,'; : - NOTE `:THESE ITEMS HAVE BEEN ORDERED SPECIFICALLY FOR YOU. THEY ,,' 4"• ' ARE HOT RETURNABLE. IF ITEMS ARE DEFECTIVE THE NANUFACTUFER S . .? STANDARD HARRANTY DILL GOVERN THE REPAIR/REPLACEMENT OF ITEMS). •', r d%1`2: 2 PRPR LEIGHTRONIR INC,. • . ' 2 •95,00 190.00 <l•:j • 34 PIN VCR CONTROL INTERFACE 1 • FREIGHT' PROLINE INDUSTRIES, INC, . .. g • ' •. FREIGHT ' •• . , .• R' a ' :x. .. .� .: _- • .• ''•.r': ?.:; -- .. .. .. ._ _ .. _ ,,;.,,. ....-,,.r. . ,,_., ,�.�•: gnu. ,. .. SALES TAX NA. _ 'i3°a . .. ^ : , -_• .;,%,vim: ` _ •.. ! . • ,• '4y,,r,. • • TOTAL AMOUNT DUE 205:58" '• , .cf.. t'tt • • • • • • 1 `•(.'' • • .. - fir': • ?, ;y'c. PLEASE SEE REVERSE FOR TERMS&' OF SALE ''"t i}"?�'~k ly'r `':4' t '4'4'' .?.: CONDITIONS ��F�}{�>�,4�^:r �i,,t,,,,,,� ,:<��.' .,a.,;a:.:= t�.� d. „' �it,,,..,M1',,p,"�.tik taw :4,: fr. r;, t� :k.��'Y li�J,J�• ,•f ;t� '•a'` :'+;.t "��'i•' d •Y „;1r,. .` ..�`•� ., '.?.-fa::k@T¢•'.r'',:..:fi''.f•c.,•atii:; r. ','•',: .' tk`f.•e:*'.ri1 •h :its..,x A:t,t. ::{! :>•t::jiV. ;4`r!' 1• ..5.. . +.t:l "Y.s'.» „i�'k1^ 'Ya` �t .i..;. :�:+: =^=S+.;A_€+, ,Y '<•�;ts.._ r'1 1! .i 1u i:� :...i. .�R� � :'t'+Y '•'��f •.[d':t� ':')'.i'' �I::,'r: tl�..,. 'i.. �/, ,� rs.�s�: rsi' .::�• ,�t t Si 7:� �• a i,�. ''�;. ,tb,u a-ir.. "lS' '+,.''?. _ �!7 `.''.e»;�+. .h'. L - r t.. t'r.y�1. K'r.'!).zI :tl,.a. ,!! a s}i,;t,'fi"�' .-%7. v.. - ,�'1 i'+,• "• - ::r':..< 1' {Y yrY { #,r,4 • r,Y .t B�Y�" i, aA" rF .h' .ah •`ie. =z• Y c. ,e' 't ! . :,;'+I • . DUPLICATE Marilyn Petersen - Re: Fwd: Question Regarding Recording Equipment Page 1 From: Dennis Culp To: Todd, Derek Date: 4/17/01 9:29AM Subject: Re: Fwd: Question Regarding Recording Equipment Hi Derek Here are the answers. I can also send them direct to Kindra if you like. 1. We use voice activated microphones with ceiling mounted speakers. It is a stand alone system from what used to be Intellysis corp. We also have a wireless microphone capability that is seldom used. 2. Since Intellysis went out of business, I would not use them again. We have found a new company that is impressive. It is SPL out of Redmond at 425-861-5564 3.Yes we did but it was a process RFP where we asked the vendors for audio upgrade solutions to handle out problem of microphones cutting out during use. 4. the approximate cost for audio upgrade (new speakers, new microphones, and new integrator hardware)was $18,000 5. Our preferred process is to ask vendors for an equipment list that will meet our performance needs and them bid the equipment we want along with the installation and engineering requirements. Hope this helps >>> Derek Todd 04/16/01 03:34PM >>> Dennis -Attached is a list of questions from Mercer Island about the types of technology that we use in our City Council Chambers. Would you be able to answers to these questions as they relate to the sound equipment that we use there? (I have already forwarded this to George and Marilyn in regards to the computer and video technology aspects.) CC: McBride, George; Petersen, Marilyn APPROVED BY CITY COUNCIL FINANCE COMMITTEE Date. 1' /6 - ° COMMITTEE REPORT September 10,2001 Fund Allocation for Channel 21 InfoChannel Computer Replacement (Referred August 27,2001) The Finance Committee recommends that the City Council authorize the allocation of$26,600 from the Fund 127 Cable Communications Development Fund to replace the existing Channel 21 text generation computer with a PC-based Scala InfoChannel computer,including software and work station. King Parker, Chair <---et":1;11--jc , • Toni Nelson, Vice(. air • Don Persson,Member _', CITY OF RENTON COUNCIL AGENDA BILL AI#: 5:b • For Agenda of: August 27, 2001 Dept/Div/Board.. Executive/City Clerk Staff Contact Marilyn Petersen Agenda Status Consent X Public Hearing... Fund Allocation for Purchase of Scala InfoChannel Computer for Correspondence.. Text Generation and Graphics on Government Access Channel, Ordinance Channel 21 Resolution Old Business Exhibits: New Business Issue Paper Study Sessions Equipment Specifications and Price Quotes Information Recommended Action: Refer to Finance Committee Approvals: Legal Dept Finance Dept Other Fiscal Impact: Expenditure Required... $26,600 Transfer/Amendment $26,600— 127 Fund Amount Budgeted 0 Revenue Generated Total Project Budget City Share Total Project.. Summary of Request: Purchased in 1994, the government access channel text generator software and hardware system, used to create graphics and the message readerboard on Channel 21, is obsolete. Replacement with an upgraded PC-based system is requested to allow creation of multi-media productions without interrupting existing programming, and provide unlimited graphic backgrounds and colors and a myriad of other on-screen features. The replacement system will allow import of electronic data, including the Council agenda, Website messages, reports, powerpoint presentations, etc., directly to Channel 21, without the need to rekey and reformat the data. Replacement cost, including a work station, will be approximately $26,600. Staff Recommendation: Approve the request to replace the existing text generator for government access channel programming with the Scala InfoChannel hardware and software package. Document2/ CITY OF RENTON MEMORANDUM DATE: August 27, 2001 TO: Council President Dan Clawson, and Members, Renton City Council FROM: Jay Covington, Chief Administrative Officer STAFF CONTACT: Marilyn Petersen, City Clerk/Cable Maogerie SUBJECT: Funding Appropriation for Text Generator Replacement Issue: The government access channel text generator software and hardware system, used to create graphics and the message readerboard on Channel 21, is seven years old and the technology has been obsolete for several years. The memory on the server is depleted; it is a limited function, non-PC-based system; and the equipment is no longer being serviced because of its age. Background: Two major manufacturers of multimedia hardware and software were contacted and invited to provide demonstrations of replacement equipment and bid proposals: Scala, Inc. (InfoChannel) and FrameRate (Millenium). For a similar price, both manufacturers supply PC-based software and equipment that combines graphics, text, sound, animation, and digital video. Scala InfoChannel allows a user to create multimedia productions without interrupting existing programming, has unlimited graphic backgrounds and colors, and offers a myriad of other on- screen features. Because it is PC-based, prepared text (Council agenda, Website messages, powerpoint presentations, etc.) can be imported from City staff originators directly to InfoChannel,without the need to retype and format the text. Following the 30-day demonstration and evaluation period, staff determined that the Scala InfoChannel was superior to the Millenium in providing the features desired for the channel, including background variety, print overlay, endless color choices, etc. A smoother conversion and shorter training period would also be guaranteed since staff is currently using an earlier version of Scala text generation software. Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the acquisition of the Scala InfoChannel multimedia software and hardware in the amount of$19,092.22, including WSST; a work station to accommodate the new equipment in the amount of$7500; and authorization to allocate $26,600 from the ending fund balance in the Fund 127 Cable Communications Development Fund for these acquisitions. FRONI :MRILBOXES ETC 191 TO :G3 2001,06-06 12:26PM R080 P.02 Unity Communications, LLC 13720 68th Avenue West Edmonds, WA 88026 Phone: (425) 742-7051 ommunicatlons Sales@UnityCommunications.net Monday, June 4, 2001 City Of Renton Municipal TV 1055 South Grady Way Renton, WA 98055 Here is the quote you requested for the InfoChannel system you are considering. Thls system is designed with one mastering station, and one player station capable of controlling 6 decks and one switcher. In order to provide you the best and most cost effective solution, we strongly urge you to purchase the hardware as well as the software from us. This will insure that the system is installed and running properly. It is critical that the master and player are matched in all specifications. This insures that scripts created on the master will run in an identical manner on the player. This will also insure that the city will not pay any unnecessary support expenses or incur any finger pointing by multiple vendors as outlined during our meeting. Our configuration is designed to provide you the most reliable operation, and to avoid or minimize down time. For example, the Master comes equipped with a 2" hard drive that is pre-configured to as a backup and can be inserted into the player in the event of a hard drive or OS failure, with just the turn of a key. This insures continuous operation. We have several years experience installing many systems such as these. We customize our systems in several other ways. Our systems incorporate high performance motherboards equipped with health monitoring, such as; voltage and temperature monitors on the motherboard. Our systems are equipped w/ECC (Error Checking and Correcting) Ram. The systems also feature enhanced cooling for 24/7 operation including; slot mounted directional cooling fans, and heavy duty cooled removable hard drives (two in master) for backup/redundancy in the event the player HD goes bad. We also include general enhancements for 24/7 operations including custom software configuration with automatic network logon and on air enhancements that include specialized plug and play setup, clock setup, power loss automatic restart, splash-screen- free boot-up, and minimized OS screen presence for on air restart situations. www.UnityCommunications.net "Wn RrItia it All 1`r►vettlit r" s ' Unity Communications, LLC 13720 68th Avenue West Edmonds, WA 98026 Phone: (425)742-7051 Communications Sales@UnityCommunications.net SYSTEM COMPONENTS IC200 Master Server $ 3,200.00 (256MB RAM, 20GB Hard Drive, 50x CD Rom, Network card, ATI Rage Video card, ViewSonic 17" Monitor, USB hub, Keyboard, Mouse) InfoChannel 200 Master Software (non-profit pricing) $ 3,500.00 IC200 Player Server $ 3,900,00 (Matched with master system rack mounted in existing rack space Includes 8 port PCI RS232 Multi-Serial card, with Rack Mounted Active Matrix LCD display, Keyboard, and Mouse/Touchpad) InfoChannel 200 Player Software (non-profit pricing) $ 1,500.00 IC200 EX deck control software $ 599.00 IC200 EX switcher control software $ 299.00 Cables for Deck $ 200.00 TView PRO AV RM Scan Converter (converts player signal to NTSC signal) $ 1,850.00 Installation $ 1,000.00 ScalaNet Training and InfoChannel Refresher (1 day,) $ 1,000.00 Warranty (Unlimited phone support for 1 year— 2 year hardware warranty) $ 500.00 Subtotal $ 17,548.00 Taxes (0.0%) ( F%) $ 7seta-i-S/ y gel TOTAL $ 19,057.13 if; ©94.Ra- If you have any questions regarding sales, please contact me. Best regards, Monte Stroh! 13720 68th Avenue West Edmonds, WA 98026 Phone (425) 742-7051 Mobile (206) 226-4413 Fax (209) 882-5038 mstrohl@unitycommunications.net www.UnityCommunications.net "We Briny It All Together" � /� - ' --�~-- ---- ----�' ��-A�---------�--_--'__--'-- �~ --_ ___---_ _ ``=- , . � � -~ Jym �--- -'----� --_-�_- ` -- - �� ^+r� �----------- | - _ --_ � � � ' � ' , � ` � . ! - ze- �S�� . ' i - ( u , | v L/ | . / ' nz&°=e �A^Z �- � ' � _ *************** -COMM. JOURNAL- ******************* DATE AUG-23-2001 ***** TIME 15:56 *** P.01 MODE = MEMORY TRANSMISSION START=AUG-23 15:55 END=AUG-23 15:56 FILE NO.= 042 STN NO. COM ABBR NO. STATION NAME/TEL.NO. PAGES DURATION 001 OK s 912098825038 003/003 00:01'04" -RENTON CITY CLERK OFC - ************************************ -425 430 6516 - ***** - - ********* os., ,. City of Renton City Clerk Division, Rm. 728 1055 South Grady Way p' *y_s# Renton, WA 98055 Date: 0 l 3 - D `_ • FROM: Phone: ( 1 Phone: (425) 430-6510 Fax Phone: (�p ) �' aZ— �`0� Fax Phone: (425) 430-6516 CT: I Number of pages including cover sheet: SUBJE .REMARKS: 0 Original to ❑ Urgent ❑ Reply 0 Please For your be mailed ASAP Comment review • • • Pta-ra+r- Ahead of the curve CITY OF RENTON City Clerk Jesse Tanner,Mayor Marilyn J.Petersen August 23,2001 Monte Strohl Unity Communications 13720 68th Avenue W. Edmonds, WA 98026 Re: Scala InfoChannel Dear Monte: As we discussed,I am transmittirig:via.fax the original quote for the Scala InfoChannel hardware and software. The WSST has been revised to 8.8%. The fund appropriation for the equipment must be reviewed and approved by the City Council per City policy, and Council approval will be finalized on September 10, 2001. This letter will authorize you to proceed with the purchase and installation process; which you estimate to be completed in about 30 days or by the 24th of September. We are looking forward to the conversion and to having a new look to our channel. Thank you for all of your efforts and expertise in demonstrating the software and meeting with us to answer our questions. Sincerely, Manlyn ersen City Cler able Manager ' cc: Lori Wood Bonnie Walton 19012001 1055 South Grady Way - Renton, Washington 98055 - (425)430-6510/FAX (425) 430-6516 This paper contains 50%recycled material,30%post consumer f enhy' •vv• • �' Unity Communications, LLC Mi 1 13720 68th Avenue West 0111 Edmonds, WA 98026 Phone: (425)742-7051 Communications Sales@UnityCommunications.net SYSTEM COMPONENTS IC200 Master Server $ 3,200.00 (256MB RAM, 20GB Hard Drive, 50x CD Rom, Network card, ATI Rage Video card, ViewSonic 17" Monitor, USB hub, Keyboard, Mouse) InfoChannel 200 Master Software (non-profit pricing) $ 3,500.00 IC200 Player Server $ 3,900.00 (Matched with master system rack mounted in existing rack space Includes 8 port PCI RS232 Multi-Serial card, with Rack Mounted Active Matrix LCD display, Keyboard, and Mouse/Touchpad) InfoChannel 200 Player Software (non-profit pricing) $ 1,500.00 IC200 EX deck control software $ 599.00 IC200 EX switcher control software $ 299.00 Cables for Deck $ 200.00 TView PRO AV RM Scan Converter(converts player signal to NTSC signal) $ 1,850.00 Installation $ 1,000.00 ScalaNet Training and InfoChannel Refresher (1 day,) $ 1,000.00 Warranty (Unlimited phone support for 1 year— 2 year hardware warranty) $ 500.00 Subtotal $ 17,548.00 Taxes (8.6%) $ 1,699.1 a /514f. RL TOTAL $ 4 3 /9094. RR If you have any questions regarding sales, please contact me. Best regards, Monte Strohl 13720 68th Avenue West Edmonds, WA 98026 Phone (425) 742-7051 Mobile (206) 226-4413 Fax (209) 882-5038 mstrohl@unitycommunications.net www.UnityCommunications net "We Rrind It All Totted-het" Introducing Scala Platform, Support, and System Requirements InfoChannel, like every software package, is best supported by specific hardware components. Scala has tested InfoChannel with a large number of popular systems and peripheral devices. Based on recent testing, Scala recommends the following: • Hardware Requirements > Pentium or Pentium equivalant processor (AMD, Cyrix) minimum, Pentium MMX or Pentium II or Ill processor recommended > Windows 95, 98 or Windows NT 4.0 > 16MB minimum, 32MB or more recommended > DirectX compatible video card > DirectSound compatible Audio card with Wave Table > Minimum 4x CD Rom drive > Free Space: 25MB minimum, 600MB recommended • Optional Hardware > Hardware MPEG decoder- See Inroduction for list > SVGA to NTSC/PAL video encoder > Digital Camera > Scanner • Optional Software > Adobe Photoshop 4.0 > Equilbrium Debaalizer 1.0 > Fractal Design Painter 5.0 > Corel Photo Paint 7.0 > Kai's Power Tools 3.0 IC200 Training Guide Module 1 Page 6 1 Marilyn Petersen-Re, Scala Character Generator _ Page 1 From: George McBride To: Marilyn Petersen Date: 8/7/01 6:06PM Subject: Re: Scala Character Generator Marilyn, In answer to your question,we can supply the computers required for this project using our normal vendor and I would anticipate the cost to be around $1,500 per unit, assuming new monitors. Steve was not very pleased with the vendor's response to our suggestion that the City supply the computers, implying that we will pay for any cost savings in service calls from his firm. So, at this point it is a business decision you need to make. We can do this for you, but the vendor may not make it easy for either of us. GM >>> Steven Denison 08/03/01 11:08AM >>> I spoke with Jay Potts(425-825-5520)from Unity Communications about the Scala InfoChannel package. The InfoChannel Software is designed specifically to generate content for a TV feed and is in use in Federal Way. He informed me that the two"Servers" being proposed by his company are built to meet the"extreme demands" placed on the systems by the InfoChannel 2000 Software. The are NOT premium quality workstations such as Dell, Compaq, or HP, but build to specifications supplied by Unity Communications. Unity will support the workstations, if purchased from Unity, however, service calls on equipment purchased by us would cost approx. $1000. The System basically consists of two"Servers" (running Windows 98)that work together to produce a feed to the TV cable channel. A operator using the Master Server(I would call a client)creates the feed and transfers it to the Player Server. The Player Server then generates the feed to the cable system. The "Servers" are attached to our network via ethernet, require static addresses and communicate using TCP/IP (no windows SHARES required). Jay says that the two servers should have to same motherboards etc. in order to insure compatibility. Issues: The InfoChannel Software is NOT certified for Windows 2000. There is limited rack space in the control room for the rack mounted "Server" and Monitor. The InfoChannel Software contains a module used to schedule content. In other words, the content on Channel 21 does not play in continuous loop. Therefore, if a commercial product like Adobe Premier were used, some sort of player would still be required. Content can be imported in the InfoChannel Software from other application such as Photoshop, Premier etc. Steve Denison Information Systems Webmaster 425-430-6872 sdenison@ci.renton.wa.us CC: Steven Denison CITY OF RENTON MEMORANDUM DATE: July 27, 2001 TO: George McBride,Information Services Director FROM: Marilyn Petersen, City Clerk/Cable Manager SUBJECT: Upgrade of Scala InfoChannel Character Generator The existing Scala character generation computer system used for text on the government access channel is obsolete--service is no longer available and it is out of memory. My staff and I have researched the available technology, and,based on demonstrations and trial use, have decided on the upgraded Scala InfoChannel package. We have the option of purchasing the computer from Scala or having the City purchase it. Attached are the specifications for the Master Server(highlighted) at$3200. The specs appear to be similar to the replacement desk top computers the City is currently purchasing. Please review the attached, and advise whether you can purchase the computer for us from your current sources, and if so,the cost of the computer/monitor, etc. listed in the specs. The funding we are requesting will cover the cost of the server and your budget will be reimbursed. Thank you for your consideration. Attachment cc: Jay Covington '11/1° e,T11"1) 7/74Y - . 7 > - 4'044--1/4 1 1)1/6 qr - ---- )=74,—- -",4 '-> ".V-) 1 iv)",l'"/I4 f 42°-)-(1, '1?V c: /g ' e cr19-/lAink0 11"q11a12 7 r7-1-1-; i "-i,Z217- 4 i %rn ' , -i Zi,exe-_ Kki - -e 7 . 7-;Ir(:dt e 4 ' 11 7"1":., 47Yzral-0-00 - , o'' --,n4-ri4-.174 -44/ c-etri-rntifi s -4p4:?-9 -- ralCiwryv iclui I .179 7 r,� -. 1 __.- FROM : MS DIGITAL PHONE NO. : 206+7427051 Jun. 06 2001 09:06AM P1 Unity Communications,LLC 13720 68th Avenue West • Edmonds,WA 98026 Phone: (425) 742-7051 Fax: (209) 882-5038 ommunications To: Lori A. Wood Fax: 425-430-6516 From: Monte Strobl Date: 6/6/01 Re: City cable quote Pages: 3 CC: ❑ Urgent ❑ For Review ❑ Please Comment 0 Please Reply ❑ Please Recycle I got a message that my e-mail could not be opened so lam sending you this via FAX nuns lull uiit am)quilling. Thanks Monte ih•:i l'I• y'` 1I. li I, i`'l' '•.,III .iii 'I...i.;..iAl;..i `(•i DENTJL' i it ilt.i,I fiU'illIiiii"i,i.I.pi' 'I•1�1. I/i, ,1l ii U i. u.Tvcrlv.UnityCommun!cat1OIC.Wet "We Briny It Ail Together" • 0 +25 15:23 1995 rROtd: TO: 4622853 PAGE: 1 TEL : Sep 25 '95 11 :44 -No .006 P .01 ''i'fc taking tcicrixinn into tomorrow: • IE TCI Cablevision of Washington,Inc. MEMO TO: DES XEITH PROM: GA,RY A. HOKBNSON 017 DATE: SEyTBMBER 25, 1995 RE: RKNTO Fi7'[]>,IO EQUIPMENT You are correct in that we paid out $93, 058.40 to equip the City of Renton Council Chambers with equipment necessary to allow them to produce programming over the City Government access channel. This was a negotiated requirement for a 15 year franchise renewal. • Expenditures were made as follows: • • System line equipment (ampe. , bridgere, etc. ) to allow transmissions of signal from City Hall to the Vista hub site. TCI incurred $ 1819.00 • • Purchase of a modulator and demodulator from JW Tel- Tronics on 8/15/94 and 8/19/94 $ 2805.00 • • Studio equipment package from Praline Industries Inc. in August, 1994 $80657.00 • Labor: TCI $ 386.40 JW Tel Tronics 7191 00. $93058.40 We have all the invoice , etc. in case we need them, • • South Seattme CAC* 15241 Pacific Hwy.S. • Seat*,WA 98188 (208)4334434 FAX(206)433-5103 • An Fq.N4),00nmAtE►mpv or n A • FRANCHISING • - REFRANCHISING • COMMUNITY NEEDS • ASSESSMENTS • ORDINANCE PREPARATION • NEGOTIATION • EVALUATION • FRANCHISE ADMINISTRATION • ACCESS • • September 11, 1995 Phil Jewett • Information Systems Director - City of Renton 200 rviiil Avenue South Renton, WA 98055 Dear Phil: • This is to follow up our meeting of August 24, 1995 with TCI's rate compliance manager, Deb Boten Keith. We received a copy of her • letter of September 7, 1995 and wanted to let you know we asked :that she further clarify and verify the amount they totalled for the government access equipment required by the City of Renton. • We will get back to you as soon as we here from her. • Sincerel , 3 H f ABLE OMMUNICATIONS CONSULTANTS • on Vice President/Director • LI-I/sb Enclosure • • • • • 502 East Main Street, Auburn;Washington 98002 • (206)833-8380 • 1-800-222-9697 • FAX: (206)833-8430 • • 4 -7-77) • CITY OF RENTON • • City Clerk Jesse Tanner,Mayor ' • • • Marilyn J.Petersen • . December'5, 1997 • - • • • • - Gary Hokanson, General Manager TCI Seattle, Inc. • 15241 Pacific Highway S. . • . Seattle, WA 98188 Re: Franchise Agreement for Maintenance of Video Equipment • . • -Dear Gary: Per Section IV of the amended franchise agreement, TCI agreed to contribute an annual - amount of$1500 towards maintenance and repair of the City's video equipment, payable on January 31st of each year, commencing January 31, 1998. The agreement also required a retroactive payment of$2500 due by December 31, 1997, to compensate the City for maintenance costs incurred from 1995 through 1997. . • . .As per our agreement, enclosed is an invoice in the amount of$2500 for the retroactive payment, due and payable by December 31,21997. A second invoice for 1998 costs in the amount of$1500 will be transmitted'Within the next few weekS. •Responding to your prior . request, I have also enclosed copies of paid bills for video equipment maintenance and repairs through the end of 1997. -- - , •%. - If I can provide further information regarding this matter, please feel free to give me a call. • Sincerely, City Clerk Enclosures : • •. . . • • • . • • • . . _ • , , cc: Lon HurdJay Covmgton : • • - • : • • • . • _ • •• • • " - ..-• • •• ..-,• ' _ . . ' • _ • - -. • •- - • = : - • • •,',-;•`•-'1:•-•' . . • -200 Mill Avenue South-.Renton,Washington 98055 - (206)235-2501 - • . , • 6i2l1 This nacer conlain's.50%recycled material 20%nest consumer w 1 • 'v. , CITY CLERK DIVISION VIDEO EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE & REPAIRS • • • • . DATE P.O.# COMPANY AMOUNT DESCRIPTION 2/19/96 . 95608 J W Tel-tronics $ 205.58 VCR Maint. & Repairs 8/12/96 105687 Vision Video &Audio Prod. $ 140.00 Equip. clean &Adj. 9/6/96 105708 Vision Video &Audio Prod. $ 73.04 Repair robotic camera 9/24/96 105710 Proline Industries $ 316.21 Repair ELMONis. Presenter 10/7/96 105724 Vision Video &Audio $ 111.50 Repair Focus, Syst. Repair 2/10/97 110570 J W Tel-tronics $ 673.50 Video Equip. Maint&Repair 9/18/97 7120025 J W Tel-tronics $ 385.53 Audio&Camera Rep. 9/18/97 7120025 J W Tel-tronics $ 385.53 Receiver Repair, etc. 12/3/97 7120072 J W Tel-tronics $ 541.71 Repair Sony CCD Camera TOTAL $2,832.60 Prepared by city of renton 12/3/97 - Qn manf. Model Number Renton Bid Worksheet Vi eo Equipment (Proline) FAX Memo: Total Pages: 1 Control Room and Editing 1 Panasonic WJMX-50 SwitcherVideo Switcher To: Lon Hurd 1 Panasonic WJ-KB50 Character Generator From: Scott Scowcroft 1 Panasonic AG 7750H S-VHS Record Deck with rm Date: t 1 Panasonic AG 7650H S-VHS Source Deck with rm Re: R Renentoonn 4 Equipment 1 Panasonic AG A 770 Edt Controller 1 VC TM9U/RK9UM9 Dual 9" Color Monitors with rm For your information, this 1 Panasonic CTCT1383VY 13" Color Monitor/Receiver is the final equipment list 1 Mackie 1202 Audio Mixer with rm for the City of Renton. 1 ascam 112MKII Audio Cassette Rec with rm Please note included are 1 Panasonic WV-5203B 3xB&W Monitor Bridge two terrific items new to Fie d Equipment Renton. They are the Video 1 Panasonic AG-460U S-VHS 2ccd Camcorder Projector and the Visual. Presenter (replacement for 4 Panasonic AGBP212 Battery for AG-460 an overhead projector) . 1 Bogan 3140 Tripod with Fluid Head Call me, please, about this 1 Lowell TO-95 Ambi Light Kit equipment list. 2 Sony ECM-44B Lavalier Mics _ 1 Shure SM58-LC Cardiod Mic ----- 1 Electrovoic 135A Omni Mic Playback VCRs \/ 1 Panasonic AG 7150/EIP7350 S-VHS VCP with sm `L/K 1 Panasonic AG 7350/EIP7350 S-VHS VCR with sm 4),P A a1 fi 1 Panasonic CT1384VY 13" Color Monitor/Receiver ua eras with Robotics 3 Sony PAC2 DXC-930 Cam: Head, pwr, RM930, 12x1 3 Sony CCDC-5 Pwr Cable 5 meters 3 Pelco PT550P Pan Tilt Head 3 Pelco MPTV 1510 PT Controller joy stick with rm 3 Sony CCMC12P25 Cables Pre entation Package 1 Sharp XGH440U ideo Projector 1 ELMO EV500AF #9312 isual Presenter Au omated Playback Equip ent (VMI) 1 Leightronix Pro-8 PB Controller:controller =16 VCF 16 VCRs,Int. Router,software, _ __'__ 386/40cpu,13"RGB Monitor 2 Leightronix PRPA . Interface for AG7150/7350 Ma. terin_g Station and Pla_yb ck Station (OMNI) 1 Infochannel Infochannel Presentation Hardware/software Su °total (tot4 I equipment) Ins allation ( '.W.Teletronics (Time and Materials) III a C 0 AG...VVTI, . .. S-VHS Hi-Fi Editing Video Cassette Recorder ., . ,..,. ._ . . . ...._ .T. I PanasorR -. WI Mill dirla 1111 --,00 -• - - .. • 4.101.1 r r• ,..41111111 • -,7------___ ow _.. .— .Lk...a.... 140P4I-MR-1...r. v, ,,uv,t , 0:11 "0-04.141014111 IIII.MI Panasonic I .0,---,-°_-„-----T_____IBC CONTROL 2:00:00:00 ,.rerL ... ctimR HUT YC OftAY i-SYST041.61.45-----,-------. ' ilk di 0 0 ,. . . • e,c0-1 PLAV RN Ai tit ' 1111 Ell E:1 C:1 ti Sinp A, Ell El Nos--.1,,, • IIIII ‘I dk 0 Fa .. ,,, sabg ............, ..„,:. . . . S VHS AGVVkn11 . S-VHS Hi-Fi Editing Video Cassette Recorder The Panasonic AG-7750 Editing Precision and Digital TBCIDNR for Superb S-VHS PictureQuality The AG-7750 S-VHS Editing VCR maximizes S-VHS picture quality with laminated amorphous video heads, built-in digital TBC/DNR, and 3 line "logical" comb filter. Its IQ Mechanism and Al capstan servo provide outstanding reliability and rapid response for quick access and editing accuracy. An RS-422 interface lets you connect easily to most serial control systems for a very broad range of applications. The AG-7750 professional editing VCR provides an exceptional combination of precision, 411 versatility, and picture quality... plus interfacing compatibility and the reliability you've come to count on from Panasonic. 111- 4.4410 - r , 0 o. o SO 46 - L Technologies for from the laminated amorphous heads enhances picture quality by minimizing *- High-Quality Video color blurring. e- :) Production`? Digital Decoder e� •�. i� w,. A digital decoder in the Y/C separation4. 7- 400 Built-in Digital TBCIDNR circuitry significantly improves signal I +"' ANL"+. , separation accuracy during recording. •The"logical"comb filter of the AG-7750, featuring an advanced 3-line delay line high precision and response times that are ♦ system,as opposed to a conventional significantly faster than those possible with 2-line system,enables a huge a conventional system. improvement in crosstalk cancellation TBC Off TBC On during playback.The result is significantly High Speed Search With an 8-bit memory circuit,the digital TBC higher picture quality,with reduced color g p within the AG-7750 eliminates even small and luminance blurring. at 32 x FWD/REW amounts of jitter,skew,head impact error, and color blurring.Its precise time base . i a correction is invaluable for NB roll editing, Precision Mechanism as well as other professional editing for Outstanding f Z operations,and helps maintain high picture ( 110. :',f, ,, quality through multiple tape generations. Performance 8-bit memory,field coefficient DNR(digital Performance noise reduction)processes Y and C signals New Conventional separately to boost S/N ratio,thereby IQ (Intelligent Quest) The high performance of the IQ mechanism reducing noise during playback. Mechanism is further enhanced by advanced Al S-VHS and Laminated The IQ mechanism of the AG-7750 delivers Capstan Servo Control.Featuring a capstan precise,high-speed operation,plus the spindle approximately three times larger in Amorphous Video Heads reliability that a professional work situation diameter than conventional capstan To take full advantage of the high resolution demands.The dual-loading system,with spindles,the control system enables high- and high S/N ratio of S-VHS,the AG-7750 half-loading and full-loading tape transport speed search at 32 times normal speed,in features laminated amorphous video heads modes,achieves the ideal of high-speed forward and reverse more that three times having higher magnetic coercivity than response while protecting tapes and heads the speed previously possible.At the same conventional ferrite heads. Improvement in from damage.The advanced tape transport time,it minimizes fluctuations in capstan color reproduction is particularly noticeable. mechanism uses five direct drive motors, rotational speed in order to suppress wow. Expanded color signal frequency response including two reel drive motors,to attain r. Hi-Ft Audio/QtJ['. •' , , . -uDio-wF rvoHM-auDiD-H-F v1 EVFL r c I_ 0 1 RESET n.00.n0.0 u i 1 . . ,- eNo DaF�He Re o,aa,A�� o SEARCH1 I`T 11 ww uwN Medals c Fwxs MENU MOUT i TBCE CONTROL VC I' FDir sEisru REV ►FWD Ei E SET UP ciEvorin HDELAY r—sysTeM PHASE, se Pau 11 H Fxe o.RSE arms, .. o. LscImcn,® Heaov senaa Illt:46 '. ' i 0 • IIINDrr PusH ^ MOLE f �INSENT I —,II HEW STOP FF ® ❑ • a y.' ODD �� a El r,u see 41' . cncoowry onn onc[vo ® '�' 00 M®.'oa`M® ® D I P A.®'°� . .. . . ® s„noEvn H INPUT S VH MODE CONTROL PM 13 . HE PHONES—LVE. CH]—M — 2 AU OMONR �l1 Optional Accessories Specifications AG-F700: • GENERAL Time Code Generator/Reader Power Source: 120 V AC,50/60 Hz •SMPTE format compatible • Power Consumption: 105 W •Generator and reader for LTC and operating Temperature: +41°F to+s5°F(+5°C to+35°C) ., t Operating Humidity: 35%—80% VITC Weight: Approx.37.4 lbs.(17 kg) •Input VITC signal slice circuit Dimensions(W x H x D): 17"x 7"x 18'/s"(430 x 176 x 460 mm) On/Off switching -.,- ■ SYSTEM •CH2 AUDIO/LTC selector,VITC t+` Television Format: EIA Standard,NTSC Color Signal(525 lines,60 fields) On/Off selector,REGEN/PRESET Video Recording System: Two rotary heads,helical scanning system selector and time code INT/EXT \• ; Modulation System: Luminance:FM azimuth recording selector ` Color signal:Converted subcarrier phase shift recording Audio Track: 2 tracks(Hi-Fi Audio) 2 tracks(Normal) • TAPE TRANSPORT Tape Format: S-VHSNHS tape ___ _ Tape Speed: 15/16 ips(33.35 mm/s) • Recording Time: 120 min.(2 hrs.)with NVT120 FF/REW Time: Less than 2 min.with NVT120 1,F •VIDEO ii` , ,L-- __ __ � Input Level: S-Video In(4P):Y:1.0 Vp-p,75 ohms,unbalanced �/ �tt� t' ��. _...2!",---,—,- `'' C:0.286 V - 75 ohms,unbalanced(Burst) --.,-,-, �' Line In(BNC x 2):1.0 Vp-p,75 ohms,unbalanced �+* Dub In(7P):Y:1.0 Vp-p,1 kohm,unbalanced C:0.9 Vp-p,1 kohm,unbalanced(Cyan) REF Video In(BNC x 2) Loop-through with 75 ohm On/Off AG-A800: Multi Event AG-A770: Output Level switch,1.0 Vp-p,unbalanced Out(4P):Y:1.0 Vp-p,75 ohms,unbalanced A/B Roll Edit Controller Multi-Event Edit Controller C:0.286 Vp-p,75 ohms,unbalanced (Burst) Line Out(BNC x 2):1 0 Vp-p,75 ohms unbalanced Dub Out(7P):Y:1.0 Vp-p,1 kohm,unbalanced �-'r C:0.9 Vp-p,1 kohm,unbalanced(Cyan) t ,-,, � `'� Video Monitor Out(BNC):1.0 Vp-p,unbalanced I Horizontal Resolution: S-VHS:more than 400 lines(monochrome/color) u a. VHS:300lines(monochrome),240 lines(color) Signal-to-Noise Ratio (VHS): 46 dB(color) AG-SW800:A/B Roll AG-A750: Single-Event ■AUDIO AV Switcher Edit Controller Audio Frequency Response: 20 Hz—20 kHz(Hi-Fi Audio);50 Hz—12 kHz(Normal) Signal-to-Noise Ratio: 48 dB(Dolby*NR On,Normal) • `"• Dynamic Range: 90 dB(Hi-Fi Audio) • 7 Input Level: Line In(XLR 3P) +4/0/-6 dBs,600 ohms,balanced / Mic:60 dBv,4.7 kohms,unbalanced Output Level: Line Out(XLR 3P): +4/0/-6 dBs,50 ohms,balanced Audio Monitor(RCA Phono):0 dBv,600 ohms, unbalanced AG-RM800:AV Switcher AG-M750: Headphone Jack —60dBv— 20dBv,8 ohms, Remote Controller Rack-Mount unbalanced Adaptor • TIME CODE Time Code Input(BNC): 1.0 Vp-p,10 kohms,unbalanced Time Code Output(BNC): 2.4 Vp-p,low impedance unbalanced r *00r• I ' libill, WV(SCpRe cfoifric paltiaoynbsa cakre)measured using standard studio I Specifications subject to change without notice. 7i, 18'f'- AU-ER65B: Encoder This product may be subject to export control Remote Controller regulations. U Warning: I- t7•---1 Unauthorized recording of copyrighted television A - 1A: S-Video Cable(5 m) --- programs,films,videotapes and other materials may Mg �] 7• infringe upon the rights of copyright owners and be ___i. AG-C65: Dubbing Cable(7P) AG-C70A: S-Video Cable(3 m) contrary to copyright laws. Panasonic Broadcast & Television Systems Panasonic Company Western Group,Hawaii Region Executive Office:One Panasonic Way, NJ 07094 99-859 Iwaiwa St.P 0 Box 774,Honolulu,HI 96808-0774(808)488-7779 Y Matsushita Electric of Canada Limited 5770 Ambler Drive.Mississauga,Ontario L4W 2T3(416)624-5010 Panasonic Sales Company For further information on our complete line of Broadcast and Television Division of Matsushita Electric of Puerto Rico,Inc. Systems products,please call 1-(800)-524-0864 for your nearest San Gabriel Industrial Park,65th Infantry Ave,Km.9.5, Panasonic regional sales office. Carolina,PR 00630(809)750-4300 Matsushita Electric Industrial Co.,Ltd. Audio&Video Systems Division 2-15 Matsuba-cho Kadoma,Osaka,Japan 571 Tel:06-901-1161 Fax:06-908-5969 CTAG7750-P-E VSD 7139[08211.2]60K100ALFP-2 Printed in Japan High Stability Plug-in Time Code Reliable XLR Connectors Tape Transport Generator/Reader (Option) Reliable XLR connectors are used as the The AG-7750 features a high-precision Using the AG-7750 with the optional AG-F700 audio input and output jacks of the aluminum die-cast chassis and extra-large Time Code Generator/Reader lets you AG-7750.A 3-position input level selector is impedance roller,to assure exceptionally perform LTCNITC recording and playback provided to help assure high quality sound stable tape transport with very low jitter.The to enable high-precision time code editing. during editing. result is outstanding picture quality. 4-Channel Audio •The AG-7750 permits accurate editing with VITC.In addition,two linear audio For optimum audio performance,the Advanced Editing channels can be used. AG-7750 features two hi-fi stereo audio channels with a dynamic range of 90 dB, Features as well as two linear audio channels with Dolby* NR.Each audio channel has its Other Features own input and output with separate Field Freeze at individual channel level setting capability. Ready Ott Mode Serial Interface (RS-422A) •Dolby and the double-D symbol are registered trademarks of Dolby Laboratories Licensing Corporation. When editing,the Field Freeze function The AG-7750 comes equipped with an in the still mode uses internal memory RS-422A 9-pin serial interface,the standard •Professional 7-pin dub capability to show a field freeze on screen control system for professional broadcast •Manual adjustment of video recording while putting the VCR in the Ready components.This provides an easy way to level Off condition.You can select among expand your system via connection to MII •System setup and mode display with three kinds of Ready Off operation: and other serial control systems. Superimpose (1)Drum rotates with tape loose; •Remote Local switch (2)Drum stops with tape loose;(3)Drum 34-pin Interface Connector •TBC remote stops and tape is unloaded.This • 19"Rack-Mountable design contributes to improved,greater In addition to the RS-422A 9-pin serial tape protection. interface,the AG-7750 provides a 34-pin parallel connector;in order to maintain Standard Accessories compatibility with many existing 34-pin Jog/Shuttle Dial parallel controllers.This feature permits •S-video cable(4P), 1.5 m During editing,Jog/Shuttle lets you quickly connection to an editing controller in an •TBC protection cover find exact edit points at the touch of a dial. existing S-VHS editing system,and also Use Shuttle for 32 times normal high-speed enables dubbing system control with the search to find the scene you want;then use AG-7750 as the source deck. Jog to pinpoint the desired field accurately. J - Too REMOTE BDEVICECp10.1ERNITNFARFN OF THE FCC RULER. NOON N. AG-7750-P VERATIONN N.BILT,D,NEFDLLDNNIB„RDDGIIY,IDNB *i / � ITNB DHISO AY ND]TAC ACCEPT ANT VER7EREXCE. BNN7 cif* 9 EI,NOCAU N RTANvINMATCANCE ,may R UERHOlB •O O EMTIDN. RENDE THAT NAY DAWE n SNP, EMOTE 39R �B11T1?. 17 GL.G.lC,:: r G. 4 W j ti/ -IBMt{ER -BOB *6M L 1l`JL► -' ' AUDIO IN� CN1---r„-CN2 CHI-NI-Fl-0C ' // 1 MO NONIUR NANO NOmoo (TIME LOOEI OUT OUT IN OUT • b i �� I D B T (-00O0 00.. 0 O80 .ns DU W —9I0E0-2 it DUB IN ~ OFF OUTlI WO ©A GND � . REF IN ]en -BOB ♦9dB 6j]j y ON AUDIO WTI CO B-VIDEO IN O► r - t B-ar 1 CN1-=-CN2 CNI-IR-Fi-CN2 1 �S A AG IN OFF Lt411 REOIICDON BY0 ACNREO / 4' �'O. / .I /�\ L0SYME FWM DOLE LABOOF OLBBY /;, • I /_,\ _-. /`•\' • - _ ` J DOUBLE-0 SYMBOL ARE 1RAODAARNB OF OMBY 11 `✓I -a [4) - ABORATONER LICENBINO COPNIMOON I�,NMI I FOR PROFESSIONAL USE ONLY System Applications Basic Editing System NB Roll Editing System Monitor Monitor Monitor Monitor -�`i 'r 1 Video(BNC) t Video(BNC) <PLAYER 1> <RECORDER> ♦Video(BNC) ♦Video(BNC) °o Video Video I IIMMIT o °` - —Audio Audio o� <PLAYER> <RECORDER> AG-7750 AG-7750 Video °° ate' - -lsr ,u'� � O Audio •1 0 0°,.....i° °00000 ® Remote Control AG-7650 AG-7750 0 T AG- Remote Remote <PLAYER 2> SW800 _ _ _ __ Conrol Control AV AG-IA82 x 3 °"" Video Switch- n 9P Interface Board o _.e° •, er ; °°AG-7650 Audio i 1 in P&8838 A,AA 88A 1 /Video(BNC) ®® Monitor I ' ��I I AG-RM800 1I.________ 1 AV Switcher AG-A800 -� L Remote Multi-Event AG-A770 i Controller Edit Multi-Event Editing Controller Controller Interformat (S VHS/MII) Production System Monitor Monitor ►! i N. i=i , , ■■SS ■ 1 Video(BNC) t Video(BNC) AU-65: MII Studio VCR <PLAYER 1> <RECORDER> Video Video .,•.,°o°°°° 0 Audio— Audio AG-7750 ...:::Ii31:::C d w Monitor` <PLAYER 2> AU-65 e -I Video OE,pr' ..—Tr(y�- ,�J` BNC) ..•o b° O Y— H® Remote Control " ,,/ , AG-7650 GIAG- AG-7450: Video I 11 SW800 S-VHS Dockable VCR AV ,AG-IA82 x 3 Audio Switch- ° •Compact and lightweight for x Video '9P Interface Board �' er outstanding portability u-, Audio •S VHS and amorphous video Video _ I heads Camera .; BBB -- 1 •4-channel audio �NLE � _ =11,:t a.. ®_ , WV-F250: e® ® ° i 3-CCD Color Video Camera Character AG-RM800 -' •1/2-inch FIT CCD for smearless Generator AV Switcher AG-A800 image reproduction Remote Multi-Event •High horizontal resolution of 700 Controller Edit lines Controller •Y/C separate output I Panasonic® AG-Z/ °S VHS Hi-Fi Editing Source Player Q k pA�y t C.: ! " io/®maasM — � 1( �+\2�. Fi TRACKIN( Z. NORM-AUDIO-Hi-Fi NORM-AUDIO .... �.. PR LEVEL•- rix PB LEVEL .... •• _.__-_- MENogv .U LI•U U•U J ''' - ...so- 1 -' - - ANEStOV-N00� -- S:AFLH LTL y A WY1lS SEC4Oi iWll�, r gEsfT i4E;rr: ' alb �L'Jt! OFF REV •il , t� Vitleo Cassette Player AG- ymu Pana5Of PAUSE/STILL PLAY SEARCH —TBC CONTROL--�—� O, BEADY yW SVSTEM PHASE—{ PUSH HUE VC DELAY�' aVgASS ' E. VIDE�7 CLEVELt H FINE COARSE LEVEL • • • 0 ,L.L� { .EAD sa • Ff , C E E SC REMOTE HEW STOP .4... __ !` ,,.„,.. � .._____ _, tOLAL c. LH2 N� ON 1S. LBVEL .: .„,.... ..._.. ..LAUDNDNEEDqDFFjllIllFillIll POWER SVHS The Quality Playback Choice for S-VHS Editing and Duplication Reliable High-Precision Mechanism ' ._ ,= IQ(Intelligent Quest) Mechanism .Aa. , o roar•••.al • 2011 7 �' .q � antg w r-- - 'jp0D:.0 • non 00„ 00:. , ' i ' ►'• r� =>f.4- , ®ter ' 1 ,- • _ r ? Q - ink ;t / -® - Ay i .. -~"`---•►... " ' The IQ mechanism of the AG-7650 delivers Designed as a source unit for a high-quality S-VHS editing or dubbing system, precise,high-speed operation,plus the reliability the Panasonic AG-7650 Hi-Fi Editing Source Player provides outstanding that a professional work situation demands. playback quality because of its built-in Digital TBC/DNR, high-precision The dual-loading system,with both half-loading and full loading tape transport modes,achieves IQ(Intelligent Quest) mechanism and other advanced features. the ideal of high-speed response while protecting tapes and heads from damage.The Exceptional Super-VHS and Laminated advanced tape transport mechanism uses five p direct drive motors,including two reel drive Image Reproduction Amorphous Video Heads motors,to attain high precision and response To take full advantage of the high resolution times that are significantly faster than those Built-in Digital TBC/DNR and high S/N ratio of S-VHS,the AG-7650 possible with a conventional system. With an 8-bit memory circuit,the digital TBC features laminated amorphous video heads time base corrector within the AG-7650 having higher magnetic coercivity than 32x High-Speed Search, FWDIREV eliminates even small amounts of jitter,skew, conventional ferrite heads.Improvement in color The high performance of the IQ mechanism is head impact error,and color blurring. Its reproduction is particularly noticeable Expanded further enhanced by advanced Al Capstan precise time base correction is invaluable for color signal frequency response from the Servo Control. Featuring a capstan spindle NB rdl editing,as well as for other professional laminated amorphous heads enhances picture approximately three times larger in diameter editing operations,and helps maintain high quality by minimizing color blurring. than conventional capstan spindles,the contrd picture quality through multiple tape system enables high-speed search at 32 times generations.8-bit memory field coefficient DNR Logical Comb Filter normal speed in forward and reverse...,more (digital noise reducer)processes Y and C The"logical"comb filter of the AG-7650, than three times the speed previously possible signals separately to boost S/N ratio,thereby featuring an advanced 3-line delay system, At the same time, reducing as opposed to a conventional 2-line system, it minimizes noise during enables a huge improvement in crosstalk fluctuations in playback. cancellation during playback.The result is capstan rotational 4C','^ .<`:''), significantly higher picture quality,with speed in order to reduced color and luminance blurring. suppress wow. TBC Off TBC On New Conventional - HI-Fl Autlio/ppl --•� - -l .+ ltil,147 l ' ' ' ' 0 rvo r x� v, rvo r, L4 ngc�oxG r-um�sai-0000 Panasonic v,oao-„-° ge_ME -- - _ - -_ 0:;"",�'�,:" 'L scr u rvBC CONOTROL V I' PLAY utv ►rwo Toro ngorvv. rs q5t E q 0 10°1 .0 • ®SJt i-111 CIm a ° CI0CI ... as„ - �,. • .: :. ,m�, ,01 e,: � � °� po,_ �,E,x�„___,„ 1 as b L ,---. AG—V o , , S-VHS Hi-Fi Editing Source Player High Stability Tape Transport Other Features A Wide Variety of Accessories The AG-7650 features a high-precision 34-pin Interface Connector aluminum die-cast chassis and extra-large p Standard Accessories impedance rdler,to assure exceptionally stable In addition to the RS-422A 9-pin serial S-Video Cable(4P, 1.5 m) tape transport with very low jitter.The result is interface,the AG-7650 provides a 34-pin TBC Protection Cover outstanding picture quality. parallel connector,in order to maintain compatibility with many existing 34-pin parallel Optional Accessories Advanced Editing Features controllers.This feature permits connection to an editing controller in an existing S-VHS • AG-F700: Field Freeze at ReadyOff Mode editing system,and also enables dubbing Time Code system control with the AG-7650 as the `'' "1` Generator/Reader When editing,the Field Freeze function in the source deck. still mode uses internal memory to show a field freeze on screen while putting the player in the 4-Channel AudioAINF Ready Off condition.You can select among For optimum audio performance,the AG-7650 three kinds of Ready Off operation:(1)Drum features two Hi-Fi stereo audio channels with a N rotates with tape loose;(2)Drum stops with dynamic range of 90 dB,as well as two linear AG.A770: tape loose;(3)Drum stops and tape is half audio channels with Dolby* NR. Each audio Multi-Event loaded.This design contributes to improved ..•r�' - - editing efficiency and greater tape protection. channel has its own output with separate Eding Controller , individual channel level setting capability. a .-- Jog/Shuttle Dial •Dolby and the double-D symbol are registered trademarks of �"' g Dolby Laboratories Licensing Corporation. During editing,Jog/Shuttle lets you quickly find exact edit points at the touch of a dial.Use •Reliable XLR connectors are used as the AG-A800: Shuttle for 32 times normal high-speed search audio output jacks of the AG-7650. AB to find the scene •ou want;then use Jo to •Professional 7-pin dub output Roll Y 9 M Mululti-Event pinpoint the desired field accurately. •System setup and mode display with y Superimpose Editing Controller y,,,, _ Plug-in Time Code •Remote/Local switch .420. , 4-4441 GeneratorlReader (Optional) •TBC remote " iL ' •19"rack-mountable r�. Using the AG-7650 with the optional AG-F700 '' ' "--- Time Code Generator/Reader lets you perform I Interior Switch PanelI '�� LTCNITC playback to enable high-precision - // time code editing. ® CM�r» • i//�/ AG-MX50: i --....__ l Production N°.�.», o •:• MixerDigita Serial Interface (RS-422A) �»N IMAGE �» RS»W SELECTw TIME CODE ./' The AG-7650 comes equipped with an RS-422A 9-pin serial interface,the standard AG-C71A: AG-M750: .f.:1 control system for professional broadcast S-Video Rack Mount 4. components.This provides an easy way to Cable(5 m) Adaptor expand your system via connection to MII and other serial control systems. AG-C70A:S-Video Cable(3 m) AG-C65: Dubbing Cable(7P) I. o,NIS DEVICE MAT NOT CAM INANNA.INIMBROCE VICE MUST ACCEPT WV INTENIEROCE V CAUSE RSMOTE BP vs W, ,N, TIME CODE ' __ (r.)000 — GG, 0 Q tlrli �� Ludlam! v ;-our°i c� ,z' em : PC IN / \ NOSE meoucnon SYSTEM MANUFASINAEO MIER LICENSE FR.DOLBY LABORATORIES EKONA.°MOO NGG.GN.»GN u FOR PROFESSIONAL USE ONLY I NNOEN LICENSE ROM rn°''J IlErIll System Applications Specifications •GENERAL Basic Editing System Power Source: 120 V AC,50/60 Hz Power Consumption: 85 W Monitor Monitor Operating Temperature: +41°Fto+95°F(+5°Cto+35°C) • Operating Humidity: 35%—80% 11 Weight: Approx.33.0 lbs.(15 kg) Dimensions(W x H x D): 17"x 7"x 18'/s"(430 x 176 x 460 mm) JI •SYSTEM Video(BNC) ♦Video(BNC) Television Format: EIA Standard,NTSC Color Signal;525 lines,60 fields I I Video Recording System: Two rotary heads,helical scanning system Modulation System: Luminance:FM azimuth recording <PLAYER> <RECORDER> Color signal:Converted subcarrier phase shift recording Video - r . —' Audio Track: 2 tracks(Hi-Fi Audio) - - _ : Audio - °T„' 2 tracks(Normal) o - •TAPE TRANSPORT AG-7650 AG-7750 Tape Format: S VHSNHS tape Tape Speed: 15/16 ips(33.35 mm/s) Remote Remote Recording Time: 120 min.(2 hrs.)with NV7120 Conroe Control FF/REW Time: Less than 2 min.with NVT120 ■VIDEO :ci „: Input Level: REF Video In(BNC x 2):Loop-through with 75 ohm On/Off .r switch,1.0 Vp-p,unbalanced O o "o O Output Level S-Video Out(4P):Y:1.0 Vp-p,75 ohms,unbalanced AG-A770 C:0.286 Vp-p,75 ohms,unbalanced Multi-Event Editing (Burst) Controller Line Out(BNC x 2):1.0 Vp-p,75 ohms unbalanced Dub Out(7P):Y:1.0 Vp-p,1 kohm,unbalanced C:0.9 Vp-p,1 kohm,unbalanced(Cyan) Video Monitor Out(BNC):1.0 Vp-p,unbalanced Horizontal Resolution: S-VHS:more than 400 lines(monochrome/color) NB Roll Editing System VHS:300 lines(monochrome),240 lines(color) Signal-to-Noise Ratio Monitor Monitor (VHS): 46 dB(color) I _ . I . ■AUDIO 11 Audio Frequency }Video(BNC) video(BNC) Response: 20 Hz—20 kHz(Hi-Fi Audio);50 Hz—12 kHz(Normal) Signal-to-Noise Ratio: 48 dB(Dolby`NR On;Normal) Dynamic Range: 90 dB(Hi-Fi Audio) <PLAYER 1> Video Video <RECORDER> Output Level: Line Out(XLR 3P): +4/0/-6 dBs,50 ohms,balanced —Audio Audio Audio Monitor(RCA Phono):0 dBv,600 ohms, r --- ' - unbalanced AG-7650 J 1 AG-7750 Headphone Jack: —60dBv——20dBv,8 ohms, unbalanced It ®` Remote Control ■TIME CODE "'".-L — 7--u�, Time Code Output(BNC):2.4 Vp-p,low impedance unbalanced <PLAYER 2> tl-r WJ-MX50 j a AG-IA82 x 3 ---- -' - 1 Video Digital I° I9P Interface Board Production ft Weight and dimensions shown are approximate. AG-7650 Audio Mixer Igl Specifications are subject to change without notice. 7 1 JI Warning: 11 +Video(BNC) a®�a—I r Unauthorized recording of copyrighted television rlitev rMonitor I'•VVII i programs,films,videotapes and other materials may AG-A800 infringe upon the rights of copyright owners and be M Multi-Event contrary to copyright laws. I--17-----I Controller This product may be subject to export control �- regulations. ""�� Panasonic_ Broadcast&Television Systems Company Division of Matsushita Electric Corporation of America Matsushita Electric Corporation of America Executive Office: Corporate Sales Group,Hawaii Region One Panasonic Way(3F-5),Secaucus,NJ 07094 99-859 Iwaiwa St.,Aiea,HI 96701-3267(808)488-7779 Matsushita Electric of Canada Limited Regional Offices: 5770 Ambler Drive,Mississauga,Ontario L4W 2T3(416)624-5010 EASTERN ZONE:43 Hartz Way,Secaucus,NJ 07094(201)348-7620 Panasonic Sales Company CENTRAL ZONE:1707 N.Randall Rd.,Elgin,IL 60123(708)468.5200 DIVIabn of Matsushita Electric of Puerto Rico,Inc. SOUTHERN ZONE: San Gabriel Industrial Park,65th Infantry Ave.,Km.9.5, Dallas Region:4500 Amon Carter Blvd.,Fort Worth,TX 76155(817)685-1117 Carolina,PR 00630(809)750-4300 Atlanta Region:1854 Shackleford Ct.,Suite 115,Norcross,GA 30093(404)717-6841 WESTERN ZONE: Seattle Region:1200 Westlake Ave.,North,Suite 508,Seattle,WA 98109(206)2855-8883 Los Angeles Region:6550 Katella Ave..Cypress,CA 90630(714)373-7271 Government Marketing Department:52 West Gude Drive,Rockville,MD 20850(301)738-3840 CTAG7650-P-E VSD 7140[02123.2]40K063ALFP-2 Printed in Japan • - Digital AV Mixer P ■ r , olgi__ 0 wj _ mA"50 11411111121111111111 t , • L !IL =„r D ij Ir � ....... . t 44 .. : _ . • �r l r' ' -- /*A- r Vi- } la: - . "1111111111,,t, i 0 ar/ t_ir te ri 7,$':'.'1, . .t.,,,, . - Will. \ a ........,............. .. a \..13\.33 \ itii L._ 6r2 ....._ ,. , ..,_, ii iiJ 1 • .. ii.... ti. , •- --, ...,.„.. .-... 1 , .,,„,. ... c W La 1 ' a W lit \''\:.• -11 , _ -dr \ --\.:;. Cii` _ \ x ,;,.., a. COLOR CORRECTION , / — Mir:=120111 CHROM, R u-x-N-MAW VM�yL.F EVENT NO LEVEL 1/5 /6 0 i ib GRADATION ✓a FATIERN NOBF MULTI HOOF OE SELECT 9. [-E-1 . • . i • 1 III 0 5f2 ; ! L J :� O 111 SCENE _ UT TO PAM TIME GRABBER `0 Ea.` �TIME FRAMES El 9 B FRAMES n o MEMORY SHIFT EFFECT `— s•LIAF MO(• ..- I - 1 ASPECT 512E LEVEL TINIE LEVEL KEY LEVEL P^w11 FILL ORDER OFT Av EVERSE ON (MATTE 7, r ' Lai r unGr mi x m, x I x III W ■ COMPRESSION SLIDE MULTI PAIRING BLINDS NEGA MOSAIC MONO PAINT STILL STROBE MULTI TRAIL SYNCHPO CLEBA Lai LJ Lai LJ L,j. Lai Lai La J LaiLIJ Lai LailLai . _IL—Lai Lailiiii ni O Ei m © ICI tD w [BJ FRAME ONCE REPEAT RE REVERSE EDGE L.— Lai i_.J Lai Lai ® Lai Lai L.J—L.J LIJ Lai LA., KC/ LU KEY ARROW KEY SLICE AUDIO FOLLOW •"E VIDEO OSK AUDIO OA a AUX 1 AU MASTER ---2 '---1 P•^ iiThiTi ES, R I 9 � . ( . 1�� LUw�iOx7._ — I I NAM I MATTE WHITE BLACK i. -L,J—( J TRANSITION ■ TRANSITON _ _ _ _ E' ��I 1111111�1111'�pl PGIII[ 1111lpl ili. m mite max AUTO I SOURCE I I SOU� B A SOURCE SOURCE ISO RCE I I SOURCE I I MATT I � � 1 Li 1 TAKE AUTO FADE I� BOUT - "I `B 11111I:OAII,�I111.I�ulllll�l1lll�1111l11111 III rJ � Digital AV Mixer WJ-MXCJU Digital AV Mixer 11/1X50 ____ I , ,—. I ... Ir- SOURCE 1 SOURCE 2 T CONTROL SOURCE 3 SOURCE 4 NC RADV CAR A IN 1 ROORAM OUT PREVIEW Y� I I I I I I I I I �'3 V/C Y/C Y/C I Y/C I I V/C �.a V/C wI Y/C WRM. OUT ROE - - ow. RDNT �( ) � ( ) SOURMBB.. )_ �C ' (*:" '1) ( 0 �?t .:\;?> 11 I I I I I I I I'I II I %%COMP. COMP. -5G0 CCOO�OUP-- (CCRUPMP.L•L \l('��1�/�,�w 2 CCl ' CC.4.1 COIIP RMu RtlfiC 1 I I I I 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 I.I • OFF OFF 101.' {0} -51.3 \ • \S. Ffwf.4 ,:: 1 LiiI 11.1 LI.6MLI.- ".// ��TT// mRRMi COMMON AUDIO AUDIO AUX AUDIO IN NACHO L AUOID R® _ L AUDIO R ,:• ,--\' ,—, A- h, A ..L.,_ _ mn- �f AMOR f ® POWERt',I I I I I II I;h IMAIN w. ♦ O ^.: :;:VS \Sr' R 0 ON • 024 a- ,..__-.-!-r-- r enegiT . - ;e;":". ' '1 al -PleftetILImarvel • Trail Quadrant Multi(A bus)+Wipe Multi Wipe ( • Positioner) EM::i.2E ( t16- 2C:arxsrs r: it.4' ti a ,-..4, f ..d+LIIIIIratierA Compression (A bus&B bus) Slide(IN&OUT)+Wipe(f I) Picture in Picture +Wipe ( I) (compression+Wipe • ) r i • , -Panasonil s a ,t, .,. Spot Light (Fade+Wipe • ) Chroma Key Down Stream Key 8 Preset Effects :r; , ::::‘,. �/ \�/ i....... i ,... 4 , 4 4 Aff r* if; 1. Mosaic Mix 2. Position Stream 3. Cork Screw 4. Bounce -----36 • . A ,t,.joil ,,,,,,„0,i ,- . . %._ 4 .,/, 5. Flip 6. Shutter 7. Vibrate 8. Satellite R�+-232 CONNECTION EXTERNAL WIPE PATTERN CONTROL � WIPE •Wipe patterns can be programmed by using PATTERN No. 1- 1 007 • 014 11 021 the standard wipe numbers 001 through 026 and n 001 pi 008 • 015 r 022 combining them with other modes like--zoom,scroll, mute, blinds, paring, and multi & paring. ❑ 11 002 I ] i 009 n 016 71 023 RS-422 CONNECTION n 003 A 010 Li 017 n 024 •No. 001-099 wipe pattern can be accessed from n 004 +1 011 ❑ 018 r l 025 AG-A800 optional Multievent Edit Controller. Maximum accessible pattern number via RS-422 is I I 005 ■ 012 n 019 026 255. An additional 32 wipe patterns can be operated manually on the WJ-MX50. ❑ • 013 020 SYSTEM CONNECTION DIMENSIONAL DRAWINGS Preview Monitor Preview Monitor Program Monitor 18-7/8"(480) .I E0 0 = 00000 'T O ME;) 0 00 0 0 0 0 ❑0 pg 0 °I i®i =I I®I BNC/YC—u of i®I000 1Q I VCR1 (Player 1) VCR2(Playero0000 I Oo0o0o 00 � 0 o I ( y 2) VCR(Recorder) 4 �O OOOOOOO OOO O Ofl MO to is' pp 004 EditingController pyo ; 9P� I o0 0-0 I 0 —000 „4 9P •• 000 """ e•• •• ■ • • •■il oreieierevllll " T MIMI ' " 4 ism ereieierev.ltt 0 0 ADV REF BNC/YC 9P XLR/RCA B.B BNC/YC XLR/RCA I I BNC/YC XLR/RCA ADV/REF 15P I os gk l er°1 o�ooi111 t o o ��I I Video Line Je ® •,,,,,,,,, Audio Line m ° Control Line Sync Line its L..---....I [o] External Camera 8s::®a m 8.p_ g• Digital AV Mixer ■•••••■ ■••• BNC/YC--a 11,0 IIaa ..... Character Generator � CD Player O° ° 02°° WJ-KB50 o II®e y OD.. 1141 U'°o �•• m- Microphone ' Qf I{ o F—RCA °° 000°° m...... ' r;r RCA—.11 C,iiiii �v��i�� • - • y I) ,j Stereo Cassette Player f "Ilia ° • - - — Headphone Unit: Inches (mm) SPECIFICATIONS Source Input: x4(SOURCE 1/2/3/4) Advance Sync Output: 4 Vp-p/75 ohms,BNCx2 Composite Video Input: 1.0 Vp-p/75 Ohms,NTSC signal,BNC x 4 Advance Reference Output: Sync 0.286 Vp-p/75 ohms,Burst 0.286 Vp-p/75 ohms, S-Video Input Y signal;1.0 Vp-p/75 Ohms,C signal;0.286 Vp-p/75 Ohms, BNC x2 Mini DIN 4 connectorx4 Headphone Output: —20 dBv——80 dBv,8 ohms unbalanced, Audio Input: SOURCE 1/2;XLR-typex2, +4 dBm/600 ohms tip-ring-sleeve type phone jackx 1. (Balanced),Left and Right. Digital Effects: Nega,Mosaic,Mono,Paint,Still,Strobe,Multi,Trail, SOURCE 314;Pin-jackx2, —6 dBs/20K ohms A/V Synchro,Frame (Unbalanced),Left and Right. Matte Colors: Color Bar,White,Yellow,Cyan,Green,Magenta, Auxiliary Audio input: x2(Aux 1/2) —6dBs/20K ohms,Pin-jack(Unbalanced), Red,Blue,Black. Left and Right Wipe Patterns: 287 Patterns Microphone Input: —60 dBv/600 ohms,unbalanced,tip-ring-sleeve type Joystick Control: Positioner,Color Correction. phone jackx 1 Audio Mixer: A-bus,B-bus,AUX-1,AUX-2,Mic,Master. External camera Input: 1.0 Vp-p/75 ohms,NTSC composite signal,BNCx 1 Others: Audio-Follow,Auto-Take,Auto-Fade,Memory, Y signal;1.0 Vp-p/75 ohms,C signal;0.286 Vp-p/75 ohms, Special Mode. Mini DIN 4 connector l Frequency Range: Sync;15,734 KHz±300 Hz SC;3.579545 MHz±40 Hz GPI Input: Make-contact,BNCx 1 Frequency Responce: Y/C signal;4.5 MHz(at —3 dB) Character(TITLE)Input: 10-pin connectorx 1 for optional Character Generator Audio;20-20 KHz(at —3 dB) WJ-KB15,WJ-KB50. Gain: Unity(Video) Program Output: x2(PROGRAM OUT 1/2) SIN(Typical): 56dB(S-Video),50 dB(Composite),70 dB(Audio at 1 KHz) Composite Video Output:1.0 Vp-p/75 ohms NTSC signal,BNCx2 Differential Gain: ±5°(Composite) S-Video Output: Y signal;1.0 Vp-p/75 ohms,C signal:0.286 Vp-p/75 ohms, Differential Phase: t5%(Composite) Mini DIN 4 connectorx2 Power Source: 120 VAC 60 Hz Audio Output: PROGRAM OUT 1;XLR-typex 1, +4dBs/47 ohms Power Consumption: Operation mode;Approximately 45W (Balanced),Left and Right. Stand-by mode;Approximately 5W PROGRAM OUT 2:Pin-jackx 1, —6dBs/47 ohms Ambient Operating Temperature:32-104°F(0-40°C) (Unbalanced),Left and Right. Ambient Operating Humidity: Less than 90% Preview Output: 1.0 Vp-p/75 ohms,NTSC composite signal,BNCx 1. Dimensions: 18-7/8"(W)x 6-7/16"(H)x 14-1/2"(D) Black Burst Output: Sync 0.286 Vp-p/75 ohms,Burst 0.286 Vp-p/75 ohms [480(W)x 164(H)x 396(D)mm] NTSC signal,BNCx 1. Weight: 15 lbs(6.8 Kg) Optional accessories •Character Generator Weight and dimensions indicated above are approximate. WJ-KB15,WJ-KB50 Specifications are subject to change without notice. This product might be subject to export control regulations. DISTRIBUTED BY: VSD-7610[05203.2](30K) Panasonic Broadcast&Television Systems Company Division of Matsushita Electric Corporation of America Executive Office: One Panasonic Way(3F-5),Secaucus,NJ 07094 Panasonic Company Western Group,Hawaii Region 99-859 Iwaiwa St.,P.O.Box 774,Honolulu,HI 96808-0774(808)488-7779 Regional Offices: Matsushita Electric of Canada Limited EASTERN ZONE:43 Hartz Way,Secaucus,NJ 07094(201)348-7620 5770 Ambler Drive,Mississauga,Ontario,Canada L4W 2T3(416)624-5010 CENTRAL ZONE:1707 N.Randall Rd.,Elgin,IL 60123(708)468-5200 Panasonic Sales Company SOUTHERN ZONE: Division of Matsushita Electric of Puerto Rico,Inc. Dallas Region:4500 Amon Carter Blvd.,Fort Worth,TX 76155(817)685-1117 Atlanta Region:1854 Shackleford Ct.,Suite 115,Norcross,GA 30093(404)717-6841 SanC Gabriel.Industrial0063Park,65th Infantry Ave.KM.9.5 WESTERN ZONE: Matsushitaa ,P.R.Communication809)760-4300 ion Seattle Region:1200 Westlake Ave.,North,Suite 508,Seattle,WA 98109(206)285-8883 -ku,YokohamaIndusar22ial .Japan Ltd.Audio-Video Systems 45-9Divi34-9 600 Saedo-cho,Midori-ku, 226, Tel:045-939-1843 Fax 045-9349802 Los Angeles Region:6550 Katella Ave.,Cypress,CA 90630(714)373-7271 Printed in Japan Government Marketing Department:52 West Gude Drive,Rockville,MD 20850(301)738-3840 [P-304A) 287 WIPE PATTERNS . . . A WIDE VARIETY OF SPECIAL EFFECTS Digital Special Effects •When Luminance Key is selected, low- •Strobe: field strobe for clear still luminance portions of the picture are cut off pictures. (switchable to frame strobe) and mixed with the A-bus video: Slice control with adjustable interval time. can be used to adjust luminance key level. •Still: field freeze for clear still pictures. •When Chroma key is selected it is possible (switchable to frame freeze) to address the colors in the B bus video to be •Frame: Field still or field strobe can be cut off and mixed with the A-bus video: Slice switched to frame still/strobe to increase control can be used to adjust Chroma key level vertical resolution. and Hue control can be used to select the •Mosaic: mosaic size adjustable color to be cut off. •Negative: negative/positive reversal •Automatic A/B Roll (Auto Take): transition •Paint (posterization): level adjustable rate adjustable •Mono: B/W monochrome picture •Audio Follow: audio mix can be synchronized •Multi: 1/4, 1/9 or 1/16 screen still pictures to A/B rolling. appear serially in stroboscopic fashion and fill the entire screen. Fade-in/Fade-out ONCE switch terminates sequence when a •Video/Title/Audio can be individually or screen is entirely filled with picture segments. synchronously faded. REPEAT switch allows infinite sequence loop- •Fade to/from White/Black/Matte/A bus/B bus ing. •Automatic fade run (Auto Fade) with transition O 0 011111111112 adjustment O 0 0 -----♦ END®MIND ENDLESS Down Stream Key •Selectable sources: Character Generator •Trail: 2 trail directions with adjustable interval A bus, B bus, Ext. Camera time. •Key level control adjusts pattern sensing level •AV Synchro: Any combination of 6 of the •Reverse switch permits interchanging patterns digital visual effects can be programmed to high and low luminance portions. trigger with selected levels of the accompanying •Selectable 8 Colors matte Generator to the audio. Trigger sensitivity level & effect duration DSK (Down Stream Key) patterns or titles are adjustable as well. •Edge Effects: shadowing (2 levels)/drop shadow/edge effects (2 levels) 287 Wipe Patterns •Connection with optional WJ-KB50, WJ-KB15 The combination of 7 basic patterns and character generators other effects can create 287 wipe patterns. Character Generator WJ-KB50 Wipe patterns can be externally selected by inputing a wipe pattern number at the editing •Character size: 4 levels (Horizontal)x control device. 4 levels (vertical), adjustment on an individual Basic wipe patterns: line is available. •5-language modes: English, German, French, D4 D -i) a-•1 1 t 113 Spanish,Italian. �►J •Scrolling: up/down/to right/to left •Multi Wipe: x 3/x 6/x 9/x 36 multiplication of (*Crawl mode (single-line scrolling): upper/lower, fr an identical pattern. right to left (*Paring: Symmetrical overlap of identical wipe (*CharacterCm haracter style(FONT): Gothic/Roman normal/ Roman Italic patterns. Shades appear on the unoverlapped •Wipe/Window J areas. wipe functions f _ •Wipe Edge Decoration (BLINDS): •Date/Time/ o_, i f f f i •Compression: The entire source image is Stopwatch �'� i a-7� compressed inside a wipe pattern. p r c •Slide: Moves A/B bus outputs horizontally or functions c0000_;�/t vertically. Sliding from A to B, or B to A. W,1-KB50 •H/V Aspect: A wipe pattern transforms in symmetrical extensions on a movable axis ie: a utomatic Programmable circle changes into an ellipse, or a square Automatic a rectangle. •Wipe Boundary Effects: Soft/Border (bold, 8 The WJ-MX50 incorporates eight separate Back Color available.) memories that enable virtually instant recall of •Joystick Positioner: Allows moving wipe frequently used effects. Serial switching of location. Scene Grabber makes it possible to Events 1-8 using Auto Take or GPI trigger. move a pattern, upholding the initially trimmed- Effect run transition control is available. in pictures integrity. •Wipe Direction: One way scrolling/Reverse/ Correction Normal Reverse selectable Color Adjustment of color in images shot WWipe/Mix Section from any input source, per A/B program bus. Non Additive Mix (NAM): Selects Mixing Capability between A and B sources, passing only the Audio A bus/B bus/Aux 1/Aux 2 or Mic/Master signal with the highest luminance value. (rec out) 5 audio level adjustments. Visible •B-bus Luminance Key/Line Chroma Key: audio level meter is available. B-bus video signal can be processed for more flexible wipe/mix effects. • PROFESSIONAL FEATURES • EXTERNAL CONTROL CAPABILITY • 287 WIPE PATTERNS • PROGRAMMABLE EFFECTS MEMORIES Two-channel digital frame synchronization permits special effects in each of the A/B program busses. Four sources can be switched, and, any two of them routed to the program busses. The A/B program busses can be monitored at the A/B program outputs while the mixed picture is monitored at the Preview Output. The master recording output can be selected at the EFFECT switch in the PROGRAM OUT section. There is an external Editing Controller EXTERNALLY ACCESSIBLE FUNCTIONS Input for RS232C or RS-422 serial controls. VIA RS-232C Also, a GPI • This d r t t is f input means the •COLOR COECT pCOLOR CORRRR ECTOROR GAIN •WIPE•WIPE ASPECBORDER T WJ-MX50 is compatible with a wide variety •DIGITAL EFFECT •MIX WIPE EFFECT •DIGITAL EFFECT MULTI •MIX AUDIO LINK of video editing devices for complementary •BACK COLOR •MIX AUTO TAKE video editingsystems. •BACKCOLOR GRAD •MIX MANUAL y •BACKCOLOR MANUAL •PICTURE IN PICTURE •REC OUT •POSITIONER •SUPERIMPOSE •POSITIONER LOCK •SUPERIMPOSE TITLE •PROGRAM •SUPERIMPOSE DATA •ALL STOP •FADE •POWER OFF •FADE AUTO(AUTO FADE) 'QUESTION LAMP STATUS •FADE MANUAL •QUESTION ID CODE •CROSSPOINT •FADE •WIPE PATTERN •FADE AUTO(AUTO FADE) t •WIPE DIRECTION 4110A" tit V.y A :1%10, � _ �� i/ w _ • �1 I VV F11 AG- MR . _. r v Multi-Event Edit Controller , ResponseEasy-to-Use uick Multi-Event Edit Controller /......,,,„,, ____________ M4 _ ..rio _ ;:_,..„.. ____ gli -----.......,„„„....„ G' „- ?. .a0,-,-----.,_,.,,,..,;_ ,f1,111100411111.r - �e _. :`q E \'\ ___!..„.41........„11(40 _ 4%. cl Vr.° * .4, . • ..4-....:::4,,,,,,,e...,46--iii,' •',..',,,,,, 41ip ,..^.:4-' ,,,,,z, "440 Acp. itiri , ...... 14440 .... -- ,4z, .. . _ . ... . ,. . . ,.. , . , , ,..,.. ,:,,. ..:._. , :.: Ira S .da •. 1v des L 'iJ F `b _... ,. a ,. r _. ....):..i .n. 4'---- . 10+ '• ---'-.`"--- -----goL . W ,, '6 . . '..,416111' '1 -— t • f , W - \viii<ipir • - �' - Ar The Compact, Easy-to-Use AG-A770 Is the Ideal Edit Controller for Sports, Business or Educational Use. The Panasonic AG-A770 Multi-Event Edit Controller makes high-quality editing simple to achieve. Its wide range of advanced functions includes the convenience of multi-event time code editing, as well as the versatility of both 9-pin serial(standard)and 34-pin parallel(optional) interface capability.And, because it is designed for easy operation, great editing results can be achieved right away... without the need for extensive training and practice. Standard Accessories Specifications ■GENERAL "Rack Mount Adaptors x 2 Power Source: 120 V AC,50/60 Hz DINT RECORDER 19 Keyboard/Front p ( ) Power Consumption: 22 W(with 2 interface boards inserted) Paiwwwwda CO ^^ ^3p^'CO ""° ""° `" Operating Temperature: +41°F to+104°F(+5°C to+40°C) 'r _ 0 Counter Display for Player 15P-15P Cable(16.4 ft.) Operating Humidity: 35%—80% :Nee Coma. '°�"'".. "� 5' ®Event Number Display Weight: IF Unit 14.1 Ibs(6.4 kg) Control Panel:5.1 Ibs(2.3 kg) ®Counter Display for Recorder Dimensions(W x H x D): IF Unit:16"he"x 313/16"x 1113/16"(424 x 96 x 300 mm) IIIINESIMIZIL. RECORDER Control Panel:1611he"x 215he"x 1013/16"(424 x 75 x 275 mm) �7 ®Player Control Keys Optional Accessories ■EDITING SYSTEM ini I . hrlr ` ., ., I ®Mark-In/Out Keys Memory Capacity: 128 events ® ® ©Search Indicator Player Controls: PLAY,STOP,REW,FF,JOG,SHTL,EJECT 34-Pin Parallel Remote Interface Recorder Controls: PLAY,STOP,REW,FF,JOG,SHTL,EJECT REC """ °' ( Li "+ PLAY A ®Jog/Shuttle Dial Board with Built-in TCGfICR,AG-IA81 Editing Controls: EDIT START ALL STOP/EDIT STOP,PREVIEW,REVIEW, B Edit Mode Selector _ TOTAL,IN,OUT,GO TO,RESET,EVENT,TRIM +,TRIM- *Po°* �,- ..� Editing Modes: ASSEM(Assemble),INS(Insert)V/A1/A2,AUDIO SPLIT i �A ®Edit Point Entry/Confirmation Keys * ^e O O , -- Edit Reference Signal: CTL(control signal),TC(SMPTE time code) "`D ""�� a 9 10 Edit Control Keys �:;� Preroll Time: 5 sec.("7 sec.with AG-7500A) WIT ■COUNTER DISPLAY 0 Preview/Review Keys Event Display: Event No.Indication _ �O �" m — 12 Recorder Control Keys Displays for 9-Pin Serial Remote Cables, Recorder/Player: Edit point:Max. ±9 hr.59 min.59 sec.29 fr. 13 Mark In/Out Keys AU-05(5 m)IAU-C10(10 m)IAU-C30(30 m) (using control sjgnahl Edit point:Max.23 hr.59 min.59 sec.29 fr.(using time code) 1a Searchi Indicator •CONNECTORS 10 15 Jog/Shuttle Dial IF Unit 1 REF Video In/Out: BNC x 2,loop-through with 75 ohms ' To Keyboard: 15P x 1 AUX Control: 15P x 1;relay contact x 3(Operating voltage 24 V—1 V DC, Operating current 100 mA—1 mA) Keyboard/Rear Control Panel 7,1 f*rl To IF Unit: 15P x 1 ®Buyer Volume Connectable VCRs: One recorder and one player as ® _. 2 DI Switch AU-65,AU-63,AU-665 Q P AG-7750,AG-7650,AG-7500A,AG-7510 ®To-WE-Unit Terminal(15-pin) (Optional interface board AG-IAB1 required for AG-7500A, AG-7510) ■Dimensions:inches(mm) Main Unit Control Unit IIF Unit/Front i I 1 I Panasonic DI QL �i Power Switch/Indicator „» O ®,,. °°CO -1013hs II edit„.controller"13-0K 1 _.1611h6 _-. 7 0=Oo po--� _(2Y� _ I (424) 3i3he ``'� 2f5hs f_ ( _ 1 _T(76) .d" OF Unit/Rear MIDIS .� 1,IX ELM IX > if M.nt. � 6 ow ®Recorder Slot me -- 0o ®Recorder Out(BNC/S-Video) _ ._. n--- n-- ---- — .r..� ®AUX In(BNC/S-Video) Quo - - ®Player In(BNC/S-Video) ®Player Slot Warning: ©AUX Control Terminal(15-pin) Unauthorized recording of copyrighted television programs,films,videotapes and other materials may infringe upon the rights of copyright owners and be contrary to copyright laws. Q To Keyboard Terminal(15-pin) Weight and dimensions shown are approximate ®REF Video In/Out(BNC) Specifications are subject to change without notice ®75 U On/Off Switch This product may be subject to export control regulations. l■ Panasonic Broadcast & Television Systems - —A Company Western Group,Hawaii Region 99-859!wawa St..P O.Box 774,Honolulu,HI 96808-0774(808)488-7779 G... I VV Executive Office:One Panasonic Way,Secaucus,NJ 07094 Matsushita Electric of Canada Limited 5770 Ambler Drive,Mississauga,Ontario L4W 213(416)624-5010 Panasonic Sales Company For further information on our complete line of Broadcast and Television Division of Matsushita Electric of Puerto Rico Inc. Systems products,please call 1-(800)-524-0864 for your nearest San Gabriel Industrial Park,65th Infantry Ave.,Km.9.5, e�� Panasonic regional sales office. Carolina,PR 00630(809)750 4300 Matsushita Electric industrial Co.,Ltd- Multi-Event Edit Controller Audio&Video Systems Division 2-15MatsubachoKadoma,Osaka,Japan 571 Tel:06-901-1161 Fax:06-908-5969 CTAGA770-P-E V507158[03191.1]60K041ALFP-1 Printed in Japan Wide Range of Outstanding Features System Applications The multiple functions,easy operation and superb performance of the AG-A770 make it the ideal controller for an extremely wide variety of editing applications Advanced Design Auto Tag and Event Basic S-VHS Editing Systems for Easy Control and Increment Functions Basic editing to S-VHS tape using the AG-A770 is PLAYER RECORDER Smooth Editing Results (Multi-Event Mode) simple even for novices.The high picture quality _ o o�(1-7 �?I Audio Video �noh, Provided by tape makes the AG A770 an — I o •eT Q Iwo— , a 0000 o .:. , f The design of the AG-A770 lets you enter The Auto Tag function of the AG-A770 ideal choice for inclusion in systems used to pointspushediting simple.Entering produce training videos or educational/reference — ---A - AG 775o AG-7750 edit at the of a button.To makes assemble Remote Remote make operation as simple as possible, Mark In/Out editpoints insequence for s__-__ Control Control Pe P Po materials for hospitals,schools and other there are separate Jog/Shuttle dials and the player side enables recording at the institutions.By replacing an existing single-event - (9-pin) (9-pin) Mark In/Out buttons for the player side specified Stop and Start points without the edit controller with the AG-A770,you can easily E E a and the recorder side.The AG-A770 also need to enter Mark In/Out edit points on configure a multi-event editing system. .. features an easy-to-read adjustable the recorder side.When you delete any , display that can be set at the most event,the AG-A770 will automatically ' y =" comfortable angle for viewing by each update the event sequence r' individual operator. P 1 AUX Input AG-A770 Upto 128 Multi-Event The AG-A770 is Multi Event Editing Controller equipped with a video Editing Using Time Code switcher that can be activated by the AUX The AG-A770 is designed to provide switch. By connecting components such Extended S-VHS Editing Systems PLAYER RECORDER as an optional character generator Audio 1. handy multi-event editing control.When (�/W CG1)or a video camera to the The AG-A770 is compatible with a variety of ! -_' Video a.. ..0 editingusingSMPTE time code(or CTL, JII1 T a •••{�-01 ) conventional and advanced editingVCRs and I �e� Capstan Override �� i°'° it is possible to store as manyas 128 terminal on the interface unit's rear panel, . you can insert titles during editing.This players.Its standard 9-pin serial interface board = ��') AG-7 51 u J _ - _ AG-7500A single-cut editing events in memory for makes it easy to confirm your results on enables connection with the Panasonic AG-7750 Remote Remote v*, automatic editing. the monitor while continuing with your and AG 7650 S VHS Hi Fi Editing VCR and 'q; Control Control editingoperations. Source Player(respectively).The optional 34-pin G (34-pin) (34-pin) Pe Versatile Interfacing parallel interface board(AG-IA81)enables I o AG-IA81 x 2 operation with the Panasonic AG-7500A S-VHS "' Capability: Standard 9-Pin AUX Control Capability (G.PI.) Hi-Fi Editing Recorder and AG-7510 S-VHS and Optional 34-Pin Control of Stop/Start operations on Source Player.And because the AG-A770 can "" - Am be incorporated into existingediting peripheral components connected to the Po systems,it The AG-A770 can be used with its AUX control terminal—such as an audio becomes a very convenient and cost-effective _. j, standard 9-pin serial interface board tool for businesses such as video i and/or an optional 34-pin parallel interface tape recorder—is also possible.This ona P p enables centralized control of total-system production/post-production companies AG-A770 board(AG-IA81),to enable outstanding operation. of all sizes. Multi Event Editing Controller versatility in professional applications. Multiple interfacing capability enables expansion of a basic system to include Capstan Override PLAYER RECORDER S-VHS or MII editing capability—or even When used in an editing system that MU and MIIIS-VHS Audio ; ' ' configuration for MII/S-VHS editing, o fi,on000 video ne ura!� includes Panasonic VCRs and players - •- % Ltl• • - equipped with capstan override capability, Interfomtat Editing Systems 7 P °°°° - 1 the AG-A770 can control the capstan Versatilityis essential for high-end applications .- - AG-7�5o Remote Remote ' g PP } ' Control Control AU 65 motor speed of a player,and synchronize such as broadcast production.The standard ®�• -' a I f = ' .; I it to the speed of a recorder,to help 9-pin remote control interface(RS-422A)lets you f (9-pin) (9-pin) editingequipment AU-62,AU-63,AU-65, I P III mo o�o � i � ensure high-editing precision. AU configure cans also usended �the Ating system A770 in an ry •I A� ; i _°l Video 1. ,t �; Additional Features integrated system that combines both MII and . 4 �,' t_ e°. •Convenient Mark In/Out buttons simplify S VHS format editing. Camera a setting of Edit In/Out points during IF±� playback " �f Audio Split Editing •The control panel and interface unit are ' ,� �I. ii separate,and the interface unit can be II,,f IDr When performing insert editing,it's rack-mounted in a standard 19"EIA rack —1 In ! =�I,�r' possible to enter audio and video edit •First editing function lets you use a new AG-A770 points separately.During insert editing, tape immediately as a master tape in Character Generator Multi-Event Editin Controller the audio and video signals can be edited editing g with independently controlled timing. 9-INCH COLOR VIDEO j c. MONITOR PROFESSIONAL \PRODUCTS/ A super-compact, high-quality monitor with a strong emphasis on basics I ,I .�f JVC TM. POWER _ -__ 9N COLOR VIDEO MONITOR Always a Step Ahead . . . to Keep You a Step Ahead. quality Su erb icturefrom a video p p monitor with space-savingdesign The TM-9U from JVC is a high-quality color video monitor that uses an 9-inch FS CRT with a horizontal resolution of more than 250 lines, for pictures with brilliance and detail. Its extremely compact size and metal cabinet make it suitable for a wide range of monitoring applications such as broadcast stations or surveillance systems. The TM-9U is the largest video monitor that can be dual-mounted in a single standard EIA rack. FEATURESs .,; SPECIFICATIONS _. iii • 9-Inch CRT with a dot pitch of 0.47 mm,together with Type: Color video monitor advanced circuitry,achieves a horizontal resolution of more Color system: NTSC standard than 250 lines. Power requirement: 120 V AC,60 Hz • Input/output terminals include: Power consumption: Max.48 W,Avg. 36 W Composite video input(BNC)x 1, bridged output provided CRT:9"(diagonally measured), Full-Square Audio input(RCA)x 1, bridged output provided Effective screen size(HxV):6-13/16"x 5-3/8" (17.3 x 13.6 cm) • Superior space-saving design:Two TM-9U units can be Audio output: 1 W mounted in a standard EIA rack. Speaker:3-3/16"(8 cm) round x 1 • Metal cabinet minimizes interference. Video input terminal BNC connector; 1.0 Vp-p, 75 ohms; • 8-cm round speaker with an output of 1 W. bridged connection possible;termination switch provided Audio input terminal: RCA connector; 390 mV rms(-6 dBs), high impedance;bridged connection possible, termination switch provided Weight: 14.6 lbs(9.9 kg) • DIMENSIONS Unit:inch(mm) w 8-13/16(223) I 1 j I. 13-9/16(343) 0 00 .roe / 4_."10 N 0 ?7_ 0 4 JYC u) I �� _ _�� 9 �© © -, CRT size:6-13/16(H)x 5-3/8(V)(173 x 136) Front Rear CM31720-001 SUB SUB SUB SUB TINT COLOR BRIGHT CONTRAST • VIDEO AUDIO IN OUT T IN i4', 0 . O VOLUME V.HOLD TINT COLOR BRIGHT CONTRAST "" Design and specifications subject to change without notice. 8 DISTRIBUTED BY 161 JVC PROFESSIONAL PRODUCTS COMPANY DIVISION OF US JVC CORP. 41 Slater Drive,Elmwood Park,N.J.07407 JVC CANADA INC. 21 Finchdene Square,Scarborough Ontario MIX 1A7 Printed in Japan CCN-2359 c_da] a4ww Panasonic. o 13" DIAGONAL COLOR New Easicon'M On-screen menu VIDEO MONITOR/RECEIVER Selectable: Line 1, 2, 3/S-Video/RF Wireless infrared remote control 420-line horizontal resolution 181-channel cable compatible tuner Programmable Channel Scan On-screen display for adjustment of sharpness, brightness, color, tint, . channel selection Auto Power on/off 1 - Built-in Closed Caption Decoder ! I tX s 1, . H1 iii PICTURE INPUT o_ P.n..«ia GAME CHANNEL HBO GUARD CAPTION SP PBC I 00 ill0 TIMER SET-UP 9# •"'.• ....._ Panasonic CONTROL PANEL LOCK MENU OPTIONS The Control Panel can be locked to prevent authorized I' PICTURE altering of settings.This feature is ideal for presentation This allows the operator to make picture adjustments such as Color, or education situations. Tint, Brightness, etc.A normalize function resets all the controls to POWER AUTO ON factory presets. When the AC cord is plugged in the monitor/receiver °H INPUT powers-up automatically.This is ideal for presentation Instead of fumbling for separate buttons on the remote the inputs are or kiosk applications. available through the icon menu. EASICON- MENU SYSTEM e GAME GUARD'' Game Guard- locks out channel 3,4 and all video inputs for 12, 24, A wide variety of controls are available through the or 48 hours.This prevents the presentation monitor/receivers from Easicon' menu system.With the Easicon'" remote being misused while unattended. adjustments are easily made. HBO EX CHANNEL CAPTIONING EASICON- REMOTE This allows a 4 alphanumeric character to be assigned to 30 channels. With this remote control and Easicon'" menu operations 0 TIMERS are simplified.With many of the controls in the menu The time can be set to automatically turn the monitor/receiver on or off. there are fewer buttons to confuse operator.The unique "control circle"serves as channel and volume controls ' 1 SET UP and adjustment control when used with the action key. This allows the operator to set other features of the monitor/receiver. CT-1384VY 13" Diagonal Color Video Monitor/Receiver Remote Functions 1 Power Button 2 VOL(Volume)Buttons Example of Sub-Menu 3 CH(Channel)Buttons 4 TVNideo Button(On Receiver) 5 Action Button 6 Recall Button I PICTURE 7 Mute Button 8 R-Tune(Rapid Tune)Button 9 Skip Button 10 Keyboard"0 through 9"Buttons COLOR IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII 11 Earphone Jack(13"Model only) ) TINT I BRIGHTNESS PICTURE IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII ® SHARPNESS IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII 0 8 • / A \ a s O O O 13"Control Panel 0 0 6 6 6 )0/ 410 .0 O O O V v• �o a W n l �• ci» l 0 0 © Terminals on Beck of Receiver Specifications Power Source: 120V AC,60Hz Audio/Video Terminals: Power Consumption: Approx 55W Line 1,2,3 In/Out: Video Input:1.0Vp-p,75 ohms or AC Cord: 3-pronged HIGH impedance(Auto), BNC Audio Input:0.5Vrms, 10 kohms Dimensions 131/2"x 13%"x 145/e" or more, Phono (W x H x D): (343 x 346 x 371.5 mm) Video Through-Out,Automatic Weight: 22 lbs. (9.97 kg) Termination Opener, BNC Audio Through-Out, Phono Picture Tube: 13"diagonal,90°deflection S-Video In/Out: Y Signal:1Vp-p Horizontal Resolution: 420 lines C Signal:0.285Vp-p,75 ohms, Picture Linearity Mini-DIN 4-Pin Vertical: ±5% Speaker Size: 2.5"(x1) Horizontal: ±7% Headphone Jack: 1/8"Mini-plug type Internal Audio Standard Accessory: Infrared Wireless Remote Control Amplifier: 1.5W(at 10%Distortion) Antenna Terminal Impedance: UHF Input:300 ohms, balanced VHF Input:75 ohms,coaxial type Weights and dimensions shown are approximate. Specifications subject to change without notice. This product may be subject to export control regulations. Panasonic Broadcast&Television Systems Company Division of Matsushita Electric Corporation of America Executive Office: One Panasonic Way(3F-5),Secaucus,NJ 07094 Regional Offices: EASTERN ZONE:43 Hartz Way,Secaucus,NJ 07094(201)348-7620 WESTERN ZONE: CENTRAL ZONE:1707 N.Randall Rd.,Elgin,IL 60123(708)468-5200 Seattle Region:1200 Westlake Ave.,North,Suite 508,Seattle,WA 98109(206)285-8883 SOUTHERN ZONE: Los Angeles Region:6550 Katella Ave.,Cypress,CA 90630(714)373-7271 Dallas Region:4500 Amon Carter Blvd.,Fort Worth,TX 76155(817)685-1117 Atlanta Region:1854 Shackleford Ct.,Suite 115,Norcross,GA 30093(404)717-6841 Government Marketing Department:52 West Gude Drive,Rockville,MD 20850(301)738-3840 VSD 7340C[09233.1] (20 K) Pii T/1/33 Ami- i�'� .:,'.'+:2•7 7:aF ..2-- M '° ^vim M ri .. .. Y _ . Ili lit ,z G 1 tii Iiiftit .,:-A--k ri. ., -•,-•'.1,4t_v_ ,,, c , -- - .11,,s. -'-• t, /.....; --• ,:i. ,-.1111-4,,,,p-IT'., I f.:-:-,.. 4,t,p,: -: 04. iiii: . qRt g,veYF.-. --:= '." a. :11 e,/ MS1202"DUMBO EAR" ,�. RACK BRACKETS 11 The MicroSeries - `�� r • 1202 delivers the below :,-------.7 ! -F 1� , same high performance elec- - 0.0090/0 tronics and rugged all-steel across the MS1202 ARCHITECTS'AND II construction as its big entire audio spectrum and ENGINEERS'SPECIFICATIONS brother,the CR-1604.Same 116dB internal dynamic "IN YOUR FACE"ALL- PRODUCT BROCHURE high-headroom and low range(that's 26dB better _,,..& noise mic preamplifiers. than digital i £ -t.1.,,� ia,, =i-Y " Same overall dynamic range. •Switchable phantom- 21 4 low noise/high head- Same rugged steel construc- powered mic inputs with room mic inputs 129.6 tion with built-in power , discrete,balanced micro- UN.) P supply,thru-hole-plated phone preamps as good or NI 4 bal./unbal.inputs fiberglass circuit boards, better than those found in 4 stereo inputs gold-plated interconnects big consoles.Four conjugate- P MI and sealed rotary controls. pair transistors with large- I Tape inputs/outputs The result is a rare combi- emitter geometry reduce 31 2 AUX sends per channel II nation of performance and distortion at all levels,while 2 stereo effects(AUX) reliability in a small,very delivering extremely low returns affordable mixer that is well noise(-129.6 dBm @150 ® Center-detent controls 11 suited to serious permanent ohms,20Hz-20kHz over a ® 2-band EQ installation,video and mobile 300K bandwidth). I Headphone monitor recording applications. •Four mono channels w/level control Big mixer features in (each featuring discrete front- 31 3-way 12-LED peak 1 less than one end mic preamp/line input) meter display square foot of space and four stereo input chan- I Rugged steel construction The MicroSeries 1202 nels(each with separate left I Built-in power supply II mic/line mixer has: and right line inputs). I Less than 1 square ft. •A working signal-to-noise •Pan control on every "footprint" ill ratio of 90dB,distortion channel. 13 Year Limited Warranty II III .,,,,,,,,,,,,Iii,„ wp Itiy- c--‘,44 '.'„ .,n•-_ kl-4,t Ion:-,z..,,, , an 110/ MS 1202 provided on all front panel through AUX Return 2 via a _ �: : , gain controls. TAPE IN switch. - 'r •Three-in-one channel •Line inputs and outputs metering display.Normally are designed to work with =" •Low-frequency EQ at the meters show main L/R any line level,from instru- , 80Hz,high-frequency EQ at output But when you press ment level,to semi-pro —crt ""`"" .'. 12kHz. the metering button,the left —10dB,to professional+4dB •Two AUX sends per chan- array displays mic preamp levels. The main outputs - "` .- nel with up to 15dB available operating levels and the right operate either balanced or gain above Unity channel shoves channel op- unbalanced,as required. y, •A master section with erating levels.This allows you •While not specifically `' stereo AUX retums,separate to set and meter actual levels designed for rack mounting, v' '` S'a'o , headphone level control and instead of having to rely on a "dumbo ear"rack flanges are a, r metering(also with separate single overload LED. available for the 1202,turn- left and right line inputs). •RCA/phono-type tape ing it into a 7-space rack ' •Unity gain is easily found inputs and output connec- mount mixer. , k with the center detent tors with tape input available = CHANNELS 1-4 — oto 1-5 CHANNEL ACCE55 s— L R. PHANTOM TRIM: FIRST CLICK=DIRECT OUT 3— POWER MIC GAIN- (NO SIGNAL INTERRUPTION) 4 E +BBB TO+4UB a LINE GAIN- RING IN GAIN 40, HIGH ! UNITY TO+40dB OFF TO+20dBGAIN r iiin L TIP OUT � D PAN 2(HOT) + + i . MIC CO 3 _ _ _ EQUALIZATION INPUTS 1 � • MAIN • LE DISCRETE ! i MIX AMPS MIC AMP • AUX1 + LINE INPUT /�_ 'VV� a AUX2 ° •—.—.— R h e CHANNELS 5-12 5— 6_ LO HIGH — • g GAIN --- --- 5— OFF TO i3�— • � � �� +20dB GAIN "k n Y EQUALIZATION , 1 I LEFT II • . yl � t LO H IGH 5 -- --- PAN `. : i a illin AUX n n '9 *--- -EQUALIZATION ; k = > RIGHT II t 8 = bAUX 2 y is > ( t ____ AUX1 • GAIN GAIN - t > AUX2 v _ --- GAIN • - - • AUX1 RETURN RETURN LEFTI g LEFT V C7 F . TAPE C AUX 2 . ' .//\ -L --- INPUTS C•,, --- Nlf)LL=XN AUX) n AUX2 n•n ...-�. mca .D<< RETURN II A RETURN II - u Z Z°L 'S. Y RIGHT - RIGHT TAPE M 7 Z s. jn SWITCH m 7/1/g3 :` o- Mc >c oO ry ER 9�. �,�`�/ `� ea. `J' 12 CHANNEL MICNNE MIXER O 1 3 4 '' �/ � MICRO SERIES 1202 rii` i'I y ` - ' , xE,' Ca), \ i„uxJJE, 0wE.' ' O, 0,0 E wa� , .w , 0 ,{ r � r ✓ � 1 1, , d 1 � ' ,� fib ✓ a � ., ir` ' g , ''' l� � l� l 1\aCD ©" © i'.. Li :-- f;. 4 { '� .. '.. WaiMi MaiMi nnMi yniMi urEx uxE>d uvE4n ux[nn vrwNEs s 3 r-rs� O 1 fibt .y.: a an nx u nu A� un nw xvr�nnxroMsen? " a°1 f ` N N J- C - � A N - j� �. AIT :s :�w 4 0 Kmg`. / \-CmTr ON.. . , Mn . l Am Q 3816 0 e U U Q e U IJ O. 2.02g. a O 6 5 Ea 24° odo o-o o. 1 GUN2 GUN 39 GNN4N GUNS-6 o .7A GUN 31O GAVl11-12 MASTE PHONES 6ALANOED MAIN LEFT Built like a brick MicroSeries 1202 also features OUTPUT Like its big brother,the a built-in power supply instead CR-1604,the MicroSeries of a"wall wart"or"line lump:' 0 TAPE 1202 has been designed by Not only does this eliminate OUTPUTS Greg Mackie,a 20-year pro the inevitable hassles of ID audio veteran.All his designs dealing with external power :IGro' are intended for non-stop, supplies,but also actually GAIN1 BALANCED 24-hour-a-dayprofessional reduces hum.The tinytrans- El MAIN RIGHT ■ OUTPUT duty in broadcast and per- formers inside"line lumps"are manent PA applications,TV typically driven into non-linear- II and radio stations and post- ity On excess of 15 kiloGauss) editing suites where nothing to provide enough power for must ever go wrong.The the mixer.This creates stray TIP _ II 1202 is no exception. 25-to 35µV magnetic fields Ta HSTEREO EADPHONES For example,it has sealed, that are easilty picked up by OUTPUT co-molded rotary controls shielded audio cables.The EVEL © RING ■ instead of open-frame phe- MS1202's internal transformer EE nolic potentiometers that can loafs along at under 10 suffer from airborne dust and kiloGauss,reducing stray fields • contamination.For the life of to less than 1 µV.The MS1202 ■ an installation,the 1202 also uses the same RF protec- provides minimal rotational tion circuitry and construction LEVEL ■ contact noise (and if there as the CR-1604,making it METER ever is a problem,pots are virtually impervious to RF o © +22 CLIP individually replaceable). interference in high-energy O © +12 II Plus,our combination of environments. o o +4 mounting,co-molding and Multiple applications 5 0 o o ■ energy-absorbing knob Frankly,the MicroSeries o O -2 design helps prevent impact 1202 is so reasonably priced II 5 A v — o 0 .4 damage. that it initially may be hard to o O © -10 Along with steel itschassis take seriously.But thousands O O -20 and through-hole-plated of professionals DO take the 0 T -so ■ fiberglass circuit boards,the 1202 seriously enough to rely mew 111 No 11 on it day-in and day-out We receive a steady stream of A SAMPLING OF , - r a� , , • warranty cards from Nand M51202 OWNERS: Signal-to-Noise Ratio radio stations,video produc- General Electric 90dB ref: +4dBu(all channels tion houses,tourin sound AT&T assigned,panned alternately g Southern California Edison left/rright) Si companies,big-studio Bank of America Mic ream equivalent input engineers and corporate in- Ashland Oil P q P g p Trump Castle Hotel/Casino noise(E.I.N Si house WV departments(see Bell Labs —129.6dBm @ 150 ohms examples at right). Nordstrom Maximum) gain(mic in to IBM main il Why?Because the Commonwealth Edison 84dB(tot balanced out) MicroSeries 1202 is able to GTE Airfone 78dB o unbalanced out) perform in applications where Philips Interactive Media Frequency response other small mixers don't Culver Video Post Prod. 20Hz to cy re P+1 dB measure up: World Bible Society — Son Distortion II • Audio mixer for video post Studer/Revox Less than.025%20Hz to 20kHz editing suites CBS Broadcasting Equalization • Impedance or level KTIS AM/FM ±15dB matching"tool kit" KNA Low: @ 80Hz TV High: 15dB @ 12.5kHzEl • Headphone or cue mixer SCTVKTZR radio Maximum o ut level • Effects sends submixer WBAI FM +28dBu balanced11• ENG mixer KNDD radio +22dBu unbalanced • Broadcast remote mixer National Public Radio IN• 8-track monitor mixer David Frost"On the Road" Weight 7 lbs. • Live film and video Cornell University sound mixer Stanford University '• • AUX inputs for a larger Biola University console 11.470" 1 2.64" * No matter what your ° ° ° ° o0000 application,you can't go �°�°--°®°oo©00 0 O 0000000 wrong with a Mackie 0 0 0 0 0 o o 0 o MicroSeries 1202.If you 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 fr, simply want the best possible 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 = 0 g 0 0 mixer in the least amount of 00000000 O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 space,there can only be one 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 choice.If cost is an issue,this is _ '4 the best price-to-performance } 1.425" mixer available.If durability DEoi © © © © !N and freedom from call-backs _ are critical,the MS1202's con- 1 19 1 - struction—and track record— 0 0 o°®o0000 0 I o ° ° ° °00000 0 o w a speak for themselves. o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 (n W e= 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Qo• _¢ Only one mixer model puts 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 < g so many good things into such 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 i. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ; o V Q U C, ;z^<_ a small package...the Mackie 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o o yx Designs MicroSeries 1202. o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o 0j~" _ Y£ l - Mackie Designs is engaged in a continuousprogramof productevaluation andIN, improvement and reserves the right to s. fflJ change product specifications at any time F-I"fr • • --+ L 11 I, -.0 without notice.©1993,All rights reserved, EI -- -- =- - Mackie Designs.Printed in USA 12027931 • MACKIE DESIGNS INCORPORATED•20205144w AVENUE NE WOODINVILLE•WA•98072•CALL TOLLFREE 800/258-6883 FAX 206/487-4337.OUTSIDE THE U.S.,PHONE 206/487-4333 • ri mem STEREO CASSETTE DECKS TASCA . 102 103 The TASCAM 103 mastering improvement will be noticed while tape formulation allowing cassette deck finally offers a playing the tape back on any deck and maximum performance. cost effective three head stereo mix- the Dolby B,C NR will make your demo 103 down cassette deck,for serious musi- tape compatible with any standard HiFi The Rec/Mute auto spacer will automa- cians,with the high performance sound cassette deck- tically put a consistent 4 second space quality and durability TASCAM is noted between the songs for a more polished 202 for.The TASCAM 103 has three heads The TASCAM 103 has Auto tape type demo tape and the tape run time counte for confidence monitoring of the master selection so that the record electronics will indicate exactly how long each song recording during mixdown,so that you automatically adjust for any standard is in minutes and seconds. know you "Got what you want"without the rewinding to check.The Auto 122 Monitor Function switches from tape MKIII playback to input automatically while in the rec/pause mode allowing you to 103 set record levels or match tape levels. Y '`'" 112R .I, :d'-'r!ai, -. -_ M K I I The TASCAM 103 has Dolby HX PRO 'c- IIIMIIIIIII"IIIIN"—"` for extended high frequency perfor- " 1111111111 !"°"° - mance while keeping distortion to its AR aZ n� 112 lowest point.This performance ' MKII T-2640 MS 0'v2 Finally a cost effective two The TASCAM 102 has Dolby HX PRO Dolby B,C NR will make your demo head stereo mixdown cassette for extended high frequency perfor- tape compatible with any standard .�.-2640 deck,for the budget minded serious mance while keeping distortion to its HiFi cassette deck. The TASCAM 102 2S musician,with the performance,sound lowest point. This performance has Auto tape type selection so that quality and durability TASCAM improvement will be noticed while play the record electronics automatically is noted for. ing the tape back on any deck and the adjust and optimize for ant standard tape formulation allowing maximum performance. Rec/Mute auto spacer will automatic- 102 ally put a consistent 4 second space 140 between the songs for a more polished demo tape and the tape run time °"" •-"w-,n-= • W� "'" counter will indicate exactly how long "� "" "' ""` ••"" - each song is in minutes and seconds. 2021V11(JI The 202MKII dual record cassette deck offers musicians a cost effective TnscAm 202m0 0. mixdown deck and two speed dubbing deck for b b a the budget conscious studio,with the ability to -�I-I�I� . -�I' make two identical copies simultaneously from ='=- _ _ — — _"external master. For recording ex-tended — - ., grams,the dual synchronous record mode -°.,.......".,-..1 *+ '"""`- ""2 _.._ws sequential recording of both sides of • omern.ono _ . _..- MAN NM MO w_.T the tape on both transports- Dual continuous •,:, - _ auto-reversing playback is ideal for background music installations. MASTER CASSETTE DECKS SUPERIOR SOUND BACKED UP BY STABLE, RELIABLE TRANSPORT PERFORMANCE & FEATURES The name TASCAM has become synonymous with outstanding performance and reliability in a wide range professional sound applications. But we didn't acquire this enviable reputation overnight. It's taken many luny years of proven performance and refinement. The superior stability and reliability of TASCAM tape transports- are well-known facts in the world of professional recording.The transports featured in all three models are based on newly-developed TASCAM technology that achieves smooth, faultless tape handling for optimum sound quality and operating efficiency. Without HTSC With HTSC .,n.•._ maxim a_ :I I11 1. Dolby HX Pro Headroom Extension M. II. f.'.Ai id,.' .... ..- MI 110111 , For maximum high-range clarity and repro- - duction precision,the 122MKI11,112RMKI1, ? = b_�, and 112MKI1 are all equipped with the — - - ,.", r - ••• •- -� _ _ ��i�- ----ij i Dolby HX Pro headroom extension system. l ' ~° s°, ' • �. i ' -. ii, HX Pro is an active biasing system that sii - "' it minimizes the effect of high-frequency music signals on the deck's bias signal, 122MKIII achieving p to 6-cBf greater headroom 122MKI11 3-head Stereo Cassette Deck at the higher music frequencies.What's The "Industry Standard" and leader in TASCAM's line-up of master 4-track more,HX Pro is a record-only process so 2-channel stereo cassette machines. Extremely high standards of reproduction quality and overall tapes recorded with HX Pro can be played performance with a 3-head system, Cobalt Amorphous record and play heads, independent head back on any other cassette deck. azimuth adjustment,precision FG servo direct-drive capstan motor,and uncompromised electronics. The 122MKI11 features a three-head transport with separate high-performance CA record and play- Front-Access Bias& Level back heads-independently azimuth-adjustable for outstanding reproduction precision.The 122MKI11 Calibration Controls (122MKIII only) also employs direct drive and TASCAM's Hysteresis Tension Servo Control system for extraordinary The 122MKI11 provides a built-in 400 Hz/10 transport stability under the widest possible range of conditions-including extremes of temperature kHz calibration oscillator and front-panel and humidity. The Hysteresis Tension Servo Control system maintains consistent back tension on record level and bias trimmers that can be the tape from the beginning to end of every reel,achieving significant reductions in wow and flutter used to fine-tune these critical parameters as well as distortion. for optimum performance with any ty tape. Both bias and level are indepe y 122F'V1III adjustable for the left and right channels. Precision Tape Counters °"10i1112 ,I The 122MKI11 and 112RMKI1 include ,,, ,��_ C1 s et a Stereo Cassette Deck realtime tape counters that let you visually LK�' monitor tape location in minutes and sec- �.. A basic no-frills 2-head profes- - " "' sional "workhorse"that offers onds.The 112MKI1 features a four-digit outstanding performance, index-type counter that also offers `r" •i -`P stability,and reliability for a outstanding precision. wide range of applications. The frequency response Improvement with Dolby HX Pro(normal tape,OVU recording level) Idb) Super Acculign Rotating Head System 0c.a..- - .4 Head for -10 : ._....-. ..e.-.....r��. ......-... - T recording and A .- HC`:� .�'; .WIIIIIIMI garaadk 1 a°mmemthe ao • •l f„ Nadest r and do ik . •. ndMler and ... — .. , _e 7 -. -M • 0wnucwa Tnple gear -30 • ir I - M1 —m..._ _ ...- ..-. ,:. b,/` SupemaN ii S,p,06 20 30 50 100 pp 700 SOp 1K 2K 3K SK 10K I0K Ly�� Sae.for ,...,,�Y .d3 FIX Pro Mal �I "1 ,- �F Scree 1 --.wiMwn HK Pm adiaanne0 3-Point Auto-Locator Functions ii2RMK11 All three models make finding cue points 112RMKI1 Bi-directional 3-head Stereo Cassette on the tape fast and easy with RTZ Deck The deck of choice for applications requiring extended (return to zero),LOC 1,and LOC 2 locator playback and record capability as well as superior all around performance,reliability,and dura- keys.The LOC 1 and LOC 2 keys can be bility. Auto-reverse operation plus coordinated multi-deck record and playback capability. programmed to locate any point on the The 112RMKI1 also offers a three-head transport with the Hysteresis Tension Servo Control system. tape,while the RTZ key always locates Outstanding bi-directional recording and playback performance is achieved with the TASCAM counter zero.There's also a repeat function Super Acculign Rotating Head system,ensuring perfect head alignment-and therefore perfect that allows continuous block repeat b- --n reproduction performance-in both tape directions. the LOC 1 and LOC 2 locations. 482.. 20.5..—, 330.. . 5.8.. «mm Broad I/O Compatibility The 122MKI11 comes equipped with both bal- 17,oj I N--A. ° anced and unbalanced inputs and outputs E t Efor direct plug-in compatibility with all types 1" ®❑ 0 0 11 o �I�° of recording and reproduction equipment. I • o o •e•• ® ® ® 000e • f ,s.smm U lol a • El CASSETTE DUPLICATION SYSTEMS 111Pbalanced+4 dBm inputs and outputs T2600 SERIES HIGH SPEED TAPE DUPLICATION SYSTEM ure reliable XLR-type connectors,while The TASCAM T-2600 Series is comprised of two versions of cassette duplication. the unbalanced-10 dBV lines are quipped These are: with popular RCA-type connectors. The 112RMKII and 112MKI1 are initially provided T 2640/MS-4-Track 4-Channel Master/Slave Decks with unbalanced lines,but can be easily T2640/25-4-Track 4-Channel 2 Slave Decks expanded for balanced operation by simply adding the optional LA-112 line amplifier unit. All three models feature front-panel 1/4"phone jack line inputs that take priority over the rear-panel inputs. • * • • Parallel Port for External Control 25-pin parallel ports on all three models - — —_____.-___. provide a range of external control capabili- ties,including event start-stop operation. Convenient remote control of all transport functions is provided by the optional RC-134 Remote Control Unit for the 122MKI11 and 112MKI1,or the optional • • •*•• f• • • 41•�• ��•it RC-112R for the 112RMKI I. w _• •._r_• • • .• . . ,• e, • �. • The 122MKIlI and 112MKI1 will allow fader-start operation. .- . - , III II I I I iii I I ... The 112RMKI1 additionally provides a tape- • end tally signal which allows coordinated T..2 600 multi-deck operation for continuous record- ing or playback with two or more decks con- Playback equalizer switch nected in a chain. Both models in this series are accu- (70ps/120 ps)on master deck for perfect rate and easy to use. Faultless cas- tape performance. able Monitoring Internal Normal (TYPE I)/Cr02(TYPE II)bias The 122MKI11, 112RMKI1,and 112MKI1 give sette tape duplication can be and equalizer selector on slave deck. you a choice of monitoring modes to match achieved quickly by simply insert Automatic rewind switch on the widest possible range of recording and ing the tapes and pressing the start master deck. playback requirements. When the Input button. These high-quality tape Slave deck automatic stop function synchro- mode selected the source signal is moni- duplicating machines are perfect nized to the tape end automatic stop or tored at all times.When the Auto mode is for the production of music tapes, rewind of the master deck. selected:the source signal is monitored Up to 21 duplications can be produced at when the Rec Pause mode in engaged;the and can be applied to a myriad of once, since up to 10 2S-models can be con- tape signal is monitored when the Play mode other tasks-in education and nected to each MS-model. in engaged;and when the Rec mode is schools,sales promotion,public High quality 16P connectors make it easy to engaged the source signal in monitored in relations, and for internal informa- add on 2S-models. the 112MKI1 while the tape signal is moni- tored in the 122MKI11 and 112RMKI1. tion processing in companies, gov- Special rewind feature allows simultane- ernment office, and municipal ous rewinding on all slave decks in use. Other Important Features agencies. Slave deck may also be used with external • Gear/clutch-coupled input level controls master deck. (122MKIII only). Designed for low power consumption, • 19"rack-mount dimensions. MAIN FEATURES features durability and low running costs. • Dolby B and C noise reduction. Compact, space-saving design. Easy • Bi-polar power supply for outstanding Duplication speed of eight times normal to maintain plug-in amplifier circuit board electronic performance. speed,with a choice of simultaneous copy- system.Built-in monitor speaker and monitor • Precision VU meters with peak LEDs. ing of both sides of the tape or track-inde- level control on MS-model. • ±12%pitch control. pendent duplication. To prevent erasing bias noise,the erase head • Rec mute with auto spacer function. Long-life ferrite head. 3 DD brushless has been eliminated. • Program search function(112RMKII only). DC motors for durability and reliability. _ • Headphone jack with independent ± 3% pitch control on master deck for fine 1 ksc-I I'-I If--I k-I ii.li 1 0 0 level control. adjustment of the master tape speed. 00000: 00000; .0000a, 000a0. . „„ Ball bearings are used for all rotating parts � 00000�0000000000�00000.. --- - -q"c!lei, :' . ' to improve durability. 000000000000000000000 000000000000000000000 Tape head block is designed for high- E _ speed tape transport stability. u0 u-- The playback level of the master deck / o o a o o ((� MOWS ""'MOWS can be adjusted for each track and moni- � �-/k .\L. `O.O` tored by the VU meter. ❑ l:;), ❑ S© 0 0 0 I ®®®0 ❑000 hllloll.l I4 330.. _ 132_ :^ 335.. •► . 142. . SPECIFICATIONS 122MKIII 112RMKII 112MKII 102 103 202MKII Track Format 4-track,2-channel 4-track,2-channel 14-track,2-channel 4-track,2-channel 4-track,2-channel 4-track,2-channel Head Configuration 1 Erase,1 Record 2 Erase,1 Record 1 Erase, 1 Erase,1 Record/ 1 Erase,1 Record and 1 Erase,1 Rec/Repro and 1 Reproduce and 1 Reproduce 1 Record/Reproduce Reproduce 1 Reproduce per deck Motor 1 FG servo direct-drive 1 DC servo 1 DC servo capstan motor capstan motor capstan motor 2 motor IC logic 2 motor IC logic 1 DC reel motor 1 DC reel motor 1 DC reel motor 1 DC ancillary motor 1 DC ancillary motor 1 DC ancillary motor Tape Speed 4.8 cm/s(1-7/8 ips) 4.8 cm/s(1-7/8 ips) . 4.8 cm/s(1-7/8 ips) 4.8 cm/s(1-7/8 ips) 4.8 cm/s(1-7/8 ips) 4.8 cm/s(1-7/8 ips) Pitch Control +/-12% +/-12% +/-12% Wow and Flutter 0/04%(WRMS) 0.04%(WRMS) 0.04%(WRMS) 0.045%(WRMS) 0.045%(WRMS) 0.06%(WRMS) +/-0.065%peak +/-0/07%peak +/-0/07%peak (DIN/IEC/ANSI (DIN/IEC/ANSI (DIN/IEC/ANSI weighted) weighted) weighted) Line Input(XLR) +4 dBm/10 kohms, +4 dBm/10 kohms, +4 dBm/10 kohms, balanced balanced balanced (with LA-112) (with LA112) Line Input(RCA&1/4") -10 dBV/20 kohms -10 dBV/20 kohms -10 dBV/20 kohms 60 mV50 kohms 60 mV 50 kohms 60 mV 60kohms Line Output(XLR) +4 dBm/600 ohms, +4 dBm/600 ohms, +4 dB m/600 ohms, balanced balanced balanced (with LA-112) (with LA-112) Line Output(RCA) -10 dBV/100 ohms -10 dBV/100 ohms -10 dBV/100 ohms 0.43V 50 kohms 0.43V 50 kohms 0.43V 50 kohms Headphones Output 100 mW+100 mW 100 mW 100 mW 100 mW+100 mW (8ohms) (8 ohms) (8 ohms) (8ohms) (8ohms) (8ohms) Recording Level 250 nWb/m(0 VU) 250 nWb/m(0 VU) 250 nWb/m(0 VU) 250 nWb/m(0 VU) 250 nWb/m(0 VU) 250 nWb/m(0 VU) Frequency Response Metal 25 Hz to 20 kHz+/-3dB 25 Hz to 19 kHz+/-3dB 25 Hz to 19 kHz+/-3dB 25 Hz to 20 kHz 25 Hz to 20 kHz 25 Hz to 19 kHz +/-3dB(-20dB) +/-3dB(-20dB) +/-3dB(-20dB) Cr02 25 Hz to 19 kHz+/-3dB 25 Hz to 18 kHz+/-3dB 25 Hz to 18 kHz+/-3dB 25 Hz to 18 kHz 25 Hz to 19 kHz 25 Hz to 18 kHz +/-3dB +/-3dB +/-3dB Normal 25 Hz to 17 kHz+/-3 dB 25 Hz to 17 kHz+/-3 dB 25 Hz to 16 kHz+/-3 dB 25 Hz to 17 kHz+/-3 dB 25 Hz to 17 kHz+/-3dB 25 Hz to 16 kHz+/-3dB Total Harmonic Distortion Less than 1% Less than 1% Less than 1% (at 1kHz,160 nWb/m) (at 1 kHz,160 nWb/m) (at 1 kHz,160 nWb/m) Signal-to-Noise Ratio(ref.to 3%THD). NROFF 60dB 60dB 59dB 60dB3%THD 60dB3%THD 59dB3%THD Dolby-B IN,5 kHz 70 dB 70 dB - 68 dB 70 dB over 5kHz 70 dB over 5Khz 69 dB over 5kHz Dolby-C IN,1 kHz 80 dB 80 dB - 78 dB 80 dB over 1kHz 80 dB over 1 kHz 78 dB over 1 kHz Power Consumption 23W 23W 20W 23W 23W 20W Dimensions(W x H x D) 482 mm x 132 mm 482 mm x 132 mm 482 mm x 132 mm 17 1/8 x 413/16 17 1/8 x 413/16 171/8 x 51/2 x 356 mm x 356 mm x 356 mm x 1015/16 x 1015/16 x 1013/16 Weight(net) 8.4 kg 8.7 kg 8.4 kg 8.82 lbs 8.82 lbs 10.8 lbs FEATURES Head System 3 Head Bi-Dir/Auto Rev 2 Head 2 Head 3 Head Bi-Dir Azimuth Adjustment Ind Rec&Play Hd Yes CA Rec&Play Heads Yes _ Direct Drive Capstan Motor Yes Hysteresis Tension Servo Control System Yes Yes Dolby HX Pro Yes Yes - Yes Yes Yes Yes Dolby B and C Noise Reduction Yes Yes . Yes Yes Yes Yes Bias&Level Calibration Controls Yes Yes Yes Realtime Tape Counter Yes Yes Yes Yes 3-point Auto Locator Yes Yes Yes Repeat Function Yes Yes Yes Auto-Input"Monitor Selector Yes Yes Yes Gear/Clutch-coupled Input Level Controls Yes 19"rack-mount Dimensions Yes Yes Yes Bi-polar Power Supply Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Precision VU meters with peak LEDs Yes Yes Yes +/-12%Pitch Control Yes Yes Yes Rec Mute with Auto Spacer Function Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Program Search Function Yes Auto Tape Selector Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Balanced XLR Inputs/Outputs Yes (option) (option) Parallel Port-External Control Yes Yes _ Yes Front-Line Inputs Yes Yes Yes Headphone Jack with Independent Level Control Yes Yes - Yes Optional Remote Control Unit RC-134 RC-112R RC-134 TAS AM ©TEAC America,Inc.,7733 Telegraph nUa�,Montebello,CA 90640 213/726-0303 focus under variable brightness connector, high resolution and more. tal AFC(short/long) time constant settings. Standard features include Underscanning displays the entire to enable VTR playback, switchable selectable scan and short H. AFC image produced by the camera or VTR, under/over-scan, and rackmount time constant for VTR playback. including edges normally cut off by option the WV-Q22 kit. The WV-5370A features a ready-con- standard monitors and TV receivers. WV-5490 20"* nector for integration into alarm Pulse-cross display reveals errors in High-Resolution Monitor activated systems. A built-in cable VTR skew,tension,tracking and time g compensator boosts picture quality base stability by shifting the picture Video images of outstanding quality over extended distance. horizontally and vertically.This feature are provided by the WV-5490 in • WV-5380A/WV-5382A can also be used in post-production closed circuit television or studio 9"*High- Monitors to reveal out of sync edits. Other operations. Horizontal resolution of 9 key features include horizontal re- 850 lines at center. Stable black with Audio solution of 750 lines at center,built-in reference is maintained through Professional features are incorporat- speaker jack and quick-start switchable DC restoration,which ed into these studio control room CRT to eliminate warm up time. maintains constant contrast while monitors. Underscanning, pulse-cross Underscanning & Pulse-Cross achieving correct shadow detail. display, internal/external sync,audio Original Screen Underscan Screen Horizontal AFC time constant switch amplifier, 8-ohm speaker, 8-pin VTR enables VTR playback. kV Ls Key controls and adjustments are -� fl`'-'-- u located on the front panel. Loop- YY !' A 1I R� g.' �I�u,',�,.., A through BNC input and output con- Go. �- .�: G& Hectors provide video and composite 4 TR-124MA i �, ,„ o sync. Internal or external sync, I Underscan and switchable underscan and inputs 120V AC Power Source Pulse-Cross Screen Pulse-Cross Screen from 75 ohms to Hi-Z, plus recess- 33W Power Consumption b` 1 _ / ed carry handles. Screen Size +ate' =� - - I% �kr - TR-930B 12" (actual viewing area, _ 9"*High-Resolution B/W Monitor measured diagonally �; � VIC . Ai"f,c' This compact, 9" monitor is well- Single Configuration b. suited for CCTV applications.The Yes Desktop Type WV-5410 12 3/4"* unipotential picture tube displays High-Resolution Monitor sharp, highly detailed pictures with Yes o Rackmount Type horizontal resolution of 700 lines at Video Input This monitor produces exceptional center.Operating controls and adjust- 1picture quality with a horizontal ments are conveniently located on No External Sync resolution of 850 lines at center.The the front panel. BNC connectors Horizontal Resolution WV-5410 incorporates DC restoration for video input and Hi-Z/75 ohm 700 lines (at center) switching, switchable scansize termination switch are on the (under/normal), loop-through BNC rear panel. Yes Audio connectors for video and sync,input/ Short H.AFC Time output to meet your CCTV/studio TR-124MA 12"*High-Resolution Yes Constant monitor needs. It can also be rack Monitor with Audio (No) (Short/Long mounted with the optional rack angle The TR-124MA is ideally suited for Switchable) brackets (WV-Q20). CCTV and other surveillance opera- 8-pin Connector for WV-5470 17"* tions that require sharp, highly No VTRs High-Resolution Monitor detailed video images and audio g monitoring. Horizontal resolution of Sweep Linearity Designed for excellent performance 700 lines at center is accomplished 7% (less than) in closed-circuit or studio applica- using a unipotential picture tube. Its (overscan) tions,the WV-5470 produces horizon- jet black background provides ex- Sweep Geometry tal resolution of 850 lines at center. cellent contrast.Controls are located 3% (less than) Switchable DC restoration preserves to the right of the screen to reduce shadow detail and prevents unneces- height and increase vertical rack Fixed Scanning sary contrast. Other important mount configuration. 19" EIA rack 8% Overscanning features include switchable horizon- mount optional. *All screen sizes measured diagonally. No Underscanning Optional rack angle brackets for EIA 19" rack mount Yes DC Restoration Rack Angle Bracket Monitor Dimensions (No) (Switchable) WV-Q20 WV-5410 3-3/16"(W)x 11-5/8"(H)x 1-3/16"(D) J DC 16kV High Tension WV-Q22 WV-5470 1-3/16"(W)x15-11/16"(H)x1-9/16"(D) WV-Q27 WV-5370A/5380A 10"(W)x8-3/4"(H)x10.13/16"(D) 17.6 lbs Weight TY-K124 TR-124MA 19""(W)x 10.112"(H)x 10-7/8"(D) Weight and dimensions shown are approximate. Specifications are subject to change without notice. 9" Screen Size: Model TR-930B Power Switch Horizontal Hold Vertical Hold Brightness Control TR-930B I - i1 4lfi 4• ; r Pilot Lamp ® 815/16" '..t f, Vertical Linearity Contrast Control Height Pinaiidnt0 ,..w i I1a 754/Hi Impedance Selector Switch (� I ' `'IIIIIIIIIj.I III IIIIIIIII11111 IIII I,IIIiIIIIIdIlIIiI 16' :" A_4-i <]; IIIIIIII�1 IIIIIIIIIIIIII nluninnnniniIIIM —?I3�,.111 -o Video Output Connector(BNC) Video Input Connector(BNC) 12" Screen Size: Model TR-124MA TR-124MA Contrast Control „,_ Power Switch/Audio Level Control • ,._ -- Pilot Lamp mow, + .._.___....._.---- - LI,J._ 4 • '..1 ,'IM1ItVIr Il� 10-5/16" Ik 1 - • 1 I l:'i♦..J • �� „;,I ,~ Horizontal Hold " ( 2 J 11-11/16 Vertical Hold ' —Z__. Brightness Control 14118° Video Output Connector(BNC) Video Input Connector(BNC) Termination Switch • BED 11111111 11 11 i Mil IMin IIIIIIII Win 11111111 ii 11 Illillllllll 1511111 - - -.) • Ilill[II I—II I II III It III lam ' I53i am DoL II11II ruin; 1 �LL71 i1^ 111/b tel.,— II1I11I1I1II ' f in 1 in. - m ]II]pfll',$f,{ '•Y I mil.' j(iR,n ss1l ___ IIIIIIII a J Audio Input Connector Audio Output Connector TR-124MA shown with optional rack mount brackets,model TY-K124 External Output Connector nPaasortic® BLACK-AND-WHITE C .) • MONITORS MODELS WV-5200B/5203B WV-5370A/5372A WV-5380A/5382A WV-5410/5470/5490 TR-930B/TR-124MA 1 I., / - C) . , "11 _ -- _1 r + •!-a 1 . *7 I Ift- i 0 • Screen Size: Model WV-5370A/WV-5372A 9 /F Power Switch WV-5370A Scan Size Switch _—: Horizontal Hold l` ,, Vertical Hold rl .r- --=®�".-— — ,: I, 8-15/16" _____________________jl . i ( ..ate,-w---� ' il i, f - Brightness Control 9: 1 �11. Pilot Lamp "" Contrast Control � /J� - i .0 '_,4 7�c �* 10-7/16" LI I,� Vertical Linearity Height . —8-11/16" DC Restoration Switch Sync Selector Switch H.AFC Switch WV-5372A - -. il___;�Il� "- . _. --- -._.._--- II I IIHUIIIIIIIIIIIIII 2i__J _- , T- "" II III nil IIINillNllll= Termination • Read Jack -_._ w I Switch- 1t 1, �...- ..,.. :: Jl - P "'-°-, `• - t ' r, ''_ '`- ,__.�,.r—Input Connector -'- ' ' —Power Cord �19„ y — " — 1013/16" WV-5370A shown with optional rack mount bracket,model WV-Q27 and Focus TEKTRONIX®Waveform Monitor 528. Video Output Connector(BNC) (Not included) Video Input Connector(BNC) 17 " Screen Size: Model WV-5470 ' Power Switch Horizontal Hold WV-5470 Vertical Hold I Brightness Control _____ I 1 0 : In • I 16-3116" • '0 0 __ ____ IE�-__ t-i_ Pilot Lamp Contrast Control -� Focus �� Scan Size Switch Vertical Linearity _ I Height �� - I .* ,7 .�'`*. _ ' DC Restoration Switch 71 I 7� I S nc Selector Switch � 14-7/8" 1R� �16-9/16"� �� / llmiinluulnlnlll ltrIlaimnulmnnumnuul IIIIIIIIIniliIIIi1111.,..;`„,,;IIIIIIIIAntllniilttllili...a - -- j- !1 Sync Input 11;11 , .. Connector(BNC) I —� 1 Sync Output tttt .,.' Video Output Connector(BNC) —r' y Connector(BNC) r d .. , L Video Input Connector(BNC)— Sync Termination Switch C. larga2=1111 [ I " t 1 WV-5470 shown with optional H.AFC Switch Video Termination Switch rack mount brackets,model WV-Q22 9 // Screen Size: Models WV-5380AIWV-5382A Pulse Cross Switch WV-5380A Scan Size Switch ..-------- Horizontal Hold — I Vertical Hold , 8-15/16" l • 1 1 I _ = _ _- _—Brightness Control • '` ✓1tn iI1' w... _7 Pilot Lamp '., ' '' ' ;¢— Contrast Control ___.1._______.1.____ I ��c0• ,10= 0. 10-7/16" _� __�. a•- ..4�-:.;,), Power Switch/Audio Level Control Vertical Linearity ��8-11/16"—� Height Sync Selector Switch DC Restoration Switch., LSync Termination Switch Video Termination Switch H.AFC Switch _1 WV-5382A '(lalr • -'`..;_ T -- `:�«rs.w;-a•"-".;`• r — 1,(t4t /rt V r,i p 1 e 8 3/4"p q I� 1 t u„ '� . I' Ready Jack 1 . .ill —VTR Connector �IfAi Audio Input/Output Connector 1 .1 � External Speaker Connector ir „ -,--- -I ,-,'11 in-: ,elk ... ,- -•,ir'U.�. " —DC 12V IN Connector zP`aakx4 y;f r �y _ ' Power Cord 19" WV-5380A shown with optional rack Video Input Focus 1I-13/16" mount bracket,model WV-Q27 and Connector Sync Output Connector(BNC) TEKTRONIX®Waveform Monitor 528. (BNC) Sync Input Connector(BNC) - (Not included) Video Output Connector(BNC) 20 // Screen Size: Model WV-5490 Horizontal Hold Vertical Hold Power Switch Brightness Control WV-5490 .. - .' 3r.28 J 1 • E y r 17 3/4" 1 •1 Pilot Lamp—• 1- 1 Contrast Control _ __i 4I- 1 .... 1 Scan Size Switch Focus • . ' :) I.If Vertical Linearity Height Video Termination Switch -.-, b yI V � —`"" _ 1 IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII �� — >�' , r IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIlIl111I1I 19„ -,--.__ _-__- _ . H.AFC Switch II 6 M1- -- — 1 - •o :.� p ;' '' - -----3--Sync Selector Switch 11 • L rii , f DC Restoration Switch Video Output Connector(BNC) Video Input Connector(BNC) • The Panasonic B/W monitors can accommodate a 4 host of applications due to rack-mounting capability. *for CCTV •for Studi o L4i%-al.aL-,,i!&- •for F/A, M/E , ,.,,.''-''.''''.. D i:±') - ' - , I_,V,;-,:—, ' 1+ i ,1 ® ® 11 ..I-,,I) rRpI ..t',,,'i,,„ ,-._1 ., -„, .-. -,...,.. . .. 1 wry ., ( • iiirYriii A 1 ,a 1 � W'✓,,�++�' -.-'.— '°U''.• J�q� L I��M `'it -Ili #r � y . Y �, • ri# . it :-_,.. __:,.,,,,,. .-_,::::,:_;_ --=-7----------.H: i fit j- .f----- --d ',::..- . . ': ::,:.-.-- :: _ _ 7:----. :,..„„i3 „. „..,..„,„, • _ „, 4,4 ''' • 1.1 n ,,,„ ,v=.,,,,... ..,[0 ,e _ .., a , J _ jipo i V 111 ' i .: t` ',', ^ 'I .6 .;I , ,' ,.., *:''''431ILM2' 1 e. i ..,.- _1 .i " "w -'*- ;ti "" -,Y M • -� am' .ram'=" �- : ''. � �'.1 ' v .. r' 1 lam. 1' `- 1. i C. e ��1 . & ue Ar -1 Designed for Today Tomorrow and Yesterday DISTRIBUTED BY: (08048.2) Panasonic Communications & Systems Company Division of Matsushita Electric Corporation of America CLOSED CIRCUIT VIDEO EQUIPMENT DIVISION Executive Office: One Panasonic Way, Secaucus, New Jersey 07094 Regional Offices MATSUSHITA ELECTRIC OF CANADA LIMITED Northeast: One Panasonic Way,Secaucus,NJ 07094(201)348-7303 5770 Ambler Drive,Mississauga,Ontario,Canada L4W 2T3(416)624-5010 Southeast: 1854 Shackleford Court,Suite 115,Norcross,GA 30093(404)925-6835 PANASONIC SALES COMPANY Midwest: 425 E.Algonquin Road,Arlington Heights,IL 60005(708)6405168 DIVISION OF MATSUSHITA ELECTRIC OF PUERTO RICO,INC. San Gabriel Industrial Park 65th Infantry Ave.KM.9.5 Carolina, Southwest: 4500 Amon Carter Blvd,Ft.Worth,TX 76155(817)685-1117 P.R. Western: 6550 Katella Ave.,Cypress,CA 90630(714)373-7625 00630(809)750-4300 Printed in Japan(P-191B) 5 ,1 Screen Size: Model WV-5200BMN-5203B Pilot Lamp WV-5200B Focus Width—__—__— • ,�,"orM.- . r 4-"get_y_sa:v Height _ - - — �i _ I ..: MC 7-1/8" - C .1 , rI -., A S ' ...; / !i ' Power Switch ('J . «mow 9.13/16" n C . —Contrast Control �� i1 IIE 5 13/16"�� I Brightness Control Vertical Hold Horizontal Hold Video Termination Switch Sync Selector Switch WV-5203B r`;•;r`i I19 T ___.7_,__ ___.4. ____ _ __ 1 i -0; • t I CDO --C mum 1 ' �= I g 0 -l0 = �� DC Restoration Switch JJ a - —Sync Termination Switch — --,,,`'=' '1 t) S?` ,O O 1`\ —Power Cord .-_,...=.__—— --.,A .-,_____, _ ..._________ Pi Sync Output Connector(BNC) 10-5/8" Sync Input Connector(BNC) ' Video Output Connector(BNC) Video Input Connector(BNC) 12314 " Screen Size: Model WV-5410 WV-5410 .- -" ---- - ---------------- Height • Vertical Linearity �— - — `i- Power Switch Focus 12-1/8" . II Ik ii .I I Pilot Lamp _ 1 • r Contrast Control 0 4- _ / Scan Size Switch Brightness Control lir,� r / Vertical Hold I—_-* .,Y,Bri-,6. s 12-3/16" Horizontal Hold - - / ,.,-1! 1 Sync Input Connector(BNC) Sync Selector Switch I Sync Output Connector(BNC) —12-5/8" I I Sync Termination Switch EllilliI ID IIIIIillllll7 u UlIa!n11J11,110 111 REM o o .\ a Video Input Connector(BNC) ( ,fEi�-� � %j Video Output Connector(BNC) 0( 4-� �= — Power Cord •H.AFC Switch DC Restoration Switch WV-5410 shown with optional Video Termination Switch rack mount brackets,model WV-Q20 Get the clear view with Panasonic CCTV high-resolution B/W video monitors. When you need to see the full picture—our high resolution WV-5200B/WV-5203B B/W video monitors give you the sharp video image you need 5°*High-Resolution B/W Monitors to see every detail. Some important features include DC The desktop model WV-5200B and restoration circuitry for sharply defined image reproduction; the triple rack mount model WV-5203B both have highly detailed pictures selectable scan for under and over-scanning; and pulse-cross with a horizontal resolution of 600 display for horizontal and vertical image shifting. lines at center.Each provides a stable Desktop, single, double or triple rack mounted, each model black reference with switchable DC restoration preventing excessive con- gives you Panasonic quality and ingenuity you can trast while preserving shadow detail. count on time and time again. WV-5370A/WV-5372A Whether you're in the security office, studio control room, 9"High-Resolution B/W Monitors or wherever you need a B/W video monitor, stop guessing about what's going on and get the picture with Panasonic. These monitors provide crisp, detailed pictures with a horizontal resolution of 750 lines at center. Unipotential picture tubes maintain Specifications Comparison WV-5200B WV-5203B WV-5370A WV-5372A WV-5380A WV-5382A WV-5410 WV-5470 WV-5490 TR-930B Power Source 120V AC 120V AC 120V AC 120V AC 120V AC 120V AC 120V AC. 120V AC 120V AC 120V AC Power Consumption 16W 48W 23W 46W 24W 48W 45W 45W 60W 23W Screen Size (actual viewing area, 5" 5" 8-1/4" 8-1/4" 8-1/4" 8-1/4" 12-3/4" 16-1/4" 19-1/4" 9" measured diagonally Configuration Single Triple Single Double Single Double Single Single Single Single Desktop Type - Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes Rackmount Type No Yes Yes A Yes Yes A Yes Yes A Yes A No No Video Input 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 External Sync Yes Yes No No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No Horizontal Resolution 600 lines• 600 lines 750 lines 750 lines 750 lines 750 lines 850 lines 850 lines 850 lines 700 lines (at center) Audio No No No No Yes Yes No No No No Short H.AFC Time Constant Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes (Short/Long (No) (No) (Yes) (Yes) (Yes) (Yes) (Yes) (Yes) (Yes) (No)- Switchable) 8-pin Connector for No No No No Yes Yes No No No No VTRs • Sweep Linearity (less than) 8% 8% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 10% 7% (overscan) Sweep Geometry 2% 2% 2% 2°/0 2% 2°/0 2°/0 2% 2% 2% (less than) Scanning Fixed Fixed Switchable Switchable Switchable Switchable Switchable Switchable Switchable Fixed Overscanning 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 8% Underscanning No No 5% 5% 10% 10% 5% 5% 5% No DC Restoration Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes • Yes (Switchable) (Yes) (Yes) (Yes) (Yes) (Yes) (Yes) (Yes) (Yes) (Yes) (No) High Tension DC 8.5kV DC 8.5kV DC 10kV DC 10kV DC 10kV DC 10kV DC 15kV DC 15kV DC 16kV DC 10kV Weight 6.7 lbs 24.4 lbs 11.2 lbs 28.2 lbs 11.7 lbs 29.0 lbs 22.0 lbs 33.0 lbs 40.7 lbs 11.31 lbs A:With Optional rack angle bracket wv-5490 is not available in Canada Panasonic. illo A 0 .•• • AG— 0 ... 0 2-Hour S-VHS Camcorder . 2CCFM .4.401.1PIAERMI):'4:.;::'-4':- :•:',-:,‘"*, A _ - , (,..-:,,,-A:,-.1%.,:,, ,, --;.,-..,:=$:.1--ii.--:-ii',--:,,,,s'•.:-....>„•.. \'', i f ,.'f':' .s-1.,: '`,' '.:......., ' :-n. ' '.... '• ' i --..".."----"-------L--....N.------1101101011 -,. ,, ,\___ ,_„,,.4.,,..? „.. 0 ‘,,......, ,,... .. .\ — , •, , ''j----------- - ....• '1.„,,,,,2,.........., 4 )00,,,, ... , ,.,,. O.„() E prHOUS r-14, .., ,' ''''' ''-'1"4 1 10 a'\' '1;0 • --- 111 if • i$1 lily,, 1 ii 1'. 9" illii '•1 ' - , • ..„ , 0 cd% oftla 00. (1) alp. 1111: ------ •. .„------ '. pea fe) , t4 i4.4/;,'• -.,t.... . r, ,,:..,..t.•',71.:','''' __ - .• S V II S E 0 it . and, Dependable Professz'onal Quality The Panasonic AG-460U S-VHS Video Camcorder is designed to provide professional quality performance in a wide variety of business and industrial/institutional applications. High-quality sound and images make it an invaluable video acquisition tool for everything from personnel orientation and training tapes,to sales staff updates,to planning,sales and other presentations.With advanced features providing easy operation and handling,the AG-460U requires no special training.So just about anyone can immediately produce effective results with it. . .:'''.i..",:'..:.'.1:.:'-'-:':,::'..::.:cr' ''ff.'.,::: .''''f!Z: ',::-?. .:--.::',::1 'fp-,1 ' - L I , , _r I I " i 1 - _ -r , imminii 4 I I 1 . — IV 1 , !411. � BALA�F Fa� 8 I i - ,s" IiI = ice- 4 UV , .1 'T ';',Z .... . _ DEJA mLOFI BALANCE , FADE VC" RA s�r "` 1 i 6 l '� , I',I , I ,, x..vw ' * '0 HEAD ilk x1oa- mm - ' li 9\ . HIGH SPEED TTER DA tEi TIME IN 1 42 43' r4 - WHRE BALANCE FOCUS 55 Q ,---AUDIO DEC LEVEL--, 46 47 • I p --- i, ...i .L 1 ro 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 R 58 Outstanding DeIIIfinition and Color Clarity from Two CCD Image Sensors a The AG-460U employs two CCD image signal processing,a �, sensors,each having 360,000 pixels,to much purer chroma handle the luminance(Y)and chrominance --�-..._" 1 signal is obtained • "' (C)signal components independently. i than with single Separate processing of the Y/C signals is ,:., CCD systems.The r,,', ''.i• achieved by splitting the light entering the result is lifelike color �; p lens with a prism.Having a separate CCD without the usual n• , image sensor for luminance improves vertical color errors, • "<• - d� ` , definition,as evidenced by the camera's � � like color fringing. ,t - outstanding horizontal resolution of more than 470 lines.The chroma CCD provides s accurate color reproduction.In addition, Separate Luminance CCD separate Y/C signal processing provides A separate CCD for luminance elevates freedom from cross-color and dot horizontal resolution by extending the interference. luminance signal bandwidth.Maximum vertical resolution is attained by the Separate Chroma CCD bandwidth delay line,to provide images that Advanced pro-gamma compensation are visibly sharper.Luminance pro-gamma circuitry in the chroma CCD is one reason compensation circuitry assures pure black- the AG-460U provides such natural color and-white delineation,and linear clip control reproduction.By processing each of the minimizes cross-color interference.Double primary colors(RGB),it effectively avoids sampling circuitry contributes to an streaking,and other forms of color excellent S/N ratio for outstanding picture distortion.And because the 2-CCD system quality. RGB filter doesn't require complicated Block Diagram of the 2-CCD Camera CCD Image Sensor for Chrominance Color Sampling Circuit (Equipped with RGB Stripe Filter)r/ B-Y_ — Sampling C iI 'R G --. —► Sampling __ ► j`, i- Clamp T— Processing Circuit -fr / R-YL - •—. Sampling B.. ---.Encoder Lens L CDS -- - + Y 1HDL CCD Image Sensor Y for Luminance CCD Drive -- RGB Sampling Pulses SYNC Generator Optimum S-VHS Performance with the Laminated Amorphous Pro Head Audio Head for Hi-Fi— —Video Head for The extremely high magnetic saturation come through with distinctive faithfulness. Recording/Playback Recording/Playback level of the laminated amorphous video With high playback output and an Audio Head for Hi-Fi head contributes to picture quality that outstanding S/N ratio,the pictures you Video Head for Recording/Playback features stunning rendition of details.The record and see are sharp and realistic. Recording/Playback Rotary Erase Head laminated construction suppresses high- Outstanding Recording frequency noises—such as the noise from Amorphous Pro Head �_ generated by vibrations when the head Because of the high output of the + touches the tape—to attain a significant amorphous Pro Head,special recording yimprovement over ferrite heads.Noise circuitry can be used to protect chroma around boundaries is also dramatically • w -y.:A 4 ;\ signal component information,while j �,; reduced,for clear,streak free color suppressing interference from luminance :-:,' :•4744• fR reproduction.High magnetic saturation also signal components below 1 MHz. -�" means improved performance in the low Compared to typical results from regular . 3 frequency portion of the S-VHS signal. video recording heads,cross color Because information density is raised in interference is reduced by 6 dB,without _ - these areas,color differentiation during compromising high-resolution S-VHS � playback is enhanced.Even similar colors playback. rr .._ J VHS- R SVHS Frequency Deviation VHS Frequency Deviation Luminance 1.6 MHz Chrominance Luminance 1.0 MHz -- Chrominance f Signal r (Signal Audio Head for Hi-Fi Video Head for i. Recording/Payback Recording/Playback V 5 3 4 Video Head for Audio Head for Hi-Fi • Recording/Playback Recording/Playback ' 1; 2 3 4 5.4 MHz 6 7 MHz 1 2 3.4 MHz 5 6 629 kHz: 5 MHz 629 kHz''-3.2 MHz ,4.4 MHz Standard Accessories AC Adaptor.AG-B3A Battery Pack.AG-BP212 System Carrying Case Line Adaptor Shoulder Strap r- Ciiiiiiiiitt Pause Remote Control Unit Audio Cable YC Cable VHF Coaxial Cable Battery Pack Charging Connector Optional Accessories * i ..........• 300Q-754 Transformer Earphone Character Generator, Car Battery Cord, WV-CG5 V W-ACM 1 Specifications • GENERAL • OUTPUT LEVEL Power Source: 12 V DC Audio Output: Line Out R/L(Phono): -8 dB 6000 unbalanced Power Consumption: Recording mode: 12 V-14 W Headphones(M3): -29 dB 8n unbalanced (Battery Operation) Video Output: Video Out(BNC): 1.0 Vp-p 754 unbalanced Operating Temperature: 0-40°C S-Video Output: S-Video Out(4P): Y: 1.0 Vp-p 754 unbalanced Operating Humidity: 35--80% C: 0.286 Vp-p 75n unbalanced Dimensions(WxHxD): 6"x 103/4"x 18"(152x272.5x456.5 mm) ■ CAMERA (with viewfinder turned down) Image Sensor: Y: 1/2-inch CCD image sensor Weight: Approx.8.14 lbs(3.7 kg) C: 1/2-inch CCD image sensor • SYSTEM 10:1 power zoom lens with Macro function Television System: EIA standard NTSC color signal: 525 lines, Auto iris 60 fields Auto focus system: F1.4(8-80 mm) Video Recording System: Four rotary heads,helical scanning system Lens front diameter: 55 mm Luminance: FM azimuth recording Viewfinder: 0.9-inch electronic viewfinder Color signal: Converted subcarrier phase Standard Illumination: 1,400 lux shift recording Minimum Required • TAPE TRANSPORT Illumination: 25 lux Tape Speed: 33.3 mm/sec. Tape Format: S-VHSNHS tape Recording/Playback Time: 120 min.with NV-T120 FF/REW Time: Less than 10 min.with NV-T120 • VIDEO Video Horizontal Resolution: More than 400 lines(S-VHS) Weights and dimensions shown are approximate. VHS S/N Ratio: More than 45 dB(Color) Design and specifications subject to change without notice. • AUDIO This product may be subject to export control regulations. Frequency Response: 20-20,000 Hz(Hi-Fi) Warning: Audio Track: 1 track(Normal) Unauthorized recording of copyrighted television programs,films,videotapes and other materials 2 channels(Hi-Fi) may infringe upon the rights of copyright owners and be contrary to copyright laws • INPUT LEVEL The previous `YA.1 logo mark has been changed to SRN.Regardless of this change in the Audio Input: Mic In R/L(M6): —64 dB 4.7 k4 unbalanced official logo,the S-VHS system represented by either logo,new or old,remains completely identical, Line In R/L(Phono): —10 dB 47 k4 and therefore products carrying either logo can be used interchangeably. unbalanced Panasonic Broadcast&Television Systems Panasonic Company Western Group,Hawaii Region 99-859 Iwaiwa St.,P.O.Box 774,Honolulu,HI 96808-0774(808)488-7779 Executive Office: One Panasonic Way,Secaucus,NJ 07094 Matsushita Electric of Canada Limited 5770 Ambler Drive,Mississauga,Ontario L4W 2T3(416)624-5010 Panasonic Sales Company For further information on our complete line of Broadcast and Television Division of Matsushita Electric of Puerto Rico Inc. Systems products,please call 1-(800)-524-0864 for your nearest San Gabriel Industrial Park,65th Infantry Ave.,Km.9.5, Carolina, Panasonic regional sales office. Matsushita Electric I 750-4300 Industrial Co.,Ltd. Audio&Video Systems Division 2-15 Matsuba-cho Kadoma,Osaka,Japan 571 Tel: 06-901-1161 Fax: 06-908-5969 CTAG460U-P-E VSD7118[09270.3]3K113FPFP-4 Printed in Japan Superb Hi-Fi Stereo Sound — - - The Ideal Complement for High-Quality S-VHS Video �,,..,- To achieve sound quality that matches its the deeper layers of the tape,while high 'r exceptional picture performance,the frequency image signals are recorded on AG-460U is equipped with a Depth the surface layer.Independent recording Multiplex Recording System.Low level control of both audio channels is frequency sound signals are recorded on possible. Zoom Microphone � ° ,„ : .- -•- Unifies Images and Sound The high-performance stereo microphone outdoors.And,if you want to get a wider �, . ' X.' f of the AG-460U features three different sound when shooting nearby subjects, settings toj provide the versatility for just switch to the"wide"position for a rich, handling just about any recording spacious sound field.Independent left • ti \ situation.The automatic zoom helps and right jacks and mic mixing jacks 1111 4- \_ •,N, assure dynamic,truly accurate stereo, provide optimum control over your sound. ` because it changes with the movements Directional Pattern of Microphone of your subject.Voices are crystal clear in • close-ups.And when the principal subject is farther away,surrounding sounds are /. kg A alsopicked up,toprovide a verynatural �i.•.\ 'l\b recording of the environment.Setting the ,� '• � ` f? _ selector on"tele"lets you obtain '<ir:>.:" s•::::::i#:'$' -. �'.`: .l outstanding accuracy when recording '- distant subjects,whether indoors or Wide Pos,lor 10 xZoom Position ) High-Quality Close-Ups with the 2-Speed 10X Zoom Lens Designed to take advantage of the easy.For extra convenience,you get a outstanding picture quality of S-VHS,the choice of two zoom speeds,and the zoom lens of the AG-460U provides macro function excellent peripheral resolution with lets you take minimal flare and coma aberration.Easy- detailed ultra- to-use push-button controls let you zoom close-up shots in or out quickly over a focal range of of small objects. 8 mm to 80 mm.And because it's motor- driven,zooming is always smooth and High-Performance Functions Piezo Auto Focus Black-and-White Audio/Video Additional Features and Functions For quick,precise focusing,the AG-460U Fade-In and Fade-Out *Push Auto button for temporary auto uses a piezo element together with a To fade both picture and sound in or out focus in the manual mode microcomputer chip.With a choice of during recording,for smooth,professional *Index Search function uses automatic three auto-focus zones,optimum focus is scene transitions,all you do is press a and/or manually inserted index signals, achieved even when recording through button. to enable quick location of program window glass or water,or during zooming. starts and special scenes White Fade-In/Out *Sensitivity Switch(AGC: 0 dB, +18 dB) Automatic Tracing White Balance �!-T. helps overcome lighting deficiencies The Auto-Tracing White Balance system of + 'Manual color balance lets you obtain the AG-460U maintains optimum white special color effects balance by continuously adjusting to 1116, R. 1 *Auto and manual iris adjustment changes in ambient illumination,allowing 4—, *--► 'Audio Out select switch you to concentrate on what you're Black Fade-In/Out (Hi-Fi/Normal/Mix) recording.Manual control is also possible. •AudioNideo insert editing and audio dubbing capability Three High-Speed Shutter Modes *Versatile editing facilities: S-Video Out For recording fast action under normal terminal/Adaptor terminal/Synchro Edit/ lighting conditions,use the 1/1,000 sec. '—' '--' 5-pin Edit terminal/Edit switch/Character shutter speed setting.When shooting in Rotary Erase Head Generator direct connection capability low ambient lighting,the 1/500-sec.or By precisely tracing recording tracks as it 1/250-sec.settings provide clear,crisp images with sharp details. erases them,the rotary erase head of the AG-460U eliminates noise usually generated at edit points.This enables smooth transitions between recorded and/ or inserted scenes. 1. Two 360,000-Pixel CCD Image Sensors 2. Laminated Amorphous Pro Head 3. Hi-Fi Stereo Sound System and Zoom-Controlled Stereo Microphone AI 41Pillialii1111116,— .IAA . L� i 28 -I STEREO ZOOM MOP e 10 C . 24 L t2 ® ® him 25 — e e I — 4NM i ID -�}Panasonic aGJ 0 13 O "a 29 Y, =11-15-19-17— L��OO 000 ..., l1I I 19 19 20 21 i • 1 i .. - Panasonic 31 32 -- �_ 33 _ - E in:N$ 29 i I ,l 3/ 35 I38-37 39 39=1�0- `i t I,: -a F n'� Y T_, r ► 30 � wimiimaik Q Microphone Select m Remote Control Jack ® External Microphone m Tracking Adjust m Fade Mode Selector Switch ® Adaptor Connector (MIX)Jack Buttons m Camera Search(-)/ ® Eyepiece Corrector ® Earphone Jack ® Grip Belt m Power Switch with Rec Review Button Control m S-Video Output ® Handgrip Indicator ® Camera Search(+)/ o Manual Zoom Lever Connector ® Built-in Microphone m High Speed Shutter Button with Macro Button ® Audio Input(L)Jack 0 Power Zoom Control Selector ® Audio Rec Level o CCD Pick-up Element m Audio Input(R)Jack Buttons a Date/Time Selector Switch Gain Switch m Edit Connector 0 White Balance Sensor a Index Signal ® Audio Rec Level(L) © Iris Close/Open m Video Output Jack Window Recording Button Control Control m Audio Output(L)Jack ® Tally Indicator m White Balance Mode m Audio Rec Level(R) 0 Color Balance t Audio Output(R)Jack ® Electronic Viewfinder Selector Control Control ® Audio Select Switch ® Tape Running Buttons m Focus Mode Selector ® S-VHS System Q Tape Running Display ® Cassette Compartment 0 Eject Switch m White Balance Set Indication Q Tape Counter ® External Microphone ® S-VHS System Selector Button 0 Reset Button o Earphone Level (L)Jack ® Display Button m Focus Adjusting ® Memory Button Control m External Microphone 0 Date Shift Button Button/Zone Selector 0 Standby Button with m Edit Switch (R)Jack ® Date Set Button 0 Fade Button Indicator os,.•1 LENS . 112 052 ...,, , • - . • -----------,.._.____i L__-__ \ MC:47 _-- \ I t( ) 1 , '_......-.....+.•,...... .,.--- mpr. ••• -,-,,,--,17.-74i5"t' ., • :,-N!'.....:;71kill , . 11°geirli ',1713 St-,ei, r ..„ . I. ., , • :,‘?,..,..: -i..,,.., Ithri4- q..• ''• •t : .-,''A''' :':f..,A ' ' A k ,i1NOWIffi at , ; e Video .. 11111... I -"."411.) ,3'''• Nlanfro-t 0.,,,I.i),, .: Tripods 4. .. "" .- ••-fir'''. 4" i . ',"'A ''4!',•7.\'''' ''I'''Iir..,,.'..' , ''' .,,t-. 110111 in , \ ' • 4444:4'' - le, • ,: 5p,`, • -.— in 14 •,1 1.:4•14 rz,i‘:,i •,t,••,•••s••• . k• ON- if444-..c • •••-.4•••;:4, L yr.•• 9 ..„ , Access orieJ ,,,,, : ,p,,, , •- . 1 ".,, .-:.r.,,,, • ,/j.,:.,..: . 4; ,,tr.1144, 1,..,•:;'.'„,,,,`4.,,N-,:t,f 4its."1...414 ,. --.. - , '..., ' ., , 440 -.."... . • :, ,4 _ aM ...4. 1 ,.. . . • . .. , • ,P.ii. -' - ' ''• ..itr,m'!.., ,,Y'.7.' i . ... ';`,7.$;',:10.,.Tk.,,:e'• -= '' • ,'''' : . .'z'.7*.' ' 4t,' , -:-'1"!-..!,+6,', -2q.:....:,:,...: . - • • ,..,14?4.4...-'''i'•..'r,',...'S . - .1..01„.". .,-, ,; ....-- . . ‘ ;'';M?:-••";..•'-'.‘•?)':.::•;1•: ••4 • ;. '•,*..3.• L,,,I.,` • ,1/4 • -.• -, 'N. ,,,,,••••,-J.... .f.;.....„,,!,-7.?„.7•••••••e.-zr,-,. • . ,..-..‘0,-51-14••(4-1,zt.,.ig-,•,'",,C" - .• .., . , -hfti•;,:,,i...... lo- ,,:. tif'',..'",‘,,"f,...•••, . ,,,,,,, r',,,),."-/f";,i',..,r1' tter`.. ...- • N. N .4,',,,t".31,',Z,„‘`..:,',i',71.?. •, . - . . :,..4,ii,.),•*,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,z,,,,,14‘,,„.,..;., . ,. . .. •:,...i.;t.,,,,i,zi.,:`,.. , ,.• ''''''d,,-,y.';',14-;',,,,'•'...,:t.,-••,,1 • . - : N , •"-- ••• •:•:.•._- - .. ....p--- - - . N,.. `••::/.7,' 'i•••:..;.‘• ' ,,-:- , .4.„,„1/4 ... N. • ..... .....- — - _,- .....--, ,. _ • •0•3-1,1,,N;,, _ litgil„re,4111,,,k15:•'•.;;;,,_:::: ',..... ',.;';',.e.327q:',:.-::•ri.•:', .;\ , "------7,—).,-._1 : ''- 1' ..,,X`' '" , i''''.5.,': ' 4.‘,qk '',.• ....i.;'''';'•.•,','4,14•CI:',. 1,4,, 1 ' a ,,,,., I ,„ , . - . 11,1,514:17 s,„,,,,, Itt,,,,;.,:.,-,y-,1•• ....,4,3.,.,-..4.,:,,,; ' , •1... ..,,, , , , .., • v.t...Ne ,.1:,,.•.e...1,4:1,,..).„)ii-,,,...X,,14,:s.,.-:;,-,p2.4p,,...,,--,1,t‘ci'0,1.:`, . ,...,. ,1 (' . •4....;.i.a. '.. L'•••...1Wit.q. . „. . ..O•f.1.1 .;•.- -•.1.41, ',".,;•5,r ,., , . W..1'... ;.„.r,..•:0., -.•••e„-,v•-•,,, -...,••?,1,-;• .• kr,r--:-..:: . . ---- - .1,thiP .)..r.'A'i:.4 t‘'.' '?I'" , • . - - .:.1).t'i`, .."l';'i,:.4f'10. -',cl,!''i'::411)4.),:- ' ,",:f7",'\ * ,'r"fr4f');r,.'*"...-tre.W,.'", ...:',-.....:.• j... ,(.1:j.,' . , ,,44.',-'„A 4?'-..1.44 5.‘,.!.''' ,..'0.s.;;..:'.;• - ;,•:',V,.'''e. .,.,.*, „::' %;!.'..:' .-.!...'::r. • -'11:kte:ri:'.; . • 'r,i,:r.4.:%••-,4:y.K7..',,,,4.•. .? -,..*.%:•...%:•-f••-:•.-.- ..,:.k.,-5„ 4-.. •::.->,,,.•-,-.5..; -. ..-..- - :,;,..„,i,...;, . , e;' ...,-;•'Y,`","•-,'' . 2.''- -.'-----<;:' r.,, , .'-•'''Fif:'p••...,7-1,..-4f,-. •,----- -‘\" - . ..... 4...' • 1., ik . to.,,,.1,,;. ,, ,,,,g-t.14.c.'-744Y:• :.:`4AP,:;.' "3',.. --..,,,. . .r.6,1%;.....-.-:"1""... '..13A,P.' ., .' , • '.. ' •„%'40.4,,,, 4 ,,,0,81,,,kats ,..:"'.-."""-'''*.,•!:-..'• ..;;Ig.}';'•' op, .Af A , ,'3,1..,,...C.-.%.'454,7, I r%`,1 , 't•41;,,,,?1,,,:•P•1%12,.11:Ntl .1.,l•AZi, ljet"'"A°411:+f i.i'.'4:-.- .• . -•'•••5:-.50):t•'... - ''' ..." :,>,•;A t•..'''',•'•!. '1,,r‘ZS:\•,,,li\—4,,,„;•,... e,'-'4,,,4-.,,,.."-it •'7,i'k,,,,t,.-,,r•-z. ,d4V-4 lt, ....*.' 1.-• 1:-..: ' •.. ••:,';„ .0".Th ''.',' N.•!•I'K:',E, . M.-ri '. ,r ',.'•,-2•51''. , -,•• ' 'A':::1 -:••:-. V••111".4. , ''''V'.."-Ai ',41,14-1 4'41 Vs -‘,',.,15.:17.:,:, lA1 4 ..:"...•1.10 il kV.L-'''... '''t•Y• •:.I-''',,,t, IA,i . A ,„ „,,, . -. : k -.4,V.--,••- i 4 :1•,- --rz;;.••' t.''ff......qf 1.. . • 61:At•• 4.,1.4Z.r t.\y;•t!:',..' , ,-1:20;,'„V-, '' I s'. `.4'".,.; !:•4'. •?':.`,'47470 A ,,,,:fa,,,,, 4,1,:•,.'.', • ....,,..,,,,.;:-",, ‘•,"' g,t,t. ..-.„:„, - •..,...„-,..,....,... . :„.. ,,,. , •• ,-.,,,... t.,....0)0„, .) ,,,-- . . • A„ .i.',....f),' r;,So.,....1/41i Al'.**.l.L"2.): ' ' 1 '1"C.71:. • Air . ,,,,,,,,,,,... .i._ _ . . ..., •• , . , , , . ,. . , . , . . , OROFESSIur Now You Can Afford To Designed with the needs of TV cameramen, industrial and educational filmmakers in mind, Bogen Cine Video Camera Support Systems incorporate many exceptional features found only in equipment costing much more. They're truly professional performers 3191 3190 PROFESSIONAL CINE/VIDEO TRIPOD PROFESSIONAL CINE/VIDEO TRIPOD 3194 (3191 TRIPOD WITH 3066 HEAD) W/SPIKED FEET Tandem legs with retractable, spring-loaded spike tips are 3196 (3190 TRIPOD WITH 3066 HEAD) the secret to the Bogen Professional Cine/Video Tripod's Our premier Cine/Video equipped Feet rock-solid support. But there's a lot more to this lightweight for sure, secure locking into Tripod either dollieswitht SpikedkedrF. 1 lbs.)tripod. It han les camerasVo up to 2a lbs. when used Tandem aluminum legs and 100 mm claw-ball leveller and with the Bogen 3066 Cine Video Fluid Head—and even more with other heads. other features are identical to our 3191 Series Tripods. This It also features a 100mm diameter claw-ball leveller, tripod also accepts the 3138 Spreader or the 3189 Mid-level variable leg angles within a 180°arc, quick-flip lever leg locks, Spreader. stainless steel fittings with high-quality castings, and built-in ORDER CODE 3190 3190 Tripod without Head leg straps for convenient transport.The tripod folds to ORDER CODE 3193 3190 Black Anodized Tripod without Head 381/2 in. and extends to 59 in. without head. ORDER CODE 3191 3191 Tripod without Head ORDER CODE 3196 3190 Tripod with 3066 Head ORDER CODE 3192 3191 Black Anodized Tripod without Head ORDER CODE 3197 3193 Tripod with 3066 Head ORDER CODE 3194 3191 Tripod with 3066 Head ORDER CODE 3195 3192 Black Anodized Tripod with 3066 Headit ‘ 11 • 0 Ii " \\ . c, t ill / \, ,i, I \ I ,' c Shown with 3189 Mid-level Spreader fo. - extra support when shooting outdoors. 0.o ,r, HI ;IiIi1iS 1 -iS . =-Support Your Camera In Style that don't sacrifice innovative engineering or dependability. Now you can enjoy the confidence ' of knowing that every movement of your camera will be smooth, steady and shudder-free. 3185 3181 MINI-PRO CINE/VIDEO TRIPOD LIGHTWEIGHT PROFESSIONAL 3187 (3185 TRIPOD WITH 3066 HEAD) ' CINE/VIDEO TRIPOD When you need a tripod with all the quality and features of 3183 (3181 TRIPOD WITH 3066 HEAD) our 3190 and 3191 Series Tripods for shooting at low angles, Here's a lightweight version of our Professional Cine/Video y5ou need our 31/4 in.85 As wit alHel our tripods, ranges from oas low qualitys Tripod. Designed with tandem upper legs and single lower t r up to through.with all our tripods, it's B re dn r or legs and a classic 75 mm diameter claw-ball leveller, it weighs 3189houMh ande ed Also accepts the 3138 Spreader or the less than 9 lbs. Equipped with Spiked Feet,this quality Mid level Spreader. Bogen tripod accepts the 3138 Spreader or the 3189 Mid- ORDER CODE 3185 3185 Tripod without Head level Spreader. ORDER CODE 3186 3185 Black Anodized Tripod without Head ORDER CODE 3181 3181 Tripod without Head ORDER CODE 3187 3185 Tripod with 3066 Head ORDER CODE 3182 3101 Black Anodized Tripod without Head _ ORDER CODE 3188 3186 Black Anodized Tripod with 3066 Head ORDER CODE 3183 3181 Tripod with 3066 Head ORDER CODE 3184 3182 Black Anodized Tripod with 3066 Head =IIL_ C -x tie - •" i�G: Y LAC \V) itt' Q, . p Oj . if , if- ,. , ,' _.. ... , ‘,. : ' :1, ,,,, . ...,_ / iti \' s. d ": \ r Shown with 3189 Mid-level Spreader for _ extra support when shooting outdoors., 3068 3061 UNIVERSAL CINE/VIDEO TRIPOD HEAVY DUTY CINE/VIDEO TRIPOD 3065 (3068 TRIPOD WITH 3066 HEAD) 3062 (3061 TRIPOD WITH 3066 HEAD) 3118 (3068 TRIPOD WITH 3063 HEAD) The Bogen Heavy-Duty Cine/Video Tripod is the ideal field The Bogen Universal Cine/Video Tripod weighs only 11 lbs., tripod. Closed length is only 371/2 in.,yet it extends to a full 63 in. It can be set as low as 5 in. With its built-in claw ball, yet extends to 67 in. It is remarkably stable because of its the camera head can be levelled quickly under all use rigid center brace construction and its steel extension legs conditions. Built-in chain spreader allows you to position which lower the center of gravity. Legs are furnished with legs at any angle.The Heavy-Duty Tripod weighs just 16 lbs. convertible cushion/spike tips. ORDER CODE 3061 3061 Tripod without Head For precise positioning,there is a centerpost which permits 91/4 in. of extension.The unique variable-angle ORDER CODE 3062 3061 Tripod with 3066 Head center brace system on the tripod allows minimum elevation ORDER CODE 3064 3061 Tripod with 3066 Head and 3067 Dolly of the tripod platform as low as 173/4 in. ORDER CODE 3065 3068 Tripod with 3066 Head ORDER CODE 3069 3068 Tripod with 3066 Head and 3067 Dolly ORDER CODE 3068 3068 Tripod without Head -_ '.! ' S°°—_ ORDER CODE 3118 3068 Tripod with 3063 Head ° � !,o/i 9, q/ , i = \ 1 ,-. \ 7/ $1, ''' / \ \ / < f 2 I 1w. p :\,,,, , , ,,, ,,,,,,t., 9 f A i o y 1' \ 4* i k 0 0 1 I. jooi , 3411 3417 (3411 TRIPOD WITH 3126 HEAD) 3165 (3001 TRIPOD WITH 3160 HEAD) 3418 (3411 TRIPOD WITH 3130 HEAD) 3169 (3001 TRIPOD WITH 3130 HEAD) 3419 (3411 TRIPOD WITH 3160 HEAD) 3170 (3001 TRIPOD WITH 3126 HEAD) • Designed especially for VCR Cameras up to 83/4 lbs.,This is Easy to use and easy to handle,the Bogen 3001 Video Tripod one of our most versatile, lightweight Cine/Video Tripods. It is the lightest(about 31/2 lbs.)and the smallest(folds down weighs just over 31/2 lbs., has a maximum height of 541/2 in., to 201/2 in.) but one of the most versatile tripods we offer. and folds down to only 201/2 in., making it exceptionally easy Designed especially for VCR Cameras up to 83/4 lbs. to use and handle. It sets up quickly and easily. Sturdy legs feature 3 click- Sturdy legs are made of tubular aluminum and feature stop spread angles and are made of tubular hard-finish sure-grip,quick acting, non-fouling lever locks for quick and aluminum and each has sure-grip, quick-acting, non-fouling easy set-ups. lever locks. This is a solid tripod by itself, but you can add our Portable Add the portable Video Dolly or the Lightweight Tripod Video Dolly or the Lightweight Tripod spreader for even Spreader and you have rock-solid support for smooth pans more support that equals heavier and more costly tripods. and tilts. ORDER CODE 3411 3411 Tripod without Head ORDER CODE 3001 3001 Tripod without Head ORDER CODE 3417 3411 Tripod with 3126 Head ORDER CODE 3165 3001 Tripod with 3160 Head . ORDER CODE 3418 3411 Tripod with 3130 Head ORDER CODE 3166 3001 Tripod with 3160 Head and 3127 Dolly ORDER CODE 3419 3411 Tripod with 3160 Head ORDER CODE 3167 3205 Black Anodized Tripod with 3160 Head ORDER CODE 3431 3431,BIack Anodized Tripod without Head ORDER CODE 3168 3205 Black Anodized Tripod with 3160 Head and ORDER CODE 3437 3431 Black Anodized Tripod with 3126 Head 3127 Dolly ORDER CODE 3438 3431 Black Anodized Tripod with 3130 Head ORDER CODE 3169 3001 Tripod with 3130 Head ORDER CODE 3439 3431 Black Anodized Tripod with 3160 Head ORDER CODE 3170 3001 Tripod with 3126 Head ORDER CODE 3171 3001 Tripod with 3126 Head and 3127 Dolly ORDER CODE 3172 3001 Tripod with 3126 Head and 3155 Spreader 4_-, ORDER CODE 3173 3205 Black Anodized Tripod with 3126 Head I ORDER CODE 3174 3205 Black Anodized Tripod with 3126 Head and 3127 Dolly mu., 1r > ORDER CODE 3175 3205 Black II Anodized Tripod with 3130 Head 1 - ' ORDER CODE 3205 3205 Black E_ ,.*;�,)Anodized Tripod without Head o a ii, i; 1 l �/ 1 r : i :.i I r ii I/ I. I 1 , i \ 6' Ai ii. 3021 1 3116 (3011 TRIPOD WITH 3063 HEAD) 3120 (3021 TRIPOD WITH 3063 3124 (3011 TRIPOD WITH 3126 HEAD) HEAD) 3163 (3011 TRIPOD WITH 3160 HEAD) 3125 (3021 TRIPOD WITH 3126 HEAD) 3179 (3011 TRIPOD WITH 3130 HEAD) 3161 (3021 TRIPOD WITH 3160 HEAD) Here's a tripod with exceptional stability that weighs 51/4 lbs. 3176 (3021 TRIPOD WITH 3130 HEAD) With Bogen professional quality through and through, it is The first thing you'll like about this tripod is its versatility. steady,ubulaalumversatile, easy to use and easy , caquick-actingrry. Sturdy,leverYou'll find that no matter where you're shooting—indoors or tubular With a maxium legs have tion sure-grips, 4 i ., and out, rough terrain or smooth floor—this tripod will locks. With a maximum elevation of 69/4 in., and a minimum accommodate you. of 22/2 in., it's an ideal compliment to your portable VCR camera. One of the reasons for this is the legs. Each has 3 different --,_ ORDER CODE 3011 3011TripodwlthoutHead click-stopped spread angles so levelling is easy no matter how rough the going gets. Equally important,they let you ORDER CODE 3116 3011 Tripod with 3063 Head work in confined areas where other tripods normally have to ORDER CODE 3121 3211 Black Anodized Tripod with 3063 Head maintain an arm's—or leg's—length distance. ORDER CODE3122 3211 BlackAnodlzedlrlpodwith3126Head Maximum shooting height is 71 in.The adjustable spread of the legs combined with the convertible center post, ORDER CODE 3124 3011 Tripod with 3126 Head which has a removable section, lets you get as low as 101/4 in. ORDER CODE 3129 3011 Tripod with 3126 Head and 3127 Dolly ORDER CODE 3021 3021 Tripod without Head ORDER CODE 3149 3211 Black Anodized Tripod with 3126 Head and ORDER CODE 3120 3021 Tripod wth 3063 Head 3127 Dolly ORDER CODE 3123 3221 Black Anodized Tripod with 3126 Head ORDER CODE 3163 3011 Tripod with 3160 Head ORDER CODE 3125 3021 Tripod with 3126 Head ORDER CODE 3164 3011 Tripod with 3160 Head and 3127 Dolly ORDER CODE 3128 3021 Tripod with 3126 Head and 3127 Dolly ORDER CODE 3179 3011 Tripod with 3130 Head ORDER CODE 3148 3221 Black Anodized Tripod wth 3126 Head and 3127 Doily ORDER CODE 3180 3211 Black Anodized Tripod with 3130 Head ORDER CODE 3161 3021 Tripod with 3160 Head ORDER CODE 3211 3211 Black Anodized Tripod without Head ORDER CODE 3162 3021 Tripod with 3160 Head and 3127 Dolly ORDER CODE 3215 3211 Black Anodized Tripod with 3160 Head ORDER CODE 3176 3021 Tripod with 3130 Head ORDER CODE 3178 3221 Black Anodized Tripod with 3130 Head ORDER CODE 3221 3221 Black Anodized Tripod without Head {' ORDER CODE 3225 3221 Black Anodized Tripod with 3160 Head ,+11,1 °� ORDER CODE 3226 3221 Black Anodized Tripod with 3063 Head Tr< ,0 I R` - t i f i \' i . I, - / t �I r 1 I th , r r, + . 1+ . \ I •+ i 11 ii ii / . . lig 1i ii , • 3033 J"C136 3131 (3033 TRIPOD WITH 3063 HEAD) 3135 (3036 TRIPOD WITH 3063 HEAD) 3132 (3033 TRIPOD WITH 3126 HEAD) The versatile tripod has a maximum height of 803/4 in. yet it 3133 (3033 TRIPOD WITH 3160 HEAD) can go as low as 161/2 in. Center post is geared and features 3134 (3033 TRIPOD WITH 3130 HEAD) an automatic safety lock with push button release.htsfo Most impourtant, it maintains its stability at all heights for vibration-free shots. Our lightest tripod with center braces and geared column Stability is enhanced by independent variable-spread leg gives you great support for steady,vibration-free pans and braces that allow you to obtain different angles on each leg. tilts. This makes it ideal for location shooting where you The three legs are continuously adjustable in relation to each need a compact, sturdy tripod. other. A real plus where you need a level head (and a built-in Three-section legs provide a maximum working height of spirit level tells you when you are there).And the convertible 67 in., but telescope into a really manageable package for cushion/spike tip legs give you sure footing indoors or out. carrying. ORDER CODE 3036 3036 Tripod without Head Leg adjustment is fast and easy, even when you're wearing ORDER CODE 3135 3036 Tripod with 3063 Head gloves,thanks to our exclusive rocker arm leg lock,and a spirit level on the shoulder which shows you when you're on ORDER CODE 3136 3236 Black Anodized Tripod with 3063 Head the level. Convertible cushioned spike tip legs and rigid ORDER CODE 3236 3236 Black Anodized Tripod without Head center bracing hold everything firm. ORDER CODE 3033 3033 Tripod without Head ORDER CODE 3131 3033 Tripod with 3063 Head ORDER CODE 3132 3033 Tripod with 3126 Head ORDER CODE 3133 3033 Tripod with 3160 Head ORDER CODE 3134 3033 Tripod with 3130 Head I i:11 1 , { - f 1 ii.1. s \\ ? \ , / I , \ . , , ,, I •. 3046 3051 3140 (3046 TRIPOD WITH 3063 3150 (3051 TRIPOD WITH 3063 HEAD) HEAD) Extension of each leg can be adjusted individually, or all Our aluminum double-strut, center-braced two-section three can be released simultaneously.All it takes is firm tripod. The design offers remarkable rigidity coupled with pressure on one of two separate sets of triggers. light weight(only 81/4 lbs.). These triggers let you move from as low as 153/4 in.to The ideal tripod for educational and industrial studio 631/4 in.almost as fast as you can lift your camera. And,you applications, especially when used with any of our Bogen can do it all with a level head,thanks to a built-in spirit level Dollies. It extends to 681/2 in. with the Mini Fluid Head. Folds on the shoulder. Legs are equipped with convertible to a compact 32 in.for travelling. Legs are furnished with cushion/spike tips. convertible cushion/spike tips.The surprisingly affordable This tripod also has independent,continuously variable leg all-purpose tripod. braces that let you set each leg at a different angle. Ideal for ORDERCDDE3046 30467ripodwlthoutHead uneven terrain, close quarters, low to the ground,just about everything. ORDER CODE 3140 3046 Tripod with 3063 Head ORDER CODE 3051 3051 Tripod without Head ORDER CODE 3142 3246 Black Anodized Tripod with 3063 Head ORDER CODE 3150 3051 Tripod with 3063 Head ORDER CODE 3246 3246 Black Anodized Tripod without Head I f A I \ , 66 7 E I I // • '': ,, , / \ I i • IP i rtx{YCfYfTTI'r y,�� ..'.. HEADS 3066 CINE/VIDEO FLUID HEAD This professional quality,fluid tripod head with telescoping handles is designed for cine and video cameras weighing up to 22 lbs. The large, removable camera platform has a mounting stud that travels in a 31/2 in.slot and facilitates balancing at the camera's center of gravity. In addition,there is a series of closely-spaced locking detents on the platform,any of which can be used. The Bogen 3066 Fluid Head pans smoothly 360°and the panning drag can be adjusted by means of a simple adjustment screw. Verticle drag is adjusted by a large,oversized knob. The tilting range is 60°up to 90°down with the camera under perfect control at all times. And there's a detent which can be set to limit the downward movement to 45°. Seperate locks,independent of the drag system, provide a positive hold in any position. ORDER CODE 3066 Cine/Video Fluid Head with Quick Release Plate 9r�+— • • 3063 MINI FLUID HEAD Now you can make sure your lightweight Cine or Video camera(up to 11 lbs.)follows the action with nary a shudder when you mount it on this multi-talented Mini Fluid Head. Measuring just 5 in. x 5 in. x 5 in. (excluding handle),this lightweight(31/4 lbs.),fluid head pans and tilts smoothly and has a camera platform that features a quick-release mounting plate with locating pin. For convenience and comfort and to accommodate the widest possible range of cameras,the Mini Fluid Head comes with a versatile handle which is positionable on either side and can be separated into two individual segments,each 9 in. in length. The Mini Fluid Head can be tilted 45°up and 90°down continu- ously,with detent at 45°,and has separate pan and tilt locks. Vertical drag is continuously adjustable. ORDER CODE 3063 Mini Fluid Head with Quick Release Plate 7160 • XL FLUID HEAD If you're looking for a lightweight fluid head (11/2 lbs). with amazingly smooth Q operation and the ability to handle cameras up to 83/4 lbs.,you've just found it. The Bogen XL Fluid Head. The XL has a quick release plate which lets you attach and detach the camera quickly and easily. So setting up or changing cameras was never simpler. The adjustable handle can be conve- niently located on either the right or left side of the head. ORDER CODE 3160 XL Fluid Head with Quick Release Plate 7130 >AN OR MICRO FLUID HEAD \\*\,, The 3130 QR Micro Fluid Head is similar 4 - to our 3126 Micro Fluid Head except that it has the added feature of a Quick Release Plate which permits you to _, change cameras or detach the camera with the flip of a lever. ORDER CODE 3130 OR Micro Fluid Head 3126 MICRO FLUID HEAD You'll be amazed at the smooth move- ment of the Bogen Micro Fluid Head. Only 21/4 lbs. including an adjustable handle, it's perfect for just about any of the new light-weight(up to 83/4 lbs.) VCR cameras. It pans smoothly a full 360°, can be tilted up or down 90°, has pan and tilt locks and continuously adjustable postitioning slot for best camera bal- ance and is designed so that the han- dle can be on either the left or right side. ORDER CODE 3126 Mlcro Fluid Head DOLLIES f1 as A. 0 ♦ N. G 3127 __„_________. ,_ ,..„.,._ . . ,. , . ,_ _ PORTABLE DOLLY This handy dolly weighs only 5 lbs. 7 oz., has a 20 in. radius, 3067/3198 folds to a compact 221/2 in. and is suitable for most Bogen tripods. It features our Sure-lock/No-rock system that lifts the 2 in. casters free of the ground so that the dolly rests on separate feet. Heavy duty quick-fastening rubber straps hold DELUXE CINE/VIDEO DOLLIES tripod securely to dolly. ORDER CODE 3127 Portable Dolly The Bogen Cine/Video Dolly(3067)is designed for use with the Professional Cine/Video, Universal and Heavy Duty Tri- pods. Individually braked 5 in. wheels with cable guards and . s. \ a unique leg-locking system make it extremely stable.And k it's easy to assemble and disassemble for transporting.The tripod legs are captured in a 38 in. diameter circle and the doorway clearance needed for the fully assembled dolly is , only 391/2 in. A version of the Bogen Deluxe Cine/Video Dolly is also available for tripods in the 3181, 3185,and 3190 Series. ._. ORDER CODE 3067 Deluxe Cine/Video Dolly .' ORDER CODE 3198 Deluxe Cine/Vldeo Dolly for tripods with Spiked Feet lP \ U '2±±- 111%\ 1 '' r' , ' '.11:: ,, -,,,,,''' tif ellok."* I''' - i f4:,_ 3137 ,. , LW _ _„ _ _ VARIABLE LEG SPREAD DOLLY 3056/3156 Similar to the 3127 but different in that it incorporates vari- able leg spread for added versatility.This special feature al- lows you to adjust the radius from a maximum of 20 in.to AUTO AND FOLDING AUTO DOLLIES as little as 121/2.And when our Variable Leg Spread Dolly isn't in use, it packs down to an ultra compact size for easy Many dollies brake against the caster or wheel itself which storage. can cause wear and slippage. But when you depress the cen- ORDER CODE 3137 Variable Leg Spread Dolly trally located foot pedal of either the Bogen Auto Dolly or the Bogen Folding Auto Dolly,you release all three wheels. y :c, 7, When you lift the pedal,cam action raises the wheels free of K '1 the ground and the weight of the dolly and tripod rests on �\ i separate feet. The ideal companions for Bogen 3131, 3135, 3140 and 3150 , ;j .1• tripods.The Auto Dolly weighs only 6 lbs., incorporates . - \ ip Shepherd Casters and is easily assembled. Spread from cen- ji, - t ', ter to tripod leg socket is 181/2 in.The Folding Auto Dolly features 3 in. wheels,weighs 93/4 lbs. and the spread from • t center to tripod leg socket is 20 in. Folds to a compact 29 in. i H On either dolly, mounting and dismounting the tripod is accomplished by cam operated kick-locks. .. ' - If you need to support a camera for very low angle shoot- , ing,we've thoughtfully provided a European thread stud on - the central casting on which you can mount your Bogen \ fluid head. I ORDER CODE 3056 Auto Dolly . ' • . • ORDER CODE 3156 Folding Auto Dolly ORDER CODE 3254 Black Folding Auto Dolly •t 3 „ , ..._ lova ...................... . !. 1 ,, Acicebisurieti i"-- I I II 1 ID i ' I1I f - MINI AUTO-POLE i ' -+` �� , 1 :,s.'' .& 2953 — ,, '`,,,,,' 1 ,41, Need to handle a light or small camera ,,' L in a confined area?The Mini Auto-Pole 1 is just what you need. It's easy to set SUCTION GRIP WITH i�r" up, extends from 39 in. to 67 in. and .. • r // uses the same automatic cam action ` \ positive locking system as our regular CAMERA SUPPORT Auto-Pole.positioning where floor space is at a ,,,, LIGHTWEIGHT \ \, ORDERCO E2953premium. ppllMid aMini t sete f 2. TRIPOD IA , Adheres to any flat, non-porous sur- face. Features a Camera Support and SPREADER i. w an adjustable pole for additional sup- yr;, port and stability. 3155/ ORDER CODE 3289 Suction Grip with Camera 4 ,_ Support 3138 1 ..........„. ...0,..,ft,„..,===.0 ) .., sr r,. — ._, , ..- -- , -.\ , o s .,.. . The quick and easy way to add stability. SKY Minimum radius is 16 in. Maximum spread radius is 251/2 in. For all Bogen HOOK Tripods except the 3061. �n , 4 ORDER CODE 3155 Tripod Spreader GAFFER ` -- _ �� TRIPOD BAGS ORDER CODE 3138 Tripod Spreader for tripods with Spiked Feet CLAMP ,`\` 3279 ,. 2970 , ; Unlike conventional gaffer clamps,the 3280 Sky Hook is adjustable so that its jaws -- . ^ - can be nearly parallel so more surface 3281 - --- ) area is involved. Combined with dur- f-n able rubber grippers,the result is a re- liable grasp on anything from a 3/4 in. Handsome dark blue heavy-duty shelf to a 3 x 3. The socket is 5/8 in. and Cordure nylon. the standard stub is double-ended (5/8 25"fits our 3001 Series Tripods. �---LL •'k in. for cine and strobe heads). If you 35"fits our 3011, 3021 and 3033 Series VIDEO CAMERA want to hang a remote controlled Tripods. camera,just get our accessory stud 45"fits out 3036, 3046 and 3051 Series SHOULDER MOUNT (Order Code 2971)—it takes either a Tripods. 1/4-20 or Euro-thread ball head. ORDER CODE 3279 25"Tripod Bag ORDER CODE 2970 Sky Hook Gaffe ORDER CODE 3280 35"Tripod Bag 3144 ORDER CODE 2971 Accc ssory St dr Clamp ORDER CODE 3281 45"Tripod Bag Designed for portable video cameras with side mount viewfinders,the SUCTION GRIP Bogen Video Camera Shoulder Mount ?- is contoured for a proper fit,and pad- ded for extra comfort. Our optional SOCKET '' bracket(Order Code 3143) is available ,r �'( PROJECTOR for cameras with rear viewfinders. For 3294 . ,t. added versatility, it will also attach to • PLATFORM .r 'N.,a tripod.And it's rugged,too. Made - of tough, heavy-duty aluminum, its This handy Swivel Socket adheres to 3290 . 1 adjustable screw slides back and any flat, non-porous surface. Features forth to suit your needs while keeping a 5/8 in. ball-joint socket which rotates the camera securely attached to the within a half hemisphere. Supplied Aluminum platform for projectors, cross-bar. with stud w/1/4-20 Thread. Great for speakers, etc. Attaches to Bogen Tri- ORDER CODE 3144 Shoulder Mount holding lights,cameras, scrims, gobos, pods w/o head. Measures 93/4 in. x ORDER CODE 3143 Optional Bracket for Camera Magic Arms or Articulated Arms. 133/4 in. with Rear View Finders ORDER CODE 3194 Suction Grip Swivel Socket ORDER CODE 3290 Projector Platform ryi F HEAVY DUTY -:' TABLE • Q, SWIVELING J f `;, MOUNT ' •® "C" CLAMP \ CAMERA - _ .h _ {�',' SUPPORT 29G5 3276 Bogen's Heavy Duty"C: Clamp weighs less than 31/2 lbs. yet it is load-rated at Designed for a horizontal surface to 165 lbs.,which means that it was sub- hold surviellance cameras. Complete jected to a static test at more than ten with swivel tilt head. times its rating. The adjustable jaws ORDER CODE 3276 Table Mount Camera Support open to handle any pipe up to 31/2 in. in diameter. There's a 360° locking swivel which has sockets for 11/8 in., ' `:' and 5/8 in. bushings and also a slide- WALL out male 5/8 in. stud. MOUNT t ORDER CODE 2965 "C"Clamp CAMERA ::•• ORDER CODE 2966 Accessory Wire Rope Safety SUPPORT Chain �� A 3277 a. VIDEO I :,� , - ; , ` `" ai Also designed for surviellance cameras. TRIPOD t .11 Mounts on a wall and incorporates a ili i .--"/ ' CADDY ;%�d ';_l"� 9 in. bracket and a swivel tilt head. MONOPODS ___ iz ORDER CODE 3zn Wall Mount Camera Support BOGEN 3-SECTION I .3145/47'; �• �� MONOPOD The handiest thing you can put on a \k''''''4" '---N4," tripod.Attaches to any two legs and is •a. 3016 built to hold portable VCRs, battery "'° packs or what-have-you. Heavy duty tit, G "7 and rugged, adds stability. `� �'-^ Extends from 23"to 59"and weighs only 1 lb. , - ORDER CODE 3145 Tripod Caddy ,' i ORDER CODE 3016 3-Section Monopod ' ORDER CODE 3216 Black Anodized 3-Section '; Monopod BOGEN ANTI-THEFT ORDER CODE 3017 3-Section Monopod with r/,,ti / Q \-%I LOCK PLATE 3025"3-D"Head / f ORDER CODE 3217 Black Anodized 3-Section �i 1-- l3295 3025"3-D"Head ORDER CODE 3241 3-Section 3016 Monopod with 3232 Swivel Tilt Head Designed especially for the Bogen Mini ORDER CODE 3242 3-Section 3216 Monopod TRIPOD APRON Fluid Head Quic).k Easy ele to use. Simply wSectio2SwivelTlitHead remove the Quick Release plate, re- 3146 place with the Anti-Theft Lock Plate and attach cable to non moveable fixture. BOGEN PROFESSIONAL Attaches easily to any Bogen Tripod. ORDER CODE 3295 MONOPOD Holds lenses, film.filters, etc. _ 3018 ORDER CODE 3146 Tripod Apron 3 sections; extends from 27"to 65", =— ;'� weighs 1 Ib.,13 oz. and features a 3/8" PRO QUICK:s�' tip on one end and a 1/4-20 on the ,- other. ADAPTER , ' toe ORDER CODE 3018 Professional Monopod ORDER CODE 3218 Black Anodized Professional ASSEMBLY co„ . Monopod `�WITH SLIDE PLATE ORDER CODE 3019 Professional Monopod with CARRYING STRAP 3025"3-D"Head 3044 ORDER CODE 3219 Black Professional 3273 Head Monopod with with3025"3•D" - Has a 5-1/2 x 2 in. plate with 1/4-20 Here's an accessory strap for all Boger ORDER CODE 3230 3018 w/Detachable Legs and 3/8 in.threads and sliding slot to tripods that makes carrying them ORDER CODE 3231 3218 w/Detachabie Legs vary the center of gravity. easier. Goes off and on quickly and ORDER CODE 3243 Professional Monopod with ORDER CODE 3273 Pro Quick Release Adapter Assembly doesn't get in the way of you 3232 Swivel Tilt Head with Slide Plate shooting. ORDER CODE 3244 Professional Black Monopod ORDER CODE 3272 Plate only far 3273 ORDER CODE 3044 Carrying Strap with 3232 Swivel Tilt Head BALL CAMERA UNIVERSAL ALL-WEATHER LEVELLER MOUNTING .. SHOES 1 PLATE „ - -` 3115 3255 M With its built in bubble level you can 3268 rF Snapthese all-weather shoes onto level your camera even if yo haven't your tripod legs and you're set for levelled the tripod. Ideal for field use This unique design fits all Bogen Quick snow,sand, or other irregular surfaces. on uneven terrain. This is an ideal corn- Release Heads. Comes complete with Shoes attach easily and provide the plement for all Bogen fluid heads. It 1/4-20 and 3/8 in. screws. stability you need. works like a claw ball in that you ORDER CODE 3268 Universal Mounting Plate ORDER CODE 3255 All-Weather Shoes(Set of 3) mount it to your tripod. You can re- move the camera the head quickly to mount on another tripod similarly VIDEO MONITOR equipped. �-� F— ORDER CODE 3115 Ball Camera Leveller „� ,d�. HOLDER `� / ®l 1 ,, 3152 7}. �...„. „ � \ i - f , Designed for use with the Super Clamp (2900) in conjunction with the 0 , l i Double Ball Joint(2916), Magic Arms . (2929 or 2930), or Extension Arm - (2906).This is ideal for attaching a small video monitor to a tripod. Measures 7 in. x 11-1/2 in. Straps hold monitor securely in place. SPIKED FOOT - BOGEN ORDER CODE 3152 Video Monitor Holder ADAPTER MAGIC 3256 # '. ,� ARMS . . Count on your easy attaching spiked 2929 I ' foot to dig in and prevent the tripod „..:..„ grassshifting gravel, rocks,01dirt, !(,' 2930 1. grass and more. For 3001, 3011 and 3021 Series Tripod legs and 3016 and �� 3216 Monopods . ORDER CODE 3256 Spiked Foot Adapter The Bogen Magic Arm (2930)is a fully /l. \ (Set of 3) articulated arm with 90°pivotable and 360°rotatable ends and an elbow that ' SURVEYORS' - armrotates with a0shoulder, an elbow anous to a human . • SPIKED FOOT ) wrist except that you have consider- 3257 ably greater movement. In the relaxed position,you can move any of the joints to any desired position.A firm HARD CASES turning movement of the control han- dle—located at the elbow joint—locks all 3285 For all Bogen Monopods except those with detachable legs.Allows the Mono- three joints firmly into position. pod to be firmly implanted in the The Bogen Variable Friction Magic 32�6 ground. Arm (2929) is the same as the 2930 ex cept that the tension can be,adjusted ORDER CODE 3257 Surveyors'Spiked Foot by the oversized control knob allowing you to put a light for example, in posi- Now you can protect your tripods QUICK tion but then make final adjustments from water, heat, cold,solvents and �.. „m-. before you lock it into position. just plain wear and tear with lockable RELEASE -- '1 -` Bogen Magic Arms are perfect for hard cases from Bogen.Available in �r , placement of small lights; great for two sizes,they're made of heavy duty MOUNTING - ,a . gobos, reflectors and flags. high density polyethylene and feature SYSTEM h`- ....00.° Both ends have studs that fit into exceptional impact resistance outside any standard 5/e in. socket—such as ...superior cushioning inside.They 3296 that on the Super Clamp—and the also offer aluminum tongue and studs have flats for positive tightening. groove closures, recessed nickel-plated In addition, both ends are tapped: one latches and piano hinges for long life. is 1/4-20 and the other is for zuropean Small case measures 6"x 6"x 44"for Designed to fit on any tripod which threads so that they can be screwed 3033, 3036, 3046 and 3051'Tripod legs does not have the quick release fea- on to tripods and light stands. with all Heads. Large case measures ture. Supplied with Bogen 1/4-20 Quick ORDER CODE 2929 Variable Friction Magic Arm 91/2"x 91/2"x 44"for 3191, 3068, and _ Release Plate and extra 3/8"screw. Base ORDER CODE 2930 Magic Arm 3061 Tripod legs with 3066 Heads. is threaded for /4-20 and /e' ORDER CODE 3285 Small Case ORDER CODE 3296 Quick Release Mounting ORDER CODE 2931 Accessory Fork System ORDER CODE 2915 Super Clamp ORDER CODE 3286 Large Case TRIPOD WITHOUT W/3126 W/3130 W/3160 W/3063 TRIPOD WITHOUT W/3063 W/3066 HEAD MICRO QR MICRO XL FLUID MINI HEAD MINI CININIDEO HEAD FLUID HEAD FLUID HEAD HEAD FLUID HEAD HEAD FLUID HEAD HEAD BOGEN 3411 TRIPOD BOGEN 3051 TRIPOD ORDER CODE 3411 3417 3418 3419 ORDER CODE 3051 3150 Weight: 3 7/8 lbs. 61/8 lbs. 61/8 lbs. 5 3/8 lbs. Weight: 121/8 lbs. 15 3/8 lbs. Closed Length: 21 in. 25 3/8 in. 251/2 in. 23 3/4 in. Closed Length: 37 1/4 in. 43 in. Max.Elevation: 60 in. 64 3/8 in. 641/2 in. 63 3/4 in. Max.Elevation: 631/4 in. 69 in. Centerpost Travel: 13 3/4 in. Centerpost Travel: 91/4 in. Min.Elevation: 19 in. 23 3/8 in. 231/2 in. 22 3/4 in. Min.Elevation: 161/2 in. 22 1/4 in. Max Capacity: 8 3/4 lbs. 8 3/4 lbs. 10 lbs. Max.Capacity: 11 lbs. BOGEN 3001 TRIPOD BOGEN 3061 TRIPOD ORDER CODE 3001 3170 3169 3165 ORDER CODE 3061 3062 Weight: 3 5/8 lbs. 5 7/8 lbs. 5 7/8 lbs. 51/8 lbs. Weight: 16 lbs. 23 3/4 lbs. Closed Length: 21 in. 25 3/8 in. 251/2 in. 24 3/4 in. Closed Length: 371/2 in. 43 3/8 in. Max.Elevation: 55 in. 59 3/8 in. 591/2 in. 58 3/4 in. Max.Elevation: 61 1/2 in. 67 3/8 in. Centerpost Travel: 8 3/4 in. Centerpost Travel. --- Min.Elevation: 12 3/4 in. 171/8 in. 171/4 in. 19 in. Min.Elevation: 5 in. 10 7/8 in. Max.Capacity: 8 3/4 lbs. 8 3/4 lbs. 10 lbs. Max.Capacity: 22 lbs. BOGEN 3011 TRIPOD BOGEN 3068 TRIPOD ORDER CODE 3011 3124 3179 3163 3116 ORDER CODE 3068 3118 3065 Weight: 5 1/4 lbs. 71/2 lbs. 71/2 lbs. 6 3/4 lbs. 8 1/2 lbs. Weight: 12 1/2 lbs. 14 1/4 lbs. 18 3/4 lbs. Closed Length: 24 in. 28 3//8 in. 281/2 in. 27 3/4 in. 31 in. Closed Length: 37 in. 42 3/4 in. 42 7/8 in. Max.Elevation: 67 in. 71 3//8 in. 71 1/2 in. 70 3/4 in. 70 in. Max.Elevation: 67 in. 72 3/4 in. 72 7/8 in. Centerpost Travel: 14 1/2 in. Centerpost Travel: 91/4 in. 91/4 in. 91/4 in. Min.Elevation: 22 1/4 in. 26 5/8 in. 26 3/4 in. 26 in. 28 1/4 in. Min.Elevation: 17 3/4 in. 23 1/2in. 23 5//8 in. Max.Capacity: 8 3/4 lbs. 8 3/4 lbs. 10 lbs. 11 lbs. Max.Capacity: 11 lbs. 22 lbs. BOGEN 3021 TRIPOD BOGEN 3181 TRIPOD ORDER CODE 3021 3025 3176 3161 3120 ORDER CODE 3181 3183 Weight: 57/81bs. 81/8lbs. 81/8lbs. 73/8lbs. 91/8lbs. Weight: 83/4lbs. 161/2lbs. Closed Length: 253/4 in. 301/8 in. 301/4 in. 291/2 in. 321/4 in. Closed Length: 391/2 in. 423/8 in. Max.Elevation: 70 1/2 in. 75 1/8 in. 75 1/2 in. 74 1/4 in. 76 3/4 in. Max.Elevation: 59 in. 64 7/8 in. Centerpost Travel: 161/2 in. Centerpost Travel: --- --- Min.Elevation: 10 1/2 in. 14 7/8 in. 15 in. 14 1/4 in. 16 in. Min.Elevation: 5 In. 10 7/8 in. Max Capacity: 8 3/4 lbs. 8 3/4 lbs. 10 lbs. 11 lbs. Max.Capacity: 22 lbs. BOGEN 3033 TRIPOD BOGEN 3185 TRIPOD ORDER CODE 3033 3132 3134 3133 3131 ORDER CODE 3185 3187 Weight: 71/2 lbs. 9 3/4 lbs. 9 3/4 lbs. 9 lbs. 10 3/4 lbs. Weight: 9 7/8 lbs. 17 5/8 lbs. Closed Length: 28 in. 32 3//8 in. 321/2 in. 31 3/4 in. 33 1/4 in. Closed Length: 20 in. 25 7/8 in. Max.Elevation: 661/2 in. 70 7//8 in. 71 in. 701/4 in. 72 3/4 in. Max.Elevation: 231/4 in. 29 1/8 in. Centerpost Travel: 12 in. Centerpost Travel: --- --- Min.Elevation: 251/4 in. 29 5/8 in. 29 3/4 in. 29 in. 31 in. Min.Elevation: 5 in. 10 7/8 in. Max.Capacity: 8 3/4 lbs. 8 3/4 lbs. 10 lbs. 11 lbs. Max.Capacity: 22 lbs. BOGEN 3036 TRIPOD BOGEN 3190 TRIPOD ORDER CODE 3036 3135 ORDER CODE 3190 3196 Weight: 91/2 lbs. 12 3/4 lbs. Weight: 11 lbs. 18 3/4 lbs. Closed Length: 32 3/4 in. 381/2 in. Closed Length: 371/2 in. 43 3/8 in. Max,Elevation: . 80 3/4 in. 861/2 in. Max.Elevation: 58 in. 63 7/8 in. Centerpost Travel: 91/4 in. Centerpost Travel: --- Min.Elevation: 161/2 in. 22 1/4 in. Min.Elevation: 5 in. 10 7/8 in. Max.Capacity: 11 lbs. Max.Capacity: 22 lbs. BOGEN 3046 TRIPOD BOGEN 3191 TRIPOD ORDER CODE 3046 3140 ORDER CODE 3191 3194 Weight: 81/4lbs. 111/2lbs. Weight: 11 lbs. 183/4lbs. Closed Length: 31 1/4 in. 37 3/4 in. Closed Length: 381/2 in. 44 3/8 in. Max.Elevation: 681/2 in. 94 3/4 in. Max.Elevation: 59 in. 64 7/8 in. Centerpost Travel: 19 3/4 in. Centerpost Travel: --- Min.Elevation: 291/4 in. 34 3/4 in. Min.Elevation: 5 in. 10 7/8 in. Max.Capacity: 11 lbs. Max.Capacity: 22 lbs. Tripod/Head Combination Order Code Chart HEAD without wM13cro6 OR Micro W X160 wMln63 ClneNltleo HEAD With ut wMicro OR Mic o w XL6° wMlol3 CIne/V deo head Fluid Fluid Fluid Fluid Fluid head Fluid Fluid Fluid Fluid Fluid • TRIPOD Comparable `ram?. �',�' l TRIPOD Compatible �'' Dollies �lr` Domes �I ` `- The 3411 Compact 3127 3411 3417 3418 3419 11 3417 3418 3419 - _ The ee058o 3056/3156 3058 - _ _ C C 58 Tripod Series 3137 (Black (Black) (3438) (3439) Tripod 3254/3067 (Black) 9 3165 The 3D61 CoThnvertiblempact 3137 32205 31701 3175 3167 _ _ Heavy Duty 3067 3061 C 3062 Tripod Series Black) (Black) Black) (Black) CN Tripod The 3011 3127 3011 3124 3179 3163 3116 The 3068 3056/3156 Basic Tripod 3137 (e ack 211) (3122 Black) (e Black) (3215 B ack) (Back) CUniversal N Tripod 3254/3067 3068 _ 3118 3065 Series Convertible The 3021 3137 /3021 3125 3123 5 //317617 3225\ 3226 - Lig1 3120 htweight Pro 3198 3182 _ _ _ C 3181 - 31B Tripod Series \Black) (Black) (Black) Black/ (Back) CN Tripod Black) BIaCk1 The 3033 All 3033 3132 3134 3131 ' The 3185 3185 3187 DTripod Serries Except319 (Back/ (Black/ (Black) 3133 Black/ C CN Tripod (Black) C (Black) The 3036 At 3036 3135 The 3190 3190 3196 Work Horse Except /3236 1 C C C /glack) C Pro CN w/Spiked Tripodee 3198 (Black) C (Black) Tripod Series 3198 ,Black The 3046 AS 3046 3140 The 3191 3156 3191 3194 1 SturdTripod Series Except (Black) C C C (Black) C CN Tripod 3067 (Black) C 3195 (Black) The 3051 All 3051 3150 NOTE:All Bogen Legs and Heads are Interchangeable and may be ordered Automatic Except 1 3251 C C C 3151 1 C Tripod Series 3198 Black Black separately by individual Order Code. The following are Tripod,Fluid Head,and Dolly combinations: C Indicates compatible combinations which do not have a combination Order Code Order Code 3064:consists of 3061 Tripod,3066 ClneNltleo Fluid Head and 3067 Deluxe Dolly Order code 3069:consists Of 3068 Tripod,3066 CineNideo Fluid Head and 3067 Deluxe Dolly Order Code 3164:cons sts of 3011 Tripod,3160 XL Fluid Head and 3127 Portable Dolly Order Code 3128:consists of 3021 Tripod,3126 Micro Fluid Head and 3127 Portable Dolly Order Code 3166:cons sts of 3001 Tripod,3160 XL Fluid Head and 3127 Portable Dolly Order Code 3129:consists of 3011 Tripod,3126 Micro Fluid Head and 3127 Portable Dolly Order Code 3168:cons Sty Of 3205 Tripod,3160 XL Fluid Head and 3127 Portable Dolly Order Code 3148:consists of 3221 Tripod,3126 Micro Fluid Head and 3127 Portable Dolly Order Code 3171:cons sts Of 3001 Tripod,3126 Micro Fluid Head and 3127 Portable Dolly Order Code 3149:consists of 3211 Tripod,3126 Micro Fluid Head and 3127 Portable Dolly order Code 3172:Cons sts of 3001 Tripod,3126 Micro Fluid Head and 3155 Spreader Order Code 3162:Consists Of 3021 Tripod,3160 XL Fluid Head and 3127 Portable Dolly Order Code 3174:Cons sts Of 3205 Tripod,3126 Micro Fluid Head and 3127 Portable Dolly ORDER ORDER CODE DESCRIPTION PRICE CODE DESCRIPTION PRICE TRIPODS TRIPODS(cont.) 3001 3001 Compact ConvertibleTripod(w/o Head) $ 91.95 3431 3431 Black Anodized Compact Tripod(w/o Head) $ 89.95 3011 3011 Tripod(w/o Head) 113.95 3437 3431 Black Anodized Compact Tripod w/3126 Head 166.90 3021 3021 Convertible Tripod(w/o Head) 146.95 3438 3431 Black Anodized Compact Tripod w/3130 Head 174.90 3033 3033 Professional Tripod(w/o Head) 219.95 3439 3431 Black Anodized Compact Tripod w/3160 Head 179.90 3036 3036 Professional Tripod(w/o Head) 244.95 3046 3046 Professional Tripod(w/o Head) 215.95 MONOPODS 3051 3051 Professional Tripod(w/o Head) 291.95 3016 3-SectionMonopod 40.50 3061 Heavy Duty CineNideo Tripod w/Claw Ball(w/o Head) 337.95 3017 3-Section Monopod with 30253-D Head 70.00 3062 Heavy Duty Cine Video Tripod w/3066 Head 742.95 3018 ProfessionalMonopod 49.50 3064 Heavy Duty CineNideo Tripod w/Fluid Head(3066)and 996.95 3019 Professional Monopod with 30253-D Head 79.00 3067 Deluxe Video Dolly 3216 3-Section BlackAnodizedMonopod 42.50 3065 Universal Cine Video Tripod w/3066 Fluid Head 684.95 3217 Black Anodized 3-Section Monopod with 30253-D Head 72.00 3068 Universal Cine Video Tripod(w/o Head) 279.95 3218 Professional Black Anodized Monopod 53.50 3069 Universal Cine Video Tripod w/Fluid Head(3066)and 938.95 3219 Black Anodized Professional Monopod with 30253-D Head 83.00 3067 Deluxe Video Dolly 3230 Professional Monopodw/Detachable Legs 91.95 3116 3011 Tripod w/Mini Fluid Head(3063) 271.90 3231 Professional Black Monopodw/DetachableLegs 96.95 3118 Universal Tripod w/Mini Fluid Head(3063) 421.95 3241 3-Section Black Monopod w/3232 Swivel Tilt Head 56.00 3120 3021 Tripod w/Mini Fluid Head(3063) 304.90 3242 3-Section Black Monopod w/3232 Swivel Tilt Head 60.00 3121 3211 Black Anodized Tripod w/3063 Head 280.90 3243 Professional Monopodw/3232 Swivel Tilt Head 67.00 3122 3211 Black Anodized Tripod w/Micro Fluid Head 199.90 3244 Professional Black Monopod w/3232 Swivel Tilt Head 71.00 3123 3221 Black Anodized Tripod w/Micro Fluid Head 235.90 3124 3011 Tripod w/Micro Fluid Head(3126) 190.90 HEADS 3125 3021 Tripodw/Micro Fluid Head(3126) 223.90 3063 Mini Fluid Head w/Quick Release Plate 157.95 3128 3021 Tripod w/Micro Fluid Head and 3127 Dolly 339.85 3066 Cine/Video Fluid Head w/Quick Release Plate 405.00 3129 3011 Tripod w/Micro Fluid Head(3126)and 3127 Dolly 306.85 3126 Micro Fluid Head 76.95 3131 3033 Tripod w/Mini Fluid Head(3063) 377.90 3130 QR Micro Fluid Head 84.95 3132 3033 Tripod w/Micro Fluid Head(3126) 296.90 3160 XL Fluid Head w/Quick Release Plate 89.95 3133 3033 Tripod w/XL FluidHead(3160) 309.90 3232 Swivel Tilt Head 17.50 3134 3033 Tripod w/3130OR Micro Fluid Head 304.90 3135 3036Tripodw/Mini Fluid Head(3063) 402.90 DOLLIES 3136 3236 Black Anodized Tripodw/Mini Fluid Head(3063) 421.90 3056 Auto Dolly 139.95 3140 3046 Tripod w/Mini FluidHead(3063) 373.90 3067 Deluxe Cine Video Dolly 254.00 3142 3246 Black Anodized Tripod w/Mini Fluid Head(3063) 390.90 3127 Portable Video Dolly 115.95 3148 3221 Black Anodized Tripod w/3126 Head and 3127 Dolly 351.85 3137 Variable Leg Spread Portable Dolly 139.95 3149 3211 Black Anodized Tripod w/3126 Head and 3127Dolly 315.85 3156 Folding Auto Dolly 192.95 3150 3051 Tripod w/Mini Fluid Head(3063) 449.90 3198 Bogen CineNideo Deluxe Dolly for Tripods w/Spiked Feet 262.00 3151 3251 Black Anodized Tripod w/Mini Fluid Head(3063) 463.90 3254 Black Folding Auto Dolly 202.95 3161 3021 Tripod w/XL Fluid Head(3160) 236.90 3162 3021 Tripod w/XL Fluid Head(3160)and 3127 Dolly 352.85 ACCESSORIES 3163 3011 Tripod w/XL FluidHead(3160) 203.90 2900 Super Clamp w/Standard Stud 31.50 3164 3011 Tripod w/XL Fluid Head(3160)and 3127 Dolly 319.85 2915 Super Clamp(w/o Stud) 27.95 3165 3001 Tripod w/XL Fluid Head(3160) 181.90 2929 Variable Friction MagicArmw/Platform Camera 145.95 3166 3001 Tripod w/XL Fluid Head(3160)and 3127 Dolly 297.85 2930 Magic Arm with Platform Camera 136.50 3167 3205 Black Anodized Tripod w/3160 XL Fluid Head 191.90 2931 Fork for Magic Arm 18.95 3168 3205 Black Anodized Tripod w/3160 XL Head and 3127 Dolly 307.85 2953 Mini Auto-Poles(Set of two) 136.00 3169 3001 Tripod w/3130 QR Micro Fluid Head 176.90 2965 Heavy Duty Swiveling"C"Clamp 98.00 3170 3001 Tripod w/Micro Fluid Head(3126) 168.90 2966 Wire Rope Safety Chain for2965 20.00 3171 3001 Tripod w/Micro Fluid Head(3126)and 3127 Dolly 284.85 2970 Sky HookAdjustable Gaffer Clamp 38.00 3172 3001 Tripod w/Micro Fluid Head(3126)and 3155 Spreader 215.85 2971 Accessory Stud for 2970 4.50 3173 3205 Black Anodized Tripod w/3126 Micro Fluid Head 178.90 3044 Carrying Strapfor Bogen Tripods 20.95 3174 3205 Black Anodized Tripod w/3126 Head and 3127 Dolly 294.85 3052 Extension Leg Set for 3046 and 3051 Tripods.Adds 19" 30.95 3175 3205 Black Anodized Tripod w/3130QR Micro Fluid Head 186.90 to tripod height 3176 3021 Tripod w/3130 QR Micro Fluid Head 231.90 3054 Converter Plate to allow any Bogen Tripod to accept 13.50 3178 3221 Black Anodized Tripod w/3130 QR Micro Fluid Head 243.90 heads w/1/4-20socket 3179 3011 Tripod w/3130OR Micro Fluid Head 198.90 3115 Ball Camera Leveller 64.95 3180 3211 Black Anodized Tripod w/3130QR Micro Fluid Head 207.90 3117 Conversion Kit w/extra handle for Mini Fluid Head 22.95 3181 Lightweight Professional CN Tripod w/75mm Ball 248.00 3138 Tripod Spreader forTripodsw/Spiked Feet 60.95 3182 Lightweight Professional BlackAnodized CN Tripod 258.00 3143 Accessory Bracket for 3144 Video Camera Shoulder Mount. 23.95 3183 Lightweight Professional CN Tripod w/3066 Head 653.00 For cameras where viewfinder is on back of camera. 3184 Lightweight Professional BlackAnodized 663.00 3144 Video Camera Shoulder Mount 59.50 CineNideo Tripod w/3066 Head 3145 Video Tripod Caddy 39.95 3185 Mini-Pro CineNideo Tripod 328.00 3146 Tripod UtilityApron 26.50 3186 Mini-Pro BlackAnodized Tripod 346.00 3152 Video Monitor Holder,Fits into Super Clamp(2900) 52.00 3187 Mini-Pro CineNideo Tripod w/3066 Head 733.00 3155 LightweightTripod Spreader 46.95 3188 Mini-Pro Black Anodized CN Tripod w/3066 Head 751.00 3157 Replacement Quick Release Plate for 3160 8.95 3190 ProfessionalCineNideoTripodw/Spiked Feet 500.00 3157B Quick Release Mounting Plate w/3/8"thread f/3130&3160 8.95 3191 Professional Cine Tripod 500.00 3158 Replacement Quick Release Plate for 3066 33.50 3192 3191 Black Anodized Tripod(w/o Head) 530.00 3159 Replacement Quick Release Plate for3063 15.95 3193 ProfessionalCineNideoBlackAnodized 530.00 3189 Mid-Level Spreader.Designed for Professional and 31.95 Tripod w/Spiked Feet Lightweight Professional CN Tripods w/Spiked Feet 3194 Professional CineNideo Tripod w/3066 Head 905.00 3255 All-Weather Tripod Shoes 9(Set of 3) 21.00 3195 3191 Black Anodized Tripod(w/3066 Head) 935.00 3256 Spiked FootAdapters 10.50 3196 Professional C/V Tripod w/Spiked Feet w/3066 Head 905.00 3257 Surveyor's Spiked FootforMonopods.Fits all 18.95 3197 Professional BlackAnodizedCineNideo 935.00 except 3230,3231 Tripod w/Spiked Feet w/3066 Head 3268 Universal Mounting Plate,fits all Bogen Quick Release Heads 27.95 3205 3205 Black Anodized Tripod(w/o Head) 101.95 3272 Plate only for 3273 19.50 3211 3211 Black Anodized Tripod(w/o Head) 122.95 3273 Pro Quick Release Adapter Assembly with Slide Plate 43.95 3215 3211 Black Anodized Tripod w/XL Fluid Head(3160) 212.90 3276 Table Mount Camera Support 39.95 3221 3221 Black Anodized Tripod(w/o Head) 158.95 3277 Wall Mount Camera Support 33.95 3225 3221 Black Anodized Tripod w/XL Fluid Head(3160) 248.90 3279 Tripod Bag.25 in. 36.50 3226 3221 Black Anodized Tripod w/3063Head 316.90 3280 Tripod Bag.35 in. 44.50 3233 3233 Black Anodized Professional Tripod(w/o Head) 224.95 3281 Tripod Bag.45 in. 55.00 3236 3036 Black Anodized Tripod(w/o Head) 263.95 3285 Hard Case for Bogen Tripods 204.00 3237 3233 Black Anodized Professional Tripod w/3126 Head 301.90 3286 Hard Case for Bogen Tripods 225.00 3238 3233 Black Anodized Professional Tripod w/3130 Head 309.90 3289 Suction Grip with Camera Support 126.95 3239 3233 Black Anodized Professional Tripod w/3063 Head 382.90 3290 Aluminum Platform for monitors,projectors,speakers,etc. 30.00 3246 3246 Black Anodized Tripod(w/o Head) 232.95 Attaches to tripod w/o head.Has 3/a in.threaded socket. 3251 3251 Black Anodized Automatic Tripod(w/o Head) 305.95 Measures 93/4 in.x133/4in. 3411 3411 Compact Tripod(w/o Head) 83.95 3294 Suction Grip with Vein.Swivel Socket 67.95 3417 3411 Compact Tripod w/3126 Head 160.90 3295 Anti-theft Lock Plate 102.95 3418 3411 Compact Tripod w/3130 Head 168.90 3296 Quick Release AdapterAssembly 40.95 3419 3411 Compact Tripod w/3160 Head 173.90 Prices and specifications are subject to change without notice. Bogen Photo Corp.,565 East Crescent Ave., P.O.Box 506,Ramsey,NJ 07446-0506. 61/1092 Phone:(201)818-9500;FAX:(2011 818-9177. Service only(201)818-0060. Tota/Omni Kits Ambi Kit 2 Tota-lights(less lamps) with 16' Cables& Code: TO-95 Protective Screens,T1-10 2 Omni-lights(less lamps) Size: 29.5 x 17 x 7" with 16'Cables, (74.9 x 43.2 x 17.8 cm) #1 Reflector&Protective Weight: 42 lbs. (19.1 kg) Screens,01-10 ."��• 4 Omni stands, 01-33 i4(10l 2 Omni-barndoors,01-20 .-� 2 Full Scrims,01-54 ims 1 Half Scrim, 01-55 =14 2 Tota-brellas,T1-25 ,. Mallil4 Tota-frames,T1-20 y f r ,,a 2 Assorted Gels,T1-78 P • 2 Tota flags,Ti 52 ' 1vve 1 Tota-flector,T1-54 4 Flexi-shafts(2 packages), k 0 , T1-50 1 Tota-tatch,T1-34 � 1 Tota-mount,T1-32 '"- """:`, ` 2 Tota-clamps,T1-30 - ,, 1 12 yard roll Gaffer-tape, . GT-12 `" . .i . 2 Tota/Omni Lampaks,T0 61 V. 1 Tota/Omni Case,TO-84 , i At ", k1`•. s nBasically 3 Kit 2 Tota-lights(less lamps) 1 with 16'Cables& , Code: TO-97 Protective Screens,T1-10 1 Omni-light(less lamp) .�� Size: 26 x 17 x 7" with 16' Cable, l, (66 x 43.2 x 17.8 cm) #1 Reflector&Protective rr Weight: 28 lbs. (12.7 kg) Screen, 01-10 1±- - =gip 3 Omni-stands,01-33 M '� 1 Omni-barndoor,01-20 1 Full Scrim,01-54 `( 1 Tota-brella,T1-25 1 Tota-frame,T1-20 1 Assorted Gels,T1-78 k 1 Tota/Omni Lampak,TO-61 n-,1 1 Tota/Omni Case,TO-87 i. . , Leveller Microphone Series (-----/ • ,ri� Omni-Directional Electret Cond—enser Microphone `1. ,ram• •ECM-55S(silver type)and ECM-55B(black) ✓ •2-way powering system(internal battery or external DC 12 48V) 11 - •Supplied metal-mesh wind screen and holder clips 1► •Microphone head: 4.10.6 x 21mm(q 7/16 X 27/32 inches), • 6.5g(0.23 oz) •Frequency response: 30-18,000Hz ` •Max. input sound pressure level: 126dB SPL •Dynamic range: More than 98dB Q3 ��,\�\ •XLR-3-12C type connector Nit, ,....410 — * FreQuenCy Response CneraclenSetl: DeectrveY CMracterat¢s 1 s• �' 41 .'mo1I1■ IIII ■II1u1■ ■ j4• ♦• • _ ■ ■u ■ mumIu ■ ■ # ��' . -° 1Im■ ■Im■ ■unul■ ■ /it* o 1 •,■u111111■ ■u111111■11.! ;ri;Ni_1 1l • ♦Otis °■II!iil ■IIIII■I■IIIIid■ �' i .tillI .' ■ IIIIII■IIIIIIIIII ■IIIIIII■1■ 111��ir�7011rl - ■I1111II■ IIIIIII■I■IIIIIII■I■ '•V �� 4�Ip■uIIItIIU ■IIIIII■I■IIIIIII■1■ ,x•Vio� 0 • ECM-55SC/55BC: ECM-55S/55B type microphone head with 1.2m pjj1111111.�111111MIII1111II1M �Atsge.� cable and SMC9-4P connector for connection to Sony wireless �° "'-��1-,°°" transmitter. • ECM -44B Omni-Directional Electret Condenser Microphone •ECM-44S(silver type)and ECM-44B(black) •Supplied urethane wind screen and holder clip •Microphone head: cb8.5X14.5mm(011/32X19/32 inches), 2g(0.07 oz) •Frequency response: 40-15,000Hz •Max. input sound pressure level: 122dB SPL •Dynamic range: More than 90dB •XLR-3-12C type connector a Deeelmty CruractenscCS '�1' Frequency Response CnaraplenSliCS i i 4 0 I 0 I/ Rio• y�.1�� . 1 _ •tole U��Nod.,. T Y .AK MG KC • M ASS-- tt SC 65' _�tWrv: ECM-44SC/44BC: ECM-44S/44B type microphone head with 1.2m cable and SMC9-4P connector for connection to Sony wireless transmitter. 2 " ECM -1 66 B C Uni-Directional Electret Condenser Microphone li . , •External power supply operation •Supplied urethane wind screen and holder clip •Microphone head: .j12.5 x 23.5mm(�1/2 x 15/16 inches), }.. • 3.5g(0.12 oz) •SMC9-4P connector for connection to Sony wireless zz' transmitters. d' Optional Accessories Type Finish ECM-77 ECM-66 ECM-55 ECM-44 Remarks Single(Horizontal) Silver type SAD-H77S SAD-H55S SAD-H55S SAD-H44S 10 pcs in each �d' Black SAD-H77B SAD-H55B SAD-H55B SAD-H44B package Silver type SAD-W77S SAD-W55S SAD-W55S SAD-W44S 6 pcs in each Double(Horizontal) %4 package SAD-W77B SAD-W55B SAD-W55B SAD-W44B p ge z Silver type SAD-V77S SAD-V55S SAD-V55S SAD-V44S 10 pcs in each Single(Vertical) tir., package SAD-V77B SAD-V55B SAD-V55B SAD-V44B p ge Holder Clip Silver type SAD-P77S SAD-P55S SAD-P55S SAD-P44S Pencil Type """ 4 pcs in each Black SAD-P77B SAD-P55B SAD-P55B SAD-P44B package Safety Pin Type -tii0 Silver type SAD-S77 SAD-S55 SAD-S55 SAD-S44 6 pcs in each package 6 pcs in each t. Tiepin Type -- ` Silver type SAD-T77 SAD-T55 SAD-T55 SAD-T44 -� package Necklace Type " Silver type SAD-N77 SAD-N55 SAD-N55 SAD-N44 1 each package Power � Supply q►�L— Silver type SAD-B100 3 pcs in a Holder ' package Silver type AD-R77S AD-R55S 6 pcs in each Metal b, Black AD-R77B AD-R55B package Gray AD-R66S AD-R44S 12 pcs in each Wind Screen Urethane package AD-R66S AD-R44B p ge Urethane lir 6 colors AD-C77 AD-C66 AD-055 AD-C44 1p pcsackage in each p (6 colors x 2 pcs) 3 Lavalier Microphone Series t 1 Specifications Model ECM-77 ECM-66 1 ECM-55 ECM-44 ECM-166BC Capsule type Electret Condenser Electret Condenser - ctret Condenser Electret Condenser Electret Condenser Frequency response(Hz) 40—20,000Hz 70—14,000Hz 30—18,000Hz 40—15,OOOHz 100—10,000Hz Directivity OMNI UNI OMNI OMNI UNI Sensitivity (0d8=1V/Pa,at 1kHz.) —52.0dB±2dB —50.0dB±2dB —52.0dB±2dB —53.0dB±3dB Output impedance 150Q±20% Balanced) (Balanced)1004±20% 1000±20% ±20% Balanced) at 1kHz ( (Balanced) 2504_ Dynamic range(dB) _>90dB ?101dB >98dB >_90dB Signal-to-noise ratio(dB) >64d6 >_65dB ?66dB ?62dB (A-weighted,1kHz,1Pa.) Inherent noise <30dB SPL •29dB SPL =28dB SPL 32dB SPL (OdB SPL=20uPa.) Wind noise 40dB SPL 50dB SPL 40dB SPL 540dB SPL (w/wind screen) Induction noise from ext. magnetic field `5--5dB SPL/1 x10 T 5dB SPL/1 x10 T 5dB SPL/1 x10 T 5dB SPL/1 x10 7T Maximum input 120dB SPL 130dB SPL 126dB SPL 122dB SPL sound pressure level Microphone cable 3m 3m 3m 3m 1.2m Output connector XLR-3-12C type XLR-3-12C type XLR-3-12C type XLR-3-12C type SMC-9-4P type Battery SUM-3(NS)(1.5V) SUM-3(NS)(1.5V) SUM-3(NS)(1.5V) SUM-3(NS)(1.5V) Power Battery Life Approx. 5,000H Approx. 300H Approx. 5,000H Approx. 5,000H supply Ext.power DC12-48V DC24 48V DC12-48V Microphone (05.6x12.5mm 010.6x24.2mm 010.6x21mm 08.5x14.5mm (012.5x23.5mm head (y�'/4x1/2 inches) (07/16x31/32 inches) (07/16x 27/32 inches) (011/32 x13,32 inches) (0'/2x t5/16 inches) Dimensions Power unit 0 20.0 x 133mm 0 20.0 x 163mm 0 20.0 x 133mm ¢20.0 x 126mm (013/16 x 51/4 inches) (013/16 x 61/2 inches) (013/16 x 51/4 inches) (013/1s x 6 inches) Microphone head Approx.1.5g(0.053 oz) Approx. 7g(0.25 oz) Approx. 6.5g(0.23 oz) Approx. 2g(0.07 oz) 3.5g(0.12 oz) Weight Total Approx.121.5g(4.3 oz) Approx.167g(5.9 oz) Approx.126.5g(4.5 oz) Approx.121g(4.3 oz) 25g(1 oz) S.H.holder clip 1 S.H.holder clip 1 S.H.holder clip 1 S.H.holder clip 1 Wind screen 1 Supplied accessories S.V.holder clip 1 S.V.holder clip 1 S.V.holder clip 1 U wind screen 1 Holder clip 1 M wind screen 1 M wind screen 1 M wind screen 1 Microphone case 1 Microphone case 1 Microphone case 1 Microphone case 1 S:Single type V: Vertical type H:Horizontal type M:Metal-mesh type U:Urethane foam type 4 MUSIC & PERFORMANCE ,, _ Y , . - yRp ,ifs'.;:".. ? 14' ..` . 4 s, . M - r SM58 • r � - � Consistently,the first choice of professional ..j s,•: .•,,s'54, ��t��y�`v�ti: performers around the globe,the SM58 is a ?:-{ . .r£ ..i�i��ter�o�%v ,_ ' genuine world standard and a true audio legend. r ,+f . 0;,ir.,. �� rA�r � Although the"58" is often imitated in appearance, .,- • 4, • of`r,�i A �� V ` its livelyintelligible,powerful sound and rugged a {f ^ 11,' , �4it A ��"�rk-�i ' g � '� sc�•°1 "f �� r�,�� .�44;��:�<��I<�V��° SM5$ ,.. reliability have never been duplicated.Makes rock, i"`%x n,„e'-y F w;. !,J 14 4 ♦ dal' l ,',.' r&b,pop,and country vocals sound their best. �' r �� ,i�y1 yr 4��♦��■�III. V k. Cardioid(unidirectional)dynamic.Frequency �.�t '1 +`.,4 A J S�`�t�`lt �. . . ' response:50to 15,000 Hz. • ;•1,7, , ,,'11. t �(��. I "�� SM58-LC(less cable.) ,� `` `" �`� 1 J�,,1� olio._ . SM58-CN(with cable.) ;� r • SM58S(with switch,less cable.) a� -,o. 1 '``' Ilk ikaso��►��I�� SM57 -r �`; �':` +`2 • The classic SM57 is the"workhorse"microphone r� . — 61 A. of stages and studios worldwide.Its carefully .,:' a,r,1 a 5 5 contoured frequency response means clean,well nanV defined instrumental reproduction and rich,warm ' t ,r vocal pickup on lecterns or stages.The standard �` ' '•`• ,.li,40,.:',,::, { ' for drum,percussion and instrument amplifier �4 • �+� - miking.Cardioid(unidirectional)dynamic. ;�` ' + •x Frequency response:40 to 15,000 Hz. f +fir , d",Y • SM57-LC(less cable.) , t r �Yz, *: ` SM57-CN(with cable.) r- : `•` 1 '),r7' r,, `• Rr,. . ' , Z iO, Y y;•1;•.? )....�`} ,,:, {1 .: '" 's4Y". .{ Nr44,?..c - t�• Yr��, ` j . ,\ . , t:,,ea. ' ..a.„fit;,t,,,,, .,,.. ,. :,. ...., ... � .r.. n•,,:44•P ♦'fir' Fe.I ?r F 1j t ,,1 s._ d. it ( '" r''/' ^t ,ram-" j1•. 46 y ff�� ' 'l r:1. S 3i` lrM. t Jl I!'il� • ✓w "f.• ' gar ', R :1. 44, f= 4,..a, wkl.: , 44 ^r for ,rrdo 'sJ. t AyO,•ry,A �, ' r , ,•" "*`:;' �. t yam, ar `aN► ' p . yk � E ' gu y �, =y 1.1,v h m `- $ ''t* Al''',°,' A, ,,,e. , . ,. :,1, , fo...vA 4",,ep VE CtiL .. i riiiil t , ys ,- t j�i . ttt�..,. �l 4,., 'F e• .',1•p a ?'+� tWri *' I4J � 4+ s a � '� :i ' tet,,,,,F .„tfrtt •,,,O'` Vi;,,,,,'',.. *.m.,Iti:4:"1., - 1,,,, , 1\,e; , •..„.„................ , irs„,; , . tak,'-f,k,,,, 44" , „. ,,;(te s Orznir. lilt I!i�yr�I 4. y t ,� f `I ` 4 r ,1! o; ,,, t r + . fir, •,.,ir . •.t ;,..., 'Pr 6 Billy Ray Cyrus ( ,,. 4'P 1, ?... � '.l.. . k'+ i: . S"": _�'" a, .9.�p'"i� � �'"•i�. ` t."'.'YC4.rl� l..r� >''.�kE�s. . :.tt.� '.6�� ,.i'.�. rat,. ir�w '�"#. ElectroVoice° a MARK IV company • K 4.$0,, ., ,,,.,. . . Models . 4) . .„ „rt.. . . .. . .4:.1: , 635A . . 635MB . , .,. . . . . . . Dynamic . _ . , . .. . , Omnidirectional ' . . Microphone SPECIFICATIONS 635A&635A/B Six Pack: range response uniform from 80 to 13,000 Hz. Element: 355.6 mm(14 in.)wide, It shall have a four-stage pop filter,and Dynamic 215.9 mm(8.5 in.)high, magnetic shield to prevent dust and magnetic Frequency Response: 152.4 mm(6 in.)long particles from reaching the diaphragm. The 80-13,000 Hz impedance shall be such that the microphone Polar Pattern: DESCRIPTION AND APPLICATIONS will match 50-,150-and 250-ohm inputs.The Omnidirectional The Electro-Voice 635A and 635A/B are line shall be balanced to ground and phased. Impedance: designed for exacting professional applica- Low(150 ohms) tions such as film production,recording,FM, The output level shall be-55 dB with 0 dB Output Level: AM,and TV broadcasting and the more equalling 1 mW/pascal.The magnetic circuit -55 dB demanding PA applications. shall be a non-welded circuit and employ (0 dB-1 mW/pascal) Alnico V and magnetic iron.The case shall be Case Material: The 635A and 635A/B may be purchased in made of steel. Steel packages of six. These"six packs"do not Dimensions: include the stand adapter or cable. The microphone shall have a maximum 151 mm(5.94 in.)long, diameter of 36 mm(1.41 in.),a length of 151 36 mm(1.41 in.)diameter The high output level,and low sensitivity to mm(5.94 in.)and a weight of 170 grams(6 Finish: mechanical shock,make the 635A and 635A/ oz.).The microphone shall have a built-in 635A/B Semi gloss black B excellent for interviews and for pass-around connector similar or equivalent to the 635A Fawn beige use in audiences. Switchcraft A3M. Accessories Included: The 635A and 635A/B feature a diaphragm The Electro-Voice Model 635A and 635A/B Model 311 stand adapter—not included in which permits very smooth response over a are specified. six pack wide frequency range. The diaphragm 4.6 m(15 ft),2-conductor shielded withstands humidity and temperature WARRANTY(Limited) broadcast type synthetic rubber— extremes,corrosive effects of salt air,and Electro-Voice products are guaranteed jacketed with Switchcraft A3F connector. severe mechanical shocks. It is practically against malfunction due to defects in Optional Accessories: indestructible with normal use. materials or workmanship for a specified 307 shock mount - period,as noted in the individual product-line 313 stand clamp A four-stage pop and dust filter insures a statement(s)below,or in the individual 314E windscreen completely pop-free performance and virtually product data sheet or owner's manual, 340 security clamp eliminates an external windscreen for outdoor beginning with the date of original purchase.If 342 security stud mount use. such malfunction occurs during the specified Net Weight: period,the product will be repaired or 170 grams(6 oz.) An internal shock absorber effectively reduces replaced(at our option)without charge.The Shipping Weight: the pickup of cable and other noise generated product will be returned to the customer 635A/B:454 grams(16 oz.) by external contact. prepaid.Exclusions and Limitations:The 635A/B Six Pack:1.64 Kg.(58 oz.) ARCHITECTS'AND ENGINEERS' Limited Warranty does not apply to:(a) Package Size: exterior finish or appearance;(b)certain SPECIFICATIONS 635A&635A/B: specific items described in the individual The microphone shall be an Electro-Voice 133.4 mm(5.25 in.)wide, Model 635A or 635A/B.The microphone shall product-line statement(s)below,or in the 76.2 mm(3.0 in.)high, be an omnidirectional dynamic type with wide individual product data sheet or owner's 241.3 mm(9.5 in.)long 0. WARRANTY(Limited) (continued) z. manual;(c)malfunction resulting from use or operation of the product other than as specified in the product data sheet or owner's manual;(d)malfunction resulting from misuse or abuse of the product;or(e)malfunction 1 occurring at any time after repairs have been -- made to the product by anyone other than Electro-Voice or any of its authorized service t representatives.Obtaining Warranty Service:To obtain warranty service,a ° customer must deliver the product,prepaid,to z ' Electro-Voice or any of its authorized service g representatives together with proof of purchase of the product in the form of a bill of sale or receipted invoice.A list of authorized 20 30 50 100 200 500 1000 2000 5000 10000 20000 service representatives is available from FREQUENCY IN HERTZ Electro-Voice at 600 Cecil Street,Buchanan, MI 49107(616/695-6831)and/or Electro- FIGURE 1 — Response Curve Voice West,at 8234 Doe Avenue,Visalia,CA 93291 (209/651-7777).Incidental and Consequential Damages Excluded:Product repair or replacement and return to the customer are only remedies provided to the customer.Electro-Voice shall not be liable for • any incidental or consequential damages including,without limitation,injury to persons or property or loss of use.Some states do not • allow the exclusion or limitation of incidental 151 mm or consequential damages so the above "_ 15.94 in.) limitation or exclusion may not apply to you. }-` —� #; 6 mm Other Rights:This warranty gives you ?`I(1.41 in.) specific legal rights,and you may also have \ other rights which vary from state to state. 19 mm " Electro-Voice N/D,PL,BK,and Profes- _, (J5 in.) sional Microphones are guaranteed against , malfunction from any cause for two(2)years from the date of original purchase.In addition, the Limited Warranty for the acoustic system contained in these microphones shall apply FIGURE 2—Dimensions for the life of the product,defined as a period of ten(10)years from the date that the manufacture of the specific microphone has been discontinued.Any and all active electronics incorporated in these microphones are guaranteed against malfunction due to defects in materials or workmanship for a period of three(3)years from the date of original purchase.The Limited Warranty does not extend to cables,cable connectors,or GREEN switches.Additional details are included in the VOICE Uniform Limited Warranty statement. COIL RED 1 HEAD GND. A 1 2 3 - 1 POSITIVE PRESSURE ON GENERATING I I ELEMENT CAUSES POSITIVE VOLTAGE �I ON PIN 2 REF.TO PIN 3. Or II IL J (nr .IY CO ' FIGURE 3-Wiring Diagram E p ELECTRO-VOICE, INC., 600 Cecil Street, Buchanan, Michigan 49107 MANUFACTURING PLANTS AT ■BUCHANAN,MI ■NEWPORT,TN •SEVIERVILLE,TN INOKLAHOMA CITY,OK■GANANOQUE,ONT. ©Electro-Voice Inc.1991 ■Litho in U.S.A. Part Number 531875—206 a MARK IV company Panasonic® AG- S-VHS 0 , ,\ ,____,i Hi-Fi Video Cassette Recorder r 0 T AG- il _ S-VHS Hi-Fi Video Cassette Player Hi-Fi Audio RKmwwrl *xo n•nn•nn El U•UU•UU L_ L- L- L_ L- ` L L AUDIO DUB PLAY DEC PAUSE:STILL SIIEt `i \, El 1111 MI 0 SEARCH Video Cassette Recorder 'y ti4Ri11 MR EJECT STOP EL AG_,L1 x�f NORM-AUDIO-Hi fl NORM-AUDIO-Hi i FEW • LEVEL • • • • 1. II D CN1 ØØH7i - HEADPHONES—LEVEL TRACKING SLOW TRACKING PICTURE A •T. O OFF ON 0 -_.i WER HLFI AEdo 9,.,,,.. ®5ru. .a r s `rp a li ,. Exol • • 1 ; PLa; � 4 4" k - KX i LEVfI k 'f HEADPHONES- 0CF , E,)JV svI1s Versatile S-VHS Recorder and Player for a Wide Range of Professional and Industrial Ac The Panasonic AG-7350 S-VHS Hi-Fi VCR and AG-7150 S-VHS Hi-Fi Player were developed to satisfy video requirements for a wide range of applications.S-VHS picture quality, an advanced IQ mechanism, and 4-channel audio add up to .-___.__._ outstanding performance ... making these models ideal for use in diverse M«�r professional environments,from schools,to hospitals,to offices.In addition,34-pin .M"40TT. parallel or optional RS-232C serial interface capability permit easy connection to existing systems,plus future expansion,for optimum versatility. - -', A ______ — -, . - . iiiikik,,.., iiii 4116 41 Hi"Fi Au_ - 11 , Na JJ'J E ii 1 `. 4xEv 111.7 Lt-1 1--1 , w ci N , - - 4.... Ili NJPM tEV i - 7 cO'4Nr �EVJDIO NA• .41041) a,: • d NOPh' E , nKAM'+ Panasa NFAOP '. ' . 0,, PpWEP IP AG- • Demonstration and Presentation S-VHS high quality picture and 4-channel audio ,i f �� . allow the AG-7350 and AG-7150 to fulfill a broad --_— — —- )lications range of application requirements.In corporate , I — ! "r" environments,for example,they can be used to 6' present training videos,as well as video '� . ' r' "newsletters"featuring important sales/marketing v *- _a' updates and other timely information.At ' educational institutions,the AG-7350 and AG-7150 are valuable teaching tools.And in ti- libraries,they can be used to provide an ideal ^;: video resource. S-VHS High Resolution `a' The superb picture quality of the AG7350 and " , ". 4 AG-7150 is ideal for applications where high resolution images are demanded,such as in ..,,,,,.411 ter,.... medical diagnosis and treatment,sports analysis, .) T0thTI11IIr 4 .. Aill .II{$1 Ni Fi Lii.„.I Na ST14 ) A �Em F ® R <.icn — MKT Versatile Connectability .. 34-pin parallel control,or optional RS232C illit'-' IF; serial control,plus standard video/audio • connection capabilities simplify use of the ' ? AG-7350 and AG-7150 in existing systems,and * �1 facilitate further expansion and upgrading.These L models are ideal for an increasing variety of311: 14 j ,Y-T 0 AGH_ professional applications,for instance, economical recording and playback at CATV �J networks and local access providers. ` AG Vg3T) . ........., - The Panasonic AG-7350 high-performance VCR provides S-VHS recording and playback for a wide range of applications.Designed for durability,the AG-7350 delivers outstanding picture and sound quality,as well as a number of advanced functions for user convenience. Technology Crafted to Deliver Designed to Provide the Durability Superb Video and Audio Quality That Professional Applications Demand S-VHS Plus 58-Micron Digital Circuitry IQ(Intelligent 11-bit Digital Servo Wide Laminated for YIC Separation Quest)Mechanism Smooth,stable tape transport is a Amorphous Video Heads With a digital filter included in the The IQ(Intelligent Quest) major factor in determining final The key to the outstanding picture circuitry,the AG-7350 achieves mechanism of the AG-7350 picture quality.The AG-7350 is quality of the AG-7350 is its extra- exceptionally accurate YIC contributes to durability and simple equipped with an 11-bit digital servo wide 58 µ laminated amorphous separation.The advantage of digital maintenance.The brushless DD that controls tape transport video heads for SP(2-hour)mode processing is that it delivers high motors provide stable tape precisely,to maintain optimum recording/playback.These precision and high stability while transport,and tape-to-head contact image quality by minimizing jitter advanced heads take optimum providing outstanding resistance to has been improved over previous advantage of the high resolution temperature changes,and changes Panasonic models with the use of Motherboard Construction and high SIN ratio provided by the due to time. the'Papered'Twin Projection For easier maintenance and S-VHS tape format.The result is •6-Hour Playback Capability(Only Cylinder:In addition,the IQ improved reliability over traditional superb image quality with with Normal/Linear Audio) mechanism supports high picture designs,the audio and video exceptionally pure color quality with auto head cleaning and circuits are mounted on separate reproduction,which makes the 4-Channel Audio: other features. boards that plug into the AG-7350 an ideal recorder for so 2 Hi-Fi Channels and motherboard. many business and professional 2 Linear Channels applications. With the AG-7350,it's possible to use the two Hi-Fi channels and the Exceptional two linear channels independently. .it< , . -'� -. '°` Color Reproduction This means you can add narration ti The technological innovations' or music background,for instance, featured in the AG-7350—such as to enhance final production.Hi-fi I✓ CAC(Chroma Aperture dynamic range of 90 dB assures O Compensation)and an Advanced extremely high sound quality. Comb Filter—provide a dramatic •Wide 42 µ Head for SP(2-hour) -• improvement in color quality, Hi-Fi Audio Mode virtually eliminating color shift and •Dolby`NR for Linear Audio Layout of Interior Switch Panel vertical smear '"Dolby"and the double-D symbol are 'Matsushita Electric Industrial Co.,Ltd.,the registered trademarks of Dolby Laboratories Hawn parent company of Panasonic,supports one Licensing Corporation. nO,pi N"riMa t" RewlE H.F of the most extensive research and •Time Code Recording/Playback MEI.TER°° "°' °' "` VIDEO N TIMER Xi MODEM, development facilities in the world. MONITOR "� �� MC Iuw RE Using Linear CH2 S-VHS Hi-Fi Video Cassette R. • ef Hi-Fi Audio m�� SWS' ® •a°F n•nn•nn u•uu•Liu -. ..�.. —y. w1 STILL �t \�'* L.is ri-i-iii SEARCH IN ,flEV \ r:�U,+ .._.. Video Cassette Recorderial ` / �]�J� 1YYF��fff... kkk— n D // v AG-MT NORM—AUDIO—Hi-Fi NORM—AUDIO—HI F' EJECT REW STOP r7A LEVEL LEVEL • • . : L........__ CHI—MID—CH2 • ••CH2it , HEADPHONES—LEVEL TRACKING SLOW TRACKING PICTUREr— _..) OFF ON f/�� — _ .®POWER ® . .®. ilk: ,c. ) System Expandability Convenient Operations for Versatile Applications and Other Features Remote Control Capability: Sensor Recording Jog/Shuttle Soft-Pause 34-Pin Parallel/Optional Sensor recording is one more Searching for a precise location on After pausing for 5 minutes,the RS-232C Serial convenient feature of the AG-7350. a tape is handled simply and AG-7350 automatically switches to Interface Capability When a video or serial signal is quickly with the joglshuttle dial. the soft-pause mode.In this mode, The AG-7350 provides a detected,the VCR automatically The shuttle function enables the drum rotates with the tape conventional 34 pin remote starts recording.When the signal searching in forward and reverse in loose,to protect the tape and let terminal,which may be replaced by ends,recording automatically stops. 17 steps between 1125 and 11X you quickly re-start recording or an optional RS-232C serial With sensor recording using a serial normal speed.Then for precise playback.In another 5 minutes,the interface board(availability signal,the recorded segment can location,the jog function lets you drum stops. expected late 1991),to enable be played back in the Auto Repeat search in forward and reverse at connection to a personal computer. mode• speeds ranging from one field at a Auto Repeat Play/Counter This will allow the operator to time to normal speed.You can also Memory Functions control the VCR using the PC. 19"Rack-Mountable enjoy Double Fine Slow playback of Using the Linear Tape Counter,you The slim design of the AG-7350 the entire field. can select any segment on a tape REMOTE occupies only 3 rack units in a (including the full tape)for Auto - - standard 19"EIA equipment rack, Full-Loading Mechanism Repeat Play,with a choice of with optional AG-M730 rack-mount With the full-loading mechanism of Continuous Repeat or OneTime adaptors. the AG-7350,the tape always Repeat.For added convenience, ,. remains wound around the cylinder. the counter automatically resets 34-pin m This enables smooth operation, when a tape is ejected.And the Remote v®oa® .- ,' with the convenience of su er uick counter Terminal o--m• to response.Images appear on the for 72 hours.features memory back-up and AG-Asoo screen within one second after the Remote Controller(optional) Play button is pressed.The simple, •Auto-Illuminating Switches •External Sync In Terminal speedy operation provided by this •On-Screen Menu Display Optional Time Code advanced mechanism makes the Recording/Playback AG-7350 ideal for use at CATV A time code generatorlreader, broadcast facilities. enabling recording and playback of time code on linear audio CH2,is built into the optional RS-232C interface board. fo ...7.S-VIDEO IN S-VIDEO OUT _ VIDEO IN MIT SYNC 6IN OIIT . _ _� 34V Interface Adaptor AG-IA34 w� J � ( AUDIO -� N�gly/IWDIO OUT-� - CHI-Mi-Fi-CH2 CHI-INHI-Ft-CH2 CHI--M-FI-CH2 CHI-HI-FI-CH2 OO O O o 4O O!o TINS DEVICE COMPLIES WON MITT 16 OF THE FCC RULES.OPERATION S SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING TWO CONDITIONS:111 THIS DEVICE MAY NOT CAUSE HARMFUL SERIAL AUDIO INTERFERENCE AND(21 THIS DEVICE MUST ACCEPT ANY INTERFERENCE RECEIVED. TIME CODE REMOTE IN MONITOR OUT ®A INCLUOINO INTERFERENCE THAT MAY CAUSE UNDESIRED OPERATION. 60 S REMOTE -AC IN N O GOt IN BOUT _ MAU NAM De RNae. AO-7350-PEfillaniall 9(/��`' . 3MN NVMDe SUe I D �\ Fs '� 120V AC 5U-60Hz DM I ' U NOISE REDUCTICU SYSTEM MAM UND ER DER LICENSE Lalw�Ie ENeHCHI caAb Ll.y,r, , FROM°OUST LABORATORIES LICENSING CORPORATION. T� 001EV LABO THE DDUSLI D SYMBOL ARE ATTON. IKR OF •I 1 � , LABOR/BORES OU LE-DSINGNH.ARETRAD FOR PROFESSIONAL USE ONLY isio lk c , AG-il T 11 The AG-7150,specifically designed for professional quality video playback,offers the same high performance and advanced playback functions as the AG-7350.Whether used in a system or by itself,this convenient,easy-to-use player delivers ideal performance and quality for an exceptionally wide range of applications. S-VHS Hi-Fi Video Cassette Player '•Fi Audio mlro..R,n.RI ..,willingi . CIu•uu•uu Ixwns I HIxu UR I RLcoxo. _ .a...emu. ..L I— I_ ICJ L. lu L u piliP CA PAUSE/STILL / STILL SEARCH ,El C REV/ ._.,.. FWD 0. : ::: r/ / AG-MIK) EJECT REW STOP FF - 11:11 CI CI 12 ____, HEADPHONES—LEVEL TRACKING SLOW TRACERS PICTURE OFFIIII • r \//�'\\) POWER .•e•. .•�• .•.• \�!G ,.....<,..,... rien TRACKING arCC rex OR® O x3� CNCNORM NN• CRC AFTER AM ARMOR =MOW sR[ Dt,n•fR NOpfUM:L Layout of Interior Switch Panel / C. EAT SYNC c8IN S-VIDEO OUT 1—ViD O-2 - - l�\J,/{ 34P Interface Adaptor AG-1A34 if_ , rr AUDIO OUT-1 CCU1 V—Hi-Fi—CH2 CH1—Hi-Fi—CH 2 * 040 THIS DEVICE COMPLIES WITH PART IS OF TIE FCC RULES.OPERATION IS SUBJECT pUR OUT INCLUDING INTERFERENCE TO THE FOLLOWING TWO CONDITIONS:II)TN8 DEVICE MAY MDT CAUSE HARMFUL INTERFERENCE,AND(2)THIS DEVICE MUST ACCEPT ANY INTERFERENCE RECEIVED 78MEOUTS Mg11TO , /\ ©A THAT MAY CAUSE UNDESIRED OPERATION. /r1\ O y - .. -AC IN \\�) REMOTE Leel NW NSW CS LbINe. AG-7150-P nutoussaLy,JL,� lGfiliO:YiA.ti .. sI De SineGNDTM. � ip RulrMaoW { ... ^' 120V AC 50ENN 4SW I I I C1 ` TPanasonic 1 NONE REDACTION SYSTEM MANUFACTURED(RIDER LICENSE Nsan.Ww m.Rs�w �- FROM DELAY LABgUSOUES LICENSING COMM... 9• R 0 T..d DO SYLAND,IE DDIN LICE SYMBOL ARE TRADEMAW S Q t. DDLBY LAGoxaowEs ucEJrsING cwEORnnox. * FOR PROFESSIONAL USE ONLY V Standard Accessory Optional Accessories • ehINS? „ 44,64 . '\14)--\ . . • S-Video Cable,AG-C71A Remote Controller,AG-A600 (5m), Rack Mount Adaptor,AG-M730 34-Pin Interface Adaptor AG-C70A(3m) S-Video Cable(4 Pin) RS-232C Serial Interface Board (Availability expected late 1991.) System Example Remote Operation Control 000000 O 34-pin 00J AG,A600 El ors RS-232C orrZ = Monitor Personal Computer 34-pin IF Board (Standard) ► Video OCR o°oo �� or °°°°° Audio � RS-232C IF Board °° AG7350 (Optional) Sensor Audio In/ AG7150 Remote Video In Sensor Recording In (AG-7350) Serial Signal Serial Transmitter Video Audio AV Source Specifications AG-7350/AG-7150 •GENERAL Power Source: 120 V AC±10%,50/60 Hz Power Consumption: AG-7350:48 W;AG-7150:45 W Operating Temperature: +41°F to+104°F(+5°C to+40°C) Operating Humidity: 35%—80% Weight: AG-7350:Approx.24.3lbs(11 kg), AG-7150:Approx.23.8 lbs(10.8 kg) Dimensions(W x H x D): 1611/16"x 53/16"x 1611/16"(424 x 131.5 x 424 mm) •SYSTEM Television Format: EIA Standard,NTSC Color Signal;525 lines,60 fields Video Recording System: Two rotary heads,helical scanning system Modulation System: Luminance:FM azimuth recording Color signal:Converted subcarrier phase shift recording Audio Track: 2 tracks(Hi-Fi Audio) 2 tracks(Normal) •TAPE TRANSPORT Tape Format: S-VHSNHS tape Tape Speed: SP:15/16 ips(33.35 mm/s) SLP(Playback only):7/16"ips(11.12 mm/s) Recording Time: 120 min.(2 hrs.)with NVT120 FF/REW Time: Approx.3 min.with NVT120 ■VIDEO Input Level: S-Video In(4P):Y:1.0 Vp-p,75 ohms,unbalanced C:0.286 Vp-p 75 ohms,unbalanced(Burst) Line In(BNC):1.0 Vp-p,75 ohms,unbalanced Ext.Sync In(BNC):4.0 Vp-p,negative pulse,75 ohm, unbalanced Output Level S-Video Out(4P):Y:1.0 Vp-p,75 ohms,unbalanced C:0.286 Vp-p,75 ohms,unbalanced (Burst) Line Out(BNC x 2):1.0 Vp-p,75 ohms unbalanced Horizontal Resolution: S-VHS:More than 400 lines(monochrome/color) VHS:300 lines(monochrome),240 lines(color) Signal-to-Noise Ratio(VHS): 46 dB(color) IN AUDIO Audio Frequency Response: 20 Hz—20 kHz(Hi-Fi Audio);50 Hz—12 kHz(Normal) Signal-to-Noise Ratio: 48 dB(Dolby*NA On;Normal) Dynamic Range: 90 dB(Hi-Fi Audio) Input Level: Line In/Hi-Fi(Phono x 2):—8 dBv,47 kohms,unbalanced Line In/Normal(Phono x 2):—8 dBv,47 kohms, unbalanced Mic: —60 dBv,4.7 kohms,unbalanced Output Level: Line Out/Hi-Fi(Phono x 2):—8 dBv,600 ohms, a ® Dimensions unbalanced —== — Line Out/Normal(Phono x 2):—8 dBv,600 ohms, -----... unbalanced Audio Monitor(Phono):0 dBv,600 ohms,unbalanced _ Headphone Jack: —60dBv——20dBv,8 ohms, unbalanced •TIME CODE Time Code Input(Phono): 1.0 Vp-p,10 kohms,unbalanced Time Code Output(Phono):2.4 Vp-p,low impedance unbalanced (Specifications for AG-7150 are measured using standard studio VCR for playback.) r Weight and dimensions shown are approximate Specifications subject to change without notice. e Warning: O o 0 0 0 1 Unauthorized recording of copyrighted television programs,films,videotapes and other materials may 0 a o O 0 t — i S I infringe upon the rights of copyright owners and be contrary to copyright laws. o e e o I i ® ® It i - This product may be subject to export control regulations. I 15"h.(424 mm) ww»"(ai"od Panasonic Broadcast & Television Systems Panasonic Company Western Group,Hawaii Region 99-859 Iwaiwa St.,P.0.Box 774,Honolulu,HI 96808-0774(808)488-7779 Executive Office:One Panasonic Way,Secaucus,NJ 07094 Matsushita Electric of Canada Limited 5770 Ambler Drive,Mississauga,Ontario L4W 2T3(416)624-5010 Panasonic Sales Company For further information on our complete line of Broadcast and Television Division of Matsushita Electric of Puerto Rico,Inc. Systems products,please call 1-(800)-524-0864 for your nearest San Gabriel Industrial Park,65th Infantry Ave,Km.9.5, Panasonic regional sales office. Carolina,PR 00630(809)750-4300 Matsushita Electric Industrial Ca,Ltd. Audio&Video Systems Division 2-15 Matsuba-cho Kadoma,Osaka,Japan 571 Tel:06-901-1161 Fax:06-908-5969 CATAG7350M50-P-E VSD 7133[04231.11 60K061ALFP-2 Printed in Japan Panasonic r, ,. ., I:3 ...., gi 8 4115 13" DIAGONAL COLOR New Easicon'M On-screen menu VIDEO MONITOR/RECEIVER Selectable: Line 1, 2, 3/S-Video/RF Wireless infrared remote control 420-line horizontal resolution 181-channel cable compatible tuner Programmable Channel Scan On-screen display for adjustment of sharpness, brightness, color, tint, ' . , channel selection Auto Power on/off Built-in Closed Caption Decoder , °�°� PICTURE INPUT o} iiiGAME CHANNEL H80 GUARD CAPT I ON RBC TIMER SET-UP 8* ,.•a�.•__W.... Panasonic CONTROL PANEL LOCK MENU OPTIONS The Control Panel can be locked to prevent authorized °O 'ir PICTURE altering of settings.This feature is ideal for presentation This allows the operator to make picture adjustments such as Color, or education situations. Tint, Brightness, etc.A normalize function resets all the controls to POWER AUTO ON factory presets. When the AC cord is plugged in the monitor/receiver °H INPUT powers-up automatically.This is ideal for presentation Instead of fumbling for separate buttons on the remote the inputs are or kiosk applications. availableav through the icon menu. EASICON'" MENU SYSTEM ill GAME GUARD'" Game Guard"" locks out channel 3,4 and all video inputs for 12, 24, A wide variety of controls are available through the or 48 hours.This prevents the presentation monitor/receivers from Easicon menu system.With the Easicon'" remote being misused while unattended. adjustments are easily made. HBO ecl CHANNEL CAPTIONING EASICON" REMOTE This allows a 4 alphanumeric character to be assigned to 30 channels. With this remote control and Easicon" menu operations QI TIMERS are simplified.With many of the controls in the menu The time can be set to automatically turn the monitor/receiver on or off. there are fewer buttons to confuse operator.The unique "control circle"serves as channel and volume controls 01* SET UP and adjustment control when used with the action key. This allows the operator to set other features of the monitor/receiver. CT-1384w 13" Diagonal Color Video Monitor/Receiver Remote Functions 1 Power Button 2 VOL(Volume)Buttons Example of Sub-Menu 3 CH(Channel)Buttons 4 TVNideo Button(On Receiver) 5 Action Button I 6 Recall Button I PICTURE 7 Mute Button 8 R-Tune(Rapid Tune)Button 9 Skip Button 10 Keyboard"0 through 9"Buttons COLOR IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII 11 Earphone Jack(13"Model only) ) TINT I BRIGHTNESS PICTURE I11I11I11I111111111111111111111111 SHARPNESS IIIIIlII11III11IIlIIII111II111IlI1 / A ®a ®►- • 7 / •• ' .0 6^O O O 13"Control Panel 0 0 �,—_ •,__o ,— 0 0 0 is �... •�.. \i/ •$ O w O O 0 0 0 O o (Ito I I •3$ o °00 °0 - 0 0 © © Terminals on Back of Ns:~ Specifications Power Source: 120V AC,60Hz Audio/Video Terminals: Power Consumption: Approx 55W Line 1,2,3 In/Out: Video Input: 1.0Vp-p,75 ohms or AC Cord: 3-pronged HIGH impedance(Auto), BNC Audio Input:0.5Vrms, 10 kohms Dimensions 131/2"x 135/8"x 145/e" or more, Phono (W x H x D): (343 x 346 x 371.5 mm) Video Through-Out,Automatic Weight: 22 lbs. (9.97 kg) Termination Opener, BNC Audio Through-Out, Phono Picture Tube: 13"diagonal,90°deflection S-Video In/Out: Y Signal:1 Vp-p Horizontal Resolution: 420 lines C Signal:0.285Vp-p,75 ohms, Picture Linearity Mini-DIN 4-Pin Vertical: ±5% Speaker Size: 2.5"(xi) Horizontal: ±7% Headphone Jack: 1/9"Mini-plug type Internal Audio Standard Accessory: Infrared Wireless Remote Control Amplifier: 1.5W(at 10%Distortion) Antenna Terminal Impedance: UHF Input:300 ohms,balanced VHF Input:75 ohms,coaxial type Weights and dimensions shown are approximate. Specifications subject to change without notice. This product may be subject to export control regulations. Panasonic Broadcast&Television Systems Company Division of Matsushita Electric Corporation of America Executive Office: One Panasonic Way(3F-5),Secaucus,NJ 07094 Regional Offices: EASTERN ZONE:43 Hartz Way,Secaucus,NJ 07094(201)348-7620 WESTERN ZONE: CENTRAL ZONE:1707 N.Randall Rd.,Elgin,IL 60123(708)468-5200 Seattle Region:1200 Westlake Ave.,North,Suite 508,Seattle,WA 98109(206)285-8883 SOUTHERN ZONE: Los Angeles Region:6550 Katella Ave.,Cypress,CA 90630(714)373-7271 Dallas Region:4500 Amon Carter Blvd.,Fort Worth,TX 76155(817)685-1117 Atlanta Region:1854 Shackleford Ct.,Suite 115,Norcross,GA 30093(404)717-6841 Government Marketing Department:52 West Gude Drive,Rockville,MD 20850(301)738-3840 VSD 7340C[09233.1] (20K) SONY EIA/NTSC 3-CCD Color Video Camera ODxe,IN 930 vow .:,_, moi. .cl 0 00000000406,„..........................., ,_____T__. ; . • N .;, .N,i-•,-."r O . \, ___-_-/--,_._s_ .-„__..-'-.,2 v.5.li„ t_7:--_W- .,.i......r.y_\..—#-:--'.•-7,,:•-._:__;_.:--_---::'- ,.',_, 7'- A'rcA 3CCD cpL.pR o VICEO CAMERA/CCD-IRIS ,_ =3 _,. `' 1 0 'iiiimot... �. / / IP 3 CCD Lens is optional. High Performance, Multi-role Compact 3-CCD Camera for Industrial Applications The Sony DXC-930 is a multi-purpose 3-CCD Color Camera, packing many advanced features and superb picture performance into a remarkably compact body. To achieve its image performance and ease of operation, the DXC-930 includes many powerful functions such as CCD IRIS, AGC (Automatic Gain Control), and an electronic shutter with very small speed increments. A function menu, displayed on an external monitor, allows easy setting of camera control functions, either from the camera rear panel or the optional RM-930 Remote Control Unit. Multiple RGB, Y/C and composite video signal outputs allow the DXC-930 to be readily integrated into any industrial video system. Naturally, the camera's picture quality is excellent. With the advantage of high density IT (Interline Transfer) Hyper HADTM (Hole Accumulated Diode) CCDs, the DXC-930 has high sensitivity, high horizontal resolution, excellent color fidelity and high signal-to-noise ratio. With its small and lightweight body design, a host of advanced operational features and outstanding picture quality, the DXC-930 is ideal for diverse industrial video applications such as scientific research, computer imaging, video conferencing and industrial inspection systems. Outstanding Features quickly set via the MENU/DISPLAY/FUNCTION/DATA Superior Picture Quality buttons on the rear panel or with the optional RM-930 A major contribution to the picture performance of the Remote Control Unit. The function menu can be displayed DXC-930 is its three 1/2-inch IT Hyper HAD CCDs, each on a monitor connected to the RGB, Y/C or composite with 380,000 effective picture elements. The unique on- video signal outputs. Either one or eight menu items can chip microlens technology of these advanced imaging be selected for display with the DISPLAY button. devices gives the high sensitivity of F5.6 at 2000 lx, while , _`,. t. their HAD sensor- structure dramatically reduces smear r ` ' level. This permits pictures of the highest quality to be ■ G STEP STEP ..._ ma 5_ captured in low light, bright light and other difficult lighting C. TEMP 3200K condition. With the high packing density of these CCD WHT. B- AUTO image sensors and their accurate Spacial Offsetting, the R GA +� 1 ►-. remarkably high horizontal resolution of 720 TV lines is B GA N +e achieved. The combination of Hyper HAD technology and CCD IRIS ON . SHUTTER . OFF advanced video processing results in the excellent signal- to-noise ratio of 58 dB. Compact and Lightweight Newly developed ICs and the extensive use of high Precise Picture Controls packing density technology makes the DXC-930 The DXC-930 provides precise control over picture remarkably compact and lightweight. It can be easily prameters such as master pedestal, gamma selection and installed even where space is at a premium and in detail level so that optimal image color and contrast can elevated or other awkward environments. be reproduced whatever the situation. These adjustments can be made with the function menu control buttons on Function Menu the camera rear panel or with the optional RM-930 Various camera control functions can be easily and Remote Control Unit. Variable Speed Electronic Shutter signal output, the DXC-930 has a 9-pin D-sub output The DXC-930 features a variable speed electronic shutter connector for RGB signals. A Y/C or VBS signal is also built into the CCD imagers, making it possible to capture available from this connector, and is selected by the blur-free, clear pictures of high speed moving objects. function menu control buttons on the camera rear panel In addition to the conventional eight-step shutter speed or with the optional RM-930 Remote Control Unit. selection, shutter speeds can be manually selected by A sync signal can also be added onto the G output signal 1 frame or 1 H steps. in the same way so that a monitor without a separate sync signal input can be used with the camera. The • 8-step speed selection flexibility provided by these multiple outputs makes the '/,00(flickerless mode), '/,25, '/250, '/soo, '/,000, '/2000, '/a000, DXC-930 easy to install into a wide range of system 1/10000(seconds) configurations and facilitates image capture by a • Manual speed selection computer or video recorder. (1)1 frame step selection Gen lock Capability The shutter speed (charge accumulation time) can be The DXC-930 can be synchronized with VBS or BS signal selected from 1 to 255 frames (Field mode) or 2 to 256 from other equipment and includes a SC/H phase frames (Frame mode) in 1 frame steps. This function adjustment control. provides a remarkable enhancement in sensitivity by accumulating the charge on the CCDs over a longer time CCD Integration Mode Selection than the normal accumulation period. Therefore dark The DXC-930 has the ability to switch between Field or objects can be clearly captured in this mode. Frame CCD integration modes with the function menu By synchronizing the timing of the camera signal output buttons on the camera rear panel or by using the optional with an external frame memory, this function is very RM-930. Field Integration is effective for capturing moving effective in image processing or analysis applications. A objects, since the charge is only integrated over one field timing pulse can be provided via the camera D-sub 9-pin (1/60s.) so that motion blur is reduced compared to connector by using an internal switch to achieve this Frame Integration. On the other hand, the Frame synchronization. Integration mode integrates the charge for one frame (2)1H step selection (Clear ScanTM function) (1/30s.) so that vertical resolution is higher than with Field Precise manual shutter speed selection ranging from 1/60 Integration and this offers better results in still image to '/,0000 seconds is also provided. Shutter speeds can be capture. changed from 26°/525 to 1/525 H in 1 H (63.5µs) steps. This can be used as Clear Scan function, which is ideal for Color Bar Generator shooting computer displays without horizontal bands Full color bars can be generated as a test signal source appearing across the display screen. This function for system and monitor adjustment. enables the shutter speed to be matched with the computer display scanning frequency, eliminating the System Flexibility horizontal streak that occurs when shooting with a All camera control functions available on the camera rear conventional camera. panel, along with zoom, focus and iris functions can be remotely controlled from the optional RM-930 Remote CCD IRIS Function Control Unit. Cable extensions of up to 25m can be made The CCD IRIS function, a development originated by Sony, by using Sony CCMC-12P cables. Alternatively, an optional automatically controls exposure by electronically adjusting CCU-M3 or CCU-M7 Camera Control Unit can also be for incoming light levels. This function is equivalent to used for remote control. Maximum cable extension length three F stops in lens iris and is effective in microscope is then 100m and 300m respectively. applications. A microscope adaptor without auto light level (CCU-M3—with CCTQ-3RGB and CCQ-AM cable, control can be used with the DXC-930. Also, when the CCU-M7—with CCTZ-3RGB/3YC and CCZ-A cable) CCD IRIS function is used with an auto iris lens and AGC (Automatic Gain Control)function, an even wider range of Bayonet Mount Lens Adoption incoming light levels can be accomodated. The DXC-930 is designed to accept 1/2-inch bayonet k, Auto White and Black Balance mount lenses. A hot-shoe Auto white and black balance functions are available on connection is also provided the DXC-930. The auto white balance function can also be to eliminate the need for a manually operated. White and black balance settings are lens to camera 01, stored in the memory even after the power is turned off. interconnecting cable. This improves the reliability of the Multiple Signal Outputs connection and simplifies In addition to a BNC connector providing a composite lens interchange. DXC-930 Rear Panel Menu display ON/OFF switch Menu scroll control ■ MENU FUNCTION DATA ::j Auto White Balance activation UP LENS or ■ Selection for each control DISPLAY DOWN•.-_------ HITE Signal output selection— --� Auto Black Balance activation Cameralcolor bars \ BARS RGB/SYNC LACK CCU forOf /1 Selection each control Single menu/multiple menu �w 1-r @ • la VIDEO OUT DC IN/REMOTE GEN LOCK 40 , ii ( (-- •':, __-___." ,...,..„i , (<!.,,,,f \' ,....... __ Function Menu controlled from the DXC•930 and the RM•930 RM•930 Front Panel Control items Selection GAIN STEP/AGC SONY REMOTE CONTROL UNIT RM-930 STEP 0 dB to +18dB(in 1 dB steps) M HA C.TEMP(Color Temperature) 3200K/5600K AEMo'E -FUNCTION DATA— IRIS I WHT. BAL(White Balance) AUTO/MANUAL AUTO— MANUAL R.GAIN —99 to 0 to +99 IS MENU DISPLAY „E cLosE' WEN B.GAIN —99 to 0 to +99 El—d 1111 ' CCD IRIS ON/OFF 1 1 SHUTTER OFF/STEP/MANUAL I __. L — x woE: NEA,. ZOOM -0CUS STEP FL(1/100), 1/125, 1/250,1/e00, 1/1000, 1/2000, M 111111111 S 1/4000,1fi0000(seconds) MANUAL 255 to 1 frames(for field mode)or 256 to 2 frames(for frame mode), OFF,260/525 to 1/525 H M. PED(Master Pedestal) —99 to 0 to +99 DTL(Detail) —99 to 0 to +99 H. PHASE —99 to 0 to +99 SC(SC phase) —99 to 0 to +99 0/180 0/180 degrees GAMMA ON/OFF G.SYNC(Sync on Green) ON/OFF FLD/FRM(CCD integration FLD/FRM(Field/Frame) mode field/frame) D-SUB VBS/Y/C System Connections Example 1. Computer Image Processing Operation RGB(CCXC-9DD/ CCXC-9DB/ CCMC-9DS) ■ RGB 1. ate® I + DXC-930 YIC or VBS Color Printer II (ex.UP-5100) DC12V Graphics Capture Computer CCDC Cable (Max.100m) IO _ter_ CMA-D1 MIEMBEEN Copy Stand Color Monitor Example 2. Multiple Camera Operation Color Monitor . N. VBS Switcher --'0.. .,- A ice® DXC-930 VBS CCTZ-3RGB or CCZ-A Cable ' I_ CCTZ-3YC Cable ❑ (Max.300m) O,: is i VBS CCZZ-1E — — VBS (supplied with CCTZ-3RGB/3YC) CCU-M7 • Genlock in n ='IMIIMIM� DXC-930 i• I i 1 lO•.1 IL CCQ.10 Cable11°. CCTQ-3RGB Cable (Max.t00m) •�unni 0 � ®-1 0 ••• • CCQQ U °O O 1 (Supplied with CCTQ-3RGB) CCU-M3 VTR (ex.PVW-2800) Example 3. Video Microscope Operation Color Monitor oleeiMI • • RGB(CCXC-9DB or CCMC-9DS Cable) ob. .. 1) RGB I I e _ DXC-930 'L Laser VideoDisc Recorder (ex.LVR-5000A/LVS-5000A) RGB liyyyyyy l RM-930 CCMC-12P Cable* (Max.25m) 82 Microscope Adaptor �C�� o o _ _ Color Printer Coupler W (ex.UP-3000) 1 I DC12V CCDC Cable* Ael ail11 (Max.10m) Microscope b I I a I X 7. CMA-Dt r �— *When using the CCMC-12P05(5m)cable,the CCDC cable can be extended up to 25m. Optional Accessories Remote Control Unit Camera Adaptor RM-930 CMA-D1 unuuuinnnnununutuiu► 111111111111111111111111111111111111 SONY CAMERA ADAPTOR CMA-DI `. ,,,, - \'- POWER ,�u4 pY . ,A°IN CPMEPn 0 MONITOR UPI oG au 0 0 The RM-930 can remotely control all functions of the DXC-930 The CMA-D1 supplies DC 12V to the DXC-930 or an RM-930 including the zoom, focus and iris functions. connected to the DXC-930. When the CMA-D1 is directly Maximum cable length is as follows; connected to the DXC-930, a cable extension of up to 100m is possible. CCMC-12P cable CCDC cable (DXC-930 4- RM-930) (RM-930 *CMA-D1) Specifications 5m 10m, 25m Connectors: DC OUT(DIN 4-pin)x 2* 10m,25m 10m DC out: 12V,Max.1A(2 outputs) Operating temperature: —5°C to 40°C(23°F to 104°F) Specifications Power requirements: AC 120V,50/60Hz Power consumption: 25W Connectors: CAMERA(12-pin),MONITOR OUT(BNC),DC IN(12-pin) Weight: 2.2kg(4 lb 14 oz) Operating temperature: —5°C to 45°C(3°F to 113°F) Dimensions: 167(W)x 75(H)x 159(D)mm(65/e x 3 x 63/e inches) Power requirements: DC 12V (Including projecting parts and controls) Weight: Approx.400g(14 oz) Supplied accessories: AC power cord(1) Dimensions: 212(W)x 52.5(H)x 132(D)mm(83/*x 21/8 x 51/4 inches) Operation manual(1) (including projecting parts and controls) Supplied accessories: CCMC-12P05 cable(1) *Note Only one DXC-930 can be connected to a CMA-D1 because of the camera's power Operation manual(1) consumption Lenses 0 Models VCL-707BXM VCL-712BXEA VCL-716BXEA Mount Bayonet Bayonet Bayonet Focal length 7.5-52.5mm 7.5—90mm 7—112mm Zoom ratio 7 x 12 x 16 x Zoom control Manual Remote Remote Focus control Manual Remote Remote Iris control Manual Remote Remote Maximum aperture ratio 1 :1.6 1 :1.4 1 :1.4 Minimum object distance 0.3m 1.1m 1.0m Macro Not applicable Applicable Applicable Filter size M58 x 0.75mm M72 x 0.75mm M86 x 1.0mm Weight 560 g(1 lb 4 oz) 1.25 kg(2 lb 12 oz) 1.8 kg(5 lb) Dimensions 60(dia.)x 125(L)mm 110(dia.)x 184.2(L)mm 120.5(W)x 100(H)x 178(D)mm (23/8 x 5 inches) (43/8 x 73/8 inches) (43/4 x 4 x 71/8 inches) Notes Zoom/Focus/Iris functions can be remotely controlled from the RM-930. 11.0 .... ..,.-.:_,,_._,...„...„.... .4 t # ti, ..... iC)‘ Camera Control Unit Camera Control Unit DC Cable 12-pin Multi Cable CCU-M3 CCU-M7 CCDC-10/25/50A/100A CCMC-12P02/05/10/25 (10/25/50/100m) (2/5/10/25m) . XI . (1111:11.-1/114 *VW 411. 0 *I. , RGB Cable RGB Cable RGB Cable Camera Cable CCXC-9DD CCXC-9DB CCMC-9DS CCTQ-3RGB (5m, 9-pin D-sub .. 9-pin D-sub) (5m,9-pin D-sub —BNCs (5m, 9-pin D-sub �BNCs (3m, RGBNBS out for CCU-M3 (R/G/B/SYNC/VBS)) (R/G/B/SYNC), DIN 4-pin(Y/C)) connection,CCQQ-1 interconnection adaptor is supplied) Mil i IPII: 40 .. ' fil.# eat Camera Cable Camera Cable Microscope Adaptor with Auto Iris Microscope Adaptor CCTZ-3 RG B CCTZ-3YC MVA-40 MVA-41 (3m, RGBNBS out for CCU-M7 (3m,YCNBS out for CCU-M7 connection,CCZZ-1E interconnection connection,CCZZ-1E interconnection adaptor is supplied) adaptor is supplied) I1 ..l F,i. Coupler for NIKON X/Y Series Coupler for OLYMPUS BH-2/AH Microscopes Series Microscopes MVAC-33/N MVAC-33/O Specifications DXC-930 Rear Connectors' Pin Assignments Image device: 1/2-inch Interline Transfer CCD(x 3) 20 PIN 12-PIN Picture elements: 768(H)x 494(V) Sensing area: 6.4 x 4.8mm Signal system: NTSC standard 1-K-1±11 ❑91 Scanning system: 2:1 interlaced,525 lines Eo oaoo® o „c,z0 Horizontal frequency: 15.734kHz 16 is'"" 'z I' ❑❑ 4 6 ®1918 I� \ ❑ Vertical frequency: 59.94Hz \ Sync system: Internal or External with VBS,BS Horizontal resolution: 720 TV lines Lens mount: Sony 1/2-inch Bayonet 1 UNREG(+) 1 UNREG(G) Sensitivity: F5.6 at 2000 lx 2 UNREG(GND) 2 UNREG(+) Minimum illumination: 15 lx(F1.4, +18dB) 3 VBS(X) 3 VBS(G) Gain control: AGC/0-18dB(1dB step)switchable 4 VBS(G) 4 VBS(X) Electronic shutter: OFF(1/60s)/STEP/MANU selectable 5 R(X) 5 FOCUS CONTROL Step:1/10o(Flickerless mode),'h25,'/2so,'/soo,'/,000,1.2000, 1/4000,'/,0000(seconds) 6 R(G) 6 IRIS CONTROL Manual:255 to 1 frames(for field mode),256 to 2 frames 7 G(X) 7 CAM/REM CONTROL (for frame mode),OFF,260/525 to 1/525 H 8 G(G) 8 ZOOM CONTROL Phase control: H/SC phase control 9 B(X) 9 MODE CCD IRIS control: ON/OFF switchable 10 B(G) 10 UNREG(G) White balance: AUTO/MANUAL(R/B Gain)selectable 11 Y(X) 11 UNREG(+) Signal-to-noise ratio: 58dB(y=OFF,DTL=OFF) 12 Y(G) 12 IRIS AUTO/MANU Gamma control: ON/OFF switchable 13 C(X) Video out: VBS: 1.0Vp-p,75 0,sync negative 14 C(G) RGB:0.7Vp-p,75 i? 15 GENLOCK(CCU)(X) 9-PIN D-SUB Y/C Y: 1.0Vp-p,75 0 16 GENLOCK(CCU)(G) V0000) C:0.286Vp-p,75 f2 17 SERIAL DATA(X) QQ 00© Operating temperature: —5°C to 45°C(23°F to 113°F) 18 SERIAL DATA(G) Storage temperature: —20°C to 60°C(-4°F to 140°F) 19 SENSE(+) 1 VBS(G) Power requirements: DC 12V(Supplied from CMA-D1 or CCU-M3/M7) 20 SENSE(—) 2 R/G/B(G) Power consumption: Approx.7.8W 3 R(X) 4 G(X) Weight: Approx.670g(1 lb 8 oz) Connectors: LENS(6-pin),RGB/SYNC(D-s,;b 9-pin),GENLOCK IN 5 B(X) (BNC),DC IN/REMOTE(12-pinl,VIDEO OUT(BNC),CCU 6 VBS/Y(X) (20-pin) 7 SYNC(X) Supplied accessories: Lens mount cap(1), 8 SYNC(G) Operation instructions(1) 9 C(X)/NON-CONNECTION Dimensions: 146.7(57/e) F t 123.5(47/e) --1 — 12.7 F. ('/2) N 1 t = BONY 3ccD 17 =I M!3' 0 �N— is n 1 + �__—�s Li'lll►__ ' 14 50(2) (e/18) 1/4-20UNC _' °��- II • 14(e/,e) a5 Design and specifications subject to change without notice. (110/1e) Unit:mm(inch) "Hyper HAD","HAD sensor"and"Clear Scan"are trademarks of Sony Corporation. fwe ® ! ABB AWB CO 0 It CI)' � ;m 000 __ +m COLOR I� ®' __ =3 _ � ®' - _ MI .® Sony Corporation V-10054 MK2283HP9202P2-004 Printed in U.S.A.©SONY F)J LLO % CL J S P-C EI lJ I CA` O N MODEL PT550P MEDIUM DUTY OUTDOOR PAN/TILT ' The PT550P is a medium duty outdoor pan and tilt,,ruggedly constructed to comfortably operate with loads up to 40 lbs. Extremely serviceable, the pan and tilt features easy access to all electrical and mechanical components. The heavy duty "" worm gear final drive assembly virtually " eliminates backlash and drifting. Equally ' J' ,. ° important to the operator is dynamic braking - `' - -C.� for spontaneous stopping!The PT550P... r," 's an industry leader for more than two tom -,tom -- decades. • EASILY SERVICED • •'• DYNAMIC BRAKING :y;':,_ • INVERTED.OPERATION '= . .312 DIA.C4X) .. .281 X .656 013ROUND(2X) ' .281 DIA. • RUGGED OUTDOOR OPERATION`: Ii, i • ADJUSTABLE.WORM GEAR - FINALDRIVE'.- ' 5.87' 2.37' 2.93' l 7.00' 1 _ 9.87' Patent#3,164,838 - 10.87' 1 } Q LISTED 11.25' r [ . . 9.37' i i w -' '11 1 DIA. .375 DIA.(4X) _ ED SP ON 4,75 H.C. 1 Designed and manufactured in the U.S.A.by PELCO. mim ' pELcp SECTION 3 PT550P C325/REVISED 12-90 u . .. . . . . , . TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS , . MODELS GENERAL PT550P Medium duty pan/tilt, 115 VDC Construction Aluminum plate;all internal parts corrosion protected MECHANICAL Finish Textured semi-gloss beige enamel Pan 0-355°movement in horizontal plane Environment Outdoor;completely weatherproofed Speed 6*/sec±1° (No load condition) Temperature -10°F to 140°F(-23°C to+60°C) Tilt ±90°movement in vertical plane Weight 22 lbs(9.9 kg) Speed 3°/sec± .5° (No load condition) Shipping Weight 25 lbs(11.5 kg) Torque 20 ft/lb with specified voltage Maximum Load 40 lbs at 5"from tilt table surface to center OPTIONS of gravity FG Special high speed gears—9°/4.5°per sec Gearing Adjustable worm gear final drive to prevent pan/tilt speed.(Reduces load to 20 lbs.) drift and minimize backlash FGP Special speed gearing for pan—9°/sec pan Bearings Pan — Heavy-duty ball bearings speed. Tilt — Oilite bronze bushing FGT Special speed gearing for tilt—4.5°/sec tilt Braking Dynamic for instantaneous stopping speed.(Reduces load to 20 lbs.) HB Blanket heater in cover.75 watts total. ELECTRICAL 115 VAC,50/60 Hz. Input Voltage 115 VDC required for pan/tilt Allows operation to-50°F(-45°C). Power PP Position feedback modification allows pan/tilt to Requirements Running: be automatically positioned to various preset Pan .30 amp(34 VA) positions.Requires preset control,or use with Tilt .30 amp(34 vA) Starting: position indication meter AZL. RAD Radiation resistant wiring and white epoxy Pan .44 amp(51 vA) Tilt .44 amp(51 vA) AMP CPC type(mate supplied) 115 VDC permanent magnet paint. Low level radiation resistant up to 10 Rads. Connectors Motors RECOMMENDED CONTROLS '•imit Switches Pan —5 amp, 10 million cycle rating MPT1510DT Desk top joystick control for 115 VDC pan/tilts Tilt —5 amp, 10 million cycle rating MPTV1510DT Desk top joystick control with variable speed for External adjustment 115 VDC pan/tilts Interference Electrical filtering to minimize starting and stopping glitches RECOMMENDED MOUNTS Conductor PM2000, PM2010 Universal ceiling/pedestal mount.Supports up Requirements . 6,unshielded (Functions:left,right,.up,down to 125 lbs.The use of two or more ST1 support motor common,safety ground) struts greatly increases horizontal stability in (Variable speed,no additional conductors. high wind installations. For models with PP option,an additional'. ST1 Support strut for WM2000,PM2000/PM2010 to 4 conductors are required.) increase maximum load weight. Cable Distances` 6 Conductors WM2000/PA2000 Universal wall mount with adapter for medium 20 Awg 635 feet .' duty pan/tilts.Supports up to 75 lbs.When 18 Awg .1,015 feet used with ST1 support strut,maximum load is 16 Awg 1,610 feet increased to 150 lbs. `Cable distances are for both motors running and assuming a 10%voltage drop in the cable. Specifications subject to change without notice. Indicates change or addition since last revision. ®Copyright 1990,PELCO. All rights reserved. 300 West Pontiac Way,Clovis,.CA 93612-5699'.•(209)292-1981 `,.• ; 1 ' Toll Free: (800)'289-9100 •• FAX(800)•289-9150 PEL co .. PRODUCT COMPARISON The following is a brief comparison of the popular XG-H400U to the new 'step up' XG-H440U: XG-H440U XG-H400O Suggested List: $4,695 $4, 495 Video Resolution: 400 lines 400 lines Pixels: 112, 320 (x RGB) 112, 320 (x RGB) ( 480x234 ) ( 480x234 ) Brightness : 800 lux 800 lux ( improved uniformity) Metal Halide Lamp: 200 Watts 150 Watts (user replaceable) (user replaceable) Portable ( table-top) : Yes Yes Ceiling Mountable: Yes No Reverse Scan ( for Rear Proj . ) : Yes Yes BNC Video In/Out: Yes Yes Audio L/R In/Out: Yes Yes S-Video Input: Yes Yes 15 .75kHz Analog RGB Input: Yes Yes Remote Zoom/Focus Lens : Yes No Audio Amplifier: 3 Watts (mono) 5 Watts x 2 ( Stereo) Built-In Speaker( s) : One - 3" round Two 5" x 3" ( oval ) Image Size (diag. ) 25" - 300" 25" - 150" Variable Image Masking: Yes No Blue Screen Function: Yes (with on/off) Yes Weight: 24 lbs . 23 . 5 lbs. 3-Wire (Grounded) AC Cord: Yes Yes Carry Handle or Hand Grips: Hand Grips Carrying Handle On-Site Limited Warranty: 1-year parts/labor 1-year parts/labor ( 90 days on lamp) ( 90 days on lamp) * Please clearly note that the XG-H400U will be remaining in our "XG" product line. The new xG-H440U is an additional "step-up" model, which offers very good product differentiation, including ceiling mount capability. MR- 1-94 TUE 18:43 P, 03/03 Bid Specification : SHARPS H440U 25" to 3Q0" 'Convertible` LCP Fuu Color Video Protector with RGB input 1. $cope: This specification describes a Video projector utilizing LCD Components to project large video images onto a screen or white wall. It shall be designed for professional use, incorporating industrial type BNC video connectors, RGB and S-Video terminals, commercial 3-wire grounded AC line Cord, 3 watt audio amplifier and a matched 3" round speaker. The projector shall further incorporate reverse and Inverted image controls to easily convert for ceiling mount, rear screen or table top usage. The projector shall also incorporate variable Image masking for use with widescreen "letterbox" video formats and a 25" to 300" remote control power zoom/focus lens. The projector shall require no technical convergence adjustments for operation and not exhibit scan line flicker or be affected by thermal drift or magnetic interference. The projector additionally shall utilize a 200 watt user replaceable metal halide lamp with computer designed optical system for enhanced image uniformity. 2. General Requirements : The specified projector shall meet all of the following; a) Three (3) 3" diagonal TFT Active Matrix LCD panels b) 480 (h) x 234(v), 112,320 pixels resolution per panel c) 100:1 Contrast Ratio, 800 Lux Maximum Brightness specification (40" screen) d) 400 TV Lines Resolution e) Powered 1:1.6 Zoom/Focus lens capable of projecting a 25" image up to 300" image. All images measured diagonally f) 200 Watt High Brightness, User Replaceable Metal Halide Lamp, with computer designed optical system. 3. Inputs : The projector shall incorporate the following Input connectors; Composite Video (BNC) x 2, S-Video (Y/C, 4 pin DIN) x 1, Stereo Mix Audio (RCA type x UR) x 3 Analog RGB (15.75 Horizontal Scan rate) (15 pin D-sub), Wired Remote x 1 4. Outputs : The projector shall incorporate the following Output connectors; Composite Video (BNC) x 1, Stereo Mix Audio (RCA type x L/R) x 1, 12 volt DC Output, 200 mA, (Concentric Coax) x 1 5. Features : The projector shall incorporate all of the following features; a) Direct RGB connection for 15.75 khz analog sources. A Stereo Mix Audio input shall be provided for use in conjunction with the RGB connection in Multimedia presentations. b) Compatible with third party computer interfaces to enable the display of high quality full-color VGA or Macintosh II computer graphics. c) Variable Widescreen Image Masking for 16:9 and 21:9 "letterbox"video formats. d) Wireless Remote with backlit keys capable of: Power On/Off, Input Select, Input Check, Status Select, Status Check, Video adjust (Adjust, +, - , Reset), Volume Up/Down, Zoom (In/Out), Focus (+/-), Masking Adjust (Top/Bottom, +, -> Mode), and Back-light Button Illumination. e) Built-In backlit operational controls on the projector including: Video adjust (Adjust, +, - , Status, Reset), Invert/Reverse Image Switch (for rear and/or ceiling mount projection), Video Input select, Power On/Off, Blue Screen On/Off, Volume(Up/Down), Zoom (In/Out), Focus (+/-). f) User Replaceable, 200 watt, High Brightness Metal Halide Lamp. g) Built-in 3 watt amplifier with matched 3" round speaker, h) Blue screen On/Off switch to eliminate video noise when no source Is connected. i) The projector shall operate from a 120 volt AC, 60 Hz power source with no more than 275 watts power consumption. The AC line cord shall be a commercial 3-wire (grounded) type. j) Polarizing filters for use with polarizing high brightness projection screens. • 6. Size and Weight a) The projector shall be suitable for portable and ceiling mount usage and weight no more than 24 lbs. b) The projector shall measure no more than 19 Mils" wide, 7 24r32" high, 17 t9/32" long. c) Hand Grips shall be incorporated into the design of the unit. 7. Safety The projector shall be UL approved and conform to FCC, Class A and include a 3-wire grounded AC Line Cord. 8. Warranty : The projector shall carry a 1-year On-site parts and labor limited warranty which covers the entire unit excluding the projection lamp. The projection lamp shall be warranted for 90 days. 9. Accessories Supplied Accessories shall include : backlit wireless remote control, BNC to RCA adaptor x 2, replacement air filter, 4 AA batteries, lens cover, terminal cover, inverting labels, 30' stereo audio cable Optional Accessories offered by the manufacturer shall include: ceiling mount bracket, shipping case, carrying case, soft sided carry bag, replacement metal halide lamp, glass beaded tripod and wall mount 1 .__, TPra Inn n I.Ars AN.T'Ir;F7 F4 4 - 5 1 f1F0 - 320mm. ELMD V 6...... .... A NMI Al 1LJPD HE TOP QUALITY/HIGH PERF -VIANCE VISUAL PRESENTER : EV-500AF A new addition to the family of Elmo Visual Presenters, the EV-500AF is the most sophisticated video capture system with unsurpassed features for operator's convenience and clear image video of any material from 3-D objects to transparencies. The EV-500AF's approx. 410,000 pixels CCD pick-up assures vivid presentation with a sharp image. The advanced autofocus technology and 10x zooming make the EV-500AF easiest-to-operate. The front panel touch controls and the rotating camera head are convenient state-of-the-art features desinged with the user in mind. The auxiliary lighting unit is standard, and the baselight is also built-in for presentation of slides, OHP film and other transparent material. Also nega/posi conversion is possible. In addition, the EV-500AF incorporates Auto white balance, Ea,zo Color/B&W selection, Iris control, RGB output, S-video output, AC outlet, etc. Detailed specifications on the EV-500AF on reverse side. EV-500AF 1 s • 4 , f hilt Nit WNW I �° +q�tvrf IRS! '�" ` .� U u I ft� ,' p. j r t 7 rii• .ry ir r a_ i 1 1 ,��' II 1 --,` # ••I x -I -� _ •w DP �.— o FL As a technological innovator since 1921 SPECIFICATIONS P MODE4111 I VISUAL PRESENTER EV-500AF Profile POWER Power source AC 120V 60Hz Power consumption 35W AC outlet Max.400W(3.2A),unswitched i OPTICS Lens F1.8-2.3 f=8-80mm Shooting area 345 x 255mm max. Zooming Powered Focusing Auto/manual I limr Iris Auto/manual LIGHTING Upper lighting unit Built-in,Fluorescent lamp 6Wx2 Baselight Built-in I— A.J VIDEO Television system NTSC compatible & Image pick-up element 1/2"Interline-transfer CCD AUDIO Picture element 811(H)x508(V) Sync.system Internal/external sync.(automatic changeover) ISO Resolution(Horizontal) More than 450TV lines(Y signal) (Vertical) More than 350TV lines S/N ratio More than 46dB Output signal C-video VBS 1.0Vp-p/7511 unbalanced S-video Y:0.714Vp-p/75St unbalanced — �� C:0.286Vp-p/7511 unbalanced R/G/B 0.714Vp-p/75II unbalanced 01 SYNC 2Vp-p/7511 unbalanced �-- --- - - - - --�� (G-ON SYNC.changeable) --(U m.� Ext.sync.frequency range Within H:±20ppm,SC:±50ppm against NTSC standard 450 mm (17.7 in.) H-phase adjustment Manual ---- SC-phase adjustment Manual a------- 690 mm (27.2 in.) .. Electronic shutter 1/60 sec.or 1/100 sec. White balance Full-auto/push-set auto/manual Nega/posi conversion Built-in (C-video,S-video) Color/B&W selection Built-in(C-video,S-video) _ } . Detail compensation Built-in Input selection 3 modes(Internal/AV1/AV2) Plat Input C-video input RCA female/75D unbalanced x2 terminals S-video input Mini Din 4P connector/75ft unbalanced x2 Ext.sync.input BNC connector/750 unbalanced x1 _ Mic.input 06.3mm jack/6000,-65dB x t c_ Audio input RCA female/tOkft,-10dB x2(stereo) - r� Output C-video output RCA female/7511 unbalanced x1 N terminals BNC connector/7511 unbalanced x1 S-video output Mini Din 4P connector/7511 unbalanced xt 41\ E RGB output BNC connector/751)unbalanced x1IIM E Audio output RCA female/tOkD,-10dB x1 (stereo) M CD Remote terminal Built-in DIMENSIONS Dimensions 690(W)x545(D)x653(H)mm when set-up(27.2x 21.5 x 25.7 in.) & 450(W)x545(D)x203(H)mm when folded(17.7 x21.5 x8.0 in.) WEIGHT Weight 8.5 kgs(18.71bs) il1 ■ 'Dimensions&weight are approximate.Design and specifications are subject to change without prior notice. Jim.m.=... .,i. r _ t L545 mm (21.5 in.) a F 'ili Rear Panel Camera Head Front Operation Panel LSD loon..iv bnoe opiroM wCD'mo>to - ahoa IVI?Ig - AG 0„,,,i Wt ite RalaA ckror LEtr— f - Nuflon i Golor/d8W Gulton , ry Bums* u'torn anal Vrdeo-,n T Ai,V)e/(:-Video HAS Gurput Teen nal.' t nal 2 (RCA 8 GNSI RGR SYNC Term nal P,su oat Bnt dr. — SWrdae C.V..tRCAi (PUSH SFi, ' r- _ MAIM .1.4.5E ijii.: # "give B�-ton Lon^Uutlons 4 Auto focus Bv,tonr. _a 1 � ° �, - Ib - ,.. .. —_J rbPHASEt i - IVwt,le.ngM red Letdlwnleaxhted Ramose Term,no' Fuse Hndrr ,wu.n l4HUTTEAtc1ui �_ 0 � rr.., Fun,,,on Rui,or♦ A d'o+n Termmet, Ert Smc to po'eer l:r.rr, is(IN SVNCi Sel,Cnen °w" ^®°Lie" erm,^a' °" w" 1G5YNC * marked controls can be also done through the Remote Terminal. Nag E L MO CO., LTD. 6.14,Meizen-cho, Mizuho-ku,Nagoya 467,Japan Additional technical information is available from any of the following subsidiary companies: Elmo Mfg. Corp. Elmo Canada Mfg. Corp. Elmo (Europe) G.m.b.H. 70 New Hyde Park Rord, 21720 Nordhoff Street, 44 West Drive, Brampton. Karl-Rudolf-Str. 178, New Hyde Park, Chatsworth, Ontario, L6T 3T6, 40215 Dusseldorf, NY 11040-9980, CA 91311-5826, Canada Germany U.S.A. U.S.A. Te1.905-453-7880 Tel. 02 1 1-37605 1-53 Tel. 516-775-3200 Tel. 818-346-4500 Fax.905-453-2391 Fax. 0211-376630 Fax. 516-775-3297 Fax. 818-998-4186 Printed in Japan(N) • .' W T y ` U S Z. Q \ ,it P V y \ 7� t L z Z O wit r tA . i l: a / >i< /fife j'". * i,i L>� 1 LU v Z0 iii: ,.. '. Y. oe illa, l. V :1);:,t • , i X. • . P .., ,,.. Uj ,�,s 2 "! " Q ' W r --A LEIGHTPDNIX "' "k,"� r II/JfJJ/f/II�iII I3IlI1I/,,I, .:N' d^ ' IEIGNrRONIX O RR A • itllril �r 'M1� � li '� • OVERVIEW The PRO-8 is the all-in-one solution for automated videotape once performed,freeing up memory space used by"only The program is essential for users whose schedules repeat on playback/recording and audio/video switching.The PRO-8 once"events. All events have one second resolution,and a periodic basis. It does not require connection to the PRO-8 features 1000 user programmable events,machine control multiple events can be programmed to occur at any given to run and does not require the computer to be dedicated• for up to 16 VCRs,a 8 x 3 video and stereo audio routing time. The PRO-8 scans the entire event database every this program alone. This allows programming from another switcher with video detection,a parallel printer output,and second,performing the functions of any event that matches location for subsequent downloading at the PRO-8 location. supplied PC Event Manager software. the current time and day. Its AUTO-TAKE feature enhances The PRO-8 also features full modem support,allowing this event conservation,allowing a single event to start program transfer to be performed via remote. The PRO-8 Routing Switcher playback,then switch the switcher a predetermined number The PRO-8 video/audio switcher features performance and of seconds later. PRO-8 Event Manager Features Include: functionality of switchers costing thousands more. Both the video and audio switching circuits use the latest technology The PRO-8 • Color or B&W operation in electronic switching components to preserve picture and Event Listing/Logger Output sound quality. All source to all destination routing provides The Event Listing/Logger(in conjunction with a standard • Pull-down menus maximum flexibility.Professional BNC connectors are used parallel printer)provides the PRO-8 user with two functions: for video input and output;standard RCA connectors are PRINT;and LOGGER. PRINT,will print a listing of all • Data entry from keyboard or using arrow keys used for the stereo audio input and output. All switching programmed events,in event order,including EVENT functions are performed during the vertical interval period NUMBER,DAY(S),TIME,DECK INFORMATION,and SWITCHER • Modem support with a dial list to insure the best possible"on-air look".The video detection INFORMATION. LOGGER,prints information as the events feature allows each of the three outputs to be continuously occur,including the actual DAY the event happened,TIME of • Extremely rapid loading of data files monitored for a valid video signal.The outputs may be the event, DECK INFORMATION,and SWITCHER INFORMA- independently programmed to fall back to a select input TION.Power loss and loss-of-video detection occurrences are • User programmable MACRO keys upon loss-of-video. also logged to the printer. • Remote FORCE mode--even over modem The PRO-8 Event Controller The PRO-8 Event Manager Living up to the LEIGHTRONIX standard of powerful and The PRO-8 Event Manager software is a powerful tool for • Switchable single or double space printout options easy to use event controllers,the PRO-8 event controller editing,printing,storage and retrieval of events. This provides you with the ability to manage even the most program operates on any standard IBM®PC or 100%PC • Large event viewing window difficult of schedules. Referenced to the internal PRO-8 time compatible computer with at least 512K RAM,one diskette of day,day of week time clock,one thousand battery drive,and a serial I/O port configured as COM] or COM2. • Supports all PRO-8 functions protected events are at your command for automatic control The Event Manager software is provided on both 5.25"and of tape machine and switcher functions. Events are 3.50"diskettes and comes with a DB-25 interface cable and • User selectable use of(OM] or COM2 • programmable for time,a single day,or any combination of an adapter for DB-9 type connections. days,with performance of both switcher and tape machine functions. Each event can be programmed for auto deletion ATURESANI INFORMATION ,_ 1:::::::::::'1 ____ •.-y, if i. 12 (3(3 0A PM --•— LEIGHTRONIX a, ,._ 0811-1 04t�z t04 7, MENU.* LEIGHTRONIX PRO ■ 8 .®eZilir SPECIAL FEATURES APPLICATIONS ■An internal 8 x 3 video/audio switcher • PRO-8 Event Manager ■ Automatic program playback systems Vertical interval video switching Direct connect or modem connect • Information/Education • Stereo audio Input,edit,and delete events on a PC Hospitals Any source to any destination Store event information to disk Factories BNC input/output connectors for video Block copy,move,or delete Schools RCA input/output connectors for audio Sort events by time or device number Colleges Automatic loss-of-video detection/switching Interface cable supplied • Local origination User assignable default per output Both 5.25"and 3.5"diskettes supplied Public access Government access • Control capacity for 16 tape machines Religious organizations Control and switching for 8 playback VCRs OPTIONS LPN stations Control for 8 auxiliary record VCRs • Movie playback Four function machine control(PLAY/REWIND/ VCR Interfaces Hotels/Motels/Resorts RECORD/STOP) Correctional Facilities The PRO-8 provides individual control of up to 16 V(Rs with Interfaces available for: four functions each(PLAY/REWIND/RECORD/STOP)via RS-232/RS-422 remotes • Programmable video/audio switching PRO-BUS addressable VCR interfaces.The internal 8 x 3 ■ Cable Professional(multi-pin)remotes PRO-8 routing switcher provides playback switching for as Wired(mini/RCA plug)remotes Program exclusivity blackout switching many as eight VCRs.Eight additional VCRs may be Channel wild-card switching Infrared(adhesive)remotes controlled as record VCRs or playback decks to dedicated • Broadcast destinations. Timed video/audio routing • 1000 user programmable events Each event can be programmed for any combination The PRO-BUS,interconnected with R.I-1 l telephone cable, • Automatic recording of days. initiates from the PRO-8 and then is looped between each • Broadcast Auto delete function can remove any event once it VCR interface,providing power and VCR function control Network feed recording occurs. signals.PRO-BUS VCR interfaces are available for most Feed prerouting industrial and broadcast VCRs. • Utility companies • Rack mountable—only one rack unit high(1.75 inches) News recording ■ Cable ■ Backlit,high contrast 80-character LCD display Promotional feed recording IIIOne year data retention without power Program delay recording ■ Event listing/logger output(requires parallel printer) SPECIFICATIONS LEIGHTRONIX PRO-8 TYPICAL APPLICATION o EVENT 0 1 ❑o❑Li Li PRO-BUS ADDRESSABLE VCR INTERFACES MANAGER o _ l SOFTWARE DIRECT CONTROL 2 ❑0000 - - RS-232 o 1 I . I. I PC/AT 3 (moonr---I IA _ t i I I 1 REMOTE ' 4 o Li Li u❑ 1 MODEM AoB p{� CONTROL h lill 1 I . ._., + 5 00000 c, I ,HI 1. � h 6 ammo I I I AUX PARALLEL PRINTER ,—CG -O v 9 mm m Z ro Si MODULATOR N1 I— el m I 1 I I 11 i , - MODULATOR #2 1 2 3 1 5 6 7 1 INPUTS 2 VIDEO/STEREO AUDIO I_ _ CJ� — 3 FROM PLAYBACK DECKS - MODULATOR #3 A/V OUTPUTS 1-3 LEIGHTRONIX PRO-8 FUNCTIONS SPECIFICATIONS PROGRAM/LIST-allows entry,viewing,and editing of Power Input-117 VA(Cad 2AMPS Max. Event order-Events maybe in any order or sequence events Display-Two line by 40,dot matrix,super twist L(D Diagnostics-Self test of all internal memories at power CLEAR-clears PRO-8 events on and then automatically once each minute,thereafter. On Input/Output-Two bidirectional PRO-BUS[Rill],one screen error type and location reporting PRINT-sends the current PRO-8 event list to the external RS-232 serial port[DB-25M],one parallel printer port[DB- printer 25F],one power input connector Control capacity-16 tape machines with four functions each(standard),internal switcher control of 8 x 3 SET CLOCK-used for setting the time and day of the Dimensions-One standard 19 inch rack unit,with video/audio matrix internal clock overall dimensions of 1.75"H x 19.00"W x 11"D Clock type-Day of week,time of day with one second SET PARAMETERS-used to set or view the PRO-8 Weight-5 Lbs. event resolution system parameters such as loss-of-video defaults,LOGGER ON/OFF,MODEM ON/OFF and BAUD rate Warranty-One year factory parts and labor FORCE-allows the user to make an event happen Event capacity-1000 multi-day events(up to 7000 LEIGHTRONIX INC. • instantly to facilitate testing of interfaces and the internal occurrences/week),all events scanned each second,multiple 2330 Jarco Drive • Holt,MI 48842 switcher events occuring at any given second • Phone (517)694-5589 • FAX(517)694-4155 if:4PR — 1 9 - 94 TUE 1 1 : :? .= O? hlh4 I INTL • TRAIN I i-Acl 4.i `' ter. "� IVI N'L International Trading c. 316 Westlake Avenue N., Seattle, WA 98109-5218 USA Tel: 206-628-2923 Fax: 206-628-4324 . . RENTON MESSAGE CHANNEL PLAYBACK • 4.15-94 • • • System: City must create and play on the same system. This system acts as a character generator lagehannel.Masttrlpla • • A4000 Computer • Enhancement Software Bundle • 8 Mb Fast Memory • • Paint/animation software • • 2 Mb Graphics Memory . • • File/directory mgmt software • 340 Mb Hard Drive • Backup software • Multisync Monitor • Audio digitizer sw/hw • • • InfoChannel Master Software • • Art Department Professional sw • Assembly, testing, installation & training (1 day) • SuperGen Genlcck TertOc find Conditiop,g, 1. All delivery dates and prices are subject to product availability. 2. OMNI reserves the right to make product substitutions of equal or greater quality w/o prior permission. 3. Purchaser is responsible for all site preparation. , 4. Pricing information contained in this quote is based on purchase of the complete system and cannot be broken down into component parts. Any ch,inges will require a new quote front OMNI International trading. 5. Payment terms are: NET 30, Late 1.5% • 6. Prices good for thirty (30)days from date of proposal. • • OMNI International Trading 316 Westlake Ave. N..Seattle. WA 96109 (206)628-2923 Fax 628-4324 • • • • PLE• E ,EMIT PROLINE INDUSTRIES, INC. I CT PAYE �E ,EMIPROLINE INDUSTRIES 1233 120thAVENUE N.E., BELLEVUE WA98005 p,:C;;In;6 SLIP• 1233 120thAVENUE N.E. NC. (206)451-1999 FAX(206)637-9558 BELLEVUE WA98005 U141b0000a r, ` (206)451-1999 FA\ (206)637-9558 BILL T•O •C.I. CABLEVIS ION S7'.C.I. CABLEVT T!` ' CCOUNTS PAYABLE H P ECEIVING BILLTO T.C.I. CABLEVISION 125 NORTH 98TH 125 NORTH 987 ACCOUNTS PAYABLE \H T.C. I. CABLEVISi " 112E NORTH 98TH 1 RECEIVING CEPART'- ''EATTLE WA 98103 T EATTLE P 112E NORTH 98TH • SEATTLE WA 9•; T i•• I 0 SEATTLE • •1• i 0= PURCHASE ORDER NO. I ORDER DATE . I SALES ORDER NO. I INVOICE DATE ' �J.' .. p7 • PURCHASE ORDER NO.' I ORDER DATE SALES QNDER NO. INVOICE DATE I INVOICE•111302333 6/17/94 0074306202 8/12/94 GATE SHIPPED SHIP VIA F.I 1 1 3 02331 8/1 1/9 4 OI: TERMS SALES REP. 3-)4 I O07•;+ • , I DATE SHIPPED ..I SHIP VIA TERMS SALES REP. iiEGION 8/05/94 I�EL/DEST 1VET 30 DAYS . RICHARD SL .- '- fn 1( 0.-11 � UPS/CHARGE NET t,t ppYS RICHARD SUTHF° O5 OTYOROO I OW B.O. I MODEL NO. I DESCRIPTION OTY.SHP'D UNIT PRIC 11 L''I ` -j m OTY ORD'O I OTT DO. MODEL NO. DESCRIPTION • OTY•SHPT1... T.:S::.: - - •' 7 Y ID IF YOU HAVE AMY QUESTIONS REGARDING YOUR SHIPMENT, PLEASE CONTACT •" I I '''-'-• _ ``' -.:;�J `-`="•` PROLIME'S COST FR SERUICF DEPARTMENT AT 12061 451-1949. RETURNS J,jj1 1 M267 SHURE BROTHERS INC. i r°� lye••:••; *»+ RUST BE MADE GI HIM 30 DAYS OF PURCHASE. ALL RETURNS ARE SUBJECT TO AUDIO MISER (/ / •*�::414 fit�Y�• 11II� f:l��:.1:[ ..,..�+. ..! all•I� MANUFACTURERS' E-STOCKING POLICY. 1 �_e•�j-e ••:r ft'. '< ANY QUESTIONS GARBING YOUR BILLING SHOULD BE DIRECTED TO THE LL I I;r;.,�t;�:;._;�; ;+.._,. ,y ACCOUNTS RECEIVTBLI DEPARTMENT AT THE SAME NUMBER LISTED ABOVE. • /) �'i��•ht .,b,�„^`•:.+,,' f 1 MPTVi5100T PELCO 1 277.00 ¢o I � iJs:c,i1�y ��=%tK;' CONTROL • _'ew� >V� ;ry D.S. SE-93797 ' �}}.� «. TT L:,J�!'C' f ,.�.AC,'�: I F I Nr. CY;Mir C!L•ffe ;: 1 SALES TAX RA •'.�. n i, F. TOTAL (MOUNT DUE A�IIj �j �l' :1`��'' .�i 4 st=�:;.: i�.":1s, r .; Jt: iy�lf,✓t'�3 J��9 l Y 1 il ;.:ram.\ JI j. dN 1Vtyli Tom. .1�t I , { " ,.7.rel' / // • tT( ' Fl s.( \fc... 1i I �� / L( 7� rC',tpt ,• •• i e \ ,� + = j{ T" ,U, C:DGO L J ° r. • girl..:.:s\wsp/q�l.;•^I,S:.ir I'll ill PLEASE SEE REVERSE FOR TERMS&CONDITIONS OF SALE • �II ! (PULLED By y RTONS • i 0PLEASE SEE REVERSE FOR TERMS&CONDITIONS OF SALE SHIPPED BY . PACKING°;LIP • • I\ • • ORIGINAL ., SHIPPER1/a I NUMBER: 13205 FROM: LEIGHTRONIX, INC. 2330 Jarco Drive Holt, Michigan 48842 (517) 694-5589 TO: TCI C/O .VMI 120 West Dayton St. B-3 Edmonds, WA 98020 PO#: DATE: July 11, 1994 METHOD: UPS REF # : VMI # 151113 QUANTITY DESCRIPTION • BOX .1 OF 2 1 PRO-8 Event Controller SN: P80019 Includes: 1 PRO-8 Operation Manual 1 Printer Cable [rrw)� 1 Event Manager Cable 1 3 .5" Event Manager Disk pr „,w 1 5. 25" Event Manager Disk . [.]- WA 1 Adapter DB9S to DB25P 1 Power Supply [; ' \.\ J BOX 2 OF 2 2 PRPA Deck Control Interfaces SN: 09.97PD, 0988PD Includes: 1 Operation Manual [ ] „„tvz 1 6 ' RJ11 Cable Packed by: C WA` (�, Received by: Shortages must be reported to LEIGHTRONIX within 10 days. Thank you! a IY _ 1 Y '_ .. r fs t O :: I • IY ,, '.. v(' , a ,d i Here's the perfect projector I for demanding applications. i Get the stability and ease of user, of liquid crystal technology at a a whole new level of performance: 'S =_ 1500 ANSI Lumens, 1024x768 <:+• Pixel Resolution, and up to '"aw a 600" Diagonal Image. / I You'll call it impressive: we call it POWE HOU E onE I-i( r/ A-key to better communications. ?OWE R HOU IE OnE_ SPECIFICATIONS: LC-X 1 _ Screen Brightness 1500 ANSI Lumens A Illumination Uniformity 85%+ / Size of Color Palette 16.7 Million XGA MAC 19 _ Contrast Ratio 250:1(ANSI 100:1) . Horizontal Resolution 800 TV Lines Data/Video Projection Lamp 400 Watt Metal Halide Estimated Lamp Life 2,000 Hours Projector Imaging System 1.8"PolySilicon Active Matrix TFT Panels x 3 Screen Pixels 1024 x 768 in Stripe Configuration KEY FEATURES: Total Pixels 2,359,296((1024 x 768)x 3) • Projects 1024 x 768 pixels, for real XGA/MAC 19 resolution. LensType 1:1.6 Ratio Power Zoom and Focus • 1500 ANSI Lumens at 85%uniformity,with a 250:1 contrast ratio. Lens Speed and Focal Length f•2.5-3.2;2.65"-4.24"(67.3-107.6 mm) • Projects images up to 600" diagonal over distances up to 117'. Image Diagonal 30"-600" Image Width 2'-40'(0.6m-12.2m • Displays higher resolutions up to 1280 x 1024 compressed or panned. Throw Distance 3.6'-117'(1.1m-35.65m) • 135 MHz dot clock for compatibility with most workstations. Width-to-Throw Factor 1.8-2.9 • Input/Output modules permit VGA,5 BNC& 13W3 configuration. Front Elevation Up to 4°up • Power Lens Shift offsets the image in both directions(up&down) by Anti Keystone Image Offset Power Lens Shift:10:0-0:10 up to half the image height: projector doesn't invert,or need-to. Scanning Frequency Automatic:H Sync.15-80kHz; V Sync.50-100Hz •Optional Telephoto and Wideangle Lenses. Dot Clock 135 MHz • 3 Year* Projector Warranty! 6 Month* Lamp Warranty! Image Orientation Normal,Reversed,Inverted Local Control Full Function Remote Projector&Mouse Control HandHeld,Wireless(InfraRed x 1) L- _ Projector-Mouse Control Ports Two Sets:12 Pin DIN x 1,USB port x 1 Remote Projector Control HandHeld,Wireless(InfraRed)/Wired x 1 jig 0 9 9 kr' . Projector Control Ports MiniStereo x 1 RS-232 Control Port (Serial Port Type)Dsub9 x 1 Computer: Native Resolution XGA/MAC 19(1024 x 768) • 0 4— Computer: Higher Resolutions Up to 1280x1024,Panned or Smart Compressed Computer: Lower Resolutions Down to 640x480,Normal or Smart Expanded i' Computer: Computer Channels 2 1 Intuitive controls and an on-screen dis- playComputer: Input:Channel 1 5 BNC(R,G,B,H,V)x 1 simplify operation, at the projector Computer: Input:Channel 2 Supplied VGA Cable/MAC Adapter to HDB 15 or remotely. Computer: Monitor Out HDB 15 x 1 Computer: Audio Input Two Sets:RCA x 2(Stereo) r r Transportable, Powerhouse One goes where Computer: Audio Monitor Out RCA x 2 you need it... ceiling, booth, cart, anywhere) Video: Standards NTSC/PAL/SECAM/NTSC 4.43/PAL-M/PAL-N Video: Formats Normal(4:3);Wide(16:9) Video: Imaging Video Scaling Technology 4 ®Q o o . . . . . ❑ ,.„ o o 40 4 Video: Channels 2 Video: Systems Composite,Component,S-Video ®t5 o o ❑ o 0 1•fa�•1 Video: Input Connections Two Sets:BNC x 3,S-Video x 1 Video: Audio Input Two Sets:Stereo:RCA x 2 0 o o 0" o -4w,� Video: Monitor Output Systems Composite,Component,S-Video ,, Q - • Video: Monitor Output Connections BNC x 3,S-Video x 1 All the connectivity you could ask-for. Interchangeable data I/O Video: Audio Monitor Output Stereo:RCA x 2 modules let you reconfigure with VGA, 5 BNC,or 13W3 to suit. Audio Output: Amplifier 3 Watts RMS(each L&R)Stereo Audio Output: Speakers Round,3"(8 cm)Diameter x 2 OTHER IMPORTANT FEATURES: Size(HxWxD) 9 2 x 15.4 x 23 in(234 x 390 x 582 mm) Weight 37 4 lbs(17 kg) •Accepts Composite,Component, and S-Video Input. Power Requirements&Consumption 100-120V/200-240V AC,50/60Hz,630W • Displays both Regular 4:3 and Widescreen 16:9 ratio video formats. Power Cord 10'(3M)Type 3,Detachable •Multi-Format Video: NTSC/PAL/SECAM/NTSC 4.43/PAL-M/PAL-N. Safety Compliance UL Listed • Included Accessories:Owner's Manual,AC Power Cord. Dust Cover. Warranty: Projector: 3 Years/6,000 Hours*(Parts and Labor to Correct Defects) Warranty: Lamp 6 Months/1,000 Hours*(Replacement of Failed Lamp) Lens Cap.VGA Cable.MAC Adaptor.Wireless Remote Control and 'Note:Whichever Occurs First AA batteries.Mouse cables for PS/2, Serial Port,ADB Port.Wired Remote& AA batteries& 5' (1.5m)cord. Specifications subject to change without notice. •Optional Accessories; VGA,5BNC,and 13W3 Input/Output ©1998 EIKI International,Inc. Printed in the USA.6/1/98 Modules.Telephoto and Wideangle Lenses.Soft Carry Bag. Hard Shipping Case.Ceiling Mount and Post&Plate. MAC Monitor Cable. Other/Additional Input Cables. EIKI A-key to better communications. Ejkj International, Inc.,26794 Vista Terrace Dr., Lake Forest, CA 92630 Tel:800-242-3454; Fax: 800-457-3454, E-mail: infousa@eiki.com EIKI CANADA,17036 Highway 12,P.O.Box 156,Midland,ON L4R 4K8 Phone:800-563-3454,Fax:800-567-4069 E-mail:infocanada@eiki.com Fax-on-Demand: (Toll Free)877-345-4329 • Visit our World Wide Web site: http://www.eiki.com EIKi Powerhouse One/LC-XI 629/98 Optional Lenses Powerhouse One / LC-X1 Lenses Screen Dimensions Panel Size 1.8" Height-feet 2.3' 3 3.8 4.5 5.3 6 6.8 7.5 9 10.5 12 13.5 15 20 22.5 26.3 30 Aperture 1.45" Width-feet 3' 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 12 14 16 18 20 26.7 30 35 40 Diagonal-inches 45" 60 75 90 105 120 135 150 180 210 240 270 300 401 450 525 600 T W Original Lens feet feet feet feet feet feet feet feet feet feet feet feet feet feet feet feet feet Prime(PowerZoom) 2.65 5.5' 7.3 9.1 11 12.8 14.6 16.4 18.3 21.9 25.6 29.2 32.9 36.6 48.8 54.8 64 73.1 1.8 2.65-4.24"f:2.6--3.5 4.24 8.8' 11.7 14.6 17.5 20.5 23.4 26.3 29.2 35.1 40.9 46.8 52.6 58.5 78.1 87.7 102.3 117 2.9 (67.3-107.6mm) Optional Lenses feet feet feet feet feet feet feet feet feet feet feet feet feet feet feet feet feet Aug'98(PowerZoom) 4.9 10' 13.5 16.9 20.3 23.7 27 30.4 33.8 40.6 47.3 54.1 60.8 67.6 90.2 101.4 118.3 135.2 3.4 4.9-6.37 6.37 13' 17.6 22 26.4 30.8 35.1 39.5 43.9 52.7 61.5 70.3 79.1 87.9 117.3 131.8 153.8 175.7 4.4 (124.5-161.8 mm) Oct'98(PowerZoom) ? TBA TBA TBA TBA TBA TBA TBA TBA TBA TBA TBA TBA TBA TBA TBA TBA TBA TBA Longer-TBA ? TBA TBA TBA TBA TBA TBA TBA TBA TBA TBA TBA TBA TBA TBA TBA TBA TBA TBA Longer-TBA feet feet feet feet feet feet feet feet feet feet feet feet feet feet feet feet feet Oct'98(Man FFL) 1.7 3.5' 4.7 5.9 7 8.2 9.4 10.6 11.7 14.1 16.4 18.8 21.1 23.4 31.3 35.2 41 46.9 1.2 1.7"(43.2mm)f:2.5 feet feet feet feet feet feet feet feet feet feet feet feet feet feet feet feet feet Jul'98(Man FFL) 7 14.5' 19.3 24.1 29 33.8 38.6 43.4 48.3 57.9 67.6 77.2 86.9 96.6 128.9 144.8 169 193.1 4.8 7"(178mm)f:2.8 feet feet feet feet feet feet feet feet feet feet feet feet feet feet feet feet feet Jul'98(Man FFL) 8 16.6' 22.1 27.6 33.1 38.6 44.1 49.7 55.2 66.2 77.2 88.3 99.3 110.3 147.3 165.5 193.1 220.7 5.5 8"(203mm)f:2.8 feet feet feet feet feet feet feet feet feet feet feet feet feet feet feet feet feet Jul'98(Man FFL) 10 20.7' 27.6 34.5 41.4 48.3 55.2 .62.1 69 82.8 96.6 110.3 124.1 137.9 184.1 206.9 241.4 275.9 6.9 10"(254mm)f:2.8 feet feet feet feet feet feet feet feet feet feet feet feet feet feet feet feet feet Jul'98(Man FFL) 12.5 25.9' 34.5 43.1 51.7 60.3 69 77.6 86.2 103.4 120.7 137.9 155.2 172.4 230.2 258.6 301.7 344.8 8.6 12.5"(317mm)f:2.8 . feet feet feet feet feet feet feet feet feet feet feet feet feet feet feet feet feet Jul'98(Man Zoom) 6 12.4' 16.6 20.7 24.8 29 33.1 37.2 . 41.4 49.7 57.9 66.2 74.5 82.8 110.5 124.1 144.8 165.5 4.1 6--9"f:3.5 9 18.6' 24.8 31 37.2 43.4 49.7 55.9 62.1 74.5 86.9 99.3 111.7 124.1 165.7 186.2 217.2 248.3 6.2 (150-230mm) To Use Chart: 1.)Go to screen dimensions. 2.)Locate image width you require. 3.)Go straight down under that image width and you will see the throw distances for each listed lens. Q,7/'02/1998 08:48 4256469521 PROLINE PAGE 01 Jul-02•-99 09e 1OA PROGRESSIVE MARKETING 714, 528 2062 P.O1 ;.i. UPM-1321 a UPM-1321D • I':-cio0)))vi : UMIVERSAL LCD PROJECTOR gliir:1 •Frta.iT FIXED & ADJUSTABLE HEIGHT CEILING MOUNTS #tw',x1 Cly,r Phone (80O) 368.9700 * FAX.(800) 632.4808 • Most nq:a inversion mountable LCD projectors can mount upright directly to a permanent ceiling with the UPM-1321 fixed or UPM-1321D type ceiling height kit. Side to side adjustment of 3'approx,and a lilt of+20°tram center is also incorporated with positive locking once a proper angle has Deen set. filmier height Is - adjustatde from 9 3/4'to 1 S'and the interior Width is adjustable from 13 i/2 to 211/t'- Note:The UPM-1321D or UPM-1321DASS has a 20'deep base tray.Any projectors with a base toot depth front to rear of mom than 14`D and up to 20'0 will use the UP1.4-1 E21D and UPM-13210ASt The Sanyo 9000,Proxim: 6=' :r : • 1 type projectors would use the UPM-1321D or UPM-1321DAST.The nView 800 and Pars sonic PLT-592U type projectors would = : I PM-1321 or the UPM-132 •,T. - -•- Note:Frr projectors higher than 15'b ' over. : '••d 1 pair of UPM-EXT extender brackets to the mount. . • . i N �W 1 I RM14M:23 lb.(ap. .1.) Color:Black Ship:UPS - `I fl ti• • To Milt 80 lb_(app •) .,� Color:Black r y,.•, Ship!UPS w UPM•132 14"O • UPM- 821D t01D• • �' 121I 12 Ail, . .. ,,c---. , . ,v, r................1. c,,, Aal... . \.) .\, NI . . -N, • . 1 : • "4. i Q r e UPM-1321AST or UPM-1321DAST has all the features of the heed- eight model,shown above,mount with the added benefit of being height p�'• �� adjustable fur drop or high ailing installations. The AST replaces the fixed height adapter and Is adjustable in height from 24'to 48'(12'to 24'with • •►. cut)in 11/4'Intervals. UPM-1321 or UPM 1321 D can be wall • • 1!' mounted with optional wall mount arm post,.K Fax Note 7671 ,A �I ( • Co.roepe.• .F r.,---7�� Weight IS lb. Phone r • .f I.. ' -6�. I 1 W—�`�S— Color:Black Fax a • • �� • Ships:UPS - r' ," -. - e,7/92/1998 08:48 4256469521 PROLINE PAGE 02 Jul-024•98 09x11A PROGRESSIVE MARKETING 714 528 2062 P-02 Installation Instructions • UPM-1321 AST 70 adjust the width of the base plate. Place the projector on sop of the plate,close the side anus to secure the projector_ 'mice the projector is act use the(4)Morn nuts(supplied)which axe located on the bottom of the tray to sure the base pox.(Do not over tighten() I —.•d!L-N i.:,;s1. BLE 5::12Eu I . ! d • ....,--. Ap( I • ''''.`,.. 0 2\,‘,1> i . ; \ r I kz Must the width of the upper Iovc1 arms to fit inside of the base tray. When set,secure the(2)1;/4x20x 1/2 knurl knobs ;(supplied)round on top of the T-h1r.Slide the assembled T-bar down inside the base plate.Secure position desired with the(2)1/4x20x1/2 knurl knobs(supplied).Adjust angle and lock it in position with the(2)1/a/20/1/2 knurl knobs !(supplied).(Du nut over tigh*et )Put asidt and mount ceiling structure at this time. ' I • I 1 - ,+.. '� I 1 ,'-, 5 .-NOLE AEJ BUL"S :.f , l t\ I a4,,),, . ..,..„..,_ , � '� ' I /. " L. I "3 1 e. i C H .,E1_•r \ w� AV, • 1,�'�T (r,:Krn,r'u, Kno . 1/4X8Jx1!?? • • • 29RO-A Enterprise Shea,Bras,Ca,92121/Ph.(tt00)36s-97oo Fax(800)632488S E-mail:pmgir&ipttni.CPJJl6tep://www.pmpi.ram 0,1/98 • • 0�7/.02/1998 08:48 4256469521 PROLINE PAGE 03 Jul-O2!••98 09: 11A PROGRESSIVE MARKETING 714 528 2062 P_03 • Stgia 3 Install the UPM-1321 AST ceiling mounting plate securely to the ceiling structure in accordance with proper commercial standards. Use suitable hardware(commercially available)depending on the .• • installation requirements. • • • • (,)wets • • Cy Hog 3:r.cto.e ;B>RASEINS i / (/ I" • i i' �f • •• • T` • •• t.; ,.ur 0_'S/4'15 • ' UPM-132' AST • StFD a ' Remove the projector from the tray.Once the UPM-1321 AST is installed in your ceiling raise the hole base • plate and screw on to the ceiling pipe secure using the(2)elan screws(supplied).On the UM-1321 AST adjust the beight desired and secure it using the(3)thumb screws and the(2)1/4"x3l/2"thiew bolts(supplied). • • • • • • „...71,,:: • • 45T-adab • • • [ : • i. • • t M,5c _siJ V .�' - PAR An.; 51":4eas �. AF • ua_ 4 ss, :� T1 �5K • 'Ilr6-4A2t) , • .• �,� '.. �� rI,HT CDJ<...,. Kl.COG WARNING! 7 �S The ceiling should be capable of supporting a weight of at least five times the projector or monitor weight.If it cannot,the ceiling must be reinforced.Proper installation procedure by qualified personnel as outline:In the installation instructions mtuat be adhered to.Failure to do so could result in serious personal injury. For further information or ordering assistance contact us at the address shown on the front of this page, \. .. . .. 0 PUGET SOUND ACCESS WAYS YOU CAN USE PSA RIGHT NOW! -P S A Display' _ <----'Post your event on our electronic bulletin board 5Contact us! ---'bers_know of local events and we'll do our best to video la them and put them on the channel as a PSA Pr sents Production (go Becoryi'a hle ber irake ou)- training classes and produce a show of your very own 11 Contract wi PSA We'll produce a program for you! 411-11: 1 your kids PSA off s day long youth workshops! -et-your-fa.mi y involved PSA oft s discounted rates for families! op Let your local non-profits know PSA offers services to help promote local non-profit organizations and cable casts national non-profit public service announcements on the channel! ( iili ... Sr' i I i i PUG,ET SOUND ACCESS PROGRESS AT A GLANCE Total # of members - 175. Individual, 27 Organizational Total hours of programming - 12,495 (7,329 Loa ')______ Total # of local programs (every episode) - 1,45 Months in operation - 36 Total number of subscribers - 65,000 (Comcast 2001 data) Total number of potential households - 200,000 ( t 200 data) Board of Directors - 6 Member Board Staff - 8 Member Staff (4 FT/4 PT) Hosted Regional Alliance for Community Media C erence in June 2006 - 70 Attendees and 8 Vendors AWARDS - 8 Total National 2006 Hometown Video Award - Bullet Bo Regional 2006 Best of the Northwest Award - Promo 2006 Best of the Northwest Award - In-Studio Talk Show The Intern Show 2006 Best of the Northwest Judges Choice - Event - Remembering The ACES 2007 Best of the Northwest Award - Local Attraction - Bumbershoot 2006 2007 Best of the Northwest Award - Innovative - The Arthur Wright Show 2007 Best of the Northwest Award - Inspirational - Shout TV GOALS FOR 2007 Diversify funding sources Increase membership Increase advanced training Increase hours of operation Continue to establish collaborative partnerships PUGET SOUND ACCESS PROGRESS AT A GLANCE Total # of members - 175. Individual, 27 Organizational Total hours of programming - 12,495 (7,329 Loca Total # of local programs (every episode) - 1,45 Months in operation - 36 Total number of subscribers - 65,000 (Comcast 2001 data) Total number of potential households - 200,000 200 Y data) Board of Directors - 6 Member Board Staff - 8 Member Staff (4 FT/4 PT) Hosted Regional Alliance for Community Media Co erence in June 2006 - 70 Attendees and 8 Vendors AWARDS - 8 Total National 2006 Hometown Video Award - Bullet Bo- Regional 2006 Best of the Northwest Award - ID , . Promo 2006 Best of the Northwest Award - In-Studio Talk Show The Intern Show 2006 Best of the Northwest Judges Choice - Event - Remembering The ACES 2007 Best of the Northwest Award - Local Attraction - Bumbershoot 2006 2007 Best of the Northwest Award - Innovative - The Arthur Wright Show 2007 Best of the Northwest Award - Inspirational - Shout TV GOALS FOR 2007 Diversify funding sources Increase membership Increase advanced training Increase hours of operation Continue to establish collaborative partnerships PUGET SOUND ACCESS WAYS YOU CAN USE PSA RIGHT NOW! -P- A Dis.piafL Post your event on our electronic bulletin board ill-Cant ct us! nn L�s_kriow of local events and we'll do our best to videota put them and them on the channel as a PSA Prents Production II Se� a y/ ber T ke our training classes and produce a show of your very ovv ® Contract with PSA We'll produce a program for you! Iô Tell our kids PSA off rs day long youth workshops! ge-Get y-ou.r-fa ily involved PSA offers discounted rates for families! • Let your local non-profits know PSA offers services to help promote local non-profit organizations and cable casts national non-profit public service announcements on the channel! (-_-_---\„, __ Ec ,„ �, i w , 4 , Video Production Consultant draft Salary Range: $12 - $24 per hour DOE • Individual or firm must be interested in providing professional video recording and production services for the City of Renton. • Knowledgeable and experienced in the operation of video cameras, recording, playback and editing equipment; and have a background in video production. • Able to operate the City's video cameras, and recording and playback equipment during the regularly scheduled City Council and Committee of the Whole meetings, and occasionally for other public meetings as may be determined; cablecast the meeting over the City's government access cable channel; and provide a professional videotape recording of the event. (Council meetings are held the first four Mondays of each month, each preceded by an hour-long Committee of the Whole workshop. The average duration of the combined meetings is three hours.) • Perform related video recording and equipment setup, preparation and preventative maintenance as necessary to videotape and cablecast Council meetings. • Provide video consulting services to the City as requested for the installation, configuration and acquisition of video equipment. • Produce other video programs as requested by the City, utilizing the City's equipment and providing additional equipment as needed. contact: Bonnie Walton City Clerk/Cable Manager City of Renton 1055 S. Grady Way, 7th Fl. Renton, WA 98055 Phone: 425-430-6502 22412 72nd Ave S. Bldg C Kent WA 98032 pugetsoundaccess.org • Corporate Rates Pre-Production Concept Meeting • Producer $100 / hour • Director $100 / hour Scripting • First Draft $20 / hour • Second Draft $20 / hour • Final Draft $30 / hour Location Scouting • Producer $100 / hour • Director $100 / hour • Videographer $40 / hour • Audio Tech $40 / hour Field Shoots Camera with Tripod $150 / day Camera Operator $400 / day $250 / 1/2 day Audio Tech $250 / day $150 / 1/2 day Light Kit $30 / day All Mics $10 / day All Cords (XLR, Extension, etc.) $2 / day Studio Shoots VT4 System with 3 Remote Cameras, lights, and Audio $1200 / day 10hrs board and Studio rental fee $600 / 1/2 day 5hrs Producer $100 / hour Camera Op. $40 / hour Director $100 / hour Tech Director $40 / hour Audio Tech $40 / hour Graphic Specialist $40 / hour DVD Dub $20 VHS Dub $15 Edit/Post Editor $40 / hour Avid Edit Bay $125 / day 8hrs Capture and Logging $10 / hour Government Shoots Videographer $25 / hour Videographer with PSA's Equipment $40 / hour Edit On PSA's Equipment $40 / hour Media $5 for 2VHS Tapes/ $5 DVD Encoding at PSA $25 / hour From: "Luke Sams" <LukeS@pugetsoundaccess.org> To: <bwalton@ci.renton.wa.us> Date: 2/23/2006 1:50:42 PM Subject: RE: Need Videographer Bonnie, Derek Klein will do the shoot for you. He is very good with difficult lighting. Also here is our updated rate sheet. Thanks -Luke Original Message From: Keri Stokstad Sent:Tuesday, February 21, 2006 7:00 PM To: Luke Sams Subject: FW: Need Videographer Original Message From: Bonnie Walton [mailto:Bwalton@ci.renton.wa.us] Sent: Tuesday, February 21, 2006 5:46 PM To: Keri Stokstad Subject: Need Videographer Keri: I am in need of a videographer for a special shoot on Wednesday, March 1st from about 10:00 am to about 2:00 pm. This for our Mayor's speech at a Chamber of Commerce luncheon at the Holiday Inn here in Renton. Either Mei or Rita would be fine if one is available, or whoever you think. Lighting is a little challenge at this place, so someone fairly good at helping with that would be nice. Let me know. Thanks, Keri. Bonnie Walton City Clerk/Cable Manager City of Renton 425-430-6502 VIDEO PRODUCTION SERVICES AGREEMENT This agreement is entered into the 1st day of January, 2006, by and between the City of Renton(hereinafter"City") and Puget Sound Access, (hereinafter"Consultant"). CONSULTANTS AND CITY HERINAFTER AGREE AS FOLLOWS: 1. Scope of Work: The Consultant shall operate the City's video cameras, recording, and playback equipment during the regularly scheduled Monday night City Council meetings and Committee of the Whole meetings. The proceedings shall be cablecast live over the City's government access television channel (Channel 21) and a videotape shall be produced for cablecast of the proceedings during the following week. The Consultant shall perform related duties as approved by the City Clerk Division. Upon request, duties shall include but not be limited to equipment setup, reconfiguration, and preventative maintenance as necessary to videotape and cablecast City Council meetings. Upon request, the consultant shall provide additional video production services including but not limited to City of Renton activities, events, festivals,productions and services. In addition, the Consultant shall upon request produce a videotaped quarterly magazine show for cablecast on the government access channel. Production services shall include planning, staff coordination, scripting, lighting and staging, camera operation, music, graphics, editing, and all other aspects of production. 2. Video Equipment and Supplies: The Consultant shall use the City's video equipment and supplies for the weekly Council meetings. Equipment used for other productions shall be provided either by the City, the Consultant, or from a rental agency. The City will supply all videotapes, and all tapes recorded under this agreement will remain the property of the City of Renton and remain on City premises. 3. Consultant Fees: The hourly rate paid to the Consultant by the City for the weekly Council meetings shall be $ 25.per hour. In addition, the Consultant will receive compensation for a total of one hour in travel time for each session. Should the duration of the meeting, including travel time, not exceed three hours,payment of a three-hour minimum will be guaranteed. The Consultant shall arrive one-half hour prior to commencement of the meeting. The Consultant shall provide the City with an itemized monthly invoice, and the City will render payment within 30 days. 1 The hourly rate for additional video production services shall be $30 per hour. The services of City staff shall be used whenever possible to assist in camera operation and other miscellaneous duties. For all special projects, a cost estimate shall be provided in advance to the City Clerk/Cable Manager. 4. Independent Contractor. It is understood and agreed that the Consultant is, and shall be, acting at all times as an independent contractor herein and not as an employee of the City. The Consultant shall be responsible for payment of any and all income tax, social security, state disability insurance compensation, unemployment compensation, and all other payroll deductions for the Consultant and Consultant's officers, agents and employees and all business licenses, if any, in connection with the services to be performed. In connection with the execution of the agreement, Consultant shall not discriminate against any employee or applicant for employment because of race, religion, color, sex or national origin. 5. Video Release Form: The Consultant shall require completion of the City of Renton video release form by all parties and/or owners prior to videotaping persons, property, structures, vehicles and/or equipment. 6. Indemnification: The Consultant shall indemnify, defend and hold harmless the City, its agents and employees from and against any and all liability arising from injury or death to persons or damage to property resulting in whole or in part from acts or omissions of the Consultant, its agents, servants, officers or employees, irrespective of whether in connection with such act or omission, it is alleged or claimed that an act of the City, or its agents or employees caused or contributed thereto. In the event that the City shall elect to defend itself against any claim or suit arising from such injury, death or damage, the consultant shall, in addition to indemnify and holding the City harmless from any liability, indemnify the City for any and all expense incurred by the City in defending such claim or suit including attorney's fees. 7. Term of Agreement: The term of the agreement shall commence on January 1, 2006, and run continuously until terminated by either party by written notice to the other party at least 45 days in advance of the termination date. The parties may modify the terms of the agreement after review and written approval by both parties. All notices and requests shall be addressed to the City and the Consultant as follows: CITY: City Clerk/Cable Manager Renton City Hall 1055 S. Grady Way Renton, WA 98055 425-430-6510/email: bwalton@ci.renton.wa.us CONSULTANT: 2 CONSULTANT: CITY OF RENTON Puget Sound Access 22412 72nd Ave. S. Bldg C Kent WA. 98023 By: By: Print: Bonnie Walton, City Clerk/Cable Manager Approved as to form: City Attorney 3 From: "John Weist" <JohnW@jwtel.com> To: <bwalton@ci.renton.wa.us> Date: 12/12/2006 10:30:20 PM Subject: FW: FYI Original Message From: John Weist Sent: Tuesday, December 12, 2006 10:24 PM To: Bonnie I. Walton (E-mail) Cc: Lori Wood (E-mail) Subject: FYI Bonnie, I just wanted you to know that I was over today to work on your TV channel system. Your IT folks are in the midst of hooking up streaming video to Granicus and they needed an audio and video feed to their encoder. I purchased and installed an Audio/Video Distribution amplifier system for your gear and installed it after the switch that selects what signal goes to Comcast. That way, whatever is on the air, is being sent to Granicus. The system I installed is a powered amplification device that splits the signal up to 4 different directions without signal loss or degradation. My other reason for writing is that while working on the system I discovered several pieces of audio and video gear hanging by their wires from the rear of the right hand rack. The gear is made by Extron, and consisted mainly of a VGA DA and an Audio/Video DA. These two pieces of gear probably weigh in together at 4 or 5 lbs. There were also several small power supplies all just hanging from the rear of the rack by their wires. The pressure on all of the wiring had caused several cables to become unplugged and had created other problems. One major problem was that none of the automation system in that right hand rack would work. The remote control cabling had been pulled apart so the three machines would not respond to commands from the control system. I also found wiring going to the switcher for the wall monitors in the Council Chambers to be disconnected. I spent over an hour repositioning the two DA's and sorting through the wiring. I did not have the time to do more than relocate the DA's and repair the problems mentioned. Admittedly the rack is quite full of equipment and has been modified over the last 10 years or so by many people and is quite frankly getting to be a mess. However, that being said, installing equipment in this manner is simply not acceptable. There are no labels on the cables to tell where things go and no attempt was made to anchor the equipment or route wiring. Plus, several systems were non functioning. Who ever did this installation work was not careful or thorough. I thought you should know about this issue. Regards, JW John Weist Vice President JW Tel-Tronics, Inc. P.O. Box 1282 Bothell, WA 98041-1282 PH: 425 485-4739 FX: 425 481-0703 Email:johnw@jwtel.com NEC PlasmaSync® Displays q u., ram:. v � , _ ir �p ¢p ,,p ' f s- e .r t 3 ' �,• "°°e� »ry'3�r' » ,.rk •.� aYart �7�.1" �'" �. v, • w Le Y 61XM3, 50XM4, 42XM3, 42VM5 and 42VP5 Command awe-inspiring brilliance. NEC's commercial plasmas include innovative features and technologies from our renowned design labs. ` Inspirational color and image reproduction ' '°"."` . 'V . ' Best in class image quality.Image quality so superior that NEC's 61XM2 received the DisplayMate"Five-Star" Best Video Hardware Award. '' Capsulated Color Filter(CCF)technology delivers realistic color reproduction. '' AccuCrimson Filter technology further enhances the effects of the CCF producing better reds and greens. • ° Digital AccuDevice.All digital video processing allows for artifact and noise free video. Mass Area Superior Sampling(MASS)eliminates jagged lines and corrects color bleeds to create clear and defined images. Color Tune Technology.Adjust individual colors without affecting white balance. Gamma 12 provides the highest color processing in a plasma display at 68.7 billion colors(4096 steps)resulting in increased detail never seen before...no matter what the viewing environment! Features and controls to improve upon perfection ' Programmable timer for virtual self-running operation. ' Portrait or landscape display orientation. • Anti-glare filter(42VP5 only)specifically designed to maintain image brightness and contrast where direct ambient light is present. ' Complete RS232 control allows command and feedback of the monitor from a control system. Cabinet design enables small form factor PC's to be attached to the back of the plasma. ' High altitude capable with an operating altitude of 9180 feet. ' Complies with ADA508 standards for color blind and hearing impaired users with ' black&white menus and closed caption support. • Zoom. Highlight portions of still or motion video to reinforce your message. ' ;y:11.,-a'D t. Long term investment protection ' Long lasting. Up to 60,000 panel half-life(that's 20 years, 8 hours a day)!* Ranked#3 by PAC Media for product quality/reliability and product warranty repair/return programs. ' Executive Order 13221 advanced power saving features include a standby setting fa r,..*rr:_r- that uses <1 watt and a hard power switch to completely shut down the unit. ;, a ' ,": * s , r= '`.: `' AccuShield provides multiple ways to protect from permanent image retention. t;'='; = 1 :"t"t,.:,lt;??Ci-1.'i'' =" ' Low power consumption places NEC among the leaders in the industry. Frrq 'W'm''e1 by letex) reties) NEC Commercial Plasma Displays: °` ayi brilliant, flexible and reliable. h +v{Sl'3': 1. :44'''1141'''' . 7''''' '"*".''''''''''' ' '''''I'' '''''" '''1--''.. -4'''":""""-.:...",,,;':,`,4,,,;‘,,`f.4:4,"4=24-'4"-,:44:-, .-:',:::••''***-**:=7-',..:::::..t.*,-`,:-...X..":..-,...,',.=.',`.t,'.7..."4...t„:,:-...."..7:2'2..-....-:.-..7:‘,„':,-....‘,,„ # l /'+ i y pd ,,,f,, t - ) - ' _ .414 •.. Y. r fin-i 'a, .\a ,r-,, ~ �" k„1 v tit Pj._,.sP, .Ott r e '.c'� itti 1. Y jjF pry,'+. a� �R• s; a m bk r I7.i 'R� .r Yi+k 14 0., .3 , ra,v. $•i • - f '`• n �" � 9.._3 '..., i I TD.k°6's'.?,�4€�. - "x"•$?.�' �n`t '� * , II� . , - tit'? :'' :10:14"''" g am ' a1411. t p. : i A�I1► t Q l '' p R • ,.�} i{h 8 ( T1p .. L ,, .. 1 r; r 's 0I rk'°:. -. 3 • ^^SIC tt• i :,:'�F; i ry,,'V p 1.: J �,�Y + '�5,y. v,�r. ,, 1. ' ' intuitive design. Order Code Description '-- products PX-6IXM3A 61"WXGA Plasma Display PX-50XM4A 50"WXGA Plasma Display,. Whether it's a local company or a global PX-42XM3A G2'XGA Plasma Display ' � x PX-42VM5A 42"Plasma Disptayw/Antf Reflective Fitter corporation, NEC plasma displays are an PX-42VP5A 42"PlasmaDisplay w/Anti-Glare Filter x impressive addition to anybusiness, speakers PX-61SP1U 61"Attachable.Speakers ............. .. ,� .+•< P PX-50SPIU 50'Attachable Speakers -� �, 1� r z, PX-42SP1U 42'Attachable Speakers ° stands PX-615T1U 61'Tabletop Stand • Input panel. Connections for almost any PXSTIU W... 50'and42'Tabletop5tand r1 A. mounts 61FWMK 61 Fixed Wall Mount source device. ° 61TWMK 61 Till Wall Mount ,. Quiet operation. All models are virtually 61CMK 61'CedingMount Silent at <ZZdB. FWMK 50 and Fixed Wall TWMK 50'and 42 Tilt Wall Mount ° Easy operation. Intuitive and easy to use CMK 50"and42-Ceilin Mount FWMKPC 50'and 42"Fixed Wail Mount for PC menu structure simplifies operation. .P" P P TWMKPC 50'and 42'Tilt Wall Mount for PC ° CMKPC 50"_and_42_Ceiling Mount for_PC Programmable timer can be set up to other accessories PX-CV2U 50"and 61'Terminal Cover virtually run itself by setting power on/off, PX-CV1U 42'Terminal Cover changing inputs,and selecting Accushield PX-PL1U 42'Stand Plug modes. .. NEC is a leader in the development of unique technologies that improve the functionality of plasma displays. _ / / I _ .,....,_ ... ... . - , - • •••• .. ......:'.. .„ • Enharicod Split Screen • ..4.4 i - i--0 Aspect Ratios triiiirt i 'i kilij , 4**E• . - 4 ii41,1I., Side-Sy-Sido Modes 4114 i'i ' , • - - ' 4 • . rr Wilt: it ' i tit..7 - - ,..,:ipgici r4t13):,l'II I'd v:mir • . ,i, I* ., , e , . • .._ . . ___.______ 1.33(431 full stadium ir iicin-ong soi.ii,...a-iiiiigiiizt. capahilities enabto unparaU,,i,..c; 1..:.1e.:::,:fcre:long ett,ctivux...ss. • , normal. . full vertical ilia' tr,,',-,-•,,H1,; .0. s ,. :ii i , ... „.. ...,.....„., , „,„„ , . . .. .. .„,.„„i - [50)*),4 c,.ti 61Y.1-131"..ilf.- •"i i 'ii , ilr-'' . --. r; •-g t 11 , • 0 .6.• .4, - • ,,,r, acorn en iginal iinnoa new image I. . i r 4 ,. r 4 - r .- _.•.-Si 2.351 normal full vertical -o Digital Pan&Scan Zoom riUN : 444 lill INS 1,bty ix Configurations 1.-.1iii a in!react:,riiiitrixiw3 1/44/ 4. ,.' • i )2,13.4144 ,:ii,i;,..,e:. irie v;:mo['::1,0 F,p,!: '.. .+1.i. '''../),f 41,- • k.E 7tj;;:,.,,t,,e4 a•,;`,P. . e'',,c,,.i,.,• I-1'.'-`1,:)J .'4.. *,,•0 •,,„,...,„,•,i,„,..t mea C . . pia-,ri*:,1 Wall! normal picture zoomed II area 2x2 2 x3 , 11411%,: :71. .• 41#4114;5•1:,.:',.:.,!•::.... ,....,..t t,......1-.4,,,, ('',; 0, ' OW '' 'f;0,0''''''''" Ar Mass Area Superior !IL". -;--- Sampling(MASS) 4xi. 5x5 " - 44. /I".'. . Pinnifiarezi ja.,-.•;e:: ',ir...••.,.•.,1:1 . ' 1.` , ,• I'I;I I',.I.:IS,::::,:,I•:•.,,,• IiIi..I):1,;,:,,,,...• .-...-- I .. .• . f.I.:'1!• ki/)fir.,II;Map!, ,„.„-- 7'7-'1 tv .'.."..'.'7• Arent':hicid Phosphor ,ii•-iiii rke E. normat MASS %. ! •,.•,: . ' • tr, . ''..4-, ' - :::, Protection A,, ci,..nrriatils:ve riai ot r.M.°,•• ‘c.- ,' „,,s; -, 't .., ','' 2, ;''.. in r.'1•::::".-?‘.;;;1 •.:•;:t.y31.:1.•Cr••:•el'i I•f:',',,:riaI3...I Ith,IIII,g1 Accushield enhanced with pixel refresh mode Selectable Gamma ::.: Ci'ir •,4--i" ''-'1'"4.4,AITZ:sit. t . ',..,3:::•e bi•tWC.:.:f1 i',:ijr riir;,,m;1,1 Advanr.ed Af.:cuBlond Fit•41,i,c li'', -2.4Pitf 4-..1,:,' :F'4'-iCiei.s4.774,'!..1' E.:1,..1..ror,ciMailed ;1•-:•:,,.;e:.•:::......,;• t,,, +paf v;nj IV: entafirtiti, . ..,. , ..,:,.••;E: I,:pr:IPIIIICI.13I)ci,p,-.,:r.,:.1g 1-4-° whorl ron-rat'va resin i.,'1,..)I1 brit2btor--et details a a--->edarkor Compressed image Correction ie.; ....11".9•-••.IIURV. :,arI):'III,!•:II•I'It•ti dark scene p roi eater. 7-17'.7.7".:777,7,72-77.777r7::,,,,,m4,:r'''''r.e'"•'''•'III••,I,'.'•'"I''' , ''',•,:••','"%t'III'',1IIi;I•47,II,;II,',,II•I';',',,,',•''..II(40;‘,/),-'"''''''•:';:.. ^-,+r-,,,-,,,-1,-,,Y, ,Im".,-rIr, ,,,- --77.7,---- 7.-%,• -z a- -/z<-'-'• ,, .'-"-Y•=•"--- ,,,••;,•;- • -2-,• ,.,- •••';,1",i••.•-,,,'-":'''", -'...4r4,-= .,.„ -7,77-77,7i'•.•-,2-' `;`,"- ,e.,,„- ,,;wk,,,,„, ,,,,,...',),, „ ,,4.,4••; ',,,,,;,,, ,''•.0 ,,,r,•',,,••.?,T,,,.:,,.:-,•:',,iclu,r;,- ,,,.',.. ,,. ..,,i0,54,,,/ ;]. ,-,:-.,-,,,- i..,,' ,. •, , , • ', ' - - ',,t,phiAl, - 4L',44, :Ar, ;.:,, ,,,...,--,-•' , •,-. ,,, 4-,--/e- ,-• '....,;;--4,,, -:..,J,, 4.. P' „4:' ' ''":•.,,,••'•""• .4'''' 4 .„ ,,,'"'" , ,-, ,t'',4 •••••, , ,, ,,„,1;;. ,‘",,, ., '.•:,(•‘',„ -,-, •••-•,„,v,-,..,-,;.„,„,; • ....,-•:, -,,,,,,,:r;- -,,,•,. !-.,,,,,,',-•;•-Afe-•• ,...."-:.z-'-`,?;1:.:•;'• ::',•,''',,,,4-,-,.?!,•.--.Sw•',7,Z,,,i,P,Az 4"-,•- !:":'6f-,•,;!'"'z"1-z;-','"';?i,', •:?•,,3' „4N ,„ ,„,-- ,,w ,..;;;;',,;.-.., ,-,,-,, •. .!..1. .. „..; ;• • .••,,,-• ••••;)),,,,,4),,t,)1:,..•i•' ',1,,,,ri,,e.!' ,',,,s,-.":,,,,,, ,, ,, ,,„,-,-',A,-,'''''i, ',.,••,‘5 "•.',.. "Vr''••••4•.,,`,:•, ' ••.':,:;... :'';'`,,m,.,:.-,..-- ,,?"'""..",..''A,••••-,;ir.--.7'•• .. • ,,,,, .4i -•••/•-'''''I,,„II,••4,, • , •. ,,',.`-,v,9,„•,,".,..,'rk",,,'„ „,',4'T,,-„,,,,, ,;,-,k;,,,,,,,,„;•.-.,, '',., ;„; ,,-,A,..v•p:':,,,,,:•••',, ,,,.1,1,-,12?,,:,,I,, • •,.,...," l'-!', •,1,,, '', ,'%' ,,,,:i ''',",..i '0," ",,', ,:',!;',+`•":::• . 2....!;,"....::,-: --`-‘-'" '' ,'•,' -'-••••-',,'•''''''''''''''••.-- - - ' - " ''Th"''''' '-', ';*, ,,:., it,,vili IAA..,%.: ,,,,t,!,, 4 , (modet#-.: , , ;615643 - • Az,' rixm4... . ,.... • . 42XM3.: ,,, 42VPS/42t/M5 ','-''',q A•;••••••-: 4111914; 41 41.' ' ''''''-'4(;':?:!4''''-'1'?I` *:tf4:•:. Native Pixet41;lation . ."1365x768 =' 106.5x768 " ."; "" "1024x768 i. 853x 480 . tr.;',""(4".4."..", 0,, , Inputs,.4 .,,..ii :sw, ti'7 01106 x0625.victist:db,: r':"''''''''''''''''''''''''''''777777' •:"''.'', " it,IV:i.A4. ' ; '' ...' ' " ScreenAga' ......' ": 58.2 X 2.7.9" i-l'i 40.0i24.5" '' • - .'' "363 020-4- '.•: ... : , • ,'''',',,4,:, 1 ':,,,„- -,,,,t,,, . ,,,„?),,),,,,,,,, , Active , e , mm ' '' 15-1631n5m1 to7106.•°sult,5 Brst'C'(RGB/11V1,25-pin N.Composite B C g I:Campos te RCA x 1,,S-Video 4 Pin DiN, 1 ,-,,-; ,, .)t . , I set RCA Component hcPb,PdY,Ch,Cri.1 Set BNC Centppeent lY,Pb,PrlY,Cb.Crl(common use with 58610 '5GOWI'ypical 425WTypicat ""- "-308Wiypical' -.., 170W Typicat. i......„„,,,,,,, iqr g„,*,',f,g,(50,p,i6OppAsAglqi,e,",f,'„,,','46,,,i4j,„] , Power Consiimption Ms'x,0,8'9V;519a2nildbxy5:1.83m8.8'laxi(LSOW's'lzfldin'T''''4.'':"4'1'1,d' .....„ ,- , • . - „ 'irnl1,r"'? •'•'- '.4";°„, I)iMensTints 57.9 x 34.6 4.7" '.ii 48.1 x 24.5x 313" !' ' ; " 40,1 x 20.4 x3.5- ' " ii-'-,e,1-'i'l'''.--ei '''''':':,4 '. t ' '4 ii" ! ''i.. ti ''..iiii - '•,,,- ,,, 1470x760X,J1?pin-tA.,,:122 x422 x 96 TO :;i:,•_„,:,:iptq 'it)xq9 77,,,,,,,,•: ,..',,,.,A,A44,,. .2'-x. !1:;;',3'';',. .7.:),,,:i.:. Ne)weight : : ,• ;,.., 134.2ibs.',. - „ 96.4 Lbs.:.„: i.! -• :62505.tkbs, • , ,1;' i.",,.6238.05tkes., :,:,-,,,r'•.:"g,),..f.„'‘,M-..„1 ,- •: ! -re:4'"ii.„ -; - '": - - '1'f/kg' ' '''L•4 •"M'139: . );;',"•;;-•4',.- -- g : •"3. .-- g- ' '' '''''''''';',0)•,:,,,..:: ••7-',777t57-7777.,,,,':7:•::' '„`'hl..,,-,,'..0::, k:';,,•,•!ik';,`"-'741?•.i."7',••''• ,,• ,k,'*:?, c! '-4.r•4: ',' ':'eV,".45'., 4I.W:;,;',A":1::, '7:71,7,TiF-kif,z,,,770174;KZOIA,:- - • ;;,:.. ,,- , • •-,•• • . .,.."4; ',:;•••••cdtr,N; '''' ' •';r"".,:"'"''',,,I,,,,, ,.'*;.,4',FC''.,,,,;, ;• ;:, .I'l.;14,.."-•4,g•',I; ,,,,:',,,• : .,I2, 1,V,•:,,:',... k•, ;•••,,,,,,' '''"'‘""'"'•,;",,,„, ,,„„„,";• ' '',''''•'°';'' ,;•04;ssr.: l,..."#:,,.:!:''''• , 4L, ',.•'•: • ' '`' ..42 " 4 ;•,':-:••''.';':4::'''''''''' ':;, ,,L'f'"r:';'''4e/Ar;:.;:'!' /''.'';'?':?'':YVV."Tiekg4s; '; : '4 '`"'• e.":!.;,'•.r)::'`i',,,.7,.'00.40. . . • ,,71.'4A :.;'''':?'"'" I.;,:;';:%'''' ‘‘'•'• ' ':"/;;;4;•1;,,"'',,:j•;04;i!,(;;;:"„,,:,;'-'''''• 3•„;:.;1::•„..,1: ',.','„' ''."'", ,i;•i'',. .,i'',...,,,,'', , •I • i',;46,4.)';1'.4I•''';,"?..1. 4':".•,;,„^„;:,•, •?':'''''';•);.1"-.;„•••••4•••.,,,,,;;;Ii .r"o% 1,..., .1 A,„, .:1'!„J•lk ; ,:„, •''.' 2:.,'• ,''I ''!"„ ,i,.„I, . .S l4' ' "ii,-l-ii,,,'.-i ,,---1.'li"-,i'">':4':,'", -; ' '4"4-tiriN'1,..,/`'./.11 ?4"-4,"',--''',,it,,,,:i'‘'-"-'4"1;-':1l:l",- •"•, •• ''i', .„,••••;•?• I•0 ,6I.,,,', ,;..,., ,;`,. ,.„,-"*;',..".."; ,•,' ,„ ,.•••••,, ,•: , ,,,,)••' '.: ,,,,I•.,•:„• ,, • I-Iihre,;4,):";;'.i.”''• ''.•,••::'... ,..-,•,••••'• 'f':)*,.",e..,-.•/.!"''..1,,,,III"'& '"I'''if:‘,;3„,/,i•t)', •-,,,,rf,-,;:4'.1.-- ;--,:••,,o:,,,,•,i.,„„ -',•),,,,,„ :;', ; ,)-;',/;,5,)(,,,,,,,,,4,,7,(1::,,,rzr,,,,;,,i,,,--2-,-,'.,.;:7'.. -;'r '.,, •... •,-, , ),•.,.,..`,Vi4' '"'..-'•,,,:cW.. '•'n'ilt. '1.1'' ',.:,?:;•:.,;:.;4,',.. "<' .',,,,V•d'.;,,:t,',,,- N EC's full line of plasmas and projectors display crystal clear images every time. • Broadest line of product. NEC on:-F.. over 20 targe screen Contrast measurements for the real world. +.0 p pot. any appLipation. To dato.the oiasma n chlad.y.c1 &> 1 the. tt)ttt,i1:'` • Crystal clear images.A. NEC to plays sho,..1.•CI to c...,ear T130tS Nf,t.;ta!;;;,-.prrift rs..ai,uronne"in rnr 2r lyp:cativ iour.tj erNir:::na,sems that favt...•riOttO. sar, that NEC prOjeC and ',:;1.asrnas alccrporate o rdzsa%a vidl as c.y, port,:::hepping h,Jrn:-• t jiSp Lay Lchi., and NEC naz]...earned for lor stor.d;:irn Aw3rd. • Works every time. 1'4 td I .4..c...cr.-.11,9 to Dr. I4,.?yrnf..,:•. si ? 61=2. Plz.sir:F; fr.om TR; tswed NEC projectors sod oCsrnav ;,,re irra?c quou,.,tE), . and..,•:deo applcaiions 07,;!•:;!-Ic ziri3;o:y nnn t haVe among !hp, highest quarity irt indliStry. was ok.11,:,!:andtr g The colors,verm Fe:,tura'..cd oNi eyceth:nt nv.iriitor All NEC plasmas and projectors bacd by irdustry leacing t ,Dr,r3 prod;-ams. NEc a toz•.](,..!- in prod , I •••i. r- , 2,)().3 P3citic Sdrvey'. 0. . •.4v.• ;,•:•• - • • .c. ° /11*".• • „:*1 r UM" 1: /• w- ow ,r"*.;•' „ „ „ • .orn & Mate ' • ***ir •trir0F3CWIta 41 I Vasa*: '• : 3 v.r7 - , A E. • Win. The name you trust.The reliability you deserve. NEC is a global 100 company founded in 1899 with over $40 billion in revenue and 130,000 employees. NEC is also the world's #3 patent holder with over 70,000 patents worldwide. For more information, call 800.632.4636 or visit www.necvisualsystems.com NEC is a registered trademark of NEC Corporation.AU other trademarks are the property of their respective owners.All specifications and programs are subject to change without notice. ©2004 NEC Solutions(America)Inc. NEC Solutions(America),Inc. Visual Systems Division 1250 Arlington Heights Rd.,Suite 400 Itasca,IL 60143-1248 NEC 070432 NEC is a leader in the development of unique technologies that improve the functionality of plasma displays. / . •. .. . „_ ,..„.„„......,.. .„.,.,....„...,....__„...„.„.__„._„......„. ..„, . . . . .. . .......... ... . ._ ••. ..... .. . .. , " ":.--:-",-", 4. ,,-.,: .i,,--.,......,.....:,A;,..iii,44 *. Enhanced Split Scrcken ,3,••,- •,,• .3'.'3,•„•.:;„,..... .2.„?,,.•,..;: . :,.-,,„i;, 33,..,... .,,,,.,:;:i 1:-.--0 Asper:t RtItio's ..; :. ,•,4 • ',.„ 1,. :i...0'....,:. 1.:- i! Itf 4,..,r,,,r. .0,,.vir; 4,. i ri,,14;...,'..' ,.., • • -,rq,''74-'-'2: ' o• ..‘:.•:i• 1'..4 i.,4, w'Nt!tyr,g*?.t,11,. - ., ..'''''UiAl.,". ;, ..,, 1, Side-by-Skit:1 Mods:s !-,K;;;;.0'.0.• . .4.,,,,v501 y,,,,! !2,11.**,.-. -:,: i i ..•....i.z....-, 1,0,:::, ,,,,,,,y:;:i .,. rt.,.„..,,, -.t. 'q."1 E.. r ..1.,. "•:". ••• •• • ;,,,,ri,,-.0 4- ,,- , , • .clow, ,...,,,, : ,-%•,,.41,40,..:•,...:% .., i•,.. ,:,,*,:.:,„,,,,Te„,e,,. 'i.., •:....,,,:if.1: , •, 1,11,,T,--,: „ ,.s,,,.... ....-..• • ••••••4 .2.74 ,...,-,-- • 1.•.a.,„•,..., .. '-•,:i4,;41,i f i ' f ....3::•••ue3.:1 ra3:::•::•:,•to Iii ve.uf .<:., ,,`•A r',, " • ,`• „. ' •%4 • ", '',1 3 ''''''' ', ' ,,troorntirie.:1;:Af•-;•t;•1 si;Je ,,,,,, t'.:. .,,...,,v.,'..-4.,',. ,, . ,i . -*-.f.:;.:'* -.• i .i, ,..,it ,4/..!: A, .. ,',,t 5•,4„4*.t.', .'s 44.4..f: ,. ‘'...,.";„',e L.,"•,• ", ::• ' 1".4‘t:0';:4i,j..44;•,' '. .:4.0;'.'.. ::. ?;‘,/„.4,`,'C,1,0,1$1.'',.4V ':i,33 f,,f.:3) Wit stadium 1 • ,r.:(•.:.3.ang ,......,ur:::•: •:•:icir,:•..o, 5.t ..,,t,, „. . ••...,• ,4of ..,k,` i •.1.`1..' 2 AZ4Vi;le 1..*,. ..t ., ,r„ .:,...,...:!'<0:1.: .,..:`'- , (..O.D;A:itilii.,:.>....)1iibtii:ur.piralt,,i•.:ti normal. f utt vertscat. ,i‘",...":,-,,P 14.•A: iii.13.0,313,44 "' •,'-i.,'•:,,k tftti.„ •:: 1 5(3).ra ;::riti filfl-1.'il 1-4.V.tAfr.0 '3'.11.t:: le .„.4.'" A : • '-.L'4.- ..,.x., ,,,, 1 .-----'.'..7-:''''.'•••••'''''...'"•"::'•'''T,. ..,,• d,;',..:":” :,,,,:,:::;;;T;."::::sii:,lat...i,4 :-.:i-14: !.: L-..;•.... ,%.' L.....':.n. ".r.r. .j,,':':' 1 :s '''''''' Ve'ele* j1%. l'..." i'i il:'•:, 41:;',11r,i''''.'%:y=:,•:,•,,it., v..:0.<, ,:-.,;.,,,;?,:or,./': .:'z''''ii. :-Ai s'.."`;•it'"'.::?-;,?.`, 1•'''.'• '20";3:..--,,,,,l,,,,," 1: it....-:''',:7'.L.:.!'r,'„...... . Arf1.4,L,„;.-. 11.q. i •.11.,,,,i,AP'-1.4''.`r,,.. t. .:4:,...,s1'..)* •-',:iiat :'A 3• ,,, „-„ • :!:•ti'l-A.:1•::•••;ir . ,,,:/,• .4•,,,,,,...•./Af-,,,,,,•• ,,4,•*,.. ,•.3••33:•..3:•m• oci.:3mat.image n,•3•::•.6 irtta9e 4,:e '...,4,3 .r., ;•,•• „::::„.t,,, ".,#.. .,,•3#!. i L.4.,-,- ,• 4.4,,,„ . 4 :,,,,v.: •13.• V3,44:7'" ''. •:4 .;..04.1'r.) i•1• ,•43—c.' -'4., , •' ' •1' ,,-4. i• . . ...........:(.,i,i.',1' 2.3S:1 ...•.-.-..... . .„ .. .....,...._ ....., „.. •• . • normal. fuU vertical. ' 4 %••4.- •••••••1;••• ..4. '...,-lei„. %), .:,. . ....:::.4 --0 Matrix ConfiguratiDns .4"..i,;3•".;;'''''',414-j•-.."Y".;:;;:e;14.-;,"•:?:..ik434.;;•••„,.;",figiir.ifij;,•;fli:::'----0 D i g'it al Pon &.,,c 3.,€1,....o,)€i ikiiqr v,',•:" :1!„3••:. ;.10i; liff::4fr'RVAievai'Vt•I 3-igi••• :gra p,•,ctio,i.:: :.!' :.3i: ' ,..:- .4 . •33. '4.:,4 ....!,.:,.i,4 : ttz..9044,......*;.::- •,'•:-.>:, i...ku it in u-3..ag:3 fti3i.rii<irig. Kt., • ,%. ,:-. t• jit 4.grtititiii0 AX4',#;;;;, •:'1$,''1,,y •'ii;f:4Veirlie:.- '... Ei ;:. :".". : 4,,,,.A',t AT.;.". .ttn..'• '''''...'' AS:%."'e.". 4:4 2...i.4 . ,..U,.,„.„,::: itis.>.vicp.; !:.,i),... ::-.i.,ii: 'Atte:, 44- '..e:e4•f, !:1 ";":"0`.8.1...--0-,;. •'', • t, •i"z•Ji,•:il ,hisiv,:•.:t•-•i .-..is'i••(..ri.:::: .,5--....•, „..•:,..o...„..0.. ,.,,k,' ,. :k:IR 1„:' ., ) •/,' il rkii".''' .A,V.4 YOtt`,"•, •:), ..""-mork-4-4),..04' -', f .0,.;.,.......,V.. . > ' Pt*'i%PAr'. 4 0 N'Asill i '''it..0..a.:le,'A 4$f')4* 1• 1 .:.10;.n.CT%e!'::'..: ;P:' int ..i,-,4•••-o,:,.3Jo•:::a !'i:e., • .. ‘. . . . 2x2 3x3 pi,l..r.f•r::i ,.••;•-3i i 1 normal picture. 2.00rned in area $ H '''441k1::'„''::'/1‘ i'l::•17:4/.. 4„L4'.%i . ..,. :,..,.•• M.,ik,•..: • ••••NO ,t.t• `;',''le . • '‘. I -0,y,, •,.1 . • ,,:: ,./ .",.. 0 mass rei..:St.4.nriar- .‘ ` 4x/i. 5x5 ... .. ... i eriii.......„.:, ,,,...„5,...„ • ..- , ... .•.dri,:*,„...- . i n'a rrip ling (rviAss.q 1:....timi a'.::::-...,•:.•,:i:J,•.,:itir..,:::•.1:-•:', ...:c.)!•r.:••c€::,,::::'.or 1:d.3:•:•••:::i:•:.,.•:.::•3•••••:,:,,y? ..-.1,,,::-,ird,..!,:lio..,3•1irr.d.1:,,, P.•;741715 ' Oix9, ‘, . 1----0 Accushield Phospher . ..., 1 Protection ,,,,,,veip • ,•,, e: :0. : .,„ ,:. ,-,,, ,„,•,,,,- , vo , .„ ..,,„.•„...„,,nr,i,:::,,,sive::.:3e1 ot bi.,,iit•• wv ,, e. ,,.; ;... , in iii.::.,:i;:,:i t.wc.it••:•;:t."LI,..13.it':::::r...i.eri it;:iri i irt1::;(•1;.•i.,:ii;i:rr.i/..itl Accushield enhanced with pixel refresh mode .. „ _ , • . . - -frgt`i.,115.*44::,..:3"1.',*„.'4,ii:,1'..14•:;3,01fpl.t.,44•3>Ai,'i:7'..',473.: —0 Setect.niote• Dannia _ _.4Av',44*;<",v3P.,•`. oi*441itaak aWitz,0,g,',!....6v! -',,,,:i*', i,..„I., A,o.k.'14r,4,,,,„41.*4*.tskw,.,„ --4-4.014.4thi,,,,...,,,%,,,„., ,,%. ...:1'•.::::)•:,(::.1-..,:.:?...,ove.:,c, f.:,...ir 1 i rf,:r::.r.,.I Adv•,:rtced AccuBtend '''''''`I'74:‘r OW404.-'14'.'''r4.. 04641.1 IS.4"41,,,,N;--" -airirr",4,".0.4: e't' <- , • •• ' ' ,..i,,,-:ri•-,•..,1:.,H,.!>Z,.,,....p,i,T.,:',',Mr.- ii,41,4 ),'''.,..vp\%;'-c..4,TerikrA„Niki.`'I ''''''-li=',.......1.' .44N-Aketkitsc 1:: 3-.i 3ro::a;:•:!:•..1,..,.:-3 .1':':::ig,'....•:-. rikirteriAt ' it tE,Wt'Uta.' I'ltailll ..,:•:•:£•::: 1,:qgt),ii.ICti•:....,*:C.1,•?.1,,:•:, :iin:.; When l'i..)n-nat:';E•)It••:,t3i,..:,!•)t1 : . Compressed Image Correction hrionter--e.,•;•••-•—de.t.alt.,.; .of a----->-•da'rker .:::,.:ir::..3.3rn::.:(., ....ni.iri;•,:, ...,....ii.ir.;:;;;i.:,Ii•Q..iliin,......ti.i:d 1,n lilc• proj,•:,ci•t:I". EqC..i,7.•.i.•64';::;••'4:,••:?.::'••';•:..;•.;2 11..r,%•;'TP;.;)•...)7;.:..:'.:,m,e•.,1'.,,,'Pi:,,.•,$:,,!'..:;,''00.,:V,.:'.;.:',':,A',3',,:'':•:'.P''::i''.,.ot•P:.,'T..f4M5.:;,:1'.i2,;'Y;:1.,,'^':'.•:?;.'k:%.'7'•'.'•.';:4..,;:•::.''..•::K'`.4„•e..!?,.'•':.3;.:,A.',''.:•0.V''':',;..'1.,!''.';0,,:,1..,'£-:.',','7'%:'1'.5!:.2:.!'.l-''',,'q'.t.?-'51'.''Z4:'1''k•.''''A''':'F:t A.',;-'k''-0k"'"0','Ffr,''l)3Y'1,5.i I,:.:w:...1'.4".;,':,4.4:..':4::0N.:•.i,43,M.12,i.1.,'l4''.'',•34'M1.f'i',i t:0';t0''g''W•t::,1,.•i."::;i'l,'i;,':'O554••:.::,3l::'..3:l'C1:m A,'A,h15 L:'•:!e1RV,'..•0'a A','40'„:.',;e::,A).,W7t,„.l5V4r:'4'.bM%,",;-:1':f1:i'.t3,'t.„•,°.4.'3a'l*4r4*g':r'33:.:„,,:':''rta,0' n*,4:•,14.'5.e4•'i4 A.0.3q:4i,.3.5,,:.3 1(114'4„,5Wt,:s9,1,34'14,F.'r3'4.k3,41(o#•5 PO4.::4A:,ffl,i'fA44,:'P)g0,i,4,P4:•;/,3 3'1 lK0i:4'.g;A:4':,f:4.'0"f,:e:3a',4,if'f''0t'gdm if•'.14r'6',7 Asi.%.,ie'.4:.1V4 405;,d.;W,'tk/'!1),'/f'•'11A'f..,''g,4''Yei0'',''1:4t!.•'4I',..r'•.',.:0.jt.1lj'''g'•i'i'a,'f'A104 l'A''A 1'4t4'F-(0,iP7-•.e'0,'':.%i1O,g.U1Me,hW,,t,1'("t'4,-.,;'Tt,4'03',4,I1,:0'VV,50'02,:,,,'..:,'*1k0.1A;'%''61-t*,1'':.V..41:.,;:1"';;t0:Ri,,,%:4j6,e',rAWi,'',Ars''&gR,,1,fki'i g0'Nl,5Mq;,','•r.t•,,A%4,',o4is,ja,M4,)>,V/r1'1k n;a;i,,,'.g'At,:5f:),,,q,..':,44 4.:r.!,tp,,,Z'''.'i':,";,,4c t'.P'0',;(:,,'4Piet,j,:,..474.VM,.0;4.,iAi"•,/:;'',.*•4.,Y0.•'''1•' ('•4.1\.:k'''z.'1..k'.•1O.,•%.:.,.V'.,..-.:';:.'.•:••,•,',.':',:•,•.:.3•,-•''•.''.:•/:.,;,•:'...•-:;•-,'.‘,*;..::.>'3,/'.i•,:i-j'.,.4,:..-14:."'1r•,•.,.'J,•',•'.,'•..3'.'•;••,•1.;•','-%.4,','.•3.,:-.:..',,..:..),•:.':;v,:•.,.,-.:.:-,••.:.%:'..•2.."''::,..,4%,,..:,.':..„:,::'•'`;.1'.'.:)':.,....•.':.•4:o''.-:3':.,.•Y•;,w,".:34,.'',.''.,'..•:,.A'•:.:,.•..:,'....''3•.-;,'.'..'!'..,:.,',.';',..-:.,..y'i.;.:,':.:;%I'..:..;..'..;.,.)..'.c...-,t2::..,,..,''.J.:...„Y,.•N:':.,.:.-'1..::T'.';::,..,':-.,,',•U':..''f..:.'.C:,%,-..,,:,,:',f'.,'..,'q;.,;.:...;.,::.-.•.:,.::,.'..'.,.'-..:':,::..•,t:.;:':.,'.'..",';4J'.,,I!,P".'••:i'Y 1;•''.)it,-',':•:,4,t::O,3„.,.-",,)?,,v;'S,,'T•.,,'T,'S•'.•.•••,',•eE>''1.i.':.N.,,'..:i:q:',,':4,,.:?'w,''.''',,":,-'t;%e-'.V,q.0'':%'l 4,g.•'?'.'Y.'.;.'.',:'4*f•'ec,•:e'.,•:';,'.:`',:•:,'...,...Y''3';5a•'...'-•,,,.,:,':,k,:i.:,'Rk''.'P,•,„:k;'-?:'i•;;,!,-•.;'.1:';;$•',-.1'31,'•.,N.:,r•-%4•:,,.•:...,''•:.,JiA;::‘:N,-.:•:5-'•i."',k:',::.,:3•74:••S.•t:•-..,.:'•,,0.A.p:.'..'..'A.;''w:5,•P,A::irF.:'y:.,.:'.^•.:1„V,,.k0:,:Koik:„,:.,.:'':A.:.'%,•.zrC:.„t-:,>'..-.i..:5-.m 4'A-):,'.-':---'.41..:' -.:f.7,••:;f:.•!!:..',..:•„:''.4.:W%•.',:,;,'Z•P':'-:.:4'4.P•'.•.•.::Vc-.t'..„.V•..A4.',."":•,.,'..-‘:•..:..'',''':i-V..•.,:f:';,.„(:'04.. ...:„;.'; „,,.,".',,i•;...„i'•.:1.•.r:,:.::.•-,g',:'•',.'•:••',,'I,P'•,:1,'::.'i.:,•,fa*.••'•.'...„...:7..:.,.„..*,S.1.l..::.„,.''.:''.,'4..'...4.,...,.. „,';.....'.1,...(„,‘1•.'7''F..'•'.•... „i',:.5.F.....,:.1.,i.,'...,7'‘i..:-,..;..,,'.'4,.:..4.:-:(.',n'.',,.e,..*-,,,..e.',,''.,..:.'.a:.•;'.,;.',:%'',7•';..:,';'..',;•c„'%:;'0'.,f..46.7...'.,'r.,',Z,,,,f,e7.:''>•;''.`:;1t,4.'-,,.,'4.anY.g.:'..-'(."•:',',;;'„.!:,.,,.:','.'•,,-'...:4'.'r...,,',,..'..'.':',•..',.:,ft'.,-91,::'V.,,:..::.-:('1J.!.•,Q.,...4.•.C..f,.%.,•,.,.'",o.::.44.1.,•,..,:':.,:*..:f.,.,.....:,e,.„ 1 :>: ?;'' 'A k1 : i ''','% V '7 ftVU 44W , : i ; :;Af 4PNndel:# 61XM3 ; 562,2 2xi3 - 42VP6/42V45 ‘;,':5',''::,..,‘•.,;.,::.',::,t:•':V,:,.:"..2'i,','r...',,.4::'t....!..7y'.":;,.<.::..1'..:::,.;.:..:,:,`.'.;•.( ',:4,.•'-,...'./',:„i,. • ,::- :,,-:,.;;:'7.::••',':":.;'''..;,,...:-;;,4,-.:,•"....;•:7.'. ,•."';', '""f':. . ,„,:•.,..,;;;,.;F::."•,'P -,.....ii,:.:,...,* ',:.:;:•:::, s• " '.;y;-!"'-.Y,:t4.%?,:',...:,:,t%•.<, -4-4,;:,,Mv',.. k : ';' . 6.'''''',r4:;',1:71...T.'''...."!•0•••<,'6.i.J1...N6 tiv 6-.Pixel:Reifilutibn ',••:•:-",,,,,,...,.•-,i:.?:1365)c-768.2---,:, ::,?•-•.!.:-.',2.....-.,>:‘:-. 136....5)(?•6.8.. :5...,....5.; •-,,r....,:l-.,i'....1924-2,x7.,.6.:,$-.., . .....;,..;.,...:...:,, •:•-,-- 5,...?,..x 489:.,,,,.,„.........:::,,,,..E.,-..i.4....,..,..,...,k;„:.,--,..........r:.... .:i,..,,.,.. Screen•••4:;:')".' "';''',.'-', ".5.%'!II''':''!''T7:', .:"d'1.417r(g.4)::)'''ir.;. 7;'5:1;,...tV7•A:i'%KM,`-,'%:`,e,: ,Iii?;,f.,0.?i,.>AV1,',• -•:;:.','Ar.'t-ivp' :'. Area', •' ..........:532k299-`!,•;::..:••--,.... .,.:-..•:',-43.5.Y.2k. ,..,..:::.„,..::.: .. --..-- i, '.. —- 36,3 2, ? -•,---•4•:-::„.:-....... .:--,,.:,...:,:i0;.'1,.',.; :<i-,, iri!:.'-;;Vi::',';;-)',:':-.;','..??4,..1::.,!;42:•ct.r:41Ai,,',5iNi.. OrithVr,:',0,0011ig:',011010,103ip'i05''..-7--'-' ;-. ,., .:', .i.:"'-:-• 15.1 3i:760,thnii-: :-.;:"..:''. Ii06:5(A2Zn)fri.:,•• ':-'.-•'::: :',.;,..:. ::-..,--:;.9, 1.,?§,7,e,ifr)fP.,:',.,..-g:-,„ e")k.:;i„.Iii.„....„Iv-Sk,.",,n5:.';-,‘„,':..: '--•':,Ye'.:1,<''''.....:-..>;';',,•:::-;,... Ai':...'-,',. ,:- ,4,I;P::',';',t ,'-';1W,•',;)ir4g-"Pitrillf,; ,kfigo.e..V -4i.r4i0•..,•A,....,, ,..,;-:---:..: •. ,,-•::: -,:-.•:,:,;•i,..,,,,..:•, ..,,•••:-,,:,..!-":,.'P4':':.r':.:i''.c,.-",•i'T';Y::''i•:,:.0;"''0:';',;",'.;•-'•',,.':''!Z,.'2.•:-•i.'',,I!':•-..'':',-';;0,'-<'.''.''.'''..,,0''.;'.'.''.'''!J.''%1'-'.,-r.;.-'f,"-'''t''',,'t'''.r;'.','A.'''.0','','•:f);%;4P;.',7":56„,•1-0P%•;,,%,;',O',':,'t'"P-l.,.;`•,f,.(r'"/;.•-;10i'l:,'":.'';':;.-',;7,';*''`,,-,1,"Y'(,,e'•,+".1.;.4,.V0..4'''<,:9,'''".,'.•0"4:i'e,1,;."t14,.•••'1A-"j°'xX9','1.1,.49.1gS',;.).',4T:5.'4"4.T!.*,',1',V:,34.°-,:;0;•4V•04•,410,1't1)r'1'.,r'X,l4'".gr21g'f'*.,0'C':'r'44144.4•..°6',W''%''*''N,%1•'.4,',:4,'y'.`&•,•:zW,11(.,4qY ...•.i.•.r-:•,s1;;-'4'ts?.•.'.-,.,.,..,'...-.,.•..., ....:,`.-..•-.:.:;•'•,•':.."=.' 5p•':i.i..'Ti..•.,'„.".n..i.:."w0.....-4:,s:..".uL.,.4.,.5NC I..R.,,,G.;.B•;/,..,K:..-„1....„,..2..,,5,.,i,-.,.,pi,O V„-I..,c.;,:.o•,..,r•.,ri-i.,....::o::„.,•„••,',(s,.,, N„•3,.P•5,,•1,.;.1..,.. .T,.,t•..:..,•„Composite..,:•.,. K....:..,,:.„....,,..,„.,.,.,.4,,,. ,....1„.,,1,4,:•,.e:F„.,:,•4r,7,.,,.„i4r..„..,,..,„...•,•;:.e•,,:..1,i 1 4 g y!10 i setRCA:CamOoneit'V:PbPOCb trl Iset 8NC Component YRbPY.Pb.c0rM44 ,*h 5 141 0A10M p , poWor Consumption 'n.A'PJCP' , 425v1ict 300Mypia , 110WTYPIal' ,,'t.•?..,;,r,..,..,,-,.;..;,,I,..,t„.'.•;',z.....,,F.,,.,„,:.%,,V.,;,,,.'r,•.;...,f,f,,-.*..•-.:.'.-':::-...",-1..,,`:.:,',;%%.:._•:f.l:.!,. y'ini :••,,loki,iaie:b(Iptiiv: faldf414!,<13,1kitikti:80*•..Stinjibil .;:::: ,;' ,'?,.,(,•:,.:."-,4•‘I:',•*,.+'..:„i.'.<F.',„-''.,','"•-,;2..!!.t,.'•.:r:%,..')'`,,'.''',',;Ci.7"-,::,..'.'-L2e•,'4l.,''.',;..,`3',;',,.':.',..!..-j."e,%..":.-.",<-.-..."/'-Rc,','4,..''f:'mi:',e..•'''".;,,::..•.:',:*„..!:...::':V,.',''1:;:...'I.-4,,.:::ig,''6:.:'r,-.•'--'-:;'':i..,i."-..i.:',:V.:;1::v:.:•:',.'''-..,.>•;.1,',,f-r1l,':';;::.'''';',„V:a;,'--;,,,;„,r.:1,:P1,'q.;',,;,:r..'5.:::.,,d:4'',.<,.:''.'.:4',rI,.:,,,;.,,.t.'4 i,-'":-;j';,,•,:.j',:.•:,2: ..,:o::.-,..::',-,'4.''4':,'-'.,4,;4',.';r,',.,.X''').,'.!:•''.2!,:-,,'<','''';.-q'','-R,.,.,!',Y14;!,i..)1,fK,,'"'1i,-s,-...,',.%-.A ,,V,;'-•.,'',,l,-,,7.';i,,$;%•..A..7:,5''N.i.,,-,k,.MT'!',,:,.,"e,.A,,7I!0;:',,s1x.,,'0i.3'.1::,,s,-!,IY0!:'o:4*",•.4,".'47..:.v0.*,(,,.-';,V.f44'k,,'(:.:.,•arN!,'i,,,-,!!.,o,g';l.wp.,..4a.4:,ilv•,0'.m;.tN.:.•,•,,w•'•,...`Q i;pz,,'.,z•",-a,,,":,i:..,)i'6,,kz1:'p9.,4,,,i•uiPf:,:;e l.,4,5.,,,'e,4.,...,',:.-'4;,5a.i„,h1:J:O1E'cyM''A,' .04f 0V;c4,I45f4,w6:•,ik.7,i.:M;.40‘5,::.rR:'V.,...41,10,a4 t4;.,e.r:-5tP,d#N:.'.+1S,g1g'Y1rP'e:q4'•0V),a'lOt.,'1,:,Ag1I i4,.,g4r(,V,.0y',,'.,,6",r,4%„i,,5,:'i,44-,i.1i*k0,L4'1,O1-''24Ir',.r,i00'f'4P-PcV4,n5',:04lPA',gAwaA.,•'(4.'ii,4,'.'".,.,0.0.1...','%,-,,A.,,4,c4e,1WtNtrki,!,.g'•,.,04v4,.,.'.''.7gi-''p,-e,.,.1e.:).?.":&01>-,..4..4->!;x-,/a:.0l.:;•',7,1.',,4,„...,f$4:4',4r,N'6,,0,,5k%-,..;)"N.-4,f,',,-•44.4•i.•;,0,,4.t5;t5'/.z`i6 t„..-'..-:::,,:,,:•:-.,''.;',,,.t,'':::%:.„.',.;'.?, 'i..--''.:'.:..--'-.,,.,.4,.,"'),",,-•A-;-,..•':4...-,Dimensions.:-`,..;'';'.:,.•..':..-•,-.:•:,:''•:-.:.".''..,•I-,:•',.,.;„4.‘..,-.•'..'0§,.'.?...;,•.•:,'-:.-.',•.'::,,',?,•:,.,',:,',.,.;-",5"'.,'.•:..,-.',"r.,.'::..-.-•':';,;1,......<r..i'.-,1•.':;;.".;:,::..--,-e:...'.,.•..:....-...,-'::•*4•.',,.:•:‘.:.:'.-.;:.:';,-!:,.,•'.:.:-',-.••..7...5-,:'"•;!•...;!:,.,.,,•.:!?g-.:':.,;•.,,...','.,':•.':..,,:...,•7`...-:-,.•::i-,,-...•-3'?..`•.:4",..:,.'.•,.•*,.-':•.-:-,,:...-:,.:-;.,'&:•:-.;:;..,;.:':.t,:;.-:••:,,:.•',.k...,•:.':-.?::.:;:'i•,i,.,,r;)".,:.4.4-:,:-•-.,;:•,.-.:':Y4 4r•8-,,,,,:::,.':.,-.-:.-.;..T,.i,]:-GP-,;:;-;i,:.:0-';4;i.:;:,-A•i:,';',r..,':..:l-,.-,%..5,.:y..,.,,,,tl•,'...„7',t.,'.-'s:.,-.'n.x,i,1%;.,..',,.-.ka,-'.tr.,k'-',;o.:.-.-),44 1:',2.,0.,:-:,'44,.A-pt-04;:-',,;-'..`.,,:-•,.,2'A.,.„,,.ui,.•,„.7;,'-'•,,,..`,%..';..,,,?:..bV,;.:-t'',n':i,.,,'';,•-'.:,.kb;:.47.,':5':1,:,T-;.•q'...0-,:',,47,',.4,,,,:.:o..x-'.,-,s."..:',."-..):("R4.::;',.;:-P-t„::..i-'&.4:-%o:',:-,-,,:.T,-.,...,t•:.44.,.;.,,O.--.A'1:E:„p;'...t,,.:,.,:'':„,:•:.i.:-4.T'-."i,,l,.,7.i.Y.)-t1.-P7'..,c.4:-:Lir::-:.i'',i,,-,:,...'ii„:'7;,,Az•'4.•tc',,,:.•,",:,.:-,--c:..-rf,;i1,.'.'.V'.,,1.,::.•-,:•.:4,..•V.:,,.,P,:?ii-i,„-:IN,ir1,.';..,-,,O,!.,i..•',,';.-.,Y':.79,:.:x.,....,;•.•„,-,,l,i--,,,;.'gF',.,:,,.q...r...'.„9.`5.',...-,,-''4,,-'V.,.,.,'A.'..:..P4,,I'..;,•','„.-g4i,..•:,O,.,i8„„;.,j',i,.'',,l,;,.,t.;.!,?N,„,-.tI:,.,,,Nkr.,.,„0t..,...:.....,.,.:P,.:.'.-..'.,.;..P1-,c,:'.„.,.",,:;;:.,'4.:;,,5•.....,•%:"„,..i,-i,,.....l.9q,,,",".('.,!.,,..,,.,J-.,,'.t.,.„..:',;,.:•-,:,:-i,,-..-:*-`.„;.,;--1.,..-,?q,1.',:..„::y,`4,..,'.k",.:-..•,-”:,:.,,‘ri.i<,.6.::j-';„2V,E..1..,„•,.,,,i..:-g„:;:;:-A.:-n'.„,,.:k',:,:.:.2•.':,„21i‘,;,.1,,,-;',.:..;„::,1,.:%:'.,%.•,•i....;.-.7..'.,..-,..,d,..,f;,,,.-.:•.-.,::.i.,...-'.....-,.,.%,,.,`.,..'.„,..'.;.:',;'..:-V",:..',..,..:.•...-:,.,:'v-,',.,:•,"....'.$:i.a;.:,1„:':.,;_•.9.g„','•.,.-,,.5'::,•„.:.:‘.-*.:'..,,':.`.-.:',.,,„.•....1k.„'',,.:;.:.f.,•,4.--4:',I.?''r,,.;:„:...;-i.,,,.nt..4;"...•,..Y.-4...,,.:•,,...:..1N;';P„.„;-.-,:,:.4,:1.',,,...,.4,,,.1,.^,.,1f,...i.,,,-'.,,..,-,..,,4,,"..1,:..,::,."',,..=•:,.!,.,,.,.01:,.,:,,,,'.,.•.'a.':,.,•,,,:.:,.-4,..J'„„,.A,,•--:,c:..•:;:,-„,,;-':;:,„'.24,i•,4..1c..,„.,:.,•?t-4'!-„.k'g..:t9:,.78,!44„-.z,,„4"..':.:.„,.',,4,:!.'..:.,'4,:,:.,••,.fi<;...,-,.0•;-..',;.,44,.6'.,,.,,,1..•'2"a•,.%;,,4,.:.::„,,,;.);,.,.:_:•',.•.:.:-.,.,.:.:'i,..'::.,,,.:i%: ; i'0:-• 7fg . , fr‘ ( : : ,' : , 1.47D16 p ,3..;;: -' 9,,,'.?:,k.i,:.-,4),,,..;g-•v'..•,;:i1•-.,,...,•',.•;.„jj:.`,••:-';,44;m•,:--•,,.'„.:.,..,-3i'-;.2'..1;,.,,,: ,,::.•,::''.,,,.".-*;,'..:,.,,'.,,.,;•-'-..•.i1'),..,'-':,,,,,.,:'',,t..N..,:,4),,0t;.,';..„.i,,•.„4,-'S.,..;...•.,....„,...",,:.',:,'.,,,..,,1f.;",T,,,,,,i:.,p,,T-..)...':.ii.,:.-.4...g,..:,:,:.,'c.1,,„-„;,;.W':.t'.-1..;t-,.,.`:..1;;,,;1..,..;.,-,;,,.'.2,;.,ncy,,;.,-;,.,...":',,;i,.'.1.....;.'.•.,,,:;:,..r.•,k,,•...i:„,,...vl'...::-.==.",,"4,,...'.;,',.,.,-;'4",•;..;,,:,:,,:..,,.;,.v;.RE:s,;?./,,..,.?,4o:'w...,,;..,.,,.;..,;,.'..f-.•,.,,,.:.-'0;:,:;,;,)A?.,,;f::,0,.l;y.4,,',,,r..Y.,;-.,.,.;:,.*,':.%1,'I,.,l,d;:.,,.5-'.jf....,4.,xc-4.',;:...3''`,...4J.,..:.4.1•.:.v.;.-,.,:,}...;;.1-1-..;--;.,,-..,?.1-'.:.-•,..'f.,,-,,;::>...,.,1•-.:,•%e-:2.:,..:,;.:.T..•.,,„..:.,„-i(:;v.,,',.4 j•,•A•7V:.:,P,;,.„.1,,,.,„,...y:),,.,.p;:m,.,..rV'.. .:,,..,..."1-';),..;.'.•..,,,.:,':-,,, Pf A il 10t1019h! 1 ; ?. '9A , 4 ' 4 01;; ,p; . Ae e / ' , ': , 1q* 4 .4 4 ,vI V : ' v! 1x<, .,; , , ,: 5,...1,94 ' , w )4aL ,k!;, ;,3!g ?;.,, - ;.:„;,,; ,i ,. ,, , i,,; , , ,, :,'tRzzA? s;40et, , ,4):„ 4 ,,T • 4 •A:v,a4: ,)mo.P'04ggs4 V: :'k'' ' 0?%Jt00 4 ,te „'.2v:6;A , g ) " :, . , , tvi;ogrt ? fIi , r , L:1 ? , s : ', , a e,FL bIMV1tt „ w ,, t,,. ,,, „ ,t;,;,, :, 2 .I&E b •;:::. .:... . . . •.. • • - •• -. .. •••,','...,., - .•••.•' ..'. • . . • :.:.••?,:.,,i,`•.;::''',:. , . • - •......',...- .•,••,'•: ' •, . •.. • „ , , .. .• . . . . . • . . . • . . , " • . , . . .. . .' .- . ,,,,.,,.•..,, • . , . . , • . . . .. . . , • . , . • . •. • . .: • , ,. .., - , ..-.•..•. : • .. . ...,,..., . , ..,„., .. • • ' ',"....:,,,'.1. • •, . . ,• . • .•• , -,. . - -••.• .. • „. . . • • .-.••••..,. . . • .. ,.„ • . • •• . . .. :.,_:,:,., , . ' •. ,. .. •. • . ,. . , • . . •' . . • . . • . . .. ' • . • . .• ' . . .. . . . . . . .. .. . .... • , •.. , • • • • .. . , . ,. . . . . , . • . . . . . . • , ....••-• "-. . _,..•••- . • • .. . , . , . . . .----__....-- ' • . , • . . ., • . .. •• . • From: Joan Posey<JPosey@splis.com> To: "George McBride (E-mail)" <gmcbride@ci.renton.wa.us> Date: 9/23/2005 12:22:51 PM Subject: Proposals and other items George, I owe you a phone call, and I am sorry I have not done this! I am waiting for Nathan to come in so we can pull the drawings for the rooms and get on the same page. I expect to see him here shortly, and will be in touch! NEC specification sheets for mock-ups <<NEC42,50 61.pdf>> Best Regards Joan Posey Sales Engineer SPL Integrated Solutions (425) 861-5564 Office (425) 861-5784 Fax (425) 891-7112 Cell From: Citizens to Council Via Clerk To: RUSSELL GILBERT Date: Mon, Jan 9, 2006 11:30 AM Subject: Re: Proposed Annexation 183rd Ave. SE, Renton Dear Mr. Gilbert: Thank you for your email to the Renton City Council. Copy has been forwarded to all Councilmembers for review. Thank you for taking time to make known your support for the Preserve our Plateau (East Renton Plateau) proposed annexation. Currently, the petition for annexation by election is being reviewed by King County for determination of sufficiency. If you have any questions regarding annexation process, feel free to contact Don Erickson, Senior Planner, in our EDNSP Dept. at 425-430-6581. Sincerely, Bonnie Walton City Clerk City of Renton 425-430-6502 >>> RUSSELL GILBERT<russellg@prodigy.net>01/06/06 10:36 AM >>> Dear Council Members, I am a long time Renton resident and recently purchased a piece of property totaling a little over 1/2 acre on 183rd Ave SE in Renton. The Parcel number is 7230000191. I am working with a private contractor, Main Street Builders, to construct a four bedroom home on the property. We are currently in the septic permit process. I understand this property falls within the proposed annexation to the City of Renton. I am writing this letter to the Renton City Council to endorse this annexation and provide my solid support of this effort. This annexation, if approved,would not only benefit area residents but also the City of Renton. I have spoke with a number of residents in the area, and they too have shown solid support of this proposal. In addition to my personal support of this plan, if there is anything I can do to help the City pass this annexation, please let em know as I would be more than happy to contribute to the success of this effort. Thank you for your time and consideration regarding this matter. Sincerely, Russell and Stephanie Gilbert 4603 NE 19th Street Renton, Washington 98059 425-227-9961 APPLICATIONS . _ - �_ Government Cable Access Channels ' $ ',gic COMMUNICATE ;. Local access television is about staying in touch with your community. For cities, counties, and townships, cable access coverage provides a convenient and effective tool for communicating available public services and programs. •Local Meetings •Special Events •News and Information Inform, Identify, and Promote •Locally Produced Programs •Public Service Announcements MULTIPLE TASKS, ONE TOOL . .. ..... . . . • The LEIGHTRONIX NEXUS'" is the all-in-one solution for effective „Trtat•t<gtr channel operation. A traditional cable channel playback system is • _..-.---.---- r NEXUS often made up of various components which perform the tasks of NEXUS MPEG Video Server scheduling, program playback,video messaging, and signal routing. and System Controller The NEXUS combines these vital functions into one affordable package. DIGITAL VIDEO PLAYBACK and RECORDING Do your part and help,seep our water'rres esourc clean. Make the jump to digital and discover how the NEXUS can improve your on-air presence while it streamlines your television - A. operations. ,w;=:o,;; MARKET STREET CLOSED FOR CONSTRUCTION 0� .JIK •Two Channels of Digital Video Playback PARKING CARA' - gm—•Integrated Digital Video Recording arc OAKS ilataaau 9:ia awl ........ • •Expandable Online Media Storage 441:31u ��" •High-Speed Digital File Transfer •Automatic Backup of Digital Media and System Configuration Complement program playback by DIGITAL VIDEO MESSAGING strategically placing video slides in the broadcast schedule. The NEXUS allows you to store, manage, and display thousands of digital video slides. •Synchronize Slides with Program Playback "` � oar •Strategically Schedule Individual Slides and Slide Shows - �' F'.0 r •Import JPEG Slides via Web Interface •Overlay Graphics and Text NA mua ,*lsro wars IS II MKT •Create New Slides Online using Stock and Custom M lOYM FOR M NM VKwwG ARM Backgrounds with Easy-to-Use Text Editing Tools Create and activate •Create and Activate Emergency Messages Online emergency messages with •Multiple User Accounts with Individual Slide Storage Areas video graphics and text overlays. •Configurable Administrative or User Approval of Slides Affordable Versatile Reliable LEIGHTRONIX, INC. Cable/Broadcast Automation CONTROL PRODUCTS r SUPPORT FOR PLAYBACK FROM DVD PLAYERS and VCRS The NEXUS provides you with the flexibility to control external devices. •Control for DVD Players, DVD Recorders, and VCRs / •Automated Server Ingest (Record) from DVD Player or VCR / '''��"'�1/4 , SCHEDULING and MANAGEMENT SOFTWARE % .,, Manage, organize, and schedule thousands of programs, promos, and messages. •Perform Conflict-Free Scheduling of Slides, Slide Shows, Digital Video Programs, and DVD/Videotape Titles •Manage Operations Locally or Remotely via the Internet 'wlct Upcoming Programs i neaude fat Men Men. 102006 INFORM, IDENTIFY, and PROMOTE ` ' 130s Sots Corner 8.30a RCLI Press Conference 900s On the Agenda 'a 980a Health lMertlde:Bane Oauiry �a7P�. 1000e Commmn;ry Med�a�lnteramws ti I100a Com7:3,Dn,:r- Local government includes several branches and each has different messages to ,:a, ll aoa TeweaAiD Ma9aa;ne communicate. A comprehensive playback system allowsyou to professionally ,t, IIBOD r0wn6Mp ZDmn(e9ard6/e(rega,) PP y y 300D town MD Meewa 6/19(rep„) broadcast these messages through digital video messaging and full motion video vs playback. An automatic onscreen Administration program guide lets you •Mayor's Office easily inform viewers of •City Council MeetingsIII upcoming programs. Community Development •Planning/Zoning ; •Building and Code Enforcement - Community Services •Water and Sewer Public Safety `• I A- .alil it •Transportation - de - 4,9 E 9' •Parks and Recreation 1 ., to' Public Safety - !`unlit ;'vleetings •Fire and Events Z. •Police •Emergency Services and Planning Community WHY LEIGHTRONIX? Services The presentation of your programming and quality of your signal play a significant role in the success of your cable operations. A channel with a quality on-air signal and professional look will attract attention and keep viewers coming back. LEIGHTRONIX provides digital television and playback automation solutions with the features, functions, sophistication, and most importantly, the right price for cable access. When you invest in an automation system, you're really forming a partnership. Be sure your -_ . .. - Le partner has the experience and people who will make the difference for you in the long run. •Toll-Free Product Support 41,•Five-Year Warranty X se° c.,,, •Product Safety— Certification by ETL Semko (UL-60065 and CAN/CSA-C22.2 No. 60065) t FJ •Compliance—Tested and Approved (FCC Part 15, Class A) '� USA a For more information, visit us on the Web or call us toll free. �� sales@leightronix.com www.leightronix.com (800) 243-5589 2330 Jarco Drive Holt, MI 48842 Phone (517) 694-8000 Fax (517) 694-1600 ,,pyrighl h)tln.1I.IGII1 ROM X.1\(; \II Rights Ryser v,d. Final Report To City of Renton,Washington Regarding the Franchise Fees Paid by Comcast of Washington IV, Inc. Front Range Consulting, Inc. ("FRC")is pleased to provide the City of Renton,Washington ("City") this fmal report regarding the franchise fees paid by Comcast of Washington IV,Inc. ("Comcast") for the period from January 2004 through December 2005 ("review period"). I. Report Synopsis FRC has concluded that Comcast has not paid all of the franchise fees owed to the City under the applicable franchise documents during the review period. This determination is based on an initial review of the revenue categories included in Comcast's determination of"gross revenues," upon which franchise fees are calculated. In connection with its analysis,FRC asked Comcast and Comcast Corporation to provide the gross advertising revenues received from affiliated entities (including commissions)during the review period and net advertising revenues received from unaffiliated revenues during the review period. This data was requested on several occasions,but was never provided, even though Comcast was required to do so pursuant to the terms of the January 23,2007, settlement agreement that was approved by both the City and Comcast. Based on its experience and the limited data that were provided, FRC believes that Comcast has excluded from its determination of"gross revenues" advertising fees and commissions paid to national and regional advertising agencies affiliated with Comcast, even though the franchise documents mandate the payment of franchise fees on those fees and commissions. FRC does not believe that a fmal estimation of the amount of fees and commissions Comcast effectively paid to itself(through its affiliates) and removed from the determination of gross revenues can be accurately calculated without embarking on a full accounting audit of Comcast Corporation's and all applicable affiliates' '171**/* Front Range Consulting,Inc. books and records. FRC has also identified two additional issues that need to be investigated, as FRC was not provided with the supporting documentation that was requested, and cannot estimate the potential impact on subscribers and franchise fees. Those issues are: • A review of the methodology used by Comcast to recover non-subscriber franchise fees from cable subscribers; and • A review of the calculations performed by Comcast regarding the error in the Merlino- Empire annexation, and the broader issue of how Comcast incorporates annexed areas into franchise fee calculations for the City. As this review only looked at the period from January 2004 to December 2005,FRC anticipates that these identified issues will have likely resulted in underpayments in 2006 through the present. II. Scope of Report Based on the proposal provided Bradley&Guzzetta,LLC ("B&G")provided to the City,FRC was engaged to prepare an initial review of Comcast's franchise fee payments for the review period. FRC has completed its initial review of the franchise fee payments. As this initial report has relied on the limited responses and data provided by Comcast, FRC cannot assure the City that,if a complete fmancial audit was completed, items other than those identified in this Final Report would not be appropriately included in gross revenues for purposes of calculating franchise fees. FRC believes that it is possible that other under-payments might exist during the review period in addition to the under-reporting of affiliated advertising sales commissions and fees. FRC does not have sufficient information from this initial review to prepare an analysis of those potential under-payments. For example, it is possible that Comcast has received programming launch support or other payments that could increase the amount of gross revenues for the review period. III. Franchise Documents The current franchise agreement in effect for the City contains the following provisions pertaining to franchise fees. The City franchise agreement states: Section 4: Franchise Fee. Recognizing that current Federal law limits a franchise fee to five percent(5%), the Operator shall pay to the City quarterly, on or before the thirtieth(30th) day of each January,April, July, and October, a sum equal to five percent(5%) of gross revenues, for the preceding three calendar months, as defined in Ordinance 4413 . Revenues that are derived as a portion of a national or regional service shall be computed on a per subscriber basis if such determination cannot be achieved by other means. June 1, 2007 Page 2 of 10 "/"./*\‘\\4\ Front Range Consulting,Inc. The City may raise the franchise fee, if so permitted by Federal and State law. Prior to implementation of any increase in franchise fees the Operator may request a public hearing by the City Council to discuss said increases. Following such a hearing the City Council may require the implementation of such increase in accordance with the provisions of this Ordinance. (a)Late Payment. Any quarterly franchise fee not paid by the Operator within thirty(30) days of the end of a quarter shall bear interest at the rate of twelve percent (12%),per annum or whatever maximum amount is allowed under State law,whichever is greater, from the due date until paid. (b)Financial Reports. Each franchise fee payment shall be accompanied by a financial report on a form provided by the City showing the basis for the Operator's computation separately indicating revenues received by the Operator within the City from basic service,pay TV service, other applicable sources of revenue, and such other information directly related to confirming the amount of the Operator's gross revenues as may be reasonably required by the City. (c)Audit by City. The City shall have the right,upon reasonable notice or no less than two (2)working days,to inspect the books and records of the Operator during normal business hours, for the purpose of ascertaining the actual gross revenues collected by the Operator.In the event that such audit discloses a discrepancy of more than ten percent(10%)between the fmancial report submitted by the Operator with a quarterly payment and the actual gross revenues collected by the Operator, the Operator agrees to pay to the City the costs of such audit. In the event that such audit results in a determination that additional franchise fees are due the City,the Operator further agrees to pay interest as required for late payment on such additional franchise fees computed from the date on which such additional franchise fees were due and payable. (d)Non-waiver. Acceptance of any franchise fee payment by the City shall not be construed as an agreement by the City that the franchise fee paid is in fact the correct amount,nor shall acceptance of payment by the City be construed as a release or waiver of any claim the City may have for further or additional sums payable under the provisions of this Ordinance. (e)Taxes.Nothing in this section shall limit the Operator's obligation to pay applicable local, State, or Federal taxes. Chapter 17 of the Renton Code defines"gross revenues" as: Any and all receipts and revenues received directly or indirectly from all sources other than transactions related to real property receipts by a franchisee not including any taxes on services furnished by a franchisee, imposed on any subscriber or used by any governmental unit, agency or instrumentality and collected by a franchisee for such entity provided also that net uncollectible debts are not considered as revenue in this definition. June 1, 2007 Page 3 of 10 ///7"*\‘\\S Front Range Consulting,Inc. IV. Data Analyzed FRC was provided with a copy of the Franchise Agreement and Chapter 17 of the City Code. After reviewing those documents,FRC sent a data request to Comcast on August 14,2006 asking for responses to sixteen(16)requests for documentation and/or support for its franchise fee payments during the review period. Comcast, on August 15, 2006, asked to extend the response deadline from August 31,2006 to September 14,2006. This extension was agreed to by FRC. In early September, 2006, Comcast transmitted to FRC and B&G a non-disclosure agreement that would need to be executed before any of the data requested could be delivered to FRC. This non-disclosure agreement was reviewed and revised by B&G and FRC and, after extensive negotiations necessitated by the onerous terms proposed by Comcast,was ultimately signed on September 26,2006. After this agreement was executed, Comcast provided its initial response to the August 14,2006 information request. That response did not include all requested data. Consequently,FRC conducted several conference calls with Comcast in October and November where Comcast's initial responses were discussed. As a result of those calls, Comcast on December 7, 2006,responded to several additional requests for clarifications of its initial responses. One area where Comcast did not provide any response was with regards to affiliated advertising commissions and fees. B&G,FRC and Comcast began settlement discussions in January 2007 to resolve outstanding rate issues and Comcast's continued failure to provide requested data on affiliated advertising fees and commissions. An agreement was offered by Comcast on January 23,2007,which was ultimately accepted and approved by the City on March 29,2007. Paragraph 6 of the settlement agreement states that: The Company [i.e.,Comcast] shall agree pursuant to a separate side letter that,upon City execution of the settlement agreement,it will provide to the Consultant[i.e.,FRC]by close-of- business on January 26, 2007, or no later than two business days after City execution of the settlement agreement,in the event City execution occurs after January 26,2007,the gross monthly amount of the advertising revenues (advertising revenue plus advertising sales commissions) for the audit period where Comcast Corporation and/or the Company is affiliated with an advertising agency that receives commissions, such as National Cable Communications(NCC)and the applicable regional advertising entity, and the net amount (advertising revenue)where Comcast Corporation and/or the Company does not have such an affiliated interest. The provision of this information to City's Consultant shall be without prejudice to the Company's right to dispute any audit findings, or the requirement of Comcast to pay franchise fess based on the provision of such information provided to the Consultant. On April 13, 2007, Comcast delivered data that was intended to comply with paragraph 6. That data,however, did not comply with the settlement agreement. Based on a follow-up letter from FRC on April 26,2007, Comcast delivered a revised response on May 5, 2007,which was subsequently revised again on May 16, 2007 and May 18, 2007. To date, Comcast not provided all the data required by paragraph 6 of the settlement agreement. June 1,2007 Page 4 of 10 ANN Front Range Consulting,Inc. V. Summary of Franchise Fee Payments The average amount of annual franchise fees paid by Comcast to the City over the review period is $585,625.98. VI. Issues Identified As this review was limited to an initial analysis of Comcast's gross revenue determination,FRC did not independently review all of Comcast's books and records to be sure that additional items should not be included in gross revenues for purposes of calculating franchise fees. In response to FRC's initial data request, Comcast provided summary spreadsheets that identified its determination of gross revenues for the City and FRC has accepted the categories as presented for this initial review as being accurate except for the advertising sales, as described below. FRC has identified three areas of concern. Those areas are: • Annexation Support; • Affiliated Advertising Commissions; and • Non-subscriber franchise fee pass-through. a) Annexation Support FRC is concerned that Comcast may not have properly identified all of the annexations that have occurred since 2000. If this is the case, Comcast's presentation of gross revenues would be incorrect because it would be excluding revenues from subscribers in areas that have been properly annexed by the City. FRC asked Comcast to support the annexations it identified and to list each annexation reflected in its billing system. Instead, Comcast responded that it had not reflected the Merlino-Empire annexation in its billing system,which resulted in an under- payment of franchise fees to the City. FRC does not believe this is an isolated error. FRC,however, cannot estimate the impact of these mistakes without any information from Comcast. While Comcast has paid the City for the Merlin-Empire annexation,FRC was not provided with any supporting documentation showing the calculation of the under-payment and associated interest. FRC recommends that the City consider embarking on a full and complete review of the subscribers contained within each of the annexation areas in order to assure that the Comcast is properly calculating gross revenues for the City and that the City is receiving the correct amount of franchise fees for the entire franchise area during the review period(including all annexed territories). b) Affiliated Advertising Commissions FRC investigated the methods used by Comcast to assign advertising sales revenues (including fees and commissions)to the City. FRC asked four(4) questions in the original request for information about advertising sales. Comcast has admitted that the advertising sales amounts June 1,2007 Page 5 of 10 d Front Range Consulting,Inc. assigned to the City are net of advertising sales commissions.' That is,before the advertising sales are allocated to the City's franchise, Comcast reduces the advertising sales revenues by the commissions it pays to the organizations that sold the advertising spots. The issue is not with commissions paid to non-affiliated third parties but rather the advertising commissions that Comcast pays to its affiliated companies. In order to investigate this issue, Comcast was asked to provide the gross amount of the advertising sales related to affiliated companies. The specific request was: Does Comcast(Comcast in this instance should be construed as Comcast Corporation for the purposes of this response)have any ownership in any of the companies that Comcast has paid any advertising commission or fee? If yes,please provide the gross monthly amounts of the advertising revenues for the Review Period for the City where Comcast has an ownership interest and the net amounts where Comcast has no ownership interest. On September 26, 2006, Comcast responded: Comcast has a percentage of ownership in National VOD,National Ad Platform Unused Inventory, and National Cable Communications. Please refer to Exhibit Allocation Worksheet behind Tabs"2004" and"2005." During the October-November conference calls, Comcast stated it would not provide the requested information to FRC as part of the franchise fee review. While FRC does not believe that Comcast could refuse to provide this data, it was going to be difficult to get Comcast to provide the information unless the City issued a notice of franchise violation. Instead of fighting with Comcast,B&G and FRC proceeded with developing a settlement agreement with Comcast,in the context of a rate review,that included Comcast agreeing to provide the missing advertising sales revenue information. This settlement agreement was ultimately executed by the City on March 29,2007. The relevant portion of the settlement agreement is set forth in section IV above. In an attempt to comply with paragraph 6 of the settlement agreement, Comcast provided four (4) separate sets of advertising sales revenue data on April 13, 2007,May 5,2007,May 16, 2007 and May 18,2007. The responses are summarized in the following table. Please note that the amounts are for the"Seattle"marketplace and not specific to the City of Renton. ' Comcast response to Question 9,dated September 26,2006. June 1, 2007 Page 6 of 10 Front Range Consulting,Inc. Table 2 Item' •••• ; . . nu Anal2004. 'Qnn� ua12005: April 13,2007 Advertising Sales $46,790,183.89 $51,053,840.12 National Fees and Commissions $3,753,340.85 $3,519,460.23 May 5,2007 Advertising Sales $48,500,722.00 $53,077,277.30 National Fees and Commissions $3,753,340.85 $3,519,460.23 May 16,2007 Advertising Sales $48,300,722.00 $53,077,277.30 National Fees and Commissions $7,374,022.81 $7,930,693.07 May 18,2007 Advertising Sales $46,790,183.89 $51,053,840.12 National Fees and Commissions $7,676,728.87 $8,267,412.71 This table shows that over a period of approximately one month that Comcast has supported widely varying amounts with regards to advertising fees and commissions. While FRC has repeatedly stated that it needs gross advertising revenues, including fees and commissions, associated with"affiliated"advertising entities, Comcast has stated that the amounts presented also include fees and commissions on non-affiliated transactions. Based on FRC's experience,the data for the affiliated fees and commissions related to the National Cable Communications affiliate appears to be below the expected level. The percentage appears to be less than 10% annually and FRC was expecting to see fees and commissions retained by NCC in excess of 25%notwithstanding fees and commissions associated with the regional and local affiliated advertising organizations. Comcast at this point in time cannot assure FRC that it has fully captured all of the fees and commissions that are retained by its affiliated local and regional advertising sales organizations, as Comcast's West Division accounting group apparently does not have access to those regional or local advertising sales books and records. This is particularly disturbing because Comcast specifically agreed in the settlement agreement to provide gross advertising revenue data(including fees and commissions) for affiliated national and regional advertising entities. June 1,2007 Page 7 of 10 Front Range Consulting,Inc. The City's Ordinance makes clear that affiliated sources of revenues are part of the determination of gross revenues used to calculate franchise fees: GROSS REVENUES: Any and all receipts and revenues received directly or indirectly from all sources other than transactions related to real property receipts by a franchisee not including any taxes on services furnished by a franchisee, imposed on any subscriber or used by any governmental unit, agency or instrumentality and collected by a franchisee for such entity provided also that net uncollectible debts are not considered as revenue in this definition. (emphasis added). The Ordinance does not qualify that the advertising sales revenues should be net of affiliated commissions and fees. To the contrary,the definition of gross revenues is extremely broad and encompasses affiliated advertising commissions and revenues (i.e.,revenues received directly or indirectly from all sources). FRC therefore believes affiliated advertising commissions and fees should be included in gross revenues for purposes of franchise fee calculations. If Comcast uses an affiliated company to sell its advertising avails and can assign fees and commissions to those sales, Comcast is essentially hiding the revenue streams it receives from the advertisers to avoid paying franchise fees on the gross amount of advertising sales. If the franchise had intended the definition of gross revenues to include only"net"revenues associated with cable services and the cable system,the word"gross"would not have been used. Comcast has also reduced from the advertising sales what they call 44 3rd party"transactions. Comcast has not been able to provide FRC with any defmition of what a"3rd party"transaction is. Without any support,FRC cannot conclude if Comcast's exclusion of these revenues is appropriate. Based on the unsubstantiated data furnished by Comcast, and the missing national and regional advertising fees and commissions, FRC cannot prepare a reliable estimate of the franchise fee underpayment resulting from Comcast's"net"approach to reporting advertising sales revenues. FRC recommends that the City proceed with a full financial audit of at least this area where the actual books and records of each of these advertising affiliates are reviewed along with the non- affiliated transactions to ensure that Comcast is including the appropriate amount of advertising sales revenues in its allocation to the City. c) Non-subscriber Franchise Fee Pass-through The issue of franchise fees paid on non-subscriber revenues (e.g., advertising revenues and home shopping channel commissions)has been an issue within the cable industry for many years. Many years ago,LFAs began to require cable operators to remit franchise fees on non-subscriber revenues received by the cable operator. The vast majority of these non-subscriber revenues are advertising revenues and home shopping commissions. With the substantial increase in the advertising sales programs of the cable operators,this non-subscriber revenue has grown dramatically over the past several years and,with the advent of local digital advertising insertion equipment, is likely to continue its growth. The issue of how non-subscriber franchise fees are passed through to subscribers first surfaced before the FCC in 1996 when Comcast requested a letter ruling from the Cable Services Bureau as to the appropriateness of passing through all of the franchise fees assessed by a LFA on a cable operator to subscribers. The response from the June 1,2007 Page 8 of 10 ©2004 Code Publishing, Inc. Page 6 Front Range Consulting,Inc. Chief of the Cable Service Bureau,Meredith J. Jones, opined that the entire amount could be passed through(DA 97-1995). The issue was then brought before the FCC in filings made by Pasadena, California,Nashville,Tennessee, and Virginia Beach,Virginia. In October 2001,the FCC released a decision(FCC 01-289) in which it stated: "We believe that if the cable operator agrees to include non-subscriber revenues in the definition of gross revenues,the operator is permitted to pass through any portion of the total franchise fee,based on that definition,to subscribers." This ruling was appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit,which denied the local governments' Petition for Review of the FCC's 2001 decision in March 2003 (Case No. 01-60804). In response to FRC requests 15 and 16, Comcast has delivered to FRC an excel spreadsheet detailing an unsupported calculation of the 2003 and 2006 estimate of the non-subscriber franchise fee pass through amount. FRC does not believe Comcast's calculation is correct, as it does not consider the potential over-recoveries that might have occurred in 2004 and 2005 at a minimum. In addition,the City has not been provided with this calculation in advance of Comcast charging subscribers, and has not had an opportunity to comment on whether it is appropriate prior to implementation. To date, Comcast has provided no letters or any support for the franchise fee percentage changes it has calculated on an annual basis. FRC recommends that the City require Comcast to use a methodology for the calculation of this pass through that has been reviewed and approved by the City in advance. In addition,the calculation should be completed in the fourth quarter of each year using a twelve month review period to set the pass-through rate for the following calendar year. The methodology should contain a provision to exclude a true-up on franchise fees not collected on other fees that are not considered"non-subscriber." For example, if Comcast made an error with respect to assessing a franchise fee on installation revenues from subscribers,the approved methodology should not allow Comcast to correct this error in its next year franchise fee percentage. FRC does not believe that the opinions and orders on the non-subscriber franchise fee pass-through can be applied to errors that occur on"subscriber"mistakes under Comcast control. Additionally,FRC recommends that Comcast be required to present its calculation to the City at least thirty(30) days prior to the implementation of a revised franchise fee percentage. VII. Subscriber Impacts and Future Issues FRC anticipates that Comcast will suggest that to the extent the City requires Comcast to pay on any of these"affiliated advertising fees and commissions review adjustments,"Comcast will attempt to pass those amounts on to cable subscribers by modifying the franchise fee percentage to recover non-subscriber franchise fees. During the review period, Comcast had not yet been marketing a triple play bundled bill for cable,Internet and telephone services. As Comcast has begun this marketing now, the City may wish to review and understand the methodology that Comcast will use to assign/allocate a portion of the bundled bill to cable service and how it will charge a subscriber franchise fees on the cable portion. VIII. Conclusion FRC appreciates the opportunity to prepare this review of the franchise fees paid by Comcast to June 1, 2007 Page 9 of 10 Front Range Consulting,Inc. the City during the review period. FRC strongly recommends that the City embark on a phase two full audit of the advertising sales allocations to the City as the data provided by Comcast to date does not appear to be reliable or consistent with the settlement agreement. During this full audit,the City should also have the auditor review and audit all of the other gross revenue amounts as part of its renewal due diligence. As part of the audit, the annexation review should also be completed to ensure that Comcast has made the appropriate adjustments for these annexations. June 1,2007 Page 10 of 10 From: Marty Wine To: Walton, Bonnie Date: 8/21/2007 4:35:17 PM Subject: Draft reports Hi Bonnie, These are not final yet, nor is the survey data.We are meeting preliminarily with Comcast(Terry Davis and the regional VP)tomorrow to discuss these findings and the I-Net. I don't think Mike Bradley plans to finalize them until we are farther along in negotiations. I'm looking at the invoice and will respond tomorrow.Yes, Mike will be here tomorrow. Marty x6526 r � >>>"Michael Bradley"< bradley(a�bradlevguzzetta.com >8/21/2007 12:12 PM >>> For your convenience, your bill is attached to this message. If you would like our invoices sent to a different e-mail address, please inform us of the appropriate e-mail address.Thank you for your business and we look forward to continuing to serve you. Bradley&Guzzetta, LLC Note:The attached bill is in PDF file format. Adobe Acrobat Reader is necessary to view this file. If you do not have Adobe Acrobat Reader installed, please download the free reader from the Adobe website (http://www.adobe.com/products/acrobat/readstep2.html)and install it on your computer. • From: Cynthia Moya To: Bonnie Walton Date: 8/15/2007 7:46:55 AM Subject: Re:Time off Thank you. Emailing is just a bad habit for me, I always emailed my boss for everything since he was never there and it was the only way to have contact. I just need to get out of that habit. Cindy >>> Bonnie Walton 8/11/2007 5:42 PM >>> Cindy: Yes, you can take these off. For 8/27, from 8-noon,just fill out a yellow slip to show the half-day absence and put it in my basket for signature when I get back in on the 20th. (We'll adjust the hours down, if it turns out you are absent for less time that day.) For 9/4, from 8-9:30, fill out a yellow slip to show the absence on that day, too, and put in my basket for signature when I'm back the 20th. By the way, since we are such a small office, anytime a one-on-one conversation or an approval is needed, such as this, I'd prefer it to be discussed in person if possible, rather than by email across the room. It's more friendly that way and gives me a nice break from other work. :) Thank you. Have a good week. Bonnie, x6502 >>> Cynthia Moya 8/10/2007 10:39 AM >>> Bonnie, I would like to take a couple days (really hours) off if possible to get my son ready for the 1st day of school. NW orientation on August 27(8-noon- it should not take us the whole time) and September 4(the first day of school) I should be here by 9:30. Please let me know if this is possible. Cindy From: \ Marty Wine To: Walton, Bonnie Date: 8/21/2007 4:35:17 PM Subject: Draft reports Hi Bonnie, These are not final yet, nor is the survey data. We are meeting preliminarily with Comcast(Terry Davis and the regional VP)tomorrow to discuss these findings and the I-Net. I don't think Mike Bradley plans to finalize them until we are farther along in negotiations. I'm looking at the invoice and will respond tomorrow. Yes, Mike will be here tomorrow. Marty x6526 I' From: Marty Wine To: Walton, Bonnie Date: 8/21/2007 4:45:06 PM Subject: Fwd: RE: Bradley&Guzzetta Invoice Mike and I did discuss the repairs and maintenance email; maybe he doesn't recall. He said he didn't hold out much hope of getting the$ reimbursed. We should bring it up with him tomorrow. >>> Bonnie Walton 8/21/2007 4:26 PM >>> Mike Bradley here?At City Hall tomorrow??? bw >>>"Michael Bradley"< bradlev a(�,bradleyquzzetta.com >8/21/2007 4:28 PM >>> Hi Bonnie- I will remove the late fee, but our invoices are to be paid monthly. Go ahead and pay the invoice without the interest charge and I'll write off the interest. I did not receive the invoice with the equipment repairs and maintenance. Please send it to me again. I did hear about the changes at PSA, but hopefully you can fill me in some more tomorrow. I'll be at City Hall from about 10-3. Mike Original Message From: Bonnie Walton Jmailto:Bwalton&,,ci.renton.wa.usl Sent:Tuesday, August 21, 2007 3:43 PM To: Michael Bradley Subject: Re: Bradley&Guzzetta Invoice Hi Mike: I received the administration bill and will process it for payment. I see it shows a late fee.Though the contract indicates we pay you at the end of each quarter, we often pay more frequently or ahead of the quarter-end. Could you remove that late fee? Also, did you get my email with the invoice copies of all our equipment repairs and maintenance? I was off work last week but noticed before then that my email to you with the attachment may have bounced back. Let me know if I need to resend it.Would be really nice if Comcast would reimburse us! Lastly, how are you doing on this year's rate review, which we received April 1st?What is your time frame for providing a report back on that? Hope all is well with you. Suppose you know that Keri Stokstad resigned as Exec Director of PSA.Also, I found out that PSA staffs the City of Mercer Island's council meetings. I thought that was interesting since MI is not one of PSA's member cities. Bonnie Walton City Clerk/Cable Manager City of Renton 425-430-6502 r Final Report To City of Renton,Washington Regarding the Franchise Fees Paid by Comcast of Washington IV, Inc. Front Range Consulting,Inc. ("FRC") is pleased to provide the City of Renton, Washington ("City") this fmal report regarding the franchise fees paid by Comcast of Washington IV,Inc. ("Comcast") for the period from January 2004 through December 2005 ("review period"). I. Report Synopsis FRC has concluded that Comcast has not paid all of the franchise fees owed to the City under the applicable franchise documents during the review period. This determination is based on an initial review of the revenue categories included in Comcast's determination of"gross revenues," upon which franchise fees are calculated. In connection with its analysis,FRC asked Comcast and Comcast Corporation to provide the gross advertising revenues received from affiliated entities (including commissions) during the review period and net advertising revenues received from unaffiliated revenues during the review period. This data was requested on several occasions,but was never provided, even though Comcast was required to do so pursuant to the terms of the January 23, 2007, settlement agreement that was approved by both the City and Comcast. Based on its experience and the limited data that were provided,FRC believes that Comcast has excluded from its determination of"gross revenues"advertising fees and commissions paid to national and regional advertising agencies affiliated with Comcast, even though the franchise documents mandate the payment of franchise fees on those fees and commissions. FRC does not believe that a fmal estimation of the amount of fees and commissions Comcast effectively paid to itself(through its affiliates) and removed from the determination of gross revenues can be accurately calculated without embarking on a full accounting audit of Comcast Corporation's and all applicable affiliates' Front Range Consulting,Inc. books and records. FRC has also identified two additional issues that need to be investigated, as FRC was not provided with the supporting documentation that was requested, and cannot estimate the potential impact on subscribers and franchise fees. Those issues are: • A review of the methodology used by Comcast to recover non-subscriber franchise fees from cable subscribers; and • A review of the calculations performed by Comcast regarding the error in the Merlino- Empire annexation, and the broader issue of how Comcast incorporates annexed areas into franchise fee calculations for the City. As this review only looked at the period from January 2004 to December 2005,FRC anticipates that these identified issues will have likely resulted in underpayments in 2006 through the present. II. Scope of Report Based on the proposal provided Bradley&Guzzetta,LLC("B&G")provided to the City,FRC was engaged to prepare an initial review of Comcast's franchise fee payments for the review period. FRC has completed its initial review of the franchise fee payments. As this initial report has relied on the limited responses and data provided by Comcast,FRC cannot assure the City that, if a complete financial audit was completed, items other than those identified in this Final Report would not be appropriately included in gross revenues for purposes of calculating franchise fees. FRC believes that it is possible that other under-payments might exist during the review period in addition to the under-reporting of affiliated advertising sales commissions and fees. FRC does not have sufficient information from this initial review to prepare an analysis of those potential under-payments. For example,it is possible that Comcast has received programming launch support or other payments that could increase the amount of gross revenues for the review period. III. Franchise Documents The current franchise agreement in effect for the City contains the following provisions pertaining to franchise fees. The City franchise agreement states: Section 4: Franchise Fee. Recognizing that current Federal law limits a franchise fee to five percent(5%), the Operator shall pay to the City quarterly, on or before the thirtieth(30th) day of each January,April,July, and October, a sum equal to five percent(5%) of gross revenues, for the preceding three calendar months, as defined in Ordinance 4413 . Revenues that are derived as a portion of a national or regional service shall be computed on a per subscriber basis if such determination cannot be achieved by other means. June 1,2007 Page 2 of 10 r Front Range Consulting,Inc. The City may raise the franchise fee,if so permitted by Federal and State law. Prior to implementation of any increase in franchise fees the Operator may request a public hearing by the City Council to discuss said increases. Following such a hearing the City Council may require the implementation of such increase in accordance with the provisions of this Ordinance. (a)Late Payment. Any quarterly franchise fee not paid by the Operator within thirty(30) days of the end of a quarter shall bear interest at the rate of twelve percent (12%),per annum or whatever maximum amount is allowed under State law,whichever is greater, from the due date until paid. (b)Financial Reports. Each franchise fee payment shall be accompanied by a financial report on a form provided by the City showing the basis for the Operator's computation separately indicating revenues received by the Operator within the City from basic service,pay TV service, other applicable sources of revenue, and such other information directly related to confirming the amount of the Operator's gross revenues as may be reasonably required by the City. (c)Audit by City.The City shall have the right,upon reasonable notice or no less than two (2)working days,to inspect the books and records of the Operator during normal business hours, for the purpose of ascertaining the actual gross revenues collected by the Operator. In the event that such audit discloses a discrepancy of more than ten percent(10%)between the financial report submitted by the Operator with a quarterly payment and the actual gross revenues collected by the Operator, the Operator agrees to pay to the City the costs of such audit. In the event that such audit results in a determination that additional franchise fees are due the City,the Operator further agrees to pay interest as required for late payment on such additional franchise fees computed from the date on which such additional franchise fees were due and payable. (d)Non-waiver. Acceptance of any franchise fee payment by the City shall not be construed as an agreement by the City that the franchise fee paid is in fact the correct amount,nor shall acceptance of payment by the City be construed as a release or waiver of any claim the City may have for further or additional sums payable under the provisions of this Ordinance. (e)Taxes.Nothing in this section shall limit the Operator's obligation to pay applicable local, State, or Federal taxes. Chapter 17 of the Renton Code defines"gross revenues"as: Any and all receipts and revenues received directly or indirectly from all sources other than transactions related to real property receipts by a franchisee not including any taxes on services furnished by a franchisee, imposed on any subscriber or used by any governmental unit, agency or instrumentality and collected by a franchisee for such entity provided also that net uncollectible debts are not considered as revenue in this definition. • June 1, 2007 Page 3 of 10 Front Range Consulting,Inc. IV. Data Analyzed FRC was provided with a copy of the Franchise Agreement and Chapter 17 of the City Code. After reviewing those documents,FRC sent a data request to Comcast on August 14, 2006 asking for responses to sixteen(16)requests for documentation and/or support for its franchise fee payments during the review period. Comcast, on August 15,2006, asked to extend the response deadline from August 31,2006 to September 14,2006. This extension was agreed to by FRC. In early September, 2006, Comcast transmitted to FRC and B&G a non-disclosure agreement that would need to be executed before any of the data requested could be delivered to FRC. This non-disclosure agreement was reviewed and revised by B&G and FRC and, after extensive negotiations necessitated by the onerous terms proposed by Comcast,was ultimately signed on September 26, 2006. After this agreement was executed, Comcast provided its initial response to the August 14,2006 information request. That response did not include all requested data. Consequently,FRC conducted several conference calls with Comcast in October and November where Comcast's initial responses were discussed. As a result of those calls, Comcast on December 7,2006,responded to several additional requests for clarifications of its initial responses. One area where Comcast did not provide any response was with regards to affiliated advertising commissions and fees. B&G, FRC and Comcast began settlement discussions in January 2007 to resolve outstanding rate issues and Comcast's continued failure to provide requested data on affiliated advertising fees and commissions. An agreement was offered by Comcast on January 23, 2007,which was ultimately accepted and approved by the City on March 29, 2007. Paragraph 6 of the settlement agreement states that: The Company[i.e., Comcast] shall agree pursuant to a separate side letter that,upon City execution of the settlement agreement,it will provide to the Consultant[i.e.,FRC]by close-of- business on January 26, 2007, or no later than two business days after City execution of the settlement agreement,in the event City execution occurs after January 26,2007,the gross monthly amount of the advertising revenues(advertising revenue plus advertising sales commissions)for the audit period where Comcast Corporation and/or the Company is affiliated with an advertising agency that receives commissions, such as National Cable Communications(NCC)and the applicable regional advertising entity,and the net amount (advertising revenue)where Comcast Corporation and/or the Company does not have such an affiliated interest. The provision of this information to City's Consultant shall be without prejudice to the Company's right to dispute any audit fmdings,or the requirement of Comcast to pay franchise fess based on the provision of such information provided to the Consultant. On April 13, 2007, Comcast delivered data that was intended to comply with paragraph 6. That data,however, did not comply with the settlement agreement. Based on a follow-up letter from FRC on April 26,2007, Comcast delivered a revised response on May 5, 2007,which was subsequently revised again on May 16,2007 and May 18, 2007. To date, Comcast not provided all the data required by paragraph 6 of the settlement agreement. June 1,2007 Page 4 of 10 Front Range Consulting,Inc. • V. Summary of Franchise Fee Payments The average amount of annual franchise fees paid by Comcast to the City over the review period is $585,625.98. VI. Issues Identified As this review was limited to an initial analysis of Comcast's gross revenue determination,FRC did not independently review all of Comcast's books and records to be sure that additional items should not be included in gross revenues for purposes of calculating franchise fees. In response to FRC's initial data request, Comcast provided summary spreadsheets that identified its determination of gross revenues for the City and FRC has accepted the categories as presented for this initial review as being accurate except for the advertising sales, as described below. FRC has identified three areas of concern. Those areas are: • Annexation Support; • Affiliated Advertising Commissions; and • Non-subscriber franchise fee pass-through. a) Annexation Support FRC is concerned that Comcast may not have properly identified all of the annexations that have occurred since 2000. If this is the case, Comcast's presentation of gross revenues would be incorrect because it would be excluding revenues from subscribers in areas that have been properly annexed by the City. FRC asked Comcast to support the annexations it identified and to list each annexation reflected in its billing system. Instead, Comcast responded that it had not reflected the Merlino-Empire annexation in its billing system,which resulted in an under- payment of franchise fees to the City. FRC does not believe this is an isolated error. FRC,however, cannot estimate the impact of these mistakes without any information from Comcast. While Comcast has paid the City for the Merlin-Empire annexation,FRC was not provided with any supporting documentation showing the calculation of the under-payment and associated interest. FRC recommends that the City consider embarking on a full and complete review of the subscribers contained within each of the annexation areas in order to assure that the Comcast is properly calculating gross revenues for the City and that the City is receiving the correct amount of franchise fees for the entire franchise area during the review period(including all annexed territories). b) Affiliated Advertising Commissions FRC investigated the methods used by Comcast to assign advertising sales revenues (including fees and commissions)to the City. FRC asked four(4) questions in the original request for information about advertising sales. Comcast has admitted that the advertising sales amounts June 1, 2007 Page 5 of 10 Front Range Consulting,Inc. assigned to the City are net of advertising sales commissions.' That is,before the advertising sales are allocated to the City's franchise, Comcast reduces the advertising sales revenues by the commissions it pays to the organizations that sold the advertising spots. The issue is not with commissions paid to non-affiliated third parties but rather the advertising commissions that Comcast pays to its affiliated companies. In order to investigate this issue, Comcast was asked to provide the gross amount of the advertising sales related to affiliated companies. The specific request was: Does Comcast(Comcast in this instance should be construed as Comcast Corporation for the purposes of this response)have any ownership in any of the companies that Comcast has paid any advertising commission or fee? If yes,please provide the gross monthly amounts of the advertising revenues for the Review Period for the City where Comcast has an ownership interest and the net amounts where Comcast has no ownership interest. On September 26,2006, Comcast responded: Comcast has a percentage of ownership in National VOD,National Ad Platform Unused Inventory, and National Cable Communications. Please refer to Exhibit Allocation Worksheet behind Tabs"2004" and"2005." During the October-November conference calls, Comcast stated it would not provide the requested information to FRC as part of the franchise fee review. While FRC does not believe that Comcast could refuse to provide this data,it was going to be difficult to get Comcast to provide the information unless the City issued a notice of franchise violation. Instead of fighting with Comcast,B&G and FRC proceeded with developing a settlement agreement with Comcast,in the context of a rate review,that included Comcast agreeing to provide the missing advertising sales revenue information. This settlement agreement was ultimately executed by the City on March 29, 2007. The relevant portion of the settlement agreement is set forth in section IV above. In an attempt to comply with paragraph 6 of the settlement agreement, Comcast provided four (4) separate sets of advertising sales revenue data on April 13,2007,May 5,2007,May 16,2007 and May 18, 2007. The responses are summarized in the following table. Please note that the amounts are for the"Seattle"marketplace and not specific to the City of Renton. Comcast response to Question 9,dated September 26,2006. June 1,2007 Page 6of10 Front Range Consulting,Inc. Table 2 nnaa12065 -._ April 13,2007 Advertising Sales $46,790,183.89 $51,053,840.12 National Fees and Commissions $3,753,340.85 $3,519,460.23 May 5,2007 Advertising Sales $48,500,722.00 $53,077,277.30 National Fees and Commissions $3,753,340.85 $3,519,460.23 May 16,2007 Advertising Sales $48,300,722.00 $53,077,277.30 National Fees and Commissions $7,374,022.81 $7,930,693.07 May 18,2007 Advertising Sales $46,790,183.89 $51,053,840.12 National Fees and Commissions $7,676,728.87 $8,267,412.71 This table shows that over a period of approximately one month that Comcast has supported widely varying amounts with regards to advertising fees and commissions. While FRC has repeatedly stated that it needs gross advertising revenues, including fees and commissions, associated with"affiliated" advertising entities, Comcast has stated that the amounts presented also include fees and commissions on non-affiliated transactions. Based on FRC's experience,the data for the affiliated fees and commissions related to the National Cable Communications affiliate appears to be below the expected level. The percentage appears to be less than 10% annually and FRC was expecting to see fees and commissions retained by NCC in excess of 25%notwithstanding fees and commissions associated with the regional and local affiliated advertising organizations. Comcast at this point in time cannot assure FRC that it has fully captured all of the fees and commissions that are retained by its affiliated local and regional advertising sales organizations, as Comcast's West Division accounting group apparently does not have access to those regional or local advertising sales books and records. This is particularly disturbing because Comcast specifically agreed in the settlement agreement to provide gross advertising revenue data(including fees and commissions) for affiliated national and regional advertising entities. June 1, 2007 Page 7 of 10 Front Range Consulting,Inc. - - The City's Ordinance makes clear that affiliated sources of revenues are part of the determination of gross revenues used to calculate franchise fees: GROSS REVENUES: Any and all receipts and revenues received directly or indirectly from all sources other than transactions related to real property receipts by a franchisee not including any taxes on services furnished by a franchisee, imposed on any subscriber or used by any governmental unit, agency or instrumentality and collected by a franchisee for such entity provided also that net uncollectible debts are not considered as revenue in this definition. (emphasis added). The Ordinance does not qualify that the advertising sales revenues should be net of affiliated commissions and fees. To the contrary,the definition of gross revenues is extremely broad and encompasses affiliated advertising commissions and revenues (i.e.,revenues received directly or indirectly from all sources). FRC therefore believes affiliated advertising commissions and fees should be included in gross revenues for purposes of franchise fee calculations. If Comcast uses an affiliated company to sell its advertising avails and can assign fees and commissions to those sales, Comcast is essentially hiding the revenue streams it receives from the advertisers to avoid paying franchise fees on the gross amount of advertising sales. If the franchise had intended the definition of gross revenues to include only"net"revenues associated with cable services and the cable system,the word"gross"would not have been used. Comcast has also reduced from the advertising sales what they call 66 3rd party"transactions. Comcast has not been able to provide FRC with any definition of what a"3rd party"transaction is. Without any support,FRC cannot conclude if Comcast's exclusion of these revenues is appropriate. Based on the unsubstantiated data furnished by Comcast, and the missing national and regional advertising fees and commissions,FRC cannot prepare a reliable estimate of the franchise fee underpayment resulting from Comcast's"net"approach to reporting advertising sales revenues. FRC recommends that the City proceed with a full financial audit of at least this area where the actual books and records of each of these advertising affiliates are reviewed along with the non- affiliated transactions to ensure that Comcast is including the appropriate amount of advertising sales revenues in its allocation to the City. c) Non-subscriber Franchise Fee Pass-through The issue of franchise fees paid on non-subscriber revenues (e.g., advertising revenues and home shopping channel commissions)has been an issue within the cable industry for many years. Many years ago,LFAs began to require cable operators to remit franchise fees on non-subscriber revenues received by the cable operator. The vast majority of these non-subscriber revenues are advertising revenues and home shopping commissions. With the substantial increase in the advertising sales programs of the cable operators,this non-subscriber revenue has grown dramatically over the past several years and,with the advent of local digital advertising insertion equipment, is likely to continue its growth. The issue of how non-subscriber franchise fees are passed through to subscribers first surfaced before the FCC in 1996 when Comcast requested a letter ruling from the Cable Services Bureau as to the appropriateness of passing through all of the franchise fees assessed by a LFA on a cable operator to subscribers. The response from the June 1,2007 Page 8of10 ©2004 Code Publishing, Inc. Page 6 /72/".*\AN-N Front Range Consulting,Inc. Chief of the Cable Service Bureau,Meredith J. Jones,opined that the entire amount could be passed through(DA 97-1995). The issue was then brought before the FCC in filings made by Pasadena,California,Nashville,Tennessee, and Virginia Beach,Virginia. In October 2001,the FCC released a decision(FCC 01-289)in which it stated: "We believe that if the cable operator agrees to include non-subscriber revenues in the definition of gross revenues,the operator is permitted to pass through any portion of the total franchise fee,based on that definition,to subscribers." This ruling was appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit,which denied the local governments' Petition for Review of the FCC's 2001 decision in March 2003 (Case No. 01-60804). In response to FRC requests 15 and 16, Comcast has delivered to FRC an excel spreadsheet detailing an unsupported calculation of the 2003 and 2006 estimate of the non-subscriber franchise fee pass through amount. FRC does not believe Comcast's calculation is correct, as it does not consider the potential over-recoveries that might have occurred in 2004 and 2005 at a minimum. In addition,the City has not been provided with this calculation in advance of Comcast charging subscribers, and has not had an opportunity to comment on whether it is appropriate prior to implementation. To date, Comcast has provided no letters or any support for the franchise fee percentage changes it has calculated on an annual basis. FRC recommends that the City require Comcast to use a methodology for the calculation of this pass through that has been reviewed and approved by the City in advance. In addition, the calculation should be completed in the fourth quarter of each year using a twelve month review period to set the pass-through rate for the following calendar year. The methodology should contain a provision to exclude a true-up on franchise fees not collected on other fees that are not considered"non-subscriber." For example, if Comcast made an error with respect to assessing a franchise fee on installation revenues from subscribers,the approved methodology should not allow Comcast to correct this error in its next year franchise fee percentage. FRC does not believe that the opinions and orders on the non-subscriber franchise fee pass-through can be applied to errors that occur on"subscriber"mistakes under Comcast control. Additionally,FRC recommends that Comcast be required to present its calculation to the City at least thirty(30) days prior to the implementation of a revised franchise fee percentage. VII. Subscriber Impacts and Future Issues FRC anticipates that Comcast will suggest that to the extent the City requires Comcast to pay on any of these"affiliated advertising fees and commissions review adjustments,"Comcast will attempt to pass those amounts on to cable subscribers by modifying the franchise fee percentage to recover non-subscriber franchise fees. During the review period, Comcast had not yet been marketing a triple play bundled bill for cable,Internet and telephone services. As Comcast has begun this marketing now,the City may wish to review and understand the methodology that Comcast will use to assign/allocate a portion of the bundled bill to cable service and how it will charge a subscriber franchise fees on the cable portion. VIII. Conclusion FRC appreciates the opportunity to prepare this review of the franchise fees paid by Comcast to June 1,2007 Page 9 of 10 Front Range Consulting,Inc. the City during the review period. FRC strongly recommends that the City embark on a phase two full audit of the advertising sales allocations to the City as the data provided by Comcast to date does not appear to be reliable or consistent with the settlement agreement. During this full audit,the City should also have the auditor review and audit all of the other gross revenue amounts as part of its renewal due diligence. As part of the audit,the annexation review should also be completed to ensure that Comcast has made the appropriate adjustments for these annexations. June 1, 2007 Page 10 of 10 4,4 00 • • • g communications, inc. MOP Philadelphia Offic73 Chestnut Ruat1.Suite 301,Pauli,PA 19301 1'/(610)889-7470 Fi(610)889-7475 Si.Paul Office:1597 Race Street,Sr.Paul,MN 55102 11(651)340-5300 F/(651)340-5820 www.chgcommunieations.com Technical Review and Audit of the Comcast Cable System Serving Renton, WA By Dick Nielsen Senior Engineer CBG Communications,Inc. June, 2007 CBG Communications,Inc. TABLE OF CONTENTS Introduction and Background 1 Findings 5 System Capacity 5 System Architecture 7 System Performance 9 Test Results 11 Standby Power 12 System Status Monitoring 13 Signal Leakage 13 System Construction,Installation and Maintenance 14 Conclusions and Recommendations 16 1. Comcast System Inspection 17 2. Signal Quality 17 3. Periodic Inspection 17 4. Number of Test Points 18 5. System Rebuild/Upgrade 18 Appendix A A-1 CBG Communications,Inc. Introduction and Background CBG Communications,.Inc. (CBG)has, at the request of the City of Renton,Washington (City),performed a technical audit and review of the Comcast Cable TV system (hereinafter"Comcast")serving the City. The scope of our review was focused primarily on Comcast's compliance with City Ordinance 4413,Sections 5-17-8 Technical Standards, 5-17-10 Construction Standards, 5-17-11 Construction Notification, 5-17-12 Undergrounding and Landscaping, 5-17-13 Construction in Right-Of-Way, 5-17-14 Safety Requirements and 5-17-23 Cable System Evaluation. In addition,we reviewed Comcast's compliance with the Franchise as well as other applicable rules,regulations, requirements and standards of the Federal Communications Commission(FCC) and the pertinent sections of the National Electrical Code (NEC)and National Electrical Safety Code(NESC),as well as good engineering practices. CBG's review overall involved site visits to conduct a physical plant review, as well as to direct and observe performance testing of the system. It also involved discussions with Comcast technical and system management personnel, and analysis of numerous documents related to the performance of the system (including maps,FCC Proof-of-Performance(POP)test results,Cumulative Leakage Index (CLI)documentation and a host of other documentation). The findings and recommendations described below are based on the site audits and review of the numerous documents,as well as information sought and obtained in discussions with Comcast personnel. We began the process in August,2006, and subsequently reviewed information submitted by Comcast as part of its response to a Request for.Information(RFI)from Bradley& Guzzetta LLC, dated August 17,2006. The information requested included the following: 1 CBG Communications,Inc. Subscriber Network • A general description of Comcast's cable system serving Renton,including: — Number of plant miles,broken down by aerial and,underground — Age and condition of the system — Number of homes passed — Number of subscribers • A description of system operating parameters,including: — System operating bandwidth and bottom and top frequencies,both forward . and reverse — Subscriber system tap drop specifications(tap output levels) — Typical signal levels at the home — Typical signal levels at the input to the subscriber terminal device(TV.or converter) — Typical and worst case output levels of customer cable modems • Node tree and amplifier schematic indicating: • — Headend and hub locations including a delineation of areas served from each — Node locations and fiber routing — Amplifier cascades' — System boundaries • A description of current interconnections with neighboring or other regional systems, the purposes of the interconnections and the method used for interconnection. As part • of this description, a list and description of each of the interconnections that are currently operational was also sought. • ' System design end-of-line performance specifications indicating worst case values for: — Carrier to noise — Carrier to composite triple beat — Carrier to second order — Cross modulation • • The previous two (2)FCC Proof of Performance documents • The latest FCC Cumulative Leakage Index(CLI)test results. • The last three(3)quarters of signal leakage logs. 2 CBG Communications, Inc. • Outage logs with associated down-time,response time, and resolutions. • Trouble call logs with response times,problem resolution times and resolutions. • A copy of the Subscriber Complaint log for the past 12 months. • • A line materials and equipment list and specifications including: — Fiber node optronics — Trunk amplifiers Line extender amplifiers • — Feeder line taps and other passives . — Trunk cable — Feeder cable • A description of the current interactive capabilities of the subscriber network including operating specifications for return amplifiers. • A description of any existing network status monitoring systems. • A description of current backup powering systems for the headend,hubs and the distribution system. • A description of construction practices including,whether, and what size the conduit has been utilized for underground system installation. • Headend and hub equipment diagrams showing signal flow from input sources (satellite receive dishes, off-air receive antenna,etc.)to the combining network and headend and hub output. • A description of the local Emergency Alert capabilities of the system,including the method of local access to the system as well as the testing schedule. • A frequency allocation chart for all services on the subscriber system that indicates current total system capacity,channels in use and services provided. • An equipment list and specifications for all subscriber converters. • A description of digital video and audio and cable modem technologies currently deployed over the subscriber network and the associated services provided to subscribers via these technologies. • CBG Communications, Inc. • A complete description of any in-process or planned upgrades to the subscriber network,including,but not limited to: elements such as future capacity expansion;the timetable for completion; infrastructure upgrades; and additional interconnections. Institutional Network For the current Institutional Network(I-Net)infrastructure, and any planned I-Net upgrades,the same types of information as indicated above was also sought related to the operation of the I-Net. It was indicated that the I-Net schematic should also show the location of all facilities connected to the I-Net and the level of subscriber service at each location. Comcast supplied a response dated September 14,2006. This information described many of the system's specifications and provided a copy of the FCC Proof of Performance documents and'CLI documentation. With this information in hand, CBG was able to oversee Proof-of-Performance testing during its site visit. This site visit and audit took place from November 29,2006 through December 1,2006. CBG also reviewed the prior FCC Proof-of-Performance tests,the latest(completed May,2006) CLI flyover test results and system maps. The City should request the most recent Proof-of-Performance tests,which should have been conducted during January and February of 2007.as.well as the latest CLI results,which should have . been performed in May 2007, to ensure compliance with specifications as detailed in this • Report. Specifically;CBG performed the Renton system on-site audit work by meeting with Comcast system management and technical personnel,riding out and inspecting portions of the system physical plant and subscriber drops,and auditing the installation and performance of the system at the headend and in the field. As part of this activity,we directed and observed the conduct of noise, distortion and other system performance tests at six system test points,including one normally used for required Federal Communications Commission(FCC)POP testing. Five of the test points were newly designated for this Technical Audit. The test points were geographically dispersed • throughout the City and were found at the following locations: 4 CBG Communications,Inc. Test Point 1 —920 SW 4th Place Test Point 2—528 Wells Ave N Test Point 3—3423 Lincoln Ave NE Test Point 4— 1912 Ilwaco Ave NE • Test Point 5—1800 Beacon Ave S Test Point 6—4900 Talbot Rd S The results of our analysis,including information obtained in the latest review and discussions, are detailed in the Findings section below, and recommendations for further action and review are contained in the final Recommendations section of this Report. While working in the Renton Comcast system,CBG had contact with the staff responsible for maintaining the headend as well as performing maintenance work. These staff members are also responsible for completing the semi-annual Proof-of-Performance testing. The staff was cooperative and remained flexible regarding scheduling of tests, touring of Comcast's facilities and discussing test methodologies. Findings CBG's review of all the information provided through system maps, system performance data,correspondence, discussions,supporting materials and other documentation has resulted in the Findings and Recommendations detailed below. System Capacity The Comcast cable system has a capacity of 750 MHz. This means that the highest usable frequency on the cable system is at or very near 750 MHz. The forward spectrum (i.e., downstream bandwidth provided to subscribers' terminal equipment)is from 50-750 MHz with an active return spectrum(i.e.,upstream bandwidth made available for transmissions from subscribers' terminal equipment to the cable system's headend)of approximately 5-40 MHz. Currently,Comcast is providing primarily analog services in the bandwidth of 50 MHz through approximately 550 MHz. The spectrum from 550 MHz through 750 MHz is utilized for digital services including digital simulcast(digital 5 • CBG Communications,Inc. retransmission of channels offered in the analog tier),Video on Demand(VOD),High • Definition TV(HDTV), digital music channels as well as High Speed Internet(HIS) and digital phone service. Within the current system capacity,Comcast provides a variety of services,including approximately 77 analog channels that carry broadcast,public, educational and governmental access, and satellite services. The system, as spelled out in the channel guide, also provides more then 220 digital services,including standard digital channels, VOD and pay-per-view channels and 68 digital music channels and radio stations. At present, as far as CBG can determine,Comcast is utilizing most,if not all, of its current available bandwidth. Many cable systems have upgraded to a capacity of 860 MHz or 870 MHz(specifically, 50-860 MHz or 870.MHz in the forward direction,with 5-40 MHz or 42MHz in the reverse direction). Indeed, systems being upgraded today are being designed to provide forward system capacity of 50-1,000 MHz(1GHz). By today's standards,this is considered to be the state-of-the-art upgrade, and such a system provides significant capacity for a wide variety of analog, digital and advanced services both now and in the future. Specifically,the current provision of services for many operators,including many Comcast systems throughout the country, in the cable.industry includes analog services provided up through 550 MHz(75-79 analog channels),with compressed digital video services and the provision of data-over-cable and telephony services taking up a portion of the remaining bandwidth. Because Comcast has a limited amount of available bandwidth for additional services in the future,the need to upgrade the system to increase the available bandwidth may arise in the future. While there will likely continue to be new and more efficient delivery methods for the services that are currently being provided(which would free up some current bandwidth for additional services in the future),there will also likely be more services available that will require additional bandwidth. Another example of additional bandwidth that will be needed going forward is the inevitable increased availability and demand for more high definition channels. As more of these channels become available 6 CBG Communications,Inc. and as the subscriber demand for them becomes greater it will be necessary for Comcast to add more of them to their current channel line-up,which will take up a significant amount of bandwidth as a single high definition channel typically requires 2-3 MHz of spectrum today. In addition,it is likely that new services not yet developed will become a factor over the term of a lengthy franchise agreement. Again,based on the current capacity of the system, CBG believes that the Comcast cable system is capable of meeting the needs of its customers in the near term. However,the City should require a review of the system during any renewal franchise term and should have the authority to assess system capacity and capabilities and require an appropriate network upgrade in order to assure that the system can meet the needs of the company's customers for years to come. System Architecture Comcast serves the City from its Burien headend(200 SW 114th Street, Seattle,WA.) which then feeds the Kent Vista Secondary Hub located at 18809 116th Ave SE,Kent, WA. The headend and hub serve areas outside of the City of Renton as well as Renton. A review of the documents and on site visits indicate the headend and hub incorporate equipment and technologies for the services provided considered to be at or near the state of the art, such as the equipment utilized to transmit digital channels and services to subscribers. A general review of the headend shows it to be well designed,equipped and installed to deliver services or channels in the forward direction from 50MHz to 750MHz. The headend is outfitted with a diesel standby generator capable of several hours of back-up power in the event of a commercial power failure. An additional diesel back-up generator is in place in the event that the initial generator fails. The hub also has a single propane generator in place to provide power to the hub in the event of a power failure. The headend and hub are protected from fire by means of FM 200 fire suppression systems. These systems suppress a fire by not permitting oxygen to feed the fire. This 7 • CBG Communications,Inc. method of fire suppression is common in areas where water based suppression would likely cause much more harm than would a small,non-catastrophic, fire. The headend is also well equipped for grounding of the racks and equipment.This should produce a good electrical connection from the racks to the grounding grid of the headend. This effective grounding of the equipment racks reduces and/or eliminates safety hazards that may otherwise occur to persons coming in contact with the equipment. Additionally, a properly grounded racking system will protect the equipment in the racks from stray excessive voltage such as might occur with a lightning strike in the area. From the headend, and via the hub,a number of system neighborhood nodes are served by fiber optic infrastructure. Amplifier cascades over coaxial cable then emanate out from each node in order to serve residences and businesses within the City. This is known as a hybrid fiber coaxial(HFC) cable system architecture,which is the major form of distribution architecture employed today by the cable'industry. However, an increasing number of systems are being built as fiber to the home(FTTH)systems. These systems are capable of providing a much greater capacity into individual residences than current HFC systems facilitate;however,because a total rebuild or overbuild of the existing system,including the drop to subscribers' homes is required, • these systems continue to be more expensive to implement than upgrading existing HFC systems,and while emerging,FTTH is not yet the majority form of implementation in the industry. Corncast's reported architecture and a spot check review of system maps(while on site) indicate that the average amplifier cascade from the node is consistent with what is being implemented within current.state-of-the-art systems.These systems typically employ an average of four to five active devices beyond the optical interface at the node. Comcast reports that the maximum cascade is 6 amplifiers with the average falling below 6 amplifiers after the node. Another architectural component indicative of a state-of-the-art system is the number of homes passed per system node. This design specification varies widely in the industry, 8 CBG Communications,Inc. from as little as 125 homes per node to as many as 1200 homes per node and more (although such large nodes typically incorporate the ability to be subdivided to smaller node sizes over time by making greater use of existing or spare fiber capacity to the node and placing additional forward and reverse electronics within the node and at the headend). Comcast serves City households from a number of nodes within the City. The average number of homes passed per node(slightly less than 1000)is on the higher end of the range specified above for current industry homes passed per node numbers. This fact is important because the smaller the ultimate node size,the more usable bandwidth will be available in the forward direction as well as the return direction which allows for greater provision of targeted services such as Video-on-Demand(VOD), and other services that will continue to.require more bandwidth to and from the home such as high speed,data-over-cable(cable modem)services. Although Comcast's current system design has a homes per node ratio on the higher end of systems throughout the country, they do have significant fiber optic infrastructure built into the network to allow for subdividing existing nodes,and thus lowering the number of homes being fed from each node as may be required in the future. Based on a review of the written information provided, and our on-site visit, we believe that Comcast's infrastructure, at this time, is currently capable of supporting the services needed and likely desired by the community. The City should however maintain the ability to revisit issues regarding the system's capacity,.capabilities and services available to its residents in the future as part of any lengthy franchise period. System Performance '• CBG began its review of Comcast's system performance by reviewing the Winter 2006 and Summer 2006 FCC Proof-of-Performance test documents. We continued by auditing Comcast's performance tests on site in November and December,2006 for six test point locations as listed above. One of these testpoints is utilized for Comcast's-semi-annual Proof-of Performance testing. Five additional test points were chosen by us, 9 CBG Communications,Inc. geographically dispersed throughout the City. As a result of these on-site tests and document review related to the cable system's technical performance,we noted the following issues. First,regarding the number of test points chosen for these types of performance tests,the FCC requires a number of testpoints to be completed based on the amount of subscribers being fed from a single headend. Comcast performs semi-annual FCC Proof-of- Performance tests at a reported 17 locations being fed from the Burien Headend. Of these testpoints only one is within the City of Renton. Although the FCC formula allows Comcast to spread these testpoints throughout the area served by a single headend,we needed to perform tests at 6 locations during our site visit in order to gain a more comprehensive understanding of the system's performance within the territorial limits of the City. Comcast staff agreed to perform tests at five,randomly selected, locations in addition to the one location normally incorporated in semi-annual POP testing. We believe that a system the size of Comcast's Renton system is better served by more than 1 test point. Indeed,if the City portion of Comcast's system were a stand-alone network,the FCC formula would require that a total of seven geographically diverse sites be tested. For discussion purposes, and as delineated in the Recommendations section, perhaps the City and Comcast could agree that testing of 1 site within the City would be performed as part of the FCC Proof-of-Performance cycle, and additional testpoints,or "City test"locations,would be tested concurrently specifically related to a future Franchise requirement. • Based on today's state-of-the-art systems,where theoretically every node could exhibit different performance,six test locations would provide a better representative view of the system,as opposed to the one location now tested by Comcast. Furthermore, although the FCC semi-annual tests must be completed at the same testpoint(s)every time,the non-FCC or City testpoints could be rotated around Comcast's system in the City in an attempt to get a clearer picture of overall performance of the system over time. As we found at testpoint 5, a randomly chosen location,performing tests throughout the system will help find issues that would not otherwise be discovered during FCC testing. These 10 CBG Communications, Inc. additional testpoints could be performed in areas of the system that appear to have more problems than the rest of the system. With the exception of the 6-month comparison test, all other tests performed during the FCC Proof-of-Performance could be included in these "City tests". Test Results CBG found,during our visit,that the test results at five of the six locations we tested to be at or better than required by the FCC. However,Testpoint Number 5 which was chosen at random,had test results showing that there was a problem on the distribution system feeding this location from the node. The Carrier-to-Noise results were below FCC standards. These problems resulted in sub par video quality on most of the system's channels at this location. Comcast repaired a problem at the node. We then returned to this location and performed the FCC tests with ensuing results that were at or better than FCC specifications. At all of the testpoints we visited, after repairs were made to Testpoint Number 5,the majority of analog channels,although not as clear as the digital channels,were very clean. This would be consistent with the test results shown in the previous proofs. However,in addition to the initial.problems found at Testpoint 5 which affected all channels,the following channels were less than ideal at all locations: Channel 4, grainy(snowy)picture Channel 12, grainy Channel 15, grainy and intermittent crackly audio Channel 21, extremely grainy picture. • • The testing we performed would indicate that the degradation to these channels was occurring before the distribution system or at the headend. During our visit to perform testing we began trouble-shooting Channel 21 at the City Hall and then at the headend location to determine where the channel was experiencing the problem that was making the channel grainy. We found that at the time, Channel 21 appeared to be clear at the 11 CBG Communications, Inc. headend and Comcast was going to continue trouble-shooting after we left. Comcast has • indicated that they have repaired the City Government Channel(Ch,21)shortly after we were on site by replacing a de-modulator at the Kent Vista hub site and adjusting the signal levels of channels 20 and 22. We also note that CBG has visited the City Hall location since we performed the on-site testing and found that the overall reception at the City Hall was less than would be expected. The City should follow-up with Comcast to ensure that the picture quality issues on the above listed channels have been rectified, and documentation describing the problems and remedies should be provided by Comcast, as well as ensuring that problems with overall reception at the City Hall are fully resolved. Standby Power Comcast appears to have adequate backup power at its headend and hub locations. Comcast also has backup power in the distribution system. The back-up or standby power supplies located in the distribution system are capable of operating for a minimum of 2 hours during a commercial power failure and,based on the number of batteries in these power supplies,back-up power of 3-4 hours should be available. These power supplies are designed to provide power to the cable system in the event of a commercial power outage or failure. Adequate standby power is key to maintaining a reliable system. now and into the future. High capacity, automatic backup power is extremely beneficial to today's cable systems by promoting a high degree of system reliability. Excessive down-time,for example,will adversely affect customer satisfaction regarding video services and more importantly,critical data services such as business class and residential cable modems,Voice-Over-IP (VoIP)telephone service, etc.. In most current upgraded systems,standby power of anywhere from 2-4 hours, and in some cases 6 hours,provided by either battery or natural gas backup,can be found for every distribution system power supply. We believe 3-4 hours of back-up power with a power supply status monitoring system, as is deployed by Comcast,will provide sufficient back-up during power outages. This status monitoring will notify Comcast when a power supply has gone into the backup mode(typically when commercial power 12 CBG Communications, Inc. fails)and how much standby capacity is left so that the cable operator can dispatch a technician with a backup generator to provide power to the system before the batteries fail. Comcast has such a system in operation as described below. System Status Monitoring Comcast is currently utilizing status monitoring to track the quality of their signals at high speed intemet customer premises. This is accomplished by monitoring signal quality as well as input and output levels at the cable modem. Additionally, Comcast has a monitoring system that allows for status updates for both forward and return signals at • all nodes throughout the system. Comcast also utilizes status monitoring to monitor all power supplies in the system. This allows Comcast to react to powering problems prior to power outages affecting subscriber services. This monitoring, combined with standby power in the distribution plant,prevents most power related failures to the cable TV network by notifying staff that a power supply has gone into backup or standby mode as well as the amount of backup power remaining in the supply. This allows system personnel to respond to the power supply location and connect a portable backup power generator in order to keep the system operating. Signal Leakage Comcast is required by FCC rules and regulations in 47 CFR Part 76, Sections 76.605 (a)13, 76.611 (Cable television basic signal leakage performance criteria) and 76.614 (Cable television system regular monitoring)to comply with Federal rules and regulations related to signal leakage within the cable system. These are very important requirements because excessive signal leakage can result in interference problems with emergency radio services,other government and public safety communications,and aeronautical navigation radio. Also,wherever signal leakage(egress)is present,it also provides an opportunity for signal ingress that will interfere with video,data and voice communications provided over the cable system. We reviewed the CLI(Cumulative 13 CBG Communications, Inc. • Leakage Index)filings by Comcast that are required to be submitted to the Federal Communications Commission. In addition we reviewed Leakage Repair logs supplied by Comcast for the previous year. Our review of Comcast's annual FCC CLI filings from 2006 and its Leakage Repair Logs indicates compliance with FCC regulations. Specific to the FCC CLI filings,Comcast used a"fly-over"(airspace)measurement methodology for its required annual CLI test, and arrived at a value of 99.82%(points <_l0 microvolts/meter). These test results are better than the FCC requirement of 90%under this test methodology. These test results are for the"Comcast Seattle-Auburn"system including the City of Renton. We • recommend that future CLI filings be forwarded to the City for its review so that the City is continually aware of how the system performs pertaining to system leakage in the future. • System Construction,Installation and Maintenance Sections 5-17-10 Construction Standards, 5-17-12 Undergrounding and Landscaping, 5- 17-13 Construction in Right-Of-Way, and 5-17-14 Safety Requirements set forth in City Ordinance 44.13 provide that the City may inspect the Cable Television system to "Ensure compliance with the terms of the Ordinance and Franchise Agreement and other pertinent provisions of the law." This applies to the implementation and operation of Comcast's cable system. By virtue of Ordinance 4413,the Franchise,the National Electrical Safety Code(NESC), and the National Electrical Code(NEC)standards shall be met by Comcast. As part of the technical audit, CBG performed a ride-out of portions of the physical plant to review compliance with these obligations. The ride-out was performed independently of.Comcast. During the course of the ride-out,we found a number of problems with the plant pertaining to grounding and bonding as well as clearance and attachment issues. Of these violations,many involved the drop to the subscriber's home. The requirements for outside plant related to these issues are primarily provided for in the provisions of the NESC,and the NEC,which are required standards as mentioned above. If a system is 14 CBG Communications,Inc. not grounded properly and/or does not provide the clearances required by the NEC and NESC,safety issues result. These issues can adversely affect other facilities on a pole line and equipment within a subscriber's home due to commercial power coming in contact with cable lines as well as deterioration to both facilities due to abrasion that may occur between them. Another aspect of this•is workers not having the proper clearance from the cable plant to energized power lines. This could lead to unintended,potentially • lethal, contact with these power lines.. Clearance problems can also stem from the height of the cable system's lines above the ground. This could result in the cable being pulled down by a vehicle driving below it,or by a person walking near the cable becoming tangled in the cable,thus causing a potential hazard to the person or vehicle contacting the cable or damage to the cable lines • as well as other facilities on the pole. While we did not find significant problems regarding clearance issues other than broken lashing wires allowing cables to hang lower than designed,it is important to describe this issue to bring it to the City's attention for future monitoring of the system as suggested below. Comcast should implement a system for their personnel to inspect the cable system, including the drop up to and into a subscriber's home, and repair issues that are not up to • current NEC and NESC codes. The City should require Comcast to provide an action plan going forward for such inspections and subsequent repairs. Appendix A lists the specific addresses where violations were found by CBG during the drive-out of the system. We have included the NEC and/or NESC code sections that apply to each of these violations. While the number of problems noted during our review are not atypical for a system the size of Comcast's Renton system, it should be noted that the violations listed in Appendix A are not all inclusive. It would not be atypical in our experience for there to be other problems like these scattered throughout the system. Because of the nature of a cable TV system,we also believe that such problems will continue to occur and need to be addressed in an ongoing manner. For example,while some system performance problems can be due to typical plant maintenance issues,others are likely to occur if the • 15 CBG Communications, Inc. physical plant(including drops to homes)wear and tear,which increases over time,is not kept in check. Comcast, as mentioned above,should increase its focus on resolving code issues and violations throughout the plant;in particular those issues regarding the • subscriber drop and bringing the subscriber drops up to a level of installation that meets the NEC and NESC.codes. Additionally,our experience has been that,unless there is periodic regulatory oversight concerning the condition of the physical plant,some system problems may be left unresolved. Accordingly, as we've recommended at the close of other audits of this type, we believe that it would be beneficial for the City to periodically perform inspections of various sections of the plant, either separately or in tandem with Comcast personnel,note areas of non-compliance, establish timeframes for corresponding maintenance and repair activity, and verify resolution. Once this is established as an ongoing program,it is our experience that,over time,random audits will likely note increased system compliance. Although the physical plant audit of the system was performed several months ago, and Comcast was notified of the issues and violations found during the drive-out via an e- mail from B&G on November 21,2006, Comcast has not provided.a formal response regarding these issues. During a phone conversation between CBG and Comcast on or about April 25,2007,Comcast stated that many of the problems have not been resolved but have been forwarded to personnel that can remedy the problem. Comcast's representative stated they are behind on this project due to many weather related issues in the past few months. The City should follow-up on the ultimate resolution of all violations and issues listed in Appendix A. Conclusions and Recommendations Technical audits,such as the one performed and described herein,serve a variety of useful purposes. Such audits, for example, serve to discover and determine compliance issues with existing Franchise and Ordinance requirements, as well as enhancements like a system upgrade/rebuild or improvements that would provide technical and practical benefits to Comcast,the City and its citizens/subscribers. Resolution of these compliance 16 CBG Communications,Inc. • issues and implementation of recommended enhancements will then benefit all parties involved. • Our findings during the past several months as part of this technical audit have been consistent with those described above. For example,as detailed herein,we have determined some compliance issues that need to be addressed and resolved, and have also recommended areas for enhancement. Based on this,we offer the following recommendations for action by Comcast and/or the City: 1. Comcast System Inspection-The City should obtain a plan from Comcast to ensure repair in a quick timeframe all the physical plant problems noted during our review, as well as ensure ongoing inspection and repair of all system and drop violations to maintain compliance with NEC and NESC specifications and bring the system to a level that will support new advanced services. This plan should include inspections as technicians visit homes for installation and service calls as well as while driving throughout the system on a daily basis. 2. Signal Quality-The City should request an action plan that has been or will be implemented to resolve the problems noted on analog channels 4,12, 15 and 21. The picture quality on these channels was consistently sub-standard during our testing. Comcast should inform the City of what repairs were made to improve performance on these channels. Comcast should also re-visit the City Hall and make needed repairs to improve overall reception of the analog channels. 3. Periodic Inspection-The City or its representative,either in coordination with Comcast or on its own, should periodically visit various cable system sections throughout the City to continue to review compliance of the physical plant with all applicable Ordinance,Franchise and Code requirements. We believe that such a focused effort will serve to resolve any physical plant problems noted,in the quickest,most comprehensive manner. 17 CBG Communications,Inc. 4. Number of Test Points-Regardless of whether Comcast provides FCC Proof-of-Performance data to the public file for one test point within the City,it should under a renewed Franchise;test a minimum of six points within the City and provide resulting Proof-of-Performance data for the City's review. As stated herein,we believe this would provide a better indication of how the system is performing overall as well as assist Comcast in finding areas that may be performing below FCC and Comcast standards. 5. System Rebuild/Upgrade-Comcast's Renton system has an upper frequency limit of 750MHz. Comcast is providing a variety of services utilizing the current system as it is operating today,and almost all available bandwidth is being utilized. However,to meet the needs and interests of the City for more and potentially yet unknown services going forward,Comcast may need to upgrade the current system in the future in order to increase capacity for new services as well as to insure the highest quality and reliability of these services. The increasing number of FTTH systems being built may also contribute to the need to upgrade the system in the future to remain competitive. Although upgrading the system to increase capacity is not needed immediately,the City should insure that this option is available in the future when and if the need arises. Consequently, a requirement should be included in any renewed,long term,Franchise that permits the City to evaluate the system and to require enhancements, at some point in the future, so that the cable system in the City can provide all of the services desired by the residents of the City in a reliable manner. 18 CBG Communications,Inc. • Appendix A Renton Comcast Physical Plant Audit Issues Codes Address . Issue NESC NEC 1 4701 Talbot Rd So to 50th St So Cable and phone touching 235 H 2 5200 Talbot Rd So Cable hardline and power touching 235.5 3 5218 Talbot Rd So Broken lashing wire 214 • 4 5301 Talbot Rd So Missing down guy 264 A- D 5 53rd Place So&Talbot Rd So Cable and phone hardlines touching 235 H 6 Talbot Rd So& 177th St So 1 missing, 1 broken down guy 264 A- D 7 400 So 37th St Cable attached to power mast 820.10 8 Talbot Rd So&33rd Place So Broken lashing wire 214 9 Shattuck Ave So&19th St So : Missing down guy 264 A- D 10 1804 Lake Ave So Abandoned drop hanging from pole 214 11 1625 Lake Ave So Cable attached to power mast,check ground 820.10 12 1523 Lake Ave So Cable attached to power mast 820.10 13 1412 Shattuck Ave So Cable attached to power mast 820.10 14 617 Shattuck Ave So Cable attached to power mast 820.10 15 437 Burnett Ave So Drop wrapped with power 820 A-1 • CBG Communications, Inc. • Codes Address Issue NESC NEC 16 615 Williams Ave So Tape holding conduit to pole .214 17 Williams Ave&Grady Way Missing guy across Grady Way,fiber 264 A- hanging low and touching signal light post D 214 18 Williams Ave So to Main Ave So Numerous spans with fiber'and splices 214 hanging low 19 Grady Way to 5th St So Numerous spans with fiber and splices 214 hanging low 20 1209 N.30th St Drop grounded to outside water pipe 820.40 21 1213 N 30th St Cable hardline and power touching 235.5 22 908 N 30th St Cable attached to power mast 820.10 • 23 916 N 30th St No bond to power and phone 820.40 • 24 701 N 30th St 3 drops not attached to pole 214 25 3212 Washington Blvd N Cable attached to power mast 820.10 26 720 Washington Blvd N Drop grounded to outside water pipe 820.40 • 27 3502 Burnett Ave N Drop attached to power mast,drop touching roof 820.10 820 28 3415 Burnett Ave N Cable attached to power mast,grounded 820.10 over painted surface 250.96 29 36th St N & Burnett Ave N (NE Loose down guy,missing lashing wire 214 corner) 30 1004 36th St N Abandoned drops not attached to pole 214 31 1006 36th St N • Drop attached to power mast,check ground 820.10 • 32 1007 36th St N • Cable attached to power mast 820.10 • A-2 CBG Communications,Inc. Codes Address Issue NESC NEC 33 1105 36th St N Cable attached to power mast 820.10 • 34 1116 36th St N Cable attached to power mast 820.10 35 1301 36th St N Cable and phone hardlines touching across 235 H street 36 36th St N &Meadow Ave N Loose strand over Meadow Ave 214 • 37 NE 25th St& Ferndale Ave NE Loose down guy 264 A- D • 38 2432 Edmonds Ave NE Cable attached to power mast 820.10 • 39 2425 NE 20th St abandoned drop not attached to pole 214 40 2624 NE 19th St Cable attached to power mast 820.10 • 41 616 Camas Ave NE Cable attached to power mast . 820.10 42 650 Camas Ave NE Cable attached to power mast 820.10 43 662 Camas Ave NE Cable attached to power mast 820.10 44 Edmonds Ave NE&Camas Ave NE Loose down guy 264 A- D 45 NE 3rd St(2 poles west of Blaine Cable laying on ground. Tree fell on cable 214 Ave NE 46 305 Meadow Ave N Fiber held up by pull tape 214 • • • 47 305 Meadow Ave N Drop hanging low over driveway 214 • 48 311 Meadow Ave N Messenger pulling from drop cable 214 49 So 5th St(between Main Ave & Temporary fiber hanging low,conduit held to 214 Williams Ave pole by tape • A-3 • CBG Communications,Inc. Codes Address Issue NESC NEC 50 909 Main St Straps and spacers missing Maintenance 51 435 Main Ave So No ground or bond 820.40 • 52 3320 SE 6th St • Drop attached to power mast 820.10 53 3330 Newport Ave SE Grounded to power box screw 250.8 54 3333 Newport Ave So Missing down guy 264 A- D 55 3414 6th St SE Drop attached to power mast, grounded 820.40 above roof line 56 10217 148th Ave SE Drop not attached to pole 214 57 10221 147th Ave NE Drop not attached to pole, loose ground 214 250 58 10238 147th Ave NE, Cable and phone hardlines touching 235 H 59 10403 147th Ave NE Loose down guy 264 A- D • 60 10415 147th Ave NE Drop attached to power mast,grounded 820.10 above roof line 61 10208 148th Ave SE Cable 2"from power : 820 62 13826 NE 24th St Drop attached to power mast,grounded 820.10 above roof line 63 13812 NE 24th St Drop not attached properly to home 820 64 1800 Duval Ave NE Drop attached to power mast 820.10 65 18th St NE&Duval Ave NE Cable hardline and power 2-3 inches 235.5 midspan 66 4216 NE 10th St Drop attached to power mast,grounded 820.10 • above roof line • A-4 CBG Communications, Inc. Codes Address Issue NESC NEC 67 4123 NE 10th St Drop attached to power mast, grounded 820.10 above roof line 68 4100 NE 10th St Drop attached to power mast 820.10 69 4232 NE 10th PI Drop attached to power mast,grounded 820.10 above roof line 70 1060 Anacortes Ct NE Drop attached to power mast 820.10 71 1024 Anacortes Ave NE Loose down guy • 264 A- D 72 1024 Anacortes Ave NE Power supply loose on pole 214 73 1032 Anacortes Ave NE Drop attached to power mast,grounded 820.10 above roof line 74 4401 11th St NE . Drop attached to power mast 820.10 75 4316 11th St NE Drop attached to power mast 820.10 76 Whitman Ct NE& 11th St NE No down guys on span into court 264 A- D 77 1117 Whitman Ct NE Drop attached to power mast 820.10 78 Union Ave NE& 12 St NE 2 missing guys NE corner, power and cable 264 A- 820.1 • less than 18", phone and cable drops D 214 touching 79 1028 Kirkland Ave NE Drop attached to power mast 820.10 80 1013 Kirkland Ave NE Grounded to power box screw • 250.8 81 1010 Kirkland Ave NE Drop attached to power mast 820.10 82 916 Monroe Ave NE Drop attached to power mast 820.10 83 862 Olympia Ave NE Drop attached to power mast 820.10 • • A-5 . CBG Communications, Inc. Codes Address Issue NESC NEC 84 850 Queen Anne Ave NE Cable and phone touching 235 H • 85 774 Queen Anne Ave NE • Drop attached to power mast 820.10 86 759 Queen Anne Ave NE Drop attached to power mast 820.10 87 758 Queen Anne Ave NE Drop attached to power mast 820.10 88 676 Redmond Ave NE Abandoned drop hanging from pole 214 89 676 Redmond Ave NE Drop attached to power mast 820.10 90 4th St NE& Rosario Ave NE Fiber hanging low(temporary?) 214 91 451 Nile Ave NE Drop attached to power mast 820.10 92 5620 2nd St NE Drop and power touching midspan 820 93 236 Jerico Ave E Missing down guy 264 A- D • 94 Union Ave NE&2nd PI SE Missing down guy 264 A • - D 95 103 Union Ave So Missing down guy 264 A- • D 96 4107 SE 2nd PI Cable and phone touching 235 H 97 4212 SE 2nd PI Drop attached to power mast 820.10 98 4417 SE 2nd PI Abandoned drop hanging from pole 214 99 2nd PI SE&Chelan Ave SE 2 broken down guys 264 A- D 100 306 Chelan Ave SE Drop attached to power mast 820.10 A-6 CBG Communications,Inc. Codes Address Issue NESC NEC. 101 312-426 Chelan Ave SE • 4 spans cable&phone 2-4 inches apart and 235 H • often touching -102 4617-4401 SE 4th Place 6 spans cable&phone 2-4 inches apart and 235 H often touching • 103 4607 SE 4th Place Loose down guy 264 A- D 104 4509 SE 4th Place Drop attached to power mast 820.10 105 4419 SE 4th Place Drop attached to power mast 820.10 106 4319 SE 4th Place Cable hardline and power 2-3 inches 235.5 midspan 107 4319 SE 4th Place Missing pedestal cover 214 • 108 256 Chelan Ave SE Power touching hardline 235.5 • 109 4126 SE 4th Place Loose down guy 264 A- D • 110 4120 SE 4th Place Abandoned drop in bushes by pole 214 111 4701 Talbot Rd So Fiber held up by tie-wrap,fiber touching . 214 phone 235H • A-7 Final Report To City of Renton,Washington Regarding the Franchise Fees Paid by Comcast of Washington IV, Inc. Front Range Consulting,Inc. ("FRC") is pleased to provide the City of Renton,Washington ("City")this final report regarding the franchise fees paid by Comcast of Washington IV,Inc. ("Comcast") for the period from January 2004 through December 2005 ("review period"). I. Report Synopsis FRC has concluded that Comcast has not paid all of the franchise fees owed to the City under the applicable franchise documents during the review period. This determination is based on an initial review of the revenue categories included in Comcast's determination of"gross revenues," upon which franchise fees are calculated. In connection with its analysis,FRC asked Comcast and Comcast Corporation to provide the gross advertising revenues received from affiliated entities (including commissions) during the review period and net advertising revenues received from unaffiliated revenues during the review period. This data was requested on several occasions,but was never provided, even though Comcast was required to do so pursuant to the terms of the January 23, 2007, settlement agreement that was approved by both the City and Comcast. Based on its experience and the limited data that were provided, FRC believes that Comcast has excluded from its determination of"gross revenues"advertising fees and commissions paid to national and regional advertising agencies affiliated with Comcast, even though the franchise documents mandate the payment of franchise fees on those fees and commissions. FRC does not believe that a final estimation of the amount of fees and commissions Comcast effectively paid to itself(through its affiliates) and removed from the determination of gross revenues can be accurately calculated without embarking on a full accounting audit of Comcast Corporation's and all applicable affiliates' Front Range Consulting,Inc. books and records. FRC has also identified two additional issues that need to be investigated, as FRC was not provided with the supporting documentation that was requested, and cannot estimate the potential impact on subscribers and franchise fees. Those issues are: • A review of the methodology used by Comcast to recover non-subscriber franchise fees from cable subscribers; and • A review of the calculations performed by Comcast regarding the error in the Merlino- Empire annexation, and the broader issue of how Comcast incorporates annexed areas into franchise fee calculations for the City. As this review only looked at the period from January 2004 to December 2005,FRC anticipates that these identified issues will have likely resulted in underpayments in 2006 through the present. II. Scope of Report Based on the proposal provided Bradley&Guzzetta,LLC ("B&G")provided to the City,FRC was engaged to prepare an initial review of Comcast's franchise fee payments for the review period. FRC has completed its initial review of the franchise fee payments. As this initial report has relied on the limited responses and data provided by Comcast,FRC cannot assure the City that, if a complete financial audit was completed, items other than those identified in this Final Report would not be appropriately included in gross revenues for purposes of calculating franchise fees. FRC believes that it is possible that other under-payments might exist during the review period in addition to the under-reporting of affiliated advertising sales commissions and fees. FRC does not have sufficient information from this initial review to prepare an analysis of those potential under-payments. For example,it is possible that Comcast has received programming launch support or other payments that could increase the amount of gross revenues for the review period. III. Franchise Documents The current franchise agreement in effect for the City contains the following provisions pertaining to franchise fees. The City franchise agreement states: Section 4: Franchise Fee. Recognizing that current Federal law limits a franchise fee to five percent(5%), the Operator shall pay to the City quarterly, on or before the thirtieth(30th) day of each January,April, July, and October, a sum equal to five percent(5%) of gross revenues, for the preceding three calendar months, as defined in Ordinance 4413 . Revenues that are derived as a portion of a national or regional service shall be computed on a per subscriber basis if such determination cannot be achieved by other means. June 1,2007 Page 2 of 10 Front Range Consulting,Inc. The City may raise the franchise fee, if so permitted by Federal and State law. Prior to implementation of any increase in franchise fees the Operator may request a public hearing by the City Council to discuss said increases. Following such a hearing the City Council may require the implementation of such increase in accordance with the provisions of this Ordinance. (a)Late Payment. Any quarterly franchise fee not paid by the Operator within thirty(30) days of the end of a quarter shall bear interest at the rate of twelve percent (12%),per annum or whatever maximum amount is allowed under State law,whichever is greater, from the due date until paid. (b)Financial Reports. Each franchise fee payment shall be accompanied by a financial report on a form provided by the City showing the basis for the Operator's computation separately indicating revenues received by the Operator within the City from basic service,pay TV service, other applicable sources of revenue, and such other information directly related to confirming the amount of the Operator's gross revenues as may be reasonably required by the City. (c)Audit by City. The City shall have the right,upon reasonable notice or no less than two (2)working days,to inspect the books and records of the Operator during normal business hours, for the purpose of ascertaining the actual gross revenues collected by the Operator. In the event that such audit discloses a discrepancy of more than ten percent(10%)between the financial report submitted by the Operator with a quarterly payment and the actual gross revenues collected by the Operator,the Operator agrees to pay to the City the costs of such audit. In the event that such audit results in a determination that additional franchise fees are due the City,the Operator further agrees to pay interest as required for late payment on such additional franchise fees computed from the date on which such additional franchise fees were due and payable. (d)Non-waiver. Acceptance of any franchise fee payment by the City shall not be construed as an agreement by the City that the franchise fee paid is in fact the correct amount,nor shall acceptance of payment by the City be construed as a release or waiver of any claim the City may have for further or additional sums payable under the provisions of this Ordinance. (e)Taxes.Nothing in this section shall limit the Operator's obligation to pay applicable local, State, or Federal taxes. Chapter 17 of the Renton Code defines"gross revenues"as: Any and all receipts and revenues received directly or indirectly from all sources other than transactions related to real property receipts by a franchisee not including any taxes on services furnished by a franchisee, imposed on any subscriber or used by any governmental unit, agency or instrumentality and collected by a franchisee for such entity provided also that net uncollectible debts are not considered as revenue in this definition. June 1,2007 Page 3 of 10 Front Range Consulting,Inc. IV. Data Analyzed , FRC was provided with a copy of the Franchise Agreement and Chapter 17 of the City Code. After reviewing those documents,FRC sent a data request to Comcast on August 14, 2006 asking for responses to sixteen(16)requests for documentation and/or support for its franchise fee payments during the review period. Comcast, on August 15,2006, asked to extend the response deadline from August 31, 2006 to September 14,2006. This extension was agreed to by FRC. In early September,2006, Comcast transmitted to FRC and B&G a non-disclosure agreement that would need to be executed before any of the data requested could be delivered to FRC. This non-disclosure agreement was reviewed and revised by B&G and FRC and, after extensive negotiations necessitated by the onerous terms proposed by Comcast,was ultimately signed on September 26,2006. After this agreement was executed, Comcast provided its initial response to the August 14, 2006 information request. That response did not include all requested data. Consequently,FRC conducted several conference calls with Comcast in October and November where Comcast's initial responses were discussed. As a result of those calls, Comcast on December 7,2006,responded to several additional requests for clarifications of its initial responses. One area where Comcast did not provide any response was with regards to affiliated advertising commissions and fees. B&G, FRC and Comcast began settlement discussions in January 2007 to resolve outstanding rate issues and Comcast's continued failure to provide requested data on affiliated advertising fees and commissions. An agreement was offered by Comcast on January 23, 2007,which was ultimately accepted and approved by the City on March 29, 2007. Paragraph 6 of the settlement agreement states that: The Company[i.e.,Comcast] shall agree pursuant to a separate side letter that,upon City execution of the settlement agreement,it will provide to the Consultant[i.e.,FRC]by close-of- business on January 26, 2007, or no later than two business days after City execution of the settlement agreement,in the event City execution occurs after January 26,2007,the gross monthly amount of the advertising revenues (advertising revenue plus advertising sales commissions) for the audit period where Comcast Corporation and/or the Company is affiliated with an advertising agency that receives commissions, such as National Cable Communications(NCC) and the applicable regional advertising entity, and the net amount (advertising revenue)where Comcast Corporation and/or the Company does not have such an affiliated interest. The provision of this information to City's Consultant shall be without prejudice to the Company's right to dispute any audit findings, or the requirement of Comcast to pay franchise fess based on the provision of such information provided to the Consultant. On April 13,2007, Comcast delivered data that was intended to comply with paragraph 6. That data,however, did not comply with the settlement agreement. Based on a follow-up letter from FRC on April 26,2007, Comcast delivered a revised response on May 5,2007,which was subsequently revised again on May 16, 2007 and May 18,2007. To date, Comcast not provided all the data required by paragraph 6 of the settlement agreement. June 1,2007 Page 4 of 10 "1174'*\IN Front Range Consulting,Inc. V. Summary of Franchise Fee Payments The average amount of annual franchise fees paid by Comcast to the City over the review period is $585,625.98. VI. Issues Identified As this review was limited to an initial analysis of Comcast's gross revenue determination,FRC did not independently review all of Comcast's books and records to be sure that additional items should not be included in gross revenues for purposes of calculating franchise fees. In response to FRC's initial data request, Comcast provided summary spreadsheets that identified its determination of gross revenues for the City and FRC has accepted the categories as presented for this initial review as being accurate except for the advertising sales, as described below. FRC has identified three areas of concern. Those areas are: • Annexation Support; • Affiliated Advertising Commissions; and • Non-subscriber franchise fee pass-through. a) Annexation Support FRC is concerned that Comcast may not have properly identified all of the annexations that have occurred since 2000. If this is the case, Comcast's presentation of gross revenues would be incorrect because it would be excluding revenues from subscribers in areas that have been properly annexed by the City. FRC asked Comcast to support the annexations it identified and to list each annexation reflected in its billing system. Instead, Comcast responded that it had not reflected the Merlin-Empire annexation in its billing system,which resulted in an under- payment of franchise fees to the City. FRC does not believe this is an isolated error. FRC,however, cannot estimate the impact of these mistakes without any information from Comcast. While Comcast has paid the City for the Merlino-Empire annexation,FRC was not provided with any supporting documentation showing the calculation of the under-payment and associated interest. FRC recommends that the City consider embarking on a full and complete review of the subscribers contained within each of the annexation areas in order to assure that the Comcast is properly calculating gross revenues for the City and that the City is receiving the correct amount of franchise fees for the entire franchise area during the review period(including all annexed territories). b) Affiliated Advertising Commissions FRC investigated the methods used by Comcast to assign advertising sales revenues (including fees and commissions)to the City. FRC asked four(4) questions in the original request for information about advertising sales. Comcast has admitted that the advertising sales amounts June 1,2007 Page 5 of 10 Front Range Consulting,Inc. assigned to the City are net of advertising sales commissions.1 That is,before the advertising sales are allocated to the City's franchise, Comcast reduces the advertising sales revenues by the commissions it pays to the organizations that sold the advertising spots. The issue is not with commissions paid to non-affiliated third parties but rather the advertising commissions that Comcast pays to its affiliated companies. In order to investigate this issue, Comcast was asked to provide the gross amount of the advertising sales related to affiliated companies. The specific request was: Does Comcast(Comcast in this instance should be construed as Comcast Corporation for the purposes of this response)have any ownership in any of the companies that Comcast has paid any advertising commission or fee? If yes,please provide the gross monthly amounts of the advertising revenues for the Review Period for the City where Comcast has an ownership interest and the net amounts where Comcast has no ownership interest. On September 26,2006, Comcast responded: Comcast has a percentage of ownership in National VOD,National Ad Platform Unused Inventory, and National Cable Communications. Please refer to Exhibit Allocation Worksheet behind Tabs"2004"and"2005." During the October-November conference calls,Comcast stated it would not provide the requested information to FRC as part of the franchise fee review. While FRC does not believe that Comcast could refuse to provide this data, it was going to be difficult to get Comcast to provide the information unless the City issued a notice of franchise violation. Instead of fighting with Comcast,B&G and FRC proceeded with developing a settlement agreement with Comcast,in the context of a rate review, that included Comcast agreeing to provide the missing advertising sales revenue information. This settlement agreement was ultimately executed by the City on March 29, 2007. The relevant portion of the settlement agreement is set forth in section IV above. In an attempt to comply with paragraph 6 of the settlement agreement, Comcast provided four (4) separate sets of advertising sales revenue data on April 13, 2007,May 5, 2007,May 16,2007 and May 18,2007. The responses are summarized in the following table. Please note that the amounts are for the"Seattle"marketplace and not specific to the City of Renton. ' Comeast response to Question 9,dated September 26,2006. June 1,2007 Page 6 of 10 Front Range Consulting,Inc. Table 2 (temp '7": ..'f ... 3. 74. Annual 200V`• Annua12005r. } April 13,2007 Advertising Sales $46,790,183.89 $51,053,840.12 National Fees and Commissions $3,753,340.85 $3,519,460.23 May 5,2007 Advertising Sales $48,500,722.00 $53,077,277.30 National Fees and Commissions $3,753,340.85 $3,519,460.23 May 16,2007 Advertising Sales $48,300,722.00 $53,077,277.30 National Fees and Commissions $7,374,022.81 $7,930,693.07 May 18,2007 Advertising Sales $46,790,183.89 $51,053,840.12 National Fees and Commissions $7,676,728.87 $8,267,412.71 This table shows that over a period of approximately one month that Comcast has supported widely varying amounts with regards to advertising fees and commissions. While FRC has repeatedly stated that it needs gross advertising revenues,including fees and commissions, associated with"affiliated"advertising entities,Comcast has stated that the amounts presented also include fees and commissions on non-affiliated transactions. Based on FRC's experience,the data for the affiliated fees and commissions related to the National Cable Communications affiliate appears to be below the expected level. The percentage appears to be less than 10% annually and FRC was expecting to see fees and commissions retained by NCC in excess of 25%notwithstanding fees and commissions associated with the regional and local affiliated advertising organizations. Comcast at this point in time cannot assure FRC that it has fully captured all of the fees and commissions that are retained by its affiliated local and regional advertising sales organizations, as Comcast's West Division accounting group apparently does not have access to those regional or local advertising sales books and records. This is particularly disturbing because Comcast specifically agreed in the settlement agreement to provide gross advertising revenue data(including fees and commissions) for affiliated national and regional advertising entities. June 1, 2007 Page 7 of 10 Front Range Consulting,Inc. The City's Ordinance makes clear that affiliated sources of revenues are part of the determination of gross revenues used to calculate franchise fees: GROSS REVENUES: Any and all receipts and revenues received directly or indirectly from all sources other than transactions related to real property receipts by a franchisee not including any taxes on services furnished by a franchisee, imposed on any subscriber or used by any governmental unit, agency or instrumentality and collected by a franchisee for such entity provided also that net uncollectible debts are not considered as revenue in this definition. (emphasis added). The Ordinance does not qualify that the advertising sales revenues should be net of affiliated commissions and fees. To the contrary, the definition of gross revenues is extremely broad and encompasses affiliated advertising commissions and revenues (i.e.,revenues received directly or indirectly from all sources). FRC therefore believes affiliated advertising commissions and fees should be included in gross revenues for purposes of franchise fee calculations. If Comcast uses an affiliated company to sell its advertising avails and can assign fees and commissions to those sales, Comcast is essentially hiding the revenue streams it receives from the advertisers to avoid paying franchise fees on the gross amount of advertising sales. If the franchise had intended the definition of gross revenues to include only"net"revenues associated with cable services and the cable system,the word"gross"would not have been used. Comcast has also reduced from the advertising sales what they call 663111party"transactions. Comcast has not been able to provide FRC with any definition of what a CC 3rd party"transaction is. Without any support,FRC cannot conclude if Comcast's exclusion of these revenues is appropriate. Based on the unsubstantiated data furnished by Comcast, and the missing national and regional advertising fees and commissions,FRC cannot prepare a reliable estimate of the franchise fee underpayment resulting from Comcast's"net"approach to reporting advertising sales revenues. FRC recommends that the City proceed with a full financial audit of at least this area where the actual books and records of each of these advertising affiliates are reviewed along with the non- affiliated transactions to ensure that Comcast is including the appropriate amount of advertising sales revenues in its allocation to the City. c) Non-subscriber Franchise Fee Pass-through The issue of franchise fees paid on non-subscriber revenues(e.g., advertising revenues and home shopping channel commissions)has been an issue within the cable industry for many years. Many years ago,LFAs began to require cable operators to remit franchise fees on non-subscriber revenues received by the cable operator. The vast majority of these non-subscriber revenues are advertising revenues and home shopping commissions. With the substantial increase in the advertising sales programs of the cable operators, this non-subscriber revenue has grown dramatically over the past several years and,with the advent of local digital advertising insertion equipment, is likely to continue its growth. The issue of how non-subscriber franchise fees are passed through to subscribers first surfaced before the FCC in 1996 when Comcast requested a letter ruling from the Cable Services Bureau as to the appropriateness of passing through all of the franchise fees assessed by a LFA on a cable operator to subscribers. The response from the June 1, 2007 Page 8 of 10 ©2004 Code Publishing, Inc. Page 6 • . Front Range Consulting,Inc. Chief of the Cable Service Bureau,Meredith J.Jones, opined that the entire amount could be passed through(DA 97-1995). The issue was then brought before the FCC in filings made by Pasadena, California,Nashville,Tennessee, and Virginia Beach,Virginia. In October 2001,the FCC released a decision(FCC 01-289) in which it stated: "We believe that if the cable operator agrees to include non-subscriber revenues in the definition of gross revenues,the operator is permitted to pass through any portion of the total franchise fee,based on that definition,to subscribers." This ruling was appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit,which denied the local governments' Petition for Review of the FCC's 2001 decision in March 2003 (Case No. 01-60804). In response to FRC requests 15 and 16, Comcast has delivered to FRC an excel spreadsheet detailing an unsupported calculation of the 2003 and 2006 estimate of the non-subscriber franchise fee pass through amount. FRC does not believe Comcast's calculation is correct, as it does not consider the potential over-recoveries that might have occurred in 2004 and 2005 at a minimum. In addition,the City has not been provided with this calculation in advance of Comcast charging subscribers, and has not had an opportunity to comment on whether it is appropriate prior to implementation. To date, Comcast has provided no letters or any support for the franchise fee percentage changes it has calculated on an annual basis. FRC recommends that the City require Comcast to use a methodology for the calculation of this pass through that has been reviewed and approved by the City in advance. In addition, the calculation should be completed in the fourth quarter of each year using a twelve month review period to set the pass-through rate for the following calendar year. The methodology should contain a provision to exclude a true-up on franchise fees not collected on other fees that are not considered"non-subscriber." For example, if Comcast made an error with respect to assessing a franchise fee on installation revenues from subscribers,the approved methodology should not allow Comcast to correct this error in its next year franchise fee percentage. FRC does not believe that the opinions and orders on the non-subscriber franchise fee pass-through can be applied to errors that occur on"subscriber"mistakes under Comcast control. Additionally,FRC recommends that Comcast be required to present its calculation to the City at least thirty(30) days prior to the implementation of a revised franchise fee percentage. VII. Subscriber Impacts and Future Issues FRC anticipates that Comcast will suggest that to the extent the City requires Comcast to pay on any of these"affiliated advertising fees and commissions review adjustments," Comcast will attempt to pass those amounts on to cable subscribers by modifying the franchise fee percentage to recover non-subscriber franchise fees. During the review period, Comcast had not yet been marketing a triple play bundled bill for cable,Internet and telephone services. As Comcast has begun this marketing now, the City may wish to review and understand the methodology that Comcast will use to assign/allocate a portion of the bundled bill to cable service and how it will charge a subscriber franchise fees on the cable portion. VIII. Conclusion FRC appreciates the opportunity to prepare this review of the franchise fees paid by Comcast to June 1,2007 Page 9 of 10 • .. Front Range Consulting,Inc. the City during the review period. FRC strongly recommends that the City embark on a phase two full audit of the advertising sales allocations to the City as the data provided by Comcast to date does not appear to be reliable or consistent with the settlement agreement. During this full audit,the City should also have the auditor review and audit all of the other gross revenue amounts as part of its renewal due diligence. As part of the audit,the annexation review should also be completed to ensure that Comcast has made the appropriate adjustments for these annexations. June 1, 2007 Page 10 of 10 I � • • • • • 1,, a communications, inc. Philadelphia Office:73 Chestnut Road,Suite 301,Paoli,PA 19301 P/(610)889-7470 Fl(610)889-7475 St.Paul Office:1597 Race S ceet,Sr.Paul,MN 55102 P/(651)340-5300 Fl(651)340-5820 www.chscommunications.com Technical Review and Audit of the • Comcast Cable System Serving Renton, WA By Dick Nielsen Senior Engineer CBG Communications,Inc. June, 2007 • • CBG Communications,Inc. TABLE OF CONTENTS Introduction and Background 1 Findings 5 System Capacity 5 System Architecture 7 System Performance 9 Test Results 11 Standby Power 12 System Status Monitoring 13 Signal Leakage 13 System Construction,Installation and Maintenance 5 14 Conclusions and Recommendations 16 1. Comcast System Inspection 17 2. Signal Quality 17 3. Periodic Inspection 17 4. Number of Test Points 18 5. System Rebuild/Upgrade 5 18 Appendix A A-1 CBG Communications,Inc. • Introduction and Background CBG Communications, Inc. (CBG)has, at the request of the City of Renton,Washington (City),performed a technical audit and review of the Comcast Cable TV system (hereinafter"Comcast")serving the City. The scope of our review was focused primarily on Comcast's compliance with City Ordinance 4413, Sections 5-17-8 Technical Standards, 5-17-10 Construction Standards,5-17-11 Construction Notification, 5-17-12 Undergrounding and Landscaping, 5-17-13 Construction in Right-Of-Way, 5-17-14 Safety Requirements and 5-17-23 Cable System Evaluation. In addition,we reviewed Comcast's compliance with the Franchise as well as other applicable rules,regulations, requirements and standards of the Federal Communications Commission(FCC) and the • pertinent sections of the National Electrical Code(NEC)and National Electrical Safety Code(NESC),as well as good engineering practices. CBG's review overall involved site visits to conduct a physical plant review, as well as to direct and observe performance testing of the system. It also involved discussions with Comcast technical and system management personnel, and analysis of numerous documents related to the performance of the system (including maps,FCC Proof-of-Performance(POP)test results,Cumulative Leakage Index (CLI)documentation and a host of other documentation). The findings and recommendations described below are based on the site audits and review of the numerous documents,as well as information sought and obtained in discussions with Comcast personnel. • We began the process in August,2006,and subsequently reviewed information submitted by Comcast as part of its response to a Request for.Information(RFI)from Bradley& Guzzetta LLC, dated August 17,2006. The information requested included the following: 1 CBG Communications,Inc. Subscriber Network • A general description of Comcast's cable system serving Renton,including: — Number of plant miles,broken down by aerial and.underground — Age and condition of the system — Number of homes passed — Number of subscribers • A description of system operating parameters,including: — ' System operating bandwidth and bottom and top frequencies,both forward . and reverse — Subscriber system tap drop specifications(tap output levels) — Typical signal levels at the home — Typical signal levels at the input to the subscriber terminal device(TV or converter) — Typical and worst case output levels of customer cable modems • Node tree and amplifier schematic indicating: — Headend and hub locations including a delineation of areas served from each — Node locations and fiber routing — Amplifier cascades — System boundaries • A description of current interconnections with neighboring or other regional systems, the purposes of the interconnections and the method used for interconnection. As part of this description, a list and description of each of the interconnections that are cun-entl y operational was also sought. • System design end-of-line performance specifications indicating worst case values for: — Carrier to noise — Carrier to composite triple beat • — Carrier to second order — Cross modulation • • The previous two (2)FCC Proof of Performance documents • The latest FCC Cumulative Leakage Index (CLI)test results. • • The last three(3)quarters of signal leakage logs. • CBG Communications, Inc. • Outage logs with associated down-time,response time, and resolutions. • Trouble call logs with response times,problem resolution times and resolutions. • A copy of the Subscriber Complaint log for the past 12 months. • A line materials and equipment list and specifications including: — Fiber node optronics — Trunk amplifiers — Line extender amplifiers — Feeder line taps and other passives — Trunk cable — Feeder cable • A description of the current interactive capabilities of the subscriber network including operating specifications for return amplifiers. • A description of any existing network status monitoring systems. • A description of current backup powering systems for the headend,hubs and the distribution system. • A description of construction practices including,whether,and what size the conduit has been utilized for underground system installation. • Headend and hub equipment diagrams showing signal flow from input sources (satellite receive dishes,off-air receive antenna,etc.)to the combining network and headend and hub output. • A description of the local Emergency Alert capabilities of the system,including the method of local access to the system as well as the testing schedule. • A frequency allocation chart for all services on the subscriber system that indicates current total system capacity,channels in use and services provided. • An equipment list and specifications for all subscriber converters. • A description of digital video and audio and cable modem technologies currently deployed over the subscriber network and the associated services provided to subscribers via these technologies. 3 CBG Communications, Inc. • A complete description of any in-process or planned upgrades to the subscriber network,including,but not limited to: elements such as future capacity expansion;the timetable for completion; infrastructure upgrades; and additional interconnections: Institutional Network For the current Institutional Network(I-Net)infrastructure, and any planned I-Net upgrades,the same types of information as indicated above was also sought related to the operation of the I-Net. It was indicated that the I-Net schematic should also show the location of all facilities connected to the I-Net and the level of subscriber service at each location. Comcast supplied a response dated September 14, 2006. This information described many of the system's specifications and provided a copy of the FCC Proof of Performance documents and CLI documentation. With this information in hand, CBG was able to oversee Proof-of-Performance testing during its site visit. This site visit and audit took place from November 29,2006 through December 1,2006. CBG also reviewed the prior FCC Proof-of-Performance tests,the latest(completed May,2006) CLI flyover test results and system maps. The City should request the most recent Proof-of-Performance tests,which should have been conducted during January and February of 2007 as well as the latest CLI results,which should have . been performed in May 2007, to ensure compliance with specifications as detailed in this Report. Specifically;CBG performed the Renton system on-site audit work by meeting with Comcast system management and technical personnel,riding out and inspecting portions of the system physical plant and subscriber drops,and auditing the installation and performance of the system at the headend and in the field. As part of this activity,we directed and observed the conduct of noise, distortion and other system performance tests at six system test points,including one normally used for required Federal Communications Commission(FCC)POP testing. Five of the test points were newly designated for this Technical Audit. The test points were geographically dispersed throughout the City and were found at the following locations: 4 CBG Communications, Inc. Test Point 1 —920 SW 4th Place Test Point 2—528 Wells Ave N Test Point 3—3423 Lincoln Ave NE Test Point 4— 1912 Ilwaco Ave NE Test Point 5—1800 Beacon Ave S Test Point 6—4900 Talbot Rd S The results of our analysis,including information obtained in the latest review and discussions, are detailed in the Findings section below, and recommendations for further action and review are contained in the final Recommendations section of this Report. While working in the Renton Comcast system, CBG had contact with the staff responsible for maintaining the headend as well as performing maintenance work. These staff members are also responsible for completing the semi-annual Proof-of-Performance testing. The staff was cooperative and remained flexible regarding scheduling of tests, touring of Comcast's facilities and discussing test methodologies. Findings CBG's review of all the information provided through system maps, system performance data,correspondence, discussions,supporting materials and other documentation has resulted in the Findings and Recommendations detailed below. System Capacity The Comcast cable system has a capacity of 750 MHz. This means that the highest usable frequency on the cable system is at or very near 750 MHz. The forward spectrum (i.e., downstream bandwidth provided to subscribers' terminal equipment)is from 50-750 MHz with an active return spectrum(i.e.,upstream bandwidth made available for transmissions from subscribers' terminal equipment to the cable system's headend) of approximately 5-40 MHz. Currently, Comcast is providing primarily analog services in the bandwidth of 50 MHz through approximately 550 MHz. The spectrum from 550 MHz through 750 MHz is utilized for digital services including digital simulcast(digital 5 • • CBG Communications,Inc. retransmission of channels offered in the analog tier),Video on Demand(VOD),High Definition TV(HDTV), digital music channels as well as High Speed Internet(HIS)and digital phone service. • • Within the current system capacity, Comcast provides a variety of services,including approximately 77 analog channels that carry broadcast,public,educational and governmental access, and satellite services. The system, as spelled out in the channel • guide, also provides more then 220 digital services,including standard digital channels, VOD and pay-per-view channels and 68-digital music channels and radio stations. At present, as far as CBG can determine,Comcast is utilizing most,if not all,of its current available bandwidth. Many cable systems have upgraded to a capacity of 860 MHz or 870 MHz (specifically, 50-860 MHz or 870 MHz in the forward direction,with 5-40 MHZ or 42MHz in the reverse direction). Indeed, systems being upgraded today are being designed to provide forward system.capacity of 50-1,000 MHz(1GHz). By today's standards, this is considered to be the state-of-the-art upgrade,and such a system provides significant capacity for a wide variety of analog,digital and advanced services both now and in the future. Specifically, the current provision of services for many operators,including many Comcast systems throughout the country, in the cable.industry includes analog services provided up through 550 MHz(75-79 analog channels),with compressed digital video services and the provision of data-over-cable and telephony services taking up a portion of the remaining bandwidth. Because Comcast has a limited amount of available bandwidth for additional services in the future,the need to upgrade the system to increase the available bandwidth may arise in the future. While there will likely continue to be new and more efficient delivery methods for the services that are currently being provided(which would free up some current bandwidth for additional services in the future),there will also likely be more services available that will require additional bandwidth. Another example of additional bandwidth that will be needed going forward is the inevitable increased availability and demand for more high definition channels. As more of these channels become available • 6 CBG Communications,Inc. and as the subscriber demand for them becomes greater it will be necessary for Comcast to add more of them to their current channel line-up,which will take up a significant amount of bandwidth as a single high definition channel typically requires 2-3 MHz of spectrum today. In addition,it is likely that new services not yet developed will become a factor over the term of a lengthy franchise agreement. Again,based on the current capacity of the system, CBG believes that the Comcast cable system is capable of meeting the needs of its customers in the near term. However,the City should require a review of the system during any renewal franchise term and should have the authority to assess system capacity and capabilities and require an appropriate network upgrade in order to assure that the system can meet the needs of the company's customers for years to come. System Architecture Comcast serves the City from its Burien headend(200 SW 114th Street, Seattle,WA.) which then feeds the Kent Vista Secondary Hub located at 18809 116th Ave SE,Kent, WA. The headend and hub serve areas outside of the City of Renton as well as Renton. A review of the documents and on site visits indicate the headend and hub incorporate equipment and technologies for the services provided considered to be at or near the state of the art, such as the equipment utilized to transmit digital channels and services to subscribers. A general review of the headend shows it to be well designed, equipped and installed to deliver services or channels in the forward direction from 50MHz to 750MHz. The headend is outfitted with a diesel standby generator capable of several hours of back-up power in the event of a commercial power failure. An additional diesel back-up generator is in place in the event that the initial generator fails. The hub also has a single propane generator in place to provide power to the hub in the event of a power failure. The headend and hub are protected from fire by means of FM 200 fire suppression systems. These systems suppress a fire by not permitting oxygen to feed the fire. This 7 CBG Communications,Inc. method of fire suppression is common in areas where.water based suppression would likely cause much more harm than would a small,non-catastrophic, fire. The headend is also well equipped for grounding of the racks and equipment. This should produce a good electrical connection from the racks to the grounding grid of the headend. This effective grounding of the equipment racks reduces and/or eliminates safety hazards that may otherwise occur to persons coming in contact with the equipment. Additionally, a properly grounded racking system will protect the equipment in the racks from stay excessive voltage such as might occur with a lightning strike in the area. From the headend, and via the hub,a number of system neighborhood nodes are served by fiber optic infrastructure. Amplifier cascades over coaxial cable then emanate out from each node in order to serve residences and businesses within the City. This is known as a hybrid fiber coaxial(HFC)cable system architecture,which is the major form of distribution architecture employed today by the cable industry. However, an increasing number of systems are being built as fiber to the home(FTTH)systems. These systems are capable of providing a much greater capacity into individual residences than current HFC systems facilitate;however,because a total rebuild or overbuild of the existing system,including the drop to subscribers' homes is required, these systems continue to be more expensive to implement than upgrading existing HFC systems,and while emerging,FTTH is not yet the majority form of implementation in the industry. Corncast's reported architecture and a spot check review of system maps (while on site) indicate that the average amplifier cascade from the node is consistent with what is being implemented within current_state-of-the-art systems.These systems typically employ an average of four to five active devices beyond the optical interface at the node. Comcast reports that the maximum cascade is 6 amplifiers with the average falling below 6 amplifiers after the node. Another architectural component indicative of a state-of-the-art system is the number of homes passed per system node. This design specification varies widely in the industry, 8 CBG Communications,Inc. from as little as 125 homes per node to as many as 1200 homes per node and more (although such large nodes typically incorporate the ability to be subdivided to smaller node sizes over time by making greater use of existing or spare fiber capacity to the node and placing additional forward and reverse electronics within the node and at the headend). Comcast serves City households from a number of nodes within the City. The average number of homes passed per node(slightly less than 1000)is on the higher end of the range specified above for current industry homes passed per node numbers. This fact is important because the smaller the ultimate node size,the more usable bandwidth will be available in the forward direction as well as the return direction which allows for greater provision of targeted services such as Video-on-Demand(VOD),and other services that will continue to.require more bandwidth to and from the home such as high speed,data-over-cable(cable modem)services. Although Comcast's current system design has a homes per node ratio on the higher end of systems throughout the country,they do have significant fiber optic infrastructure built into the network to allow for subdividing existing nodes, and thus lowering the number of homes being fed from each node as may be required in the future. Based on a review of the written information provided, and our on-site visit, we believe that Comcast's infrastructure, at this time, is currently capable of supporting the services needed and likely desired by the community. The City should however maintain the ability to revisit issues regarding the system's capacity,.capabilities and services available to its residents in the future as part of any lengthy franchise period. System Performance CBG began its review of Comcast's system performance by reviewing the Winter 2006 and Summer 2006 FCC Proof-of-Performance test documents. We continued by auditing Comcast's performance tests on site in November and December,2006 for six test point locations as listed above. One of these testpoints is utilized for Comcast's semi-annual Proof-of Performance testing. Five additional test points were chosen by us, • 9 CBG Communications, Inc. geographically dispersed throughout the City. As a result of these on-site tests and document review related to the cable system's technical performance,we noted the following issues. First,regarding the number of test points chosen for these types of performance tests,the FCC requires a number of testpoints to be completed based on the amount of subscribers being fed from a single headend. Comcast performs semi-annual FCC Proof-of- Performance tests at a reported 17 locations being fed from the Burien Headend. Of these testpoints only one is within the City of Renton. Although the FCC formula allows Comcast to spread these testpoints throughout the area served by a single headend,we needed to perform tests at 6 locations during our site visit in order to gain a more comprehensive understanding of the system's performance within the territorial limits of the City. Comcast staff agreed to perform tests at five,randomly selected,locations in • addition to the one location normally incorporated in semi-annual POP testing. We believe that a system the size of Comcast's Renton system is better served by more than 1 test point. Indeed,if the City portion of Comcast's system were a stand-alone network,the FCC formula would require that a total of seven geographically diverse sites be tested. For discussion purposes, and as delineated in the Recommendations section, perhaps the City and Comcast could agree that testing of 1 site within the City would be performed as part of the FCC Proof-of-Performance cycle, and additional testpoints, or "City test"locations,would be tested concurrently specifically related to a future Franchise requirement. • Based on today's state-of-the-art systems,where theoretically every node could exhibit different performance,six test locations would provide a better representative view of the system.,as opposed to the one location now tested by Comcast. Furthermore, although the FCC semi-annual tests must be completed at the same testpoint(s)every time,the non-FCC or City testpoints could be rotated around Comcast's system in the City in an attempt to get a clearer picture of overall performance of the system over time. As we found at testpoint 5,a randomly chosen location,performing tests throughout the system will help find issues that would not otherwise be discovered during FCC testing. These • 10 CBG Communications, Inc. additional testpoints could be performed in areas of the system that appear to have more problems than the rest of the system. With the exception of the 6-month comparison test, all other tests performed during the FCC Proof-cif-Performance could be included in these "City tests". • Test Results CBG found,during our visit,that the test results at five of the six locations we tested to be at or better than required by the FCC. However,Testpoint Number 5 which was chosen at random,had test results showing that there was a problem on the distribution system feeding this location from the node. The Carrier-to-Noise results were below FCC standards. These problems resulted in sub par video quality on most of the system's channels at this location. Comcast repaired a problem at the node. We then returned to this location and performed the FCC tests with ensuing results that were at or better than FCC specifications. At all of the testpoints we visited, after repairs were made to Testpoint Number 5,the majority of analog channels,although not as clear as the digital channels,were very clean. This would be consistent with the test results shown in the previous proofs. However, in addition to the initial.problems found at Testpoint 5 which affected all channels,the following channels were less than ideal at all locations: Channel 4, grainy(snowy) picture Channel 12, grainy Channel 15, grainy and intermittent crackly audio Channel 21, extremely grainy picture. The testing we performed would indicate that the degradation to these channels was occurring before the distribution system or at the headend. During our visit to perform testing we began trouble-shooting Channel 21 at the City Hall and then at the headend location to determine where the channel was experiencing the problem that was making the channel grainy. We found that at the time, Channel 21 appeared to be clear at the 11 CBG Communications,Inc. headend and Comcast was going to continue trouble-shooting after we left. Comcast has • indicated that they have repaired the City Government Channel(Ch,21)shortly after we were on site by replacing a de-modulator at the Kent Vista hub site and adjusting the signal levels of channels 20 and 22. We also note that CBG has visited the City Hall location since we performed the on-site testing and found that the overall reception at the City Hall was less than would be expected. The City should follow-up with Comcast to ensure that the picture quality issues on the above listed channels have been rectified, and documentation describing the problems and remedies should be provided by Comcast,as well as ensuring that problems with overall reception at the City Hall are fully resolved. Standby Power Comcast appears to have adequate backup power at its headend and hub locations. Comcast also has backup power in the distribution system. The back-up or standby power supplies located in the distribution system are capable of operating for a minimum of 2 hours during a commercial power failure and,based on the number of batteries in these power supplies,back-up power of 3-4 hours should be available. These power supplies are designed to provide power to the cable system in the event of a commercial power outage or failure._ Adequate standby power is key to maintaining a reliable system. now and into the future. High capacity, automatic backup power is extremely beneficial to today's cable systems by promoting a high degree of system reliability. Excessive down-time, for example,will adversely affect customer satisfaction regarding video services and more importantly, critical data services such as business class and residential cable modems,Voice-Over-IP (Vol?)telephone service, etc.. In most current upgraded systems,standby power of anywhere from 2-4 hours, and in some cases 6 hours,provided by either battery or natural gas backup,can be found for every distribution system power supply. We believe 3-4 hours of back-up power with a power supply status monitoring system,as is deployed by Comcast,will provide sufficient back-up during power outages. This status monitoring will notify Comcast when a power supply has gone into the backup mode(typically when commercial power 12 CBG Communications,Inc. fails) and how much standby capacity is left so that the cable operator can dispatch a technician with a backup generator to provide power to the system before the batteries fail. Comcast has such a system in operation as described below. System Status Monitoring Comcast is currently utilizing status monitoring to track the quality of their signals at high speed internet customer premises. This is accomplished by monitoring signal quality as well as input and output levels at the cable modem. Additionally, Comcast has a monitoring system that allows for status updates for both forward and return signals at • all nodes throughout the system. Comcast also utilizes status monitoring to monitor all power supplies in the system. This allows Comcast to react to powering problems prior to power outages affecting subscriber services. This monitoring, combined with standby power in the distribution plant,prevents most power related failures to the cable TV network by notifying staff that a power supply has gone into backup or standby mode as well as the amount of backup power remaining in the supply. This allows system personnel to respond to the power supply location and connect a portable backup power generator in order to keep the system operating. Signal Leakage Comcast is required by FCC rules and regulations in 47 CFR Part 76, Sections 76.605 (a)13, 76.611 (Cable television basic signal leakage performance criteria) and 76.614 (Cable television system regular monitoring)to comply with Federal rules and regulations related to signal leakage within the cable system. These are very important requirements because excessive signal leakage can result in interference problems with emergency radio services,other government and public safety communications,and aeronautical navigation radio. Also,wherever signal leakage(egress)is present,it also provides an opportunity for signal ingress that will interfere with video,data and voice communications provided over the cable system. We reviewed the CLI(Cumulative 13 CBG Communications, Inc. Leakage Index)filings by Comcast that are required to be submitted to the Federal Communications Commission. In addition we reviewed Leakage Repair logs supplied by Comcast for the previous year. Our review of Comcast's annual FCC CLI filings from 2006 and its'Leakage Repair Logs indicates compliance with FCC regulations. Specific to the FCC CLI filings, Comcast used a"fly-over"(airspace)measurement methodology for its required annual CLI test, and arrived at a value of 99.82%(points <_10 microvolts/meter.). These test results are better than the FCC requirement of 90%under this test methodology. These test results are for the"Comcast Seattle-Auburn"system including the City of Renton. We • recommend that future CLI filings be forwarded to the City for its review so that the City is continually aware of how the system performs pertaining to system leakage in the future. System Construction,Installation and Maintenance Sections 5-17-10 Construction Standards, 5-17-12 Undergrounding and Landscaping, 5- 17-13 Construction in Right-Of-Way, and 5-17-14 Safety Requirements set forth in City Ordinance 4413 provide that the City may inspect the Cable Television system to "Ensure compliance with the terms of the Ordinance and Franchise Agreement and other pertinent provisions of the law." This applies to the implementation and operation of Comcast's cable system. By virtue of Ordinance 4413,the Franchise,the National Electrical Safety Code(NESC), and the National Electrical Code(NEC)standards shall be met by Comcast. As part of the technical audit, CBG performed a ride-out of portions of the physical plant to review compliance with these obligations. The ride-out was performed independently of Comcast. During the course of the ride-out,we found a number of problems with the plant pertaining to grounding and bonding as well as clearance and attachment issues. Of these violations, many involved the drop to the subscriber's home.The requirements for outside plant related to these issues are primarily provided for in the provisions of the NESC, and the NEC,which are required standards as mentioned above. If a system is 14 CBG Communications,Inc. not grounded properly and/or does not provide the clearances required by the NEC and NESC, safety issues result. These issues can adversely affect other facilities on a pole line and equipment within a subscriber's home due to commercial power coming in contact with cable lines as well as deterioration to both facilities due to abrasion that may • • occur between them. Another aspect of this is workers not having the proper clearance from the cable plant to energized power lines. This could lead to unintended,potentially lethal, contact with these power lines. Clearance problems can also stem from the height of the cable system's lines above the ground. This could result in the cable being pulled down by a vehicle driving below it,or by a person walking near the cable becoming tangled in the cable,thus causing a potential hazard to the person or vehicle contacting the cable or damage to the cable lines • as well as other facilities on the pole. While we did not find significant problems regarding clearance issues other than broken lashing wires allowing cables to hang lower than designed,it is important to describe this issue to bring it to the City's attention for future monitoring of the system as suggested below. Comcast should implement a system for their personnel to inspect the cable system, including the drop up to and into a subscriber's home,and repair issues that are not up to current NEC and NESC codes. The City should require Comcast to provide an action plan going forward for such inspections and subsequent repairs. Appendix A lists the specific addresses where violations were found by CBG during the drive-out of the system. We have included the NEC and/or NESC code sections that apply to each of these violations. While the number of problems noted during our review are not atypical for a system the size of Comcast's Renton system, it should be noted that the violations listed in Appendix A are not all inclusive. It would not be atypical in our experience for there to be other problems like these scattered throughout the system. Because of the nature of a cable TV system, we also believe that such problems will continue to occur and need to be addressed in an ongoing manner. For example,while some system performance problems can be due to typical plant maintenance issues, others are likely to occur if the • 15 CBG Communications, Inc. physical plant(including drops to homes)wear and tear,which increases over time,is not kept in check. Comcast, as mentioned above,should increase its focus on resolving code issues and violations throughout the plant; in particular those issues regarding the subscriber drop and bringing the subscriber drops up to a level of installation that meets the NEC and NESC.codes. Additionally,our experience has been that,unless there is periodic regulatory oversight concerning the condition of the physical plant,some system problems may be left unresolved. Accordingly, as we've recommended at the close of other audits of this type, we believe that it would be beneficial for the City to periodically perform inspections of various sections of the plant, either separately or in tandem with Comcast personnel,note areas of non-compliance, establish timeframes for corresponding maintenance and repair activity, and verify resolution. Once this is established as an ongoing program,it is our experience that,over time,random audits will likely note increased system compliance. Although the physical plant audit of the system was performed several months ago, and Comcast was notified of the issues and violations found during the drive-out via an e- mail from B&G on November 21,2006, Comcast has not provided a formal response regarding these issues. During a phone conversation between CBG and Comcast on or about April 25,2007,Comcast stated that many of the problems have not been resolved but have been forwarded to personnel that can remedy the problem. Comcast's representative stated they are behind on this project due to many weather related issues in the past few months. The City should follow-up on the ultimate resolution of all violations and issues listed in Appendix A. Conclusions and Recommendations Technical audits,such as the one performed and described herein,serve a variety of useful purposes. Such audits, for example,serve to discover and determine compliance issues with existing Franchise and Ordinance requirements, as well as enhancements like a system upgrade/rebuild or improvements that would provide technical and practical benefits to Comcast,the City and its citizens/subscribers. Resolution of these compliance 16 CBG Communications,Inc. • issues and implementation of recommended enhancements will then benefit all parties involved. Our findings during the past several months as part of this technical audit have been consistent with those described above. For example,as detailed herein,we have determined some compliance issues that need to be addressed and resolved, and have also recommended areas for enhancement. Based on this,we offer the following recommendations for action by Comcast and/or the City: 1. Comcast System Inspection-The City should obtain a plan from Comcast to ensure repair in a quick timeframe all the physical plant problems noted during our review, as well as ensure ongoing inspection and repair of all system and drop violations to maintain compliance with NEC and NESC specifications and bring the system to a level that will support new advanced services. This plan should include inspections as technicians visit homes for installation and service calls as well as while driving throughout the system on a daily basis. 2. Signal Quality-The City should request an action plan that has been or will be implemented to resolve the problems noted on analog channels 4,12, 15 and 21. The picture quality on these channels was consistently sub-standard during our testing. Comcast should inform the City of what repairs were made to improve performance on these channels. Comcast should also re-visit the City Hall and make needed repairs to improve overall reception of the analog channels. • 3. Periodic Inspection-The City or its representative, either in coordination with Comcast or on its own, should periodically visit various cable system sections throughout the City to continue to review compliance of the physical plant with all applicable Ordinance,Franchise and Code requirements. We believe that such a focused effort will serve to resolve any physical plant problems noted,in the quickest,most comprehensive manner. 17 CBG Communications, Inc. 4. Number of Test Paints -Regardless of whether Comcast provides FCC Proof-of-Performance data to the public file for one test point within the City,it should under a renewed Franchise;test a minimum of six points within the City and provide resulting Proof-of-Performance data for the City's review. As stated herein,we believe this would provide a better indication of how the system is performing overall as well as assist Comcast in finding areas that may be performing below FCC and Comcast standards. 5. System Rebuild/Upgrade-Comcast's Renton system has an upper frequency limit of 750MHz. Comcast is providing a variety of services utilizing the current system as it is operating today, and almost all available bandwidth is being utilized. However,to meet the needs and interests of the City for more and potentially yet unknown services going forward,Comcast may need to upgrade the current system in the future in order to increase capacity for new services as well as to insure the highest quality and reliability of these services. The increasing number of FTTH systems being built may also contribute to the need to upgrade the system in the future to remain competitive. Although upgrading the system to increase capacity is not needed immediately,the City should insure that this option is available in the future when and if the need arises. Consequently, a requirement should be included in any renewed,long term,Franchise that permits the City to evaluate the system and to require enhancements,at some point in the future, so that the cable system in the City can provide all of the services desired by the residents of the City in a reliable manner. 18 CBG Communications, Inc. Appendix A Renton Comcast Physical Plant Audit Issues Codes Address Issue NESC NEC 1 4701 Talbot Rd So to 50th St So Cable and phone touching 235 H 2 5200 Talbot Rd So Cable hardline and power touching 235.5 3 5218 Talbot Rd So Broken lashing wire 214 4 5301 Talbot Rd So Missing down guy 264 A- D 5 53rd Place So&Talbot Rd So Cable and phone hardlines touching 235 H 6 Talbot Rd So& 177th St So 1 missing, 1 broken down guy 264 A- D 7 400 So 37th St Cable attached to power mast 820.10 8 Talbot Rd So&33rd Place So Broken lashing wire 214 9 Shattuck Ave So&19th St So Missing down guy 264 A- D 10 1804 Lake Ave So Abandoned drop hanging from pole 214 11 1625 Lake Ave So Cable attached to power mast,check ground 820.10 12 1523 Lake Ave So Cable attached to power mast 820.10 13 1412 Shattuck Ave So Cable attached to power mast 820.10 14 617 Shattuck Ave So Cable attached to power mast 820.10 15 437 Burnett Ave So Drop wrapped with power 820 A-1 CBG Communications, Inc. Codes Address Issue NESC NEC 16 615 Williams Ave So Tape holding conduit to pole .214 17 Williams Ave&Grady Way Missing guy across Grady Way,fiber 264 A- hanging low and touching signal light post D 214 18 Williams Ave So to Main Ave So Numerous spans with fiber'and splices 214 hanging low' 19 Grady Way to 5th St So Numerous spans with fiber and splices 214 hanging low 20 1209 N.30th St Drop grounded to outside water pipe 820.40 . 21 1213 N 30th St Cable hardline and power touching 235.5 22 908 N 30th St Cable attached to power mast . 820.10 • • 23 916 N 30th St No bond to power and phone 820.40 24 701 N 30th St 3 drops not attached to pole 214 25 3212 Washington Blvd N Cable attached to power mast 820.10 26 720 Washington Blvd N Drop grounded to outside water pipe 820.40 • 27 3502 Burnett Ave N Drop attached to power mast,drop touching roof 820.10 820 28 3415 Burnett Ave N Cable attached to power mast,grounded 820.10 over painted surface 250.96 29 36th St N&Burnett Ave N (NE Loose down guy,missing lashing wire 214 corner) 30 1004 36th St N Abandoned drops not attached to pole 214 • 31 1006 36th St N Drop attached to power mast, check ground 820.10 • 32 , 1007 36th St N Cable attached to power mast 820.10 • A-2 • CBG Communications, Inc. • Codes • Address Issue NESC NEC • 33 1105 36th St N Cable attached to power mast 820.10 34 1116 36th St N Cable attached to power mast 820.10 35 1301 36th St N Cable and phone hardlines touching across 235 H . street 36 36th St N &Meadow Ave•N Loose strand over Meadow Ave 214 • 37 NE 25th St& Ferndale Ave NE Loose down guy 264 A- D 38 2432 Edmonds Ave NE Cable attached to power mast 820.10 • 39 2425 NE 20th St abandoned drop not attached to pole 214 40 2624 NE 19th St Cable attached to power mast 820.10 • 41 616 Camas Ave NE Cable attached to power mast 820.10 42 650 Camas Ave NE Cable attached to power mast 820.10 43 662 Camas Ave NE Cable attached to power mast 820.10 44 Edmonds Ave NE&Camas Ave NE Loose down guy 264 A- D 45 NE 3rd St(2 poles west of Blaine Cable laying on ground. Tree fell on cable 214 Ave NE • 46 305 Meadow Ave N Fiber held up by pull tape 214 • 47 305 Meadow Ave N Drop hanging low over driveway 214 48 311 Meadow Ave N Messenger pulling from drop cable 214 49 So 5th St(between Main Ave & Temporary fiber hanging low,conduit held to 214 Williams Ave pole by tape • • A-3 • CBG Communications,Inc. Codes • Address Issue NESC NEC 50 909 Main St Straps and spacers missing Maintenance 51 435 Main Ave So No ground or bond 820.40 • 52 3320 SE 6th St Drop attached to power mast 820.10 53 3330 Newport Ave SE Grounded to power box screw 250.8 • 54 3333 Newport Ave So Missing down guy 264 A- D 55 3414 6th St SE Drop attached to power mast,grounded 820.40 above roof line 56 10217 148th Ave SE Drop not attached to pole 214 57 10221 147th Ave NE Drop not attached to pole, loose ground 214 250 58 10238 147th Ave NE Cable and phone hardlines touching 235 H 59 10403 147th Ave NE Loose down guy . 264 A- D 60 10415 147th Ave NE Drop attached to power mast,grounded 820.10 above roof line 61 10208 148th Ave SE Cable 2"from power 820 • 62 13826 NE 24th St Drop attached to power mast,grounded 820.10 • above roof line 63 13812 NE 24th St Drop not attached properly to home 820 64 1800 Duval Ave NE Drop attached to power mast 820.10 65 18th St NE&Duval Ave NE Cable hardline and power 2-3 inches 235.5 midspan . 66 4216 NE 10th St Drop attached to power mast,grounded 820.10 • above roof line A-4 CBG Communications, Inc. Codes Address Issue NESC NEC 67 4123 NE 10th St Drop attached to power mast, grounded • 820.10 above roof line 68 4100 NE 10th St Drop attached to power mast 820.10 69 4232 NE 10th PI Drop attached to power mast,grounded .820.10 above roof line 70 1060 Anacortes Ct NE. Drop attached to power mast 820.10 • 71 1024 Anacortes Ave NE Loose down guy 264 A- D 72 1024 Anacortes Ave NE Power supply loose on pole 214 73 1032 Anacortes Ave NE Drop attached to power mast,grounded .820.10 above roof line 74 4401 11th St NE . Drop attached to power mast 820.10 • 75 4316 11th St NE Drop attached to power mast . 820.10 76 Whitman Ct NE& 11th St NE No down guys on span into court 264 A- D 77 1117 Whitman Ct NE Drop attached to power mast 820.10 78 Union Ave NE& 12 St NE 2 missing guys NE corner, power and cable 264 A- 820.1 • less than 18", phone and cable drops D 214 touching 79 1028 Kirkland Ave NE Drop attached to power mast ' 820.10 80 1013 Kirkland Ave NE Grounded to power box screw 250.8 81 1010 Kirkland Ave NE Drop attached to power mast 820.10 82 916 Monroe Ave NE Drop attached to power mast 820.10 83 862 Olympia Ave NE Drop attached to power mast 820.10 • • • A-5 CBG Communications, Inc. Codes Address Issue NESC NEC 84 850 Queen Anne Ave NE Cable and phone touching 235 H 85 774 Queen Anne Ave NE • Drop attached to power mast 820.10 86 759 Queen Anne Ave NE Drop attached to power mast 820.10 87 758 Queen Anne Ave NE Drop attached to power mast 820.10 88 676 Redmond Ave NE • Abandoned drop hanging from pole 214 89 676 Redmond Ave NE Drop attached to power mast 820.10 90 4th St NE& Rosario Ave NE Fiber hanging low(temporary?) 214 91 451 Nile Ave NE Drop attached to power mast 820.10 92 5620 2nd St NE Drop and power touching midspan 820 93 236 Jerico Ave E Missing down guy 264 A- D • 94 Union Ave NE&2nd PI SE Missing down guy 264 A- D 95 103 Union Ave So • Missing down guy 264 A- D 96 4107 SE 2nd PI Cable and phone touching 235 H 97 4212 SE 2nd PI Drop attached to power mast 820.10 98 4417 SE 2nd PI Abandoned drop hanging from pole 214 99 2nd PI SE&Chelan Ave SE 2 broken down guys 264 A- D 100 306 Chelan Ave SE Drop attached to power mast 820.10 A-6 CBG Communications,Inc. Codes Address Issue NESC NEC. 101 312-426 Chelan Ave SE 4 spans cable&phone 2-4 inches apart and 235 H • often touching 102 4617-4401 SE 4th Place 6 spans cable&phone 2-4 inches apart and 235 H often touching • 103 4607 SE 4th Place Loose down guy 264 A- D 104 4509 SE 4th Place Drop attached to power mast 820.10 105 4419 SE 4th Place Drop attached to power mast 820.10 106 4319 SE 4th Place Cable hardline.and power 2-3 inches 235.5 midspan 107 4319 SE 4th Place Missing pedestal cover 214 108 256 Chelan Ave SE Power touching hardline 235.5 109 4126 SE 4th Place Loose down guy 264 A- D 110 4120 SE 4th Place Abandoned drop in bushes by pole 214 111 4701 Talbot Rd So Fiber held up by tie-wrap,fiber touching 214 phone 235H • • A-7 048728 MEDIA TOOLS 0120090 05/19/00 ORIGINAL Vendor No. Vendor Name PO No. PO Date %0 © Chapter 116, Laws of 1965 CITY OF RENTON Purchase Order City of Renton Certification I, the undersigned, do hereby certify under penalty of perjury, that the materials have been furnished, the services rendered, or the labor performed as described herein, and that the claim is a just, due and MEDIA TOOLS unpaid obligation against the City of Renton, and that I am authorized to 13400 NE 20TH #44 authenticate and certify to said claim: BELLEVUE, WA 98005 r"]/ (A Signed w"vc FINANCE DEPARTMENT WALTON, BONNIE Description E:. Untt Price.... ... st..: ifl oust Account Number WO/Punt Amount Non-Linear Editing System 27,401.95 E 127.000000.004.5940.0071.64.000084 27,401. 95 Authorized By") i/j 7 j y1Levy,A---- 27,401. 95 27,401. 95 Accounts Payable Div. •200 Mill Ave. S. •Renton,WA 98055•Phone(206)235-2618•Fax(206)235-2513 DP 3119 11/94 Vemdor # °Li8 74e MEDIA TOOLS oiaoo Invoice 13400 NE 20 ST#44 �( DATE INVOICE# Bellevue, WA 98005 ‘�`� 5/9/00 653 Phone: (425) 603-9000 Fax: (425) 614-0615 �G /2-7 000. ooy, 69�f0, 0071 6V. BILL TO SHIP TO City of Renton City of Renton 200 Mill Ave. S. City Clerk Div.,Rm 728 Renton,WA 98055 1055 So. Grady WayCITY OF RENTON Attn:Accts Payable Div. Renton,WA 98055 MAY 1 2 2000 RECEIVED CITY CLERKS OFFICE P.O. NUMBER REP SHIP VIA F.O.B. TERMS 0120074 DG 5/9/00 Best Origin Net 30 • QUANTITY DESCRIPTION PRICE EACH AMOUNT 1 Non-Linear Editing System-Media 100-includes: 25,032.00 25,032.00T 1-Apple G4/450 Powermac,256MB Ram, 1MB Cache,20GB ATA HD,DVD-Rom,Zip,Modem,Mouse,Keyboard,2 ATI Rage 128 Graphic Cards 2-015907 Lacie Electron 19T 19"Monitor 0.00 1-RDD2000E-72W1OKLVD Rorke Data 72GB Array,2 X 36 GB Cheeta 10K RPM Drives,Enclosure,Cable,Term, 1 year Advanced exchange warranty 1-EPCI-UL2S-OO Atto Single Channel LVD SCSI Card 1-Atto Express Raid 2.2 1-21640 Media 100 XE,P6000 Card,Media 100 XE Software, Breakout Box,Manuals,Boris FX,Media Cleaner EZ 1-14888 Media 100 Platinum Plus Bundle for XE,24 HR Tech Support,Advanced Board Exchange,Software Updates,Extended Warranty. 1 Year Contact 1-USA-28X Keyspan Serial Adapter V1.1.1 1-Adobe After Effects 4.1 Std Mac 1-Adobe Photshop 5.5 Mac 1-Yamaha YST 10/10 Speakers(Pair) 1-CR1642-VLZ Mackie 16 Channel Mixer 1-Media Tools Configuration&Installation Includes 30 Days • Free Tech Support 1 Shipping and Handling 200.00 200.00T Tax 8.60% 2,169.95 54?ito . 1/• 44 Thank you for your business. Total $27,401.95 C J M EDIA TOOLS ' Invoke 13400 NE 20 ST#44 \ DATE INVOICE# Bellevue, WA 98005 5/9/00 653 Phone: (425) 603-9000 Fax: (425) 614-0615 BILL TO SHIP TO City of Renton City of Renton 200 Mill Ave. S. City Clerk Div.,Rm 728 Renton,WA 98055 1055 So. Grady Way Attn:Accts Payable Div. Renton,WA 98055 P.O. NUMBER REP SHIP VIA . F.O.B. TERMS 0120074 DG 5/9/00 Best Origin Net 30 QUANTITY DESCRIPTION PRICE EACH AMOUNT 1 Non-Linear Editing System-Media 100-includes: 25,032.00 25,032.00T 1-Apple G4/450 Powermac,256MB Ram, 1MB Cache,20GB ATA HD,DVD-Rom,Zip,Modem,Mouse,Keyboard,2 ATI Rage 128 Graphic Cards 2-015907 Lacie Electron 19T 19"Monitor 0.00 1-RDD2000E-72W10KLVD Rorke Data 72GB Array,2 X 36 GB Cheeta 10K RPM Drives,Enclosure,Cable,Term, 1 year Advanced exchange warranty 1-EPCI-UL2S-OO Atto Single Channel LVD SCSI Card 1-Atto Express Raid 2.2 1-21640 Media 100 XE,P6000 Card,Media 100 XE Software, Breakout Box,Manuals,Boris FX,Media Cleaner EZ 1-14888 Media 100 Platinum Plus Bundle for XE,24 HR Tech Support,Advanced Board Exchange, Software Updates,Extended Warranty. 1 Year Contact 1-USA-28X Keyspan Serial Adapter V 1.1.1 1-Adobe After Effects 4.1 Std Mac 1-Adobe Photshop 5.5 Mac 1-Yamaha YST 10/10 Speakers(Pair) 1-CR1642-VLZ Mackie 16 Channel Mixer 1-Media Tools Configuration&Installation Includes 30 Days Free Tech Support 1 Shipping and Handling 200.00 200.00T Tax 8.60% 2,169.95 • • Thank you for your business. Total $27,401.95 *************** —COMM. JOURNAL— ******************* DATE MAY-03-2000 ***** TIME 17:15 *** P.01 MODE = MEMORY TRANSMISSION START=MAY-03 17:14 END=MAY-03 17:15 FILE NO.= 067 STN NO. COM ABBR NO. STATION NAME/TEL.NO. PAGES DURATION 001 OK a 94256140615 002/002 00:00'53" —RENTON CITY CLERK OFC — ************************************ —425 430 6516 — ***** — — ********* OAS °C City of Renton ,.0 City Clerk Division, Rm. 728 ��,N�� • 1055 South Grady Way Renton, WA 98055 Date: 5 3-00 TO: Media Tools FROM: 2340r ', ' l6&/6w 4, Ali4: Dan &ern1Qi,4 Mor/y 4 rse4 Phone: (4E ,$) 603- '?ODO Phone: (425)430-6510 Fax Phone: (Slag) - 06/5 Fax Phone: (425) 430-6516 SUBJECT: Po '# Q/aooN I Number of pages including cover sheet: a REMARKS: ❑ Original to ❑ Urgent ❑ Reply ❑ Please ❑ For your be mailed ASAP Comment review 1t�11 ik.11.Y.. Ahoad of the curve MEDIA TOOLS 0120074 05/03/00 DEPARTMENT FILE COPY VendtiN.No ;. Vendor Name. :.`<; PO_No. <:>.>; :`PO O Chapter 116, Laws of 1965 t © CITY OF RENTON Purchase Order City of Renton Certification I, the undersigned, do hereby certify under penalty of perjury, that the materials have been furnished, the services rendered, or the labor performed as described herein, and that the claim is a just, due and . unpaid obligation against the City of Renton, and that I am authorized to Media TOols authenticate and certify to said claim: 13400 NE 20th, Suite 44 Signed Bellevue, WA 98005 CITY CLERK WALTON, BONNIE • >: .;:.;>•;.:��;::::;.;;:::::.;..:. ;::;:>:.:>::::....:.:..::.::::.::.::.;:Un�t:Pnce<:>:: ::>:: Este::Amount;� :..;:;.:�:.:;.;:.;::.:>:;:.;::>�:>::>:;:.;:.:::::.:;:.Account.Number.::..: :..;:.:.........:.. Qty<•:.>;;Urnt::. ..:..:...:..:...;..:. ...Descnption. ..:::... ..:.:. : . . . ... . . ... Non-linear Editing System 27,402.00 27,402.00 Media One • • • • • • Authorized By 27,402.00 ,$27.402.00 Accounts Payable Div.•200 Mill Ave.S.•Renton,WA 98055•Phone(206)235-2618•Fax(206)235-2513 DP 3119 11/94 APPROVED BY CITY COUNCIL FINANCE COMMITTEE . Date 41—Pti--O-0 COMMITTEE REPORT April24,2000 Fund Appropriation to Purchase Non-Linear Video Editing System (Referred April 10, 2000) The Finance Committee recommends that the City Council approve staff's request to purchase a Media 100 non-linear video editing system at a cost of$27, 400.87, including WSST and shipping. The Committee also recommends that Council concur in the recommendation to appropriate the funds in the 127 Cable Communication Development Fund. • King Parker, Chair Toni Nelson, Vice-Chair • Don Persson,Member cc: Marilyn Petersen • Paul Kusakabe CITY OF RENTON MEMORANDUM DATE: April 17, 2000 TO: Councilman King Parker, Chair, Finance Committee Councilwoman Toni Nelson, Vice Chair Councilman Don Persson, Member FROM: Jay Covington, CAO STAFF CONTACT: Marilyn Petersen, City Clerk/Cable Manager a� SUBJECT: Non-Linear Video Editing Equipment The cost listed on the agenda bill for the Media 100 non-linear video editing system has been reduced by$1500.00 due to the need to eliminate one of the options, the DV (digital video) option. We have recently learned that the DV option can be used only with a Sony source deck since it is the only brand which is made with digital output capability. The City has made a substantial investment in Panasonic equipment, including a source deck and two digital field cameras, and we would not recommend replacing this equipment at this time. The $1500 reduction brings the total cost of the system to $27,400.87 including tax, shipping and setup. Staff and our videographer have been assured by both the vendor and John Weist, J. W. Teltronics, our technical advisor, that elimination of this option will not result in any deterioration of tape quality. To confirm this information, Leann Johnson has scheduled another demonstration of the Media 100 using the City's Panasonic source deck. We request approval of the request conditioned upon a positive outcome at the second demonstration later this week, and postponement of the committee report for adoption until April 24, 2000. ,ate CITY OF RENTON COUNCIL AGENDA BILL AI #: ern. • For Agenda of: DepuDiv/Board.. Executive/City Clerk April 10, 2000 Staff Contact Marilyn Petersen Agenda Status Consent X Subject: Public Hearing... Request for Purchase of Non-Linear Video Editing Equipment Correspondence.. Ordinance Resolution Old Business Exhibits: New Business Issue Paper Study Sessions Market Comparison Information Recommended Action: Approvals: Refer to Finance Committee Legal Dept Finance Dept Other Fiscal Impact: Expenditure Required... $29,029.87 Transfer/Amendment $30,000 (127 Cable Comm. Dev. Fund) Amount Budgeted -0- Revenue Generated Total Project Budget City Share Total Project.. Summary of Action: The City Clerk Division requests authorization to purchase a Media 100 XE non-linear video editing system for production of City-sponsored video programming to replace the existing linear editing system. The new system, which is a PC-based digital format, will result in improved quality in video image and production, and increased_ versatility and flexibility in making changes to programming. It will allow for digital and video streaming to the Internet; enable layers of videos to be edited together without any loss of quality; offer a variety of special effects features, including limitless type and print fonts; and provide many time-saving features for staff. Following completion of user surveys and market comparisons, staff and video consultants recommend that the City purchase the Media 100 SE which is an Apple G4/450 PowerMac self-contained editing system. The total cost of the equipment including shipping, WSST, computer monitor and new audio mixer is $29,029.87. It is requested that the amount of $29,029.87 be appropriated from the Fund 127, Cable Communications Development Fund, be authorized for this purchase. Staff recommendation: Request authorization to purchase non-linear editing equipment for a cost of $29,029.87. Appropriate $30,000 from the 2000 127 Cable Communications Operating Fund unallocated fund balance (if approved, appropriation will be included in the annual clean-up ordinance). Document2/ CITY OF RENTON MEMORANDUM DATE: April 3, 2000 TO: Mayor Jesse Tanner, and Members, Renton City Council VIA: Mayor Jesse Tanner FROM: ,51.Jay Covington, CAO STAFF CONTACT: Marilyn Petersen, City Clerk/Cable Manage SUBJECT: Request for Purchase of Non-Linear Editing Equipment ISSUE: • The video linear editing system currently being used for City-produced programming was acquired from TCI in 1994 as a result of negotiations. The industry has undergone rapid advances since that time and many agencies, including Seattle, King County, Tacoma, Redmond, and Kent have converted or are soon converting to a non-linear editing system to achieve higher broadcast quality as well as editing flexibility for government access programming. COMPARISON BETWEEN LINEAR AND NON-LINEAR EDITING SYSTEMS: One of the drawbacks of a linear editing system is the deterioration of tape quality which results as video footage is copied several times to arrive at the finished product. (Linear editing is the process of editing from one video deck to another.) Footage is shot with a digital video camera(DVC), copied to an SVHS deck (analog format) for editing special effects, dissolves, wipes, etc. This becomes the first generation SVHS loss of video quality. All footage must be edited in sequence on the edit master(the second generation loss of quality). Making changes to a program is difficult and time consuming; for example, if a shot needs to be deleted, a replacement shot of equal length needs to be substituted in that spot. Otherwise, another version of the entire program must be copied, deleting the unwanted shot, which results in the loss of yet a third generation of quality. The system is limited to two audio channels, one for narration or voiceover and the other for either music or ambient sounds. To mix the two audio channels, a broadcast master must be made after editing is complete, which results in the loss of a fourth generation of video quality. Character generation (titles/graphics) is limited to two fonts and one italic font with four or five sizes. The proposed non-linear system allows editing with a computer system. First, footage is shot with DVC cameras and digitized directly via a connection into a computer. Since the footage remains digital, all editing is done in the computer and changes can be made easily without any loss of generation. In addition, non-linear editing systems have 99 audio channels which allow simultaneous narration, music and sound FX, and a limitless number of fonts for character generation. Advantages to Non-Linear Editing System: *Improved quality in video image and production *Increased versatility and flexibility in making changes to programming *Capability of editing layers of videos together without any generational loss of quality *Improved creativity from special effects features *Significant savings in staff time *Improved titles and graphics from wide variety and number of print fonts *Capability for digital streaming and video streaming to Internet. (Videos of Council meetings, Cityview, Land use Updates, etc. can be added to the City's website.) *PC-based digital format MARKET RESEARCH: Staff and our videographer, Leann Johnson, have conducted user surveys, and have attended demonstrations and trade shows to select a non-linear editing system which delivers the features we need at a reasonable cost. Following are the brands of systems used by other agencies: AGENCY SYSTEM COST City of Seattle AVID Composer $70,000 + $30,000 add-ons MEDIA 100 $30,000 King County PANASONIC POST BOX (will replace with Media 100) City of Bellevue/BCC AVID Composer $70,000 + $30,000 add-ons City of Kent FAST 601 $30,000 • Clover Park Tech. College FAST 601 $30,000 MEDIA 100 $30,000 Other systems reviewed: AVID XPRESS $35,000 +new mixer MATROX DIGISUITE $18,000 +monitor RECOMMENDATION: After evaluating all options, staff and our consultant recommend that the City purchase the MEDIA 100 XE (Apple G4/450 PowerMac). The total cost including shipping, WSST, computer monitor and new mixer is $29,029.87. Some of the features of the MEDIA 100 are the capability for digital streaming onto the Internet (videos can be shown on the City's Website); complete editing suite, excellent 24-hour technical support, and ability to upgrade. A complete comparison of the MEDIA 100 and another option, the MATROX DIGISUITE are attached for your review. The 2000 balance in the Fund 127, Cable Communications Development Fund, is $191,784. In the 1980's, Council established this fund to promote and develop cable communications for the government access channel, and directed that a percentage of the 5% cable franchise fees paid by the cable company be diverted to this fund until 1992. This request meets the purpose for which the fund was established, and, therefore, a fund transfer in the amount of$29,029.87 is requested to purchase the Media 100 editing suite. The price quoted by the vendor in December, 1999, has been reduced from $30,042.02 to $29,029.87, and includes an audio mixer which was not included in the original quote. Media 100 and Matrox Non-Linear Editing Comparison Media 100 XE Matrox Digisuite LE (DTV til 12/31) Apple G4/450 PowerMac IBM Intellistation M Pro PI11600 Package from Media Tools Package from Media Tools Quoted - $.29,029.87 Quoted $18,535.85 ($18,203.85 til 12/31) The original Matrox quote was for the Digisuite LE, but the step up DTV model is on special for the same price as the LE until 12/31/99. The Firewire option (DV input)for the Matrox is also on special until 12/31/99. Delivery schedule for the Media 100 XE is approximately 3 weeks due to the large demand for the new Apple G4/450 PowerMacs. Matrox Digisuite DTV is available approximately 10 days from order. Media 100 Advantages- • Media 100 system built to be used as a total editing unit—i.e.: do not have to quit out of editing to change utilities • Better integration with 3 party applications i.e.:After Effects &Video Cleaner •Ability to upgrade • Less problems/easier to fix problems/and easier to maintain information on a Apple platform for video and graphics work. • Less keystrokes (steps)for various operations i.e.:titles and digitizing automatically saved, no need to type in and save separately • Digital Video input and output • Better audio—more EQ • Been around much longer than Matrox, many production companies own and recommend them. •24-hour platinum technical support, usual wait 5 minutes to talk to support • I've worked on a couple Media 100s for various projects—less learning curve • Media 100 user groups have formed in the NW and classes available in San Francisco for around $500 Disadvantages- • More expensive-about$11,900 more than other system Matrox Digisuite (or DTV) Advantages- • Cheaper—almost$11,900 less • Has Real time DVE effects—no waiting to render • Good Character Generator Cont. Matrox Digisuite (DTV) Disadvantages- • System built by bundling separate software together—i.e.: quit editing if you need to change the utilities, etc. • IBM Platform—more problems, harder to fix and maintain. • More steps or keystrokes—must name, save and drag titles to timeline, etc • Not able to upgrade • Only has Digital Video input, no output... they're working on it, but no promises. •Tech Support via voicemail from 9-5, usual wait time for call back 24 hours Both systems will enable us to reach a higher level of quality with our video programs. The sharp, clean, images from our DV cams will be fed digitally into the system. Edited without going any additional generations or b-rolling. Then dubbed to an S-VHS tape for broadcast on the channel. Either system will give us a greater ability for creativity with graphics, effects,video layering, and audio. Even with a learning curve added into the mix, either system will save time and give more flexibility. I'd be happy to go through this with you if you have any questions- Leann Research for the selection of Media 100 non-linear editing system Received information and saw demo of the following while attending the Society of Broadcast Engineers Trade Show- Fast 601 —Dealer: Intellisys Group Pinnacle Systems Reeltime Nitro—Dealer: Intellisys Group 32.+Q D 5� uJ 1-40, 000'Panasonic Post Box Dealer: Intellisys Group Matrox— Dealer: Media Tools Media 100—Dealer: Media Tools Demo'd an extra time at Media Tools with Marilyn and Lori of: Matrox Media 100 Called and researched: Avid Xpress—Dealer: Audio Video Solutions Spoke to people from various city goverments- Kaie Wise—video consultant from Seattle and works with Renton as well John Giamberso- King County video producer *Both recommended Mac based platform for editing. Both had real reservations with all the other non-linear editing systems except Media 100 and Avid. King Co. said the others may be cheaper to begin with and if you have one person full time using it, it might work for your needs... but anything but Media 100 and Avid will be troublesome in maintaining if several people will be using at different times. Kaie leaned toward Avid because that's what she's been using. King County guy has the Panasonic Post Box and hates it. He's looking into purchasing a Media 100. Seattle now uses both Media 100 and Avid for their video production work. Dea Drake.--City of Kent • *Decided to purchase the FAST 601. Was considering Media 100, Matrox, Nitro, etc. Spoke to people who use Media 100 Dave Crowther—Video Production Associate/ Friend Paul Sharp—Video Production Associate *Both are completely happy with their Media 100s. Highly recommend purchase of Media 100 for video production work. Both Mac based. Media 100 is a great package when you compare all the systems with our requirements and options. I really like the dealer for Media 100 as well. He knows how to use both the systems he represents. He's a Media 100 certified editor, unlike Intellisys sales people who just sell the equipment. They have the individual manufacturers give demos and specific information. I have also used Media 100s for a couple of video projects and liked the way they worked. Avid Xpress is a good option as well but will run around $35,000 without an audio mixer. Unlike the Media 100 which is around $29,000 with an audio mixer. All other systems are much less reliable. If we were to consider any of them I would lean towards the Matrox, but have outlined its disadvantages in comparison to the Media 100 in an earlier correspondence. • Non-linear VS Linear Video Editing Linear Editing—The process of editing from one video deck to another(how we do it now) Footage is shot with a DVC Camera (Digital Video Camera), eA€.d-to a'^S-VHS deck (analog format)for editing special effects, dissolves, wipes, etc. This becomes the first generation S-VHS loss of video quality. All footage must be edited in sequence on the edit master(another loss in generation). Making changes to a program is difficult and time consuming. If you need to remove a shot, a replacement shot of equal length needs to be put in to fill its spot. Or another version can be made by making a copy of the whole program and not including that shot, which brings all the footage down one more generation. There are only 2 channels of audio available for editing so—one channel for narration or voiceover and the other channel is for either music or ambient sounds/sound FX. A broadcast master must be made after editing is complete in order to mix the two audio channels (another generation loss of video quality). If this step is skipped people will hear the narration in the left speaker of their TV and music or sound FX in the right speaker of their TV. Character Generation (titles/graphics) is limited to 2 different fonts and one italic font with 4 or 5 sizes. Non-linear Editing —Or the process of editing with computer system. Footage is shot in DVE(Digital Video Camera). Digitized directed via a Firewirc into a computer. This avoids any loss in generations. Footage stays Digital. All editing is done in the computer. Changes can be made easily. If you need to remove one shot from an edit it's as easy as taking the shot out and bringing the rest of the images together to fill the hole. No need to find a replacement shot if not needed. And no need to go another generation. There are many channels of audio available in the non-linear systems. Most have 99 channels so no limitations on not being able to have narration, music, a d sou X playing at the same time. When the program is complete one can output via t" ;Frrirectly to the DVC tape to archive program and keep program digital the whole time, not losing any generations. It's as clean as it was originally shot. Or one can output it to an S-VHS tape for use as the broadcast master and in the end it will have only gone one generation opposed to the linear process where the footage has gone up to 3-4 generations away from the original. The Character Generation options are much greater. Fonts and sizes are pretty much limitless. Can always add fonts as well. Advantages to Non-linear— Better quality product—video image quality and production quality More versatile, flexible-easier to make changes to programs Able to layer many layers of video together with out losing any generations • - cleaner and able to be more creative and professional with effects. Time saving—editing and making changes will be quicker Better titles and graphics—more fonts available .. 1 Fred Meyer uhl,...,I i\JF‘l- IIN V V I k._,L._. I'LL/L,1_I ILI . (503)797-5285 77ahilir"- 11- . ,----------, P.O..BOX 42121 • PORTLAND OR 97242 • , • - i • ' A / NAME <efirti A C. (4,1 H t\LL__._ (' ;-k I L'a' , ? v 0 1 it • •ADDRESS I D ocikrhEvrociAl JiAk ACCOUNT NO. f — /Q 71142 C E . T cr , -1DI 4ZIP Ii ry p --r- di ,-- , . r STA/ 0 l DATECREDIT TO CUSTOMERIP.Ota/ORDER 4 k le=7,%TOes CUSTOMER'S i'. ).f7V-i Cr/ lL ACCOUNT . III ..1 A/q (c.,2 l pq ACCOUNT . • 07 ZENITH T1) • — . 44A420a109 /101fH 4‘,040 /..HIti TV - --1777? • 44,64705409 2ENTTH TV 179,99 . • . 446420310Y ZENITH !V . 179,99 ' 4164203409 ZENITH 19 i19.99 4464203409 7TITI—T!J 179,99 • li. TAx 123,83 B61.. 1,56:3.7'5 EiiRii FT-THARE 1,563,75 . , TOTAL NUMBER 13F ITEMS Sidi) 5/24/99 99:1!,, N!Pi ;.':; 3(104 1W216 • MISC CHARGE • - BALANCE 1,56 ,75 CHAPGED AMOUNT L565.75 CHANGE ,c)(.1 . • . • . • . . . . • • . • • . • . . . . • . .. , . '• .. . . . . ••• • . . . ili011131 . . .••••;, Or- • • . \k,V\V1 Itik\t • • . . •' \. .\ Ak 1. \ \\ i 409 I ' • ,-- ‘i A 4464 4- ' • fl ' . • - . . . NET • . - TOTAL MERCHANDISE RECEIVED BY SIGNATURE: SECTION STAMP,DATE AND SIGN HERE • • ( j . . ./(.,•Viv' CI(L.;--).-1 1 (6-'9)..7.13"--Cl i • SOlutezei- (dakj")";- -- . -----) -' \ ) . T THIS INVOICE IS DUE AND PAYABLE E 30 DAYS AFTER DATE OF INVOICE. -#: L I 521 ..--- R 1 Ya%PER MONTH(18%PER ANNUM) • M .SERVICECHARGEMLBEADDED ) • S • TO PAST DUE ACCOUNT. LS r'V-C -1 A. U..n •• • 1 • FORM 11(4/96) . . . . Zenith Entertainment Machines-A19A11D(Specs)- http://www.zenith.com/publish/a19alld/a19alldspec.htr AI9AIID egg ' m°c/c ' zenith entertainment machines home basics Weight 65 Ibs 73 19 R c f D f 999 n'104 Height 22.7" Width 25.2" Depth 20.6" (w/o packaging) Finish Dark Textured picture that's true Horizontal Resolution -- 270 lines of picture quality performance. Black Level Expansion/White Level Compression Circuits -- automatically adjust the contrast between black and white levels for darker blacks and whiter whites with extraordinarily sharp edge detail. Peak level is maintained without loss of picture detail or subtle shading even when set for very bright viewing or when signal is too high. sound that's big Stereo Program -- for full stereo sound. Everything from your programming through dual speakers. surprisingly loaded SC3492 Remote Control -- has Menu, Select and Adjust keys to operate all TV programming features. Independent keys provide direct access to Flashback, Mute, Timer and Closed Captions. Trilingual Menus -- set up and operate your Zenith machine in Spanish, French or English. On/Off Timer-- quick and simple way to set the machine to go on and off automatically to make an empty home look occupied. Sleep Timer-- can be set to automatically turn the machine off after you fall asleep. Flashback-- instant return to the last channel viewed. connect the future Jack Pack (sets) RFs 1 1 of2 05/21/99 11:54: Zenith Entertainment Machines-A19A11D(Specs)- http://www.zenith.com/publish/a19a11d/a19a1 Idspec.htr, Zenith Electronics Corporation 1000 Milwaukee Avenue Glenview Illinois 60025 Internet: www.zenith.com Dimensions and weights are approximate.Design and Specifications subject to change without notice. This instrument is engineered and manufactured to comply with all applicable safety standards of Underwrite's Laboratories,Inc.,Canadian Standards Association and with all applicable U.S:and Canadian government regulations. For limited Warranty provisions,see the Warranty section of this Specification Book.SoundRite, Commercial Surf,Z-Trak and PIP Snapshot are trademarks of Zenith Electronics Corporation.BBE is a trademark of Barcus Berry Electronics.Printed in U.S.A.1/98©Zenith Electronics Corporation 1998 • • • • 2 of 2 05/21/99 11:54: Warranty;Color Television http://www.zenith.com/publish/tvwarr.hti COLOR TELEVISION LIMITED WARRANTY Color Television Consumer Protection Plan for Protection Plan Zenith Color Television One Year Warranty on Parts Two Year Warranty Welcome into the Zenith family! We believe that you will be pleased with your new Zenith Color on Picture Tubes TV.Please read this Consumer Protection Plan carefully. It is a"LIMITED WARRANTY" as 90-Day Warranty on defined by Federal law.This warranty gives you specific legal rights,and you may also have other Service Labor rights that vary from state to state within the U.S.A. Zenith's Responsibility Service Labor--During a period of 90 Days from the effective warranty date Zenith,or a Zenith-authorized servicing center shall provide service labor when needed, as determined by Zenith,as a result of manufacturer defects.This applies only in the U.S. Parts--New or remanufactured replacements for factory-defective parts will be supplied by a Zenith authorized service center for one year from effective warranty date(color picture tube-two years).Replacement parts are warranted for the remaining portion of the original warranty period. Home Service--Warranty service for 21" diagonal or larger screen size models is provided in the home(Some repairs may require the unit to be taken by the servicer to the repair facility and returned,at no additional charge.) Not Covered--This warranty covers manufacturing defects and does not cover installation, adjustment of customer controls in the home, installation or repair of home antenna systems,cable converters or cable company supplied equipment; it also does not cover damage due to misuse, abuse,negligence,acts of God or other causes beyond the control of Zenith. Any alteration of the product after manufacture voids this warranty in its entirety. Owner's Responsibility Effective Warranty Date--Warranty begins on the date of original consumer purchase.For your convenience,keep the dealer's dated bill of sale or delivery ticket as evidence of the purchase date. Operating Guide--Read your Operating Guide carefully so that you will understand the operation of your Color TV and how to adjust the customer controls. Carry-In Service--Models with smaller than 21" diagonal screen size must be taken to a Zenith authorized service center for warranty service and must be picked up by the owner. Antenna--Reception problems caused by inadequate home antennas or faulty antenna connections are the owner's responsibility. • .Warranty Service Before you ask for Warranty Service,check the Operating Guide's trouble-shooting section.It may be possible to avoid a service call.For warranty service information, contact any Zenith authorized service center.Parts and service labor that are Zenith's responsibility will be provided without charge.Other service is at the owner's expense.If you have any problem in obtaining satisfactory warranty service,write to: 1 of2 05/21/99 11:56. Warranty-Color Television http://www.zenith.com/publishitvwarr.htn- Zenith Electronics Corporation Zenith Response Center 1000 Milwaukee Avenue oo • Glenview,IL 60025-2493 uy€111)""e‘. Telephone:(847)391-8752 /_'8 '-393-644Y Mon-Fri,7:00 a.m.-8:00 p.m. Sat, 8:00 a.m.-5:00 p.m. Central Time Zenith Electronics Corporation 1000 Milwaukee Avenue Glenview Illinois 60025 Internet: www.zenith.com Zenith Electronics Corporation 1998 • • • • • • 2 of 2 05/21/99 11:56:4 1. / -/,61r et/atm/x.0v ieetagit t= Good choices in TV sets (Details on the choices These TV sets are: • Listed in alphabetical Choose the size of TV set that's best for your room and your budget, order within size groups•Very good or excel- using the chart below.Then select from among the sets we list,all of lent in picture quality and in ease of use of their which have a fine picture. Most people can safely choose a model by on-screen menus and remote controls. price,features,and sound quality. I • 19-and 20-inch models Guide to TV sizes Zenith A19A11 D$Zoo • - sound•18%x20x18 in. a.:...,"" ui`Y:za x'.tLi'a � �a Kw•`:i.: r ,,.. ,-' 4 1.0.yr J•f'?'S,'_;fi i ter j.:>r t 7w"':.s:. A decent basic set,though with drawbacks- - Y 4 many quite common in a 19-inch model.Sound :. The big picture•Small and fairly spartan sets•Better selection quality is adequate for speech but not for accu- ` . ; Vi in 19-in.size;higher-priced 20-in.segment is declining•Most rately reproducing music or movie soundtracks. a "a : When using cable without a box,channels adja 19-and 20...Inch'i` models cost$140 to$340 cent to the one you're watching may add visual • ,r�,f• i Best for•Viewingdistance of about 6 feet•Shows that don't +T,N demand good sound—like news,sports,talk shows "noise"to the picture.Bright,stationary images s' '•: Typical features•"Sleep"or"off"timer•Alarm or"on„ may be slightly discolored,and the picture tends _ --_ YP P to distort during even modest electrical fluctua- �,f- " timer•Multilingual menus•Monaural sound•12-mo.parts tions,as when an air conditioner cycles on. warranty•24-mo.picture-tube warranty•3-mo.labor warranty . Sony KV-20M40$290 'z`' .20-inch screen•Monaural sound•Audio-video • The big picture•Basic,midsized sets•Most models jacks•Channel blockout•181/2x201/2x18Y in. cost$250 to$370;higher-priced models are usually 20-inch sets typically offer more features than ..,, 4.k x3 ; - stereo 19-inch models;in this Sony,you'll find such con- gest for•Viewing distance of about 8 feet•Shows veniences as one set of audio-video jacks on the 25 ich`:'�, ; that don't demand good sound,unless the set can be front for easier connection to a camcorder; a attached to a sound system headphone jack;and the abilityto turn the set on +* Typical features Same as 19-and 20-in.models,plus: and off from a light switch.Sound quality is ade •Closed captioning automaticallywhen muted•12 mo. quate for speech but not for accurately repro- , P 9 during music or movie soundtracks.You can make - labor warranty, picture adjustments only with the remote,the -- letters and numbers on which were hard to read in a dark room. . . . . • 25-inch models The bigpicture•Full-featured,midsized sets•Most a k,V' . Samsung TXH2555 approximately$280 r n ,_°A'. models cost$300 to$450•Can be part of a home-theater } � ^� �� setup—fits in most entertainment center cabinets and •Stereo sound•Universal remote•Audio video , •' jacks•22%zx25x21 in. ' ti oqvin„ '" vc�'*.: has necessary inputs and outputs !� g � Sound quality is adequate for speech but not for i �t 4•Avtt4 1,,w,�ry 1 Best for•Viewing distance of about 8 feet • =t ,•i a � ` ;!0 t. yk, • Typical features Same as 25-in.models,plus:•Stereo accurately reproducing music or movie sound- , , , t., (• sound•Ambience sound•Audio-video inputs and out- jacks nhhe audio-videoof jacks include a me set of � P jacks on the front for hooking up a camcorder. -:a4 . L ;:1i1:Y 1 v; puts•Comb filter•Universal remote•S-video=input jack Similar model:7XH2556,approximately$300. __.. ,;" ` •Audio-tone controls•Channel block•Picture-in-picture '.ti.. "r . Sharp 25K-M100$250 •Monaural sound•Audio-video jacks •'-‘,:•,, - ' '7'- f�-�',Tr. ,.. ., •22x24%x20 in. The big picture•Now the entry-level big-screen Sound quality is adequate for speech but not for . sets(only a few 31-in.models remain)•Most accurately reproducing music or movie sound- ' models cost$600 to$700•Good for home-theater tracks.The audio-video inputs include one set of • . setup,but won't fit in many entertainment-center jacks on the front for hooking up a camcorder. 32'inch. . cabinets The picture tends to distort during even modest '_. Best for•Viewing distance of about 10 feet electrical fluctuations, as when an air condi- T Typical features Much like 27 in.models tioner cycles on.You can make picture adjust- YP ments only with the remote. No alarm timer. . Unlike most 25-inch sets,the labor warranty is • • only for 3 months. Similar model: 25K-M180, /X '7" ""^ T„x 5y approximately$240. • 27-inch models NC AV-27950$470 •Stereo sound•Universal remote•Audio-video jacks•S-video input•Dual-tuner PIP•Channel bloc kout•23x25%x19Vzz in. Very good sound,with ambience enhancement 20 '- Can't find a model?Contact the manufacturer.See page 63. c. - . - - • • - .. - . --:-.1,-;-k...,.,-, :,..,v14-,,kik.....kc9....4-g.',,.,4,4.,?.-4. v ,:.! • f I . • .. • .., 2 . .. ,,,".•,f.r.:‘ .01 .,.;,:...,.!.A,r•,-_... . .l',, •... - rt" .. i, r.. •111 ei.•. .i-,•:-,,; •i• ,,,NI..„, ....,,,, .-.,. .,,, , .,,‘,. ,,,,,..,, .,,,,,. • ;",:?•45,t . .: •-,1'...4.4_7•,,,,,,•..,. , ,., -, ,'f r,,,,, „q•,4.••„!,,,—.1..,.:A,',,q.,A,,z,,;;.....i,!..,....A.14 ;,,,,,,1,•.r..,,,,-•-::.•,c,'-4., ,I,4.,I:.0"",....4:M..Z.'...'clA$1•1.',,t-'itf• S.A.,14;14.136.41.7.:Z'l tiDtt. 9 "ie • ,./'•'• ,,,,,......'''.1-.tt':1 --. • PAC. P KAGES: FedEx vs, UPS .:::-________w._ . :.7 04.34"::: . - -,---, -. 0 . ,,•. .... -- . , • ,..„,.DECEMBER ,' , _...] .:,.•.---,e-r,.... • /7F-- 1998 -r \ n [ sr-iu [ [ ffi ."-* I ______) A) ---) 1- ear eliu . „viol, ,, 1 j . . \ , e I a 1 I • 1 pts 1311e2lAt [ . J ____ _I _____)1 _±1.....• ....:.,. _ r= •,, • / 'NI,,; , ,,,---------:,.„ rT-q.,.... --,,, ,, .-.•77:1„.<77.'n. 771 r•-.77.3.1::;.;Li• „:-,57,-,1,-s•,..,,, t, .. ..1 . .. ' •7. " . f ''rTh '-',4 -.1''44.0,..-,..c4:•,.-:r., 1 ,. ., ., .--- s .\ • 1,,: r\-..-•-•.7r-\.2'. -‘•\ ,,•. :„.,... ... 4... r •:„........., ,.. .:,.. .... ..,„_,..., ....,,.. ,,i•,..›.1.. ..e.4.1‘..._,„...,..._„. /....: .. . , ..:. . . ..,.. ., ..,:. ,......,. •. ... ..1 .,,... Pr . 0. ''.•,.••' 4'. A :,...-- '''',:r-st',•'.''li;',, • :,'.1 •'. "..,.,....1 ..' :1 -. : 1 . 1 .•.' . • -' • ..a., ..I; ..' ./ . . \+. '4.- •' :''j'i4•4 ''''.'1:';'• -”"r.7 ..'' • 1 1 ' ' Z. Xa ,..ir, - S • ' JrI 1 . ' 1 -' ' ''''.''''.1 ••:'' "-''. Y••'...,.. •'.:•-''..Pi ,:,i, •", et/ "*.;;S, •': '7..f' PZ.•.._, •' ' ' ' •'"• • ' "-'1" •• '1.F2'.4..1...6 t',i, ''• . Eles ,.va . .. ues • C.) Desktops . q, r- --.--- . ',,';:‘,.."-rii,•44ektt. 1,..•,—'''''t' -' ' '''•41"''?`-•., t`t. ..itkir4,'•`• .", . ,C!•x,j,,,,,,....,4,,4, ....t-6-. l..;•,, mac._ity_•,!..„.0.,,..,..,..7 ,,, , -....,,,,,,e.„..,.. .t1 •......s. .:NF-00.7.1,44.,, ..., r,,. ,..,.. ' '.,-.-'ti 1 m. ,-, o Fax combos F'4:' ..,z,:i . ,„, : - ,.„ .. . .N.,,,,,-_,,,o1 ,.4 4, • -'A 1 • t. ,. ,.. , k.•i. . -.. • ' . Monitors .,. 1;. --;, , r. -,.•,.. . /:..::::';"-*::.Y.‘:14-^i;.'-i•-•,',-,• . , fi.4 i . o „ 4s,',. .,-,-,-c;,,J, ''',..4-"-•.••`"' • Tech help linest: ..,, , , ,,_.• ,,,,,,„ ,,„ ....,..: •,,,, ,,, ..„ ' 'f,ar ' : '.i.`i!'•' {:"I',IV...Iv v..: , ' : tNkt'•1;,. ' • •,,,,...A.,...,A:.•.•• ...,, : - 4, •!.••- m . .,. ,, .. .,zr, , . ..,1 .3,..-- - ' t, •k,.. •••-‘•1 , vAr,4.4.s0,,,,,,,0,.. • ,-1 , A )i 7 1. ..'4•;`,51," ' 'r',';,.i',"!.1,,,i't, ..-., ,, •,",0 •N.,,‘"M . ,1. 4.' A it;$4° . 441,.•44;6'7'1 " f.',.14-1''ti,;. il •-• 1 ', 1 4,, ,,,, • TV sets . . ,,,....: atc,..,,...,...• . .. ,„:,...„,,,,,....,41,...r.,...„ .. .. ......„..:, .„..,„.. ,.....6.,,- . i„... ..„.„.1:,,,., 41.w........}.,,.. .... .. • • Educational toys : .. ......„,4„,‘„:„.., .2.,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,ik4g4 04.74-•• - ,•-.VI"'i'-'.'' . ..-I.•:,,..`,••41•,' ,;',,W,`""•.: ':• ''•',"."- .1,'"—"". • -hinifaX145.6.4.0.0.6.14,,,,...t.A.= ••••••' . .. • ''e'..?."•Vi' ' .1'.:.:L 7.1:. ,,,,,it-t.. .._,..,,. . . .. ..!,;:,q,.",,,,,,,4*„....„,:.,,....,• ....„,-,....;;;,.. .„''.;,•,"-,::',',.'f..;.•:•.,•-.'•;. • ,i‘i't-4'''3."'''''..'. . '..••'g''V• •••• • ' • '•• Microwaves . ,,..0*,'",-"i4:ie:',14.:!-,,...!:;ilifi . . 52.95US/53.95CAN DEC ,2- . ' . *4-1414-i-I 1 / 11 1 1 2> . .. . • ,,,pliii•-.,,,„, j..- ., .. ,...-.7•—s—k.e—La,...!!,, ,..t"••-•,.•,,,i,,:‘,..,,,t,....,•,, —•.•,,,;,01,,,,•-f , • /' ' rfili—"itall'il"Li 4'6'4'14'..P.kinni,,--, —4.... A. 0 1401918400 2 / , •-----•••,,,------1.•.77/A7/7, 'II '' *4',•n•,,A.'".. ..;•,41,• , ki..!%ItAyii, ' .- g,4M, '''W..i, e,.. It- • -':'''''..' .'I''':"0'...::•!: -.;-4;•:',';$tS..•:••A't re' '‘. ,t, 4-- s•. "V'•'•. 4:4. s' 7•••. , .. `Kt • .'''4;.4 I:.•'.... . '' ':i''P''F'1':''Clrifite .4-..-,-,,tArA44.4 4.0-ktf.1,4, 4A-,• -it-...,\ et.:,,1):-.!..• - . • •...,.,•••..,N,.,4 at, il., .2kef.....: rveiii....„,,,...,...,,,,zg-.4,....,,t. .. ,,,,,p,..%,,.,;•.,....7,e,,,..1.c.r_OA . • ,. "•—•-• ..---.....:.....:'.::.'.'-'?-1- ',, ;..''7—-•`. ."..2..leAsya.„.111,2•-•, :4,..i.-,._• ,..;_:_____._;____.--...--•-- - . • • 027453 FRED MEYER • 9120109 05/17/99 DEPARTMENT FILE COPY`' endor; b:>:.::>;: ::::: ;: .... Vendor.Name:;:::. :;:'<: PO No. • 4 ® Chapter 116, Laws of 1965 CITY OF RENTON Purchase Order City of Renton Certification baLL • I, the undersigned, do hereby certify under penalty of perjury, that the materials have been furnished, the services rendered, or the labor FRED MEYER performed as described herein, and that the claim is a just, due. and unpaid obligation against the City of Renton, and that I am authorized to PO BOX 42121 • authenticate,and certify to said claim: PORTLAND, OR 97242 Signed FINANCE DEPARTMENT WALTON, BONNIE Qty. • Unit.::;::::;::;.;:::;. ;::::.;... . .:::.:..::::.::.:: . . ..:.../Fun. ..:.� scq tton>:::::<:a::>:::;;:::.:.:;>>>:�::::.;Unit::Pr�c >::;: ::;. ,:::: , p ..... ...... .. ... st .....otirit::':::: >: ° :.; :ccount:::umber:::>::::>::<::::;<::><::>:>::>:>::::>><:: ::>:>: wQlFunc.::. Amount 8 ea 8 Zenith 19" TV's it19A11D/ 179.99 1,439.92 E 127.000000.004.5710.0010.31.000000 1,439.92 Sales Tax 8.6% . 123.83 E 127.000000.004.57.10.0010.31.000000 123.83 • • • • • Authorized By ,. , 1,563.75 • 1,563:75 Accounts Payable Div.•200 Mill Ave.S.•Renton,WA 98055•Phone(206)235-2618•Fax(206)235-2513 I DP 3119 11/94 ' PLEASE REMIT PROLINE INDUSTRIES INC. INVOICE P PAYMENT TO: 1233-120th AVENUE N.E., BELLEVUE WA 98005 . . (425) 451.-1999:FAx (425) 637-9558 , ai-24 g, ., ”/ . . ' 1)308430000 -t . . ' . . . BILL TO ..,I TY OF RENTON \ CITY OF RENTON H ACCOUNTS PAYABLE I RECE IV ING/POit 8120179 10.55 S . GRADY WAY P 1 OSS SOUTH GRADY WAY RENTON WA 98055 . T ATTN : MAR I LYN 'PETERSON ° RENTON WA 98055 . . I PURCHASE ORDER NO. . I ORDER DATE I SALES ORDER NO. INVOICE DATE INVOICE NUMBER 10558 8/20/98 00821703 9/08/98 821703 , DATE SHIPPED SHIP VIA I TERMS SALES REP. I REGION 9/03/98 JPS/CHARGE NET 30 DAYS CHARLIE NIEMI 45 WY ORD'D WY B.O. MODEL NO. DESCRIPTION QTY.SHP'D UNIT PRICE I AMOUNT irft THANK YOU TOR YOUR ORDER ** : ,• . . . • . , ** Sc that we can better assist you, please . . mien the "Terms a Conditions" printed *' . _..., - ** ofr the beck of this invoice. ** ** ** Valt**Afrirkkirk**MMMA**k***Waltft-kkAlec**********k***** . , 1 SOH1JNC950/13PAC SONY CORPORATION 1 6,777.00 6,777.00 . . ' CAHERA .., . . . 1 CflAD2 • SONY CORPORATION . 1 164.00 ' 164.00 A/C ADAPTOR . .. , 1 SONRAC950 SONY CORPORATION 1 611.00 611.00 BENOIT 7,552.00 J00-5800-21-000 SHIPPING a HANDLING 142.22 ., . SALES TAN .- 118- 661.70 TOTAL MOUNT DUE , •8,355.92 , . .... .. . . . . . . . • . . . , „ .. , . . , . , • • - , . . . . . . , . . . . . . . • . . .- . • • -.. . , . . . . . ... . . . -., . . •. . . . . . ' . . , . . ' 2 PLEASE SEE REVERSE FOR TERMS&CONDITIONS OF SALE 2 DUPLICATE TE S AND CONDITIONS BY ACCEPTING SHIPMENT THE CUST MER AGREES TO THE FOLLOWING: 1. INSPECTIONS,ACCEPTANCE AND RETURN: All merchandise received must be inspected upon receipt. Customer is responsible to file any claims for loss , pilferage, or damage in transit with the carrier from which the shipment is received. A notation must be made on the delivery slip before signing. Claims for loss or damage must not be deducted from our invoice, nor payment of our invoice withheld pending resolution of your freight claim. All returns must be authorized by a Customer Service Representative and are subject to restocking fees. Merchandise that has been engraved with the Customer's name, etc., or is incomplete, (not in original packaging, missing manuals, cables, etc.) will not be accepted back by Proline and the Return Authorization will be canceled. 2. TERMS OF PAYMENT: Customer agrees to pay Proline in connection with any invoice amount within the specified terms of invoice. Proline may require payment in advance before making any shipment,or may extend terms of net 30 days with established credit. Customer agrees to pay Proline Industries, Inc. interest on any payments that are received beyond the payment due date described herein, at a rate equal to the maximum rate of interest permitted by law. Customer agrees to pay all collection costs, including but not limited to,court costs,attorney fees,etc.. PROLINE RETAINS TITLE TO ALL MERCHANDISE UNTIL INVOICE IS PAID IN FULL. 3. CHANGE OR CANCELLATION: Customer may cancel or make changes to an open and unshipped order only upon written notice to Proline. Special order items will require a deposit. Customer will forfeit any deposit made for products that are special ordered and subsequently canceled. 4. RENTAL/DEMO EQUIPMENT: • Proline Industries, Inc. retains title to all merchandise released for rental or demo purposes. Customer is responsible to keep all merchandise secure and in good condition. Customer agrees to pay for damages to, or replacement value for loss of equipment. Failure to return rented/demo equipment as per contract will result in criminal prosecution in accordance with Washington State Law RCW 9.45.060 and in accordance with criminal possession of lease 9-A56395. If the Customer is located outside the State of Washington, the equivalent laws of the"ship to"state will apply. 5. WARRANTY: Proline will support the manufacturers standard warranty on product sold. Proline shall not be liable for any injury, loss or damage, direct or consequential, arising out of the use of or the inability to use the product. Before using, Customer shall determine the suitability of the product for his intended use, and Customer assumes all risk and liability whatsoever in connection therewith. 6. FORCE • URE: Should a delay in the delivery of a customers order occur due to causes beyond Proline's control, including • but not limited to, acts of government or compliance with government rules or regulations,acts of God,acts of civil or mandatory authorities, acts of purchaser, strikes, riots or war, Praline will make every reasonable effort to complete shipment,but shall not be liable for any losses or damages the delay in delivery or failure to deliver may cause the Customer. • PO # S l a t - '/ Vendor aD63 691 PLEASE REMIT PROLINE INDUSTRIES, INC. INVOICE PAYMENY TO: 1233-120th AVENUE N.E., BELLEVUE WA 98005 • (425) 451-1999 FAX (425) 637-9558 0308430000 OTYOFRENTON BILLTO /CITY OF RENTON JUL 1 ] i993 H CITY OF RENTON ACCOUNTS PAYABLE I RECEIVING/PO# 81E0144 200 MILL AVENUE SOUTH GTYCLEf_KrS D FICE T ATTNP 200 MILL MARILYNUE SOUTH PETERSON ATTN: M. DOOHAN RENTON WA 98055 (3 RENTON . WA 980515 PURCHASE ORDER NO. ORDER DATE SALES ORDER NO. I INVOICE DATE INVOICE NUMBER 8120144 7/07/98 00820216 7/15/98 820216 DATE SHIPPED SHIP VIA TERMS I SALES REP. REGION' 7/06/98 UPS/CHARGE NET 30 DAYS CHARLIE NIEMI 4 OTY ORD'D I OTY B.O. I MODEL NO. I DESCRIPTION QTY.SHP'D UNIT PRICE I AMOUNT **** ***,t ** THANK YOU FOR YOUR ORDER ** ** ** ** , that ue can better assist you, please ** ** -visa the "Terns d Conditions" printed ** ** • the back of this invoice. ** ** ** *Mint ******* • TAXAB E 1 EIKLCX1 EIKI INTERNATIONAL INC. 1 12,995.00 12,995.00 LCD PROJECTOR 1 1 SONDSC1024G SONY CORPORATION 0 4,990.00 .00 SCAN CONUERTER SEA 9:093382 1 PRGUP11321AST PROGRESSIUE IARKETING 1 395.00 395.00 nomNT 1 FREIGHT PROLIHE INDUSTRIES, INC. 1 22.70 22.70 FREIGHT 1 FREIGHT PROLINE INDUSTRIES, INC. 1 31.95 31.95 FREIGHT SALES TAX WA 1,156.24 TOTAL AMOUNT DUE 14,600.89 r zr � �a t1At .Sid,:".'-, .;t. ! '3 :cyan Y ' :'4).'t' PLEASE SEE REVERSE FOR TERd,A,, QN `r, ntek,gF, `}' ' !' '' • • ..rtr �r <ty r a • . -;fit �;.Y S y� y£� i.' r )''�i�'�.,a I,,ktiK_ r°! �,u t ' . 'ttE,w, . '+ a r ' • /. . PLEASE REMIT PROLINE INDUSTRIES, INC. INVOICE PAYMENT TO: 1233-120th AVENUE N.E., BELLEVUE WA 98005 (206) 451-1999 FAX (206) 637-9558 \ l ,0308430000 . .BILLTO`_ CITY OF RENTON H�CITY OF RENTON ACCOUNTS PAYABLE I RECEIVING/PO# 8120144 200 MILL AVENUE SOUTH P 200 MILL AVENUE SOUTH ATTN : M . DOOHAN T ATTN : MARILYN PETERSON RENTON WA 98055 0 RENTON WA 98055 PURCHASE ORDER NO. I ORDER DATE j SALES ORDER NO. INVOICE DATE 1 INVOICE NUMBER 8120144 7/07/98 • 0082021601 7/22/98 820221601 DATE SHIPPED SHIP VIA ; TERMS I SALES REP. i REGION 7/21 /98 UPS/CHARGE NET 30 DAYS CHARLIE NIEMI 45 QTY ORD'D I CITY BA MODEL NO. DESCRIPTION QTY.SHP'D UNIT PRICE AMOUNT ** THANK YOU FOR YOUR ORDER ** ** ** CITY OF RE NTON ** So that ue can better assist you, please ** ** review the "Terns E Conditions" printed ** ** o, the back of this invoice. ** J U L 2. 7 1998 ** ** *****Onrtt***********x**a******************e***,th 1 ECEIy ED CIT`f CLEtik'S OFFICE • S/N SO1-2101983-A 1 SONDSC10Z4G SONY CORPORATION 1 4,990.00 4,990.00 SCAN CONVERTER • 4,990.00 100-5800-21-000 SHIPPING 8 HANDLING 24.40 • SALES TAX UR 431.24 TOTAL MOUNT DUE - 5,445.64 • ALL RETURNS MUST BE MADE WITHIN 30 DAYS OF RECEIPT . : \ J PLEASE SEE REVERSE FOR TERMS&CONDITIONS OF SALE • • • • 063690 PROLINE INDUSTRIES INC 8120144 07/01/98 • . ORIGINAL endor No`::::: ;: <::::::: '::` >:> :::: V .. �.. ............ Vendor:NameW<:;;::::::::: >:MO PO No. 0:>::<;.130.Date' ::;:::. Q Chapter 116, Laws of 1965 CITY OF RENTON Purchase Order City of Renton Certification I, the undersigned, do hereby certify under penalty of perjury, that the materials have been furnished, the services rendered, or the labor performed as described herein, and that the claim is a just, due and PROLINE INDUSTRIES INC unpaid obligation against the City of Renton, and that I am authorized to 1233, - 120TH AV NE authenticate and certify to said claim: • BELLEVUE, WA 98005 Signed NON-DEPARTMENTAL WALTON, BONNIE .....:.......:,..:..:....D Description ;::::::.::.;:>:::.>�::>: :=:;::Unit Price Est:.Amount:.:.. ::;::;;:;.;:.;�.;::.::.:.:.:.;::<.:;:.:.;:.;:.:-:::.:;;•. ;.:.. .. ............... ......:...:......Account.Number:>::>>�>:::<::>.�:>:::::;�:�>�;::�::::?:»:•' .:...:.VYO/Funs.:;.• � ;-Amount. EIKI Video Projector/Model $12,995.00 E 316.000000.005.5940.0099.64.000017 $12,995.00 • #LCXIU • Sony Scan Converter/Model 4,990.00 E 316.000000.005.5940.0099.64.000017 4,990.00 DSC1024G Progressive Marketing LCD Projector Mount Model 1t1321 DAST 395.00 E 316.000000.005.5940.0099.64.000017 395.00 $18,380.00 SUBTOTAL $18,380.00 • 1,587•.48 Sales Tax : ) 1I587. q C .1,58• �8 • 54.65 Freight 54.65 24.40 Shipping & Handling 24.40 $20,046.53 Total - INV 820216 & 82021601 $20,046.53 • Authorized By 320,046.53 • ;$20,,046.53 Accounts Payable Div.•200 Mill Ave.S.•Renton,WA 98055•Phone(206)235-2618•Fax(206)235-2513 DP 3119 11/94 `fig60 ee ,e ,A" 64,:z6 _74=, w_6eA ,&( iie:07zezez:ek. c et__ FW-11 • 1:,2 e 9 9 5 •'.0 O X - .. • 1,7 . 57 1 1.1 1 7 . 57 + 121995 . 00 + •• 411,12 57 f 4 ' 990 . 00 X. : 0 . 086 = 429 . 14 �r 429 -, 14 -+ 4 i990 • 00 + 51419 . 14CY 14 (112 . 57 + 51419 . 14 + 19 � 531 � 71 r .• • j c . . . • 121995 • 00 + 41990 • 00 + • 1719E15- 00 * • : . 171985 • 00 - : 0 • 086 11546 - 71 x . 11546 • TL • .171985 • 00 + ('T-91531 - 71 )* PO 8120144 P4.66m; EIKI Video Projector, Model #LCXIU @$12,995.00 Sony Scan Converter, Model DSC1024G @ $4,990.00 Sales Tax /)51/6,7/ Total a 9 53/,7/ Ov'0000-coo' S9VD • 6011 6) 11 0000/ 0 . 00 :t 0 . 00 * 121995 . 00 + 41990 . 00 + 395 . 00 + 181380 . 00 x 18 ' 380 . 00 x 0 . 086 = 11580 . 68 u 1 ' 580 . 68 + 18 ' 380 . 00 + 191960 . 68 x • . • PO 8120144 /26CAuz. EIKI Video Projector, Model #LCXIU @$12,995.00 Sony Scan Converter, Model .DSC1024G @ $4,990.00 Sales Tax lS /6,7/ 1 2 i 99 'i • 4JU x Total a/9,53/. 7/ U • Ut;6 - Jill 'i • 'i'7 3iG - o�a00 .c�o5� Sgc/p . aogc�• �/ 1 t 1 1l • ' 'f + Clot 112 • 5Di 0.ti) 0 . 00 + 0 . 00 4 , 9O . 00 x 0 • 086 0 . 00 X 429 . 14 X 12 995 • 00 + 429 . 14 + 4 � 990 . 00 + 4 ' `)�4i.1 • UU + 395 . 00 + `' , �419 . 14 18 380 . 00 .X 0 • x 1411 12 • 57 + 184 5t 419 . 1 �4 + 38U • OU x 0 . 086 �`-� 1 t�3l • !� 0 • ;; 1 1580 . 68 x 1 ?.. ��9 , • UO 1 , 580 . 68 + 41990 . 00 + 184380 • 00 + 1 `7 , 9�1 'i • Uil F 19i960 . 68 x 11i985 • 00 x 0 . 086 = 1 ; 546 . 71 /�(� - • 1 , 546 . 71 2)41i-74,1,6- c-1 c4 j 5 35 1 .74 /3/'P9 s7 • 063690 PROLINE INDUSTRIES INC 8120144 07/01/98 .. • ORIGINAL Vendor No`>`s ;:.',::>>:;::`::::<::::;s> ;..:..;.:.:•::... ::;::::<:>:•;>::>:.;:::>;:.:::: ...:.......::... Vendor.Name :•;:<:;:,:::::::::<�:::�::::: PO No. \% 0 Chapter 116, Laws of 1965 CITY OF RENTON Purchase Order City of Renton Certification I, the undersigned, do hereby certify under penalty of perjury, that the materials have been furnished, the services rendered, ,or the labor PROLINE INDUSTRIES INC performed as described herein, and that the claim is a just, due- and unpaid obligation against the City of Renton, and that I am authorized to 1233 - 120TH AV NE authenticate and certify to said.claim: • BELLEVUE, WA 98005 Signed NON-DEPARTMENTAL WALTON, BONNIE : ... Amount: •. EIKI Video Projector/Model $12,995.00 E 316.000000.005.5940.0099.64.000017 $12,9.95.00 I/LCXIU Sony Scan Converter/Model 4,990.00 E 316.000000.005.5940.0099.64.000017 4,990.00 • DSC1024G Progressive Marketing LCD Projector Mount Model #1321 DAST 395.00 E 316.000000.005.5940.0099.64.000017 395.00 $18,380.00 SUBTOTAL $18,380.00 1,587.48 Sales Tax 1,587.48 54.65 Freight 54.65 24:40 Shipping & Handling 24.40 $20,046.53 Total - INV 820216 & 82021601 $20,046.53 • Authorized By 320,046.53 $20,,046.53 Accounts Payable Div.•200 Mill Ave.S.•Renton,WA 98055•Phone(206)235-2618•Fax(206)235-2513 ••• DP 3119 11/94 PO # 8'I a 01 Vendor J4063 690 .' PLEASE REMIT PROLINE INDUSTRIES, INC. INVOICE PAYMENT TO: 1233-120th AVENUE N.E., BELLEVUE WA 98005 • (425) 451-1999 FAX (425) 637-9558 0308430000 CITY OFRENTON . CITY OF RENTON • JUL 1 7 1998 S 'CITY OF RENTON BILL TO ACCOUNTS PAYABLE I RECEIVING/PO# 81.20144 200 MILL AVENUE SOUTH 1Ty��XISE MI AVENUE ATTN : M. DOOHAN E �FICE T ATTNMARILYNPETERSON RENTON WA 98055 o RENTON WA 98055 PURCHASE ORDER NO. I ORDER DATE SALES ORDER NO. I INVOICE DATE INVOICE NUMBER 8120144 7/07/98 00820216 7/15/98 . 820216 ' DATE SHIPPED SHIP VIA I TERMS I SALES REP. I REGION 7/06/98 UPS/CHARGE NET 30 DAYS CHARLIE NIEMI 45 QTY ORD'D I OTY B.O. I MODEL NO. I DESCRIPTION OTY.SHP'D UNIT PRICE AMOUNT ** THANK YOU FOR YOUR ORDER ** ** ** ** ^o that ue can better assist you, please ** ** -vieu the "Terns $ Conditions" printed ** ** in the back of this invoice. ** ** +rat, TAXAB.E 1 EIKLCX1 EIKI INTERNATIONAL INC. 1 12,995.00 12,995.00 LCD PROJECTOR 1 1 SOHDSC1024G SONY CORPORATION 0 4,990.00 .00 SCAN CONUERTER SEA 95093382 1 PRGUPM1321AST PROGRESSIVE-IIARKETING 1 395.00 395.00 DOUNT 1 FREIGHT • PROLINE INDUSTRIES, INC. 1 22.70 22.70 FREIGHT 1 FREIGHT PROLINE INDUSTRIES, INC. 1 31.95 31.95 FREIGHT SALES TAX AA 1,156.24 TOTAL AMOUNT DUE 14,600.89 • ALL RETURNS VIJ _T BE MADE WITHIN 30 DA _$ OF RECEIPT PLEASE SEE REVERSE FOR TERMS&CONDITIONS OF SALE J + PLEASE.REMIT PROLINE INDUSTRIES, INC. INVOICE PAYMENT TO: ?; 1233-120th AVENUE N.E., BELLEVUE WA 98005 (206) 451-1999 FAX (206) 637-9558 ' 0308430000. %BILLTO . . CITY OF RENTON H CITY OF RENTON ;(:'. ACCOUNTS PAYABLE I _ RECEIVING/PO# 8120144 I''' '' 200 MILL AVENUE SOUTH P. 200 MILL AVENUE SOUTH ATTN : M . DOOHAN T ATTN : MARILYN PETERSON ,,, ;': `",:: ' RENTON WA 98055 O RENTON WA 98055 :;�' PURCHASE ORDER NO. ORDER DATE SALES ORDER NO. INVOICE DATE I INVOICE NUMBER ' i 8120144 7/07/98 0082021601 7/22/98 82021601 . DATE SHIPPED SHIP VIA TERMS I SALES REP. 6 REGION 7/21/98 UPS/CHARGE NET 30 DAYS CHARLIE NIEMI 45.:.:".; QTY ORD'D I QTY B.O. I MODEL NO. i DESCRIPTION CITY.SHP'D UNIT PRICE AMOUNT ** THANK YOU FOR YOUR ORDER *o* ` tat So that ue can better assist you, please ** CITY OF RENTON ** review the "Terns & Conditions" printed ** ** on the back of this invoice. ** J U L 2 7 1998 ** *,* i ,m**xinv**,dx* , *a; t r*ir*t tent********* RECEIVED CITY CLERKS OFFICE S/H SO1-2101983-A 1 SONDSC1024G SONY CORPORATION .. 1 4,990.00 4,990.00 SCAN COHUERTER 4,990.00 •;" 100-5800-21-000 SHIPPING & HANDLING 24.40 SALES TAX IIA 431.24 F TOTAL AMOUNT DUE 5045.64 . I ALL RETURNS MUST BE MADE WITHIN 30 DAYS OF RECEIPT , PLEASE SEE REVERSE FOR TERMS&CONDITIONS OF SALE • FRANCHISING • - REFRANCHISING •: COMMUNITY NEEDS - ASSESSMENTS • ORDINANCE PREPARATION ...•:."_NEGOTIATION • EVALUATION • FRANCHISE ADMINISTRATION • ACCESS Cable ,Communi t c ns Consultants Aril 30, 1998 �. :.: ..... CITY OF.RENTON P Scott Scowcroft MAY 0 .4 1998 = , NW.Access and Production Center RECEIVED 1125 N. 98th Street CITY CLERK'S OFFICE Seattle, WA 98103 SUBJECT: Renton Access Equipment Bid - Dear Mr. Scowcroft • We have reviewed your last fax transmittal listing the equipment to be put out to bid to complete the task of moving the production facilities from the original location in the City Council Chambers to the new City Hall location. After a complete review, we agree that the list of equipment is complete and it appears that all the appropriate makes and model numbers are correct. There is one major concern however. On your list you show the Extron P/2 DA-4 ;SVGA.Distribution Amplifier as being an item the City of Renton is responsible to purchase. It is our clear understanding that this is an item TCI is responsible,4or. The agreement with the City requires a review of the existing equipment and the purchase by TCI of additional equipment needed to upgrade the facilities as well as to make the move discussed. It should be obvious by the fact that the City has purchased one new projector for over $5,000.00, a new large screen for an additional $5000.00 and is in the middle . . of purchasing yet another projector at a cost .of over .$10,000.00, that this $500.00 distribution amplifier is not only a necessity but also a reasonable purchase on behalf of.TCI to facilitate the new equipment purchased by the City. We have received a fax expressing concern that there may be a problem with providing'the list of equipment within the June 1998 time frame. This date is not flexible and we must take whatever steps are necessary to keep this schedule. Please keep in close contact with our office concerning this matter in, y, •n a.ud :•,. _ ;3-H able Communications Consultants cc Marilyn Peterson 504 East Main Street,Auburn,Washington 98002 • . (253)833-8380 • 1-800-222-9697. • FAX: (253)833-8430 04/21/1998 10:37 4256469521 PROLINE PAGE 01 • • FIROUNE FAX MESSAGE Corporate Headquarters 123:1,;120th Avenue NE Belldvue, WA 98005 DATE: 21-Apr-98 • Phori;e (425) 451-1999 Fax j;:425) 646-9521 Number of Pages Including Cover 2 E-Wil c niemi@prolineay.com • . TO: Marilyn Peterson FROM: Charlie Niemi City of Renton Fax:425-235-2513 . RE MARKS: Marilyn, here is the quote per your request. Please give me a call if yowl have any questions or need more info. Thaiinks, Cha fi lie • • . . . IMPORTANT NOTICE: THIS INFORMATION IS INTENDED TO BE FOR THE USE OF THE INDIVIDUAL OR ENTITY NAMED ON THIS TRANI:IMITTAL SHEer. IF YOU ARE NOT THE INTENDED RECIPIENT,BE AWARE THAT ANY DISCLOSURE COPYING,DISTRIBUTION OR USE�)F THE CONTENTS OF THIS FAXED INFORMATION IS PROHIBITED_ IF YOU HAVE RECEIVED THIS FAX IN ii! ..� w 04/21/1998 10:37 4256469521 PROLINE PAGE 02 0 1775 Tribute Rd., Suite D SACRAMENTO,CA 95615 PROLINE (916)569-1775 FAX(916)569.0696 Il ❑ seso S.W.Capitol Hwy. p 1435 Koll Circle.Suite 106 PORTLAND,OR 97219 SAN JOSE,CA 95112 CORPOkATE HEADQUARTERS (503)245-4885 FAX(503)244-9449 (408)453-0558. FAX(408)453-0557 1233 121:Ith Avenue,N.E. BELLEVIIJE,WA 98005 0 S.109 Scott SI.,Unit B ❑ 36 West Fa ette Ave,Suite 5 (425)45r1-1999 FAX(425)646-9521 SPOKANE,WA 99202 SALT LAK CITY,UT t}a1D1 (509)5342828 FAX(509)534.2828 (801)384-7799 FAX(801)364-7790 Marilyn n Peterson DATE 4121198 Ple tnlsnumber oete TO when ordering ' ' ' YOUR INQUIRY DATED TERMS City of Renton Net 30 PROPOSED SHIPPING DATE TO BE SHIPPED VIA 200 Mill Ave S TBD Best 5A1 ESM F PPD. COLL. Rirnton,WA 98055 harlie Miami ellevue x Fhx:425-235.2513 • HERE IS OUR d:IUOTATION ON THE GOODS NAMED.SUBJECT TO THE CONDITIONS NOTED: uaum I i i i I ILsCI1IP r IOr.J PRICE AMOUN List Sell Extended 10 Panasonic CT1386Y 13"Monitor 359.00 252.00 2,520.00 • 1 Panasonic CT2786VY 27"Monitor 696.00 455.00 466.00 • • •• 11/C*- ./3.et, • • (.01:114- 414° f l rt try • Tills Quote is valid for 30 days and cancels any previous quote for the same project. • QUOTE VALID FOR DAYS QUOTATION ACI:iEPTED t}1/: QUOTATION SUBMITTED BY: • E..' CITY"OF RENTON City Clerk Jesse Tanner,Mayor • Marilyn J.Petersen • • December 5, 1997 Gary Hokanson, General Manager TCI Seattle, Inc. 15241 Pacific Highway S. Seattle, WA 98188 Re: Franchise Agreement for Maintenance of Video Equipment • Dear Gary: __ Per Section IV.of the amended franchise agreement, TCI agreed to contribute an annual ' amount of$1500 towards maintenance and repair'ofthe City's video equipment, payable • on January 31st of each year, commencing January 31, 1998, The agreement also _ required a retroactive payment-of$2500 due by December 31, 1997, to compensate the • City for maintenance costs incurred from 1995 through 1997. ;As per our agreement,enclosed is an invoice in the amount of$2500 for the retroactive .: payment,due and payable by December 31,=1997. A second invoice for 1998 costs in the • • amount of$1500 will be transmitted within the next few weeks. Responding to your prior , request, I have also enclosed copies of paid bills for video equipment maintenance and repairs through the end of 1997. - If I can provide further information regarding this matter,please feel free to give me a call. Sincerely, • • Manl tersen City Clerk ' Enclosures cc: I,on Hurd o ud" .`Jay Covington f' 1• i%• .. 7200 Mill Avenue South-:Renton,Washington 98055 - (206)25-2501 ' ED This paper contains 50%recycled material,20%post consumer, • ° CITY CLERK DIVISION • VIDEO EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE & REPAIRS • DATE P.O.# COMPANY AMOUNT DESCRIPTION 2/19/96 95608 J W Tel-tronics $ 205.58 VCR Maint. & Repairs 8/12/96 105687 Vision Video &Audio Prod. $ 140.00 Equip. clean &Adj. 9/6/96 105708 Vision Video &Audio Prod. $ 73.04 Repair robotic camera 9/24/96 105710 Proline Industries $ 316.21 Repair ELMONis. Presenter 10R/96 105724 Vision Video &Audio $ 111.50 Repair Focus, Syst. Repair 2/10/97 110570 J W Tel-tronics $ 673.50 Video Equip. Maint& Repair 9/18/97 7120025 J W Tel-tronics $ 385.53 Audio&Camera Rep. 9/18/97 7120025 J W Tel-tronics $ 385.53 Receiver Repair, etc. 12/3/97 7120072 J W Tel-tronics $ 541.71 Repair Sony CCD Camera TOTAL $2,832.60 Prepared by city of renton 12/3/97 October 8, 1997 Gary Hokenson - General Manager TCI.Seattle, Inc. 15241 Pacific Hwy. S Seattle, WA 98188 Dear Gary: At the September 8, 1997 regular meeting of the Renton City Council it was agreed that the City would extend the time for TCI to upgrade the cable television system as required by Ordinance #4412 Section 5. This agreement was based upon four issues that TCI agreed to provide in kind considerations in exchange for the extension of the franchise provision. Section 4.2 of the agreement reads as follows: "TCI agrees to remove and reinstall the video equipment and cameras from the old municipal building to the council chambers in the new location." The agreement also stated: "Per separate mutual agreement, TCI and the City will evaluate the existing equipment inventory prior to the relocation, and TCI will provide certain additions to upgrade the City's cable cast system to meet current and future needs." We have met internally on several occasionson as well as with members of your staff to review the minimum requirements to fulfill what we consider to be the immediate needs over the next two to three years. We have enclosed a list of these needs for your review. Please feel free to contact me if you have any questions. Very truly yours Marilyn J. Peterson City Clerk Enclosure cc: Cable Communications Consultants City of Renton Needs and Equipment Requirements 1) All work is to be done by or in consultation with JW Teltronics. This would ensure consistency of the new operation and the old as JW Teltronics completed the original installation. In addition, JW will be performing all maintenance and repair to the system. 2) New Patch Bay (Patch Bay needs to have the following capabilities) a. All cameras tied into patch bay (video outs) b. All decks have SVHS and line video in and out c. All decks have audio in and out d. All decks have timecode in and out e. All decks have serial control patches f. Event controller has all necessary serial control patches g. Editor has all necessary patches including serial control patches, SVHS and line video ins and outs and audio ins and outs h. Switcher has all necessary SVHS and line video ins and outs i. Audio mixer has all ins and outs j. Any other necessary patches that allow for all possible editing and programming capabilities of all video and audio equipment 3) Monitor - JVC M-A9U 9" (0-61, il -1•Arilitrt) 4) A/B Edit Controller - Panasonic AG-A850 ° 5) DVC ro Deck - Panasonic AJ-D640 ;, FRANCHIS.ING . REFRANCHISING _ COMMUNITY.,,..NEEDS. ; „': 'ASSESSMENTS ORDINANCE,PREPARATION;`; NEGOTIATION' EVALUATION • 'FRANCHISE ADMINISTRATION • ,'ACCESS. 'Cable Consultants. October;:10, 1997 :'' • ITY OF RENTON' `Marilyn Peterson ... ACT1 39 City Clerk' RENTON CITY.HALL RECEIVED 0FFICE 200,Mill;Ave. N: CITY CLERK 3 • Renton, WA 98055 Dear Marilyn:: 'Enclosed is the draft letter:we discussed' before you`_`left: .You may' _ wish to use. this:as : the' 'basis of- the'letter_you:are' :forward to ' TCI Please.feel free to call if you',have any questions:' - . Sincerel ; Y 37.H CA E OMMUNICATIONS CONSULTANTS Vice' ,resident/Director . ; LAH•smj. Enclosure. 504 East-Main Street,,Auburn,Washington'98002 6, '(253)833-8380 1=800-222,-969,7. • FAX . i . • - , • • •- • ' , • . . . .. . . „ . . , ,. • , ..„ . , , . • , .. , . . ., . . . . . . , . . . , , . . , ,,.• "' •, • , „ , , - ,. _ r - , , ' ' • , .... - • ,, , , • . . . . , - • .. • . • , . . . .. . . . . ' ' '"• , . ' . ,. . . •„ • . . , , .. - ' • „ . . " •, ' .... . . . , , ' , . . . ... , ' • . . , . ,-, • ,.., ,. , . , . , . . , . '• ., • ,-.- 7 , ., , , , . . . .. .. , . . . , . , . .. , - .,,.." . . .„.• •• . . '. ,„ •••-.• .. •, '. . • , % • . • • . ) , .. • ' •••. - • ., . . e • • . , . . . '... ' • , • • . . r . A . • . . '., e• •" . ,. • . .. A ' • . . . . .• . . ,. , ....•• • . ,„ - . ,•. ' '' . • . A , . , ' . • ' . • .. . , 1 ,- ,. N., .. • . -, .• ', . ' . , • • , , . ,- . . , . A . . , •.','.' ,,_ . , . . r . . r ., • , . . .. ,. . . _ • .' . , . . • , . . . , , • . . -•A . ' .' . ... , •' ' • •• . . . . .. . . , . . , . •. . . . . , , , . r . • ' ' " • • • ,..a . .• .. „ ... . . I . ' ' • • . , . 1 . . . . • • „ ,„ • ., „ - - , , . . . . . . - „. . . . • • - . . . . , r ., . • . . . • • N. . . . ... • • . . . „ . . .• ,, . , , • - , . , • . . , . . ' , • , . • _aN , ., , . , • . i• • . . . • . , . . . . . . . . . • , -. . . „. . , • . ... . • . • • , . „ . , . •' - .. .. •... . . .. . • . ' . . ' • r ' . . • • - . - . . . . . . . , • - . , . . .. . t • ,. . . . .• ; • . . e• . , ' . ., . ,• • „ , . . , ',.... .•. .r. ' „ . • • • . , , - -. . . . . r, . . '• • ,. ., , •• , .,. . , . . • . , , . . . - . , , N , . „ . . • . • , •• . . . . . . . . . . .• . . I . • . '' . • • .., 1 . . r . . . . . • r . • , .,. . .., . . - . . , • „ .. •e . . , • . • . . ,. . , • . • . . ' , . . . , ., . _ , . • 1..'• . n. . ., , . . . . . • ' . . .-. • - . . . , ' . . . . . . ' . . .• • . . . .." , .. . • , . . ., , . .. . , . - . , , . r , . . , • , • • • „.. _ . . . .,, .... , r, • _ ,, . .. . a , • . • • ".. . ' . . ,. • , • . ., . . . . • . •. . .-. ' .., . „ . . . • . , . • - •. .. .-.. ' „, r. . , ' ,. ,. . s. . • •• . . • . . r . aa• ' .. .. • . . I • ' .. - - . .• . , . . . „ . . • ,. •. ,• •. . . , _ . . r „ . .. . , , • ' .., , . . . . , I . . . . .. . . . '• , . • .••••_ ', . , • ' .. , • .• .a 1 r . .. • . , ' ' " • ,.. . „ 1 '•' ' • • , " r ,. . • . A• . . . ' ' • , 'r . . .. , , . . . . .,•-, .. • . .. . . • 1- • ., . . . , . . .. . . . . A • .. I . . . . . . , . , , .•0 . , . ,. . , • . , . • . . , . . . . . , . „ • , . . • . .• . . • ' ' ., • .. . .. , . . •r , ., . „.. • „ . , ' .,„ . . . ' ,, , , , • , , .„. .7„, ..• ', . r, " , . - , r . , ... - • . . , , , , . , . , -- , ., .,' ..-,• , , . . - . , '.. . , -'. s . , , . 0-'• • , , .' ,.,• .- -. .7 . " „ „ ' ,,• , . , . . ,. . , .• . ,. .., •.. 7 . 7., 7 '2 , -':' •'':, 7 . ' , • . .. . . •, •,,-. , ... . ,.„ , ,• . . ., .. , . ' • ' ' - . , . - , ,,. • .„ , . ' ,. ' • , •. ,„. ., . . . , . ., . , , , • ,,', .. • . .. . . ,.. ' 07. •". ' . . Y ."•7,, -.. ",7, 7 . -7 -.' .-.'., - ' , ' ' . , . -• , ' , . 7 . . . ,• ,, , ,.. . , , , . , . . . . , . ,• . ' . . , . . - . . . , . . . . . , , , , • . . .. , . . r • ' 7 ,.' ... ' . ' - ''' . .• „ . . . , , . , , ., ., .•, . , . . , . , • , , . ,, , , . . .. .. , ,•• , ,.• . . 7- ,, , • , - . . .' , . • , - , , ' . , • . . . , • • . - , .• . , .. . . .. ., ....., .. ,, . , . , • , „. . ., . , . ,, , . . . , . . , _ . , , " ., . . . . ., . ' . . •••, ,..• • . • . . , • .., .• . . . -,.„ ,... '. ' ' . •.7 ' . .„ , „." .. . .• • • ,.. • . ' , . . ,,, ,., „ . . • , . . . , . ., • ..... . • '• , . . • , . • , . ,, , ". , • . , , ' • . • , ,. r , ' • • !,...• • . . , . . . , .-''•• , ,-.., , , , ' , , - • . . . ' .. . . . . ,. . , . . . . . . „ . . .. . . . . .. - , , „ . •, .• , , . .• ,. • - . . . „ • . -,, . . - . . ,• ., .. , ' , .• , •, ,„ '' , . ,. . ,. •, , , . . •, , . , • , • . . , • . . • . ' , r . ,- ..• - ... . .":. ,' • • , . .' •• , • • ... , , , . _ •,... ',, ''.', . . . ,, . ' . . .. . . , , . . ,, .. . r.- • . . . ., • ', . . . ..• • , , ;... . -, .• •,. , , , : .. . , ' ' '. • . ,.''• .. ... , , , . , .' .-• • , . '' ,. -. . • - .• ,'l :i , , . , . , . . . ., . . • ' . . . , , .' 1 , , , . • ' • ., .. , . ' ,, , , ,•k, . .. ' ' " . --,• 1 II . . ,. . • .. . . ., . . ,... , . '• . ,', .". 1, , , . -''.,' .• . . , . _ .... , •" • , •,, ,.; , .., , . . . . , . , . ' • •. . „..,, „ ,, ..•, . . , , "' .-' „' • ;. .-' ,'' ' . ., . , . , , . . , . . , , . - ,..‘... , • . . .. , , . . , . . . , . . - „ , . . •, , -' • . ,, , .. .. • , , • . . .• . , . . . . . ' . . „. •, •' , .. . , ., • •• A•' . - A' -. .. •, - r. . • • • . . . .. . . • . , , . . . . • , , • . . •''- , ' , , . • .. . ., < • ' , l,. • „ . .,.. , , . I '''' .. • •r. . . • • , .. A:-. . - .' ...' •• • . . . , - , . e • . . . r .. . . ,. • .. , ' " • , , . •. , . . , r.... . . . . ' • • ' " , • . ..., • • „ e• . , , . , .. ' ,. . , ••' .." A ., . I . . , • . .• . , , ., ,A. ,A A • ,,- ,. . .. . , . . .. . • . . . . . , ,.... . . , ., . r • . A . .• , , • , . . . ,. 0 • , • • ' . . .. •• ' .. . r - .. %.. . e . .. • , . ' • • , . - . , • . . , . .. . , . • . . . • , " . , , . • ' ., ' . . .,. .. .,. . .. . . • .' • '.' ...- "•• •- , ' - .• ., . '.' - ' ' . . . . . , A , , . . . . . . l . • . r . , .. . .. ... I. • •- ‘' -'• • , . , . . . •-A.,',...,, • • • .. • .. . • , , A,.0.•A ,• . ,-, . ... • . .. A • -•-•- I ." . A „ A . , ., I • . . . , . . . o. , ..,• " . . , r . . ‘. • ,,. r A . . A. ,• , . , .r. ' - ..• ' . . r , • . . . ,. - .. - o actprt Account Information Page : 2 06/30/ 1997 10: 19 : 05 City of Renton 2 3 Q ec t No : E_.12_7 .0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0 4_.5_7_10._Q0 10!._1.0 0 0_0D 0 O EFJ C F LOB'_E R I�_LI N G S U P P LIES LC on ti n u e d) . - 4 5 - Transactio _De -Laii 6 Per JrnalDoc Type Doc Date Post Date Group Reference Description Amount D/C 8 6 AP PO encumber 06/1.111997 06/_11L1997__Jstephen 0115558 Bulbs , cable , connector 70.66 9 Vend: 076295 STOCK UP INC 10 6 AP IN invoice 06/17/1997 06/17/1997 dmain_ #6 Bulbs, cab h connector 70.66 D Vend : 078295 STOCK UP INC Chk# : 148521 12 6 AP LI encumber 0J6/17/1997 O6/17/1997 dmain #6 Bulbs ,_ cable,_connector —70.66 13 Vend: 078_255 STOCK UP INC 14 b AP IN invoice _ 06/ 18L1997 06/18 /1997 dmain_ 121865 10 DVM 1—hr Videotapes 108. 60 D 15 Verid : 0_54711 NATL VIDEO TAPE CO Chk# : 148402 16 6 AP LI encumber 06/18/1997 06/18/ 1997 dmain 121865 10 DVM 1—hr Videotapes —108 . 60 17 Vend: 054711 NATL_ VIDEO TAPE CO Chk# t 148402 18 19 Budget Adjustments: 0 .00 Encumbrances : 0. 00 A.ct iv i ty : 910. 58 20 22 24 225 1 �6 27 28 29 CCC 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 • 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 _� J 53 54 55 56 Page : 2 57 58 59 b actprt Account Information Face : 1 DT/30/1997 10: 19 : U4 City of Fen ton ----- ---- ---- --- 2 Account No : F 127 . 0 0u00.u04 . 5710.Q 1L.31. 000000 Title : OFFICE/OPERATING- - SUPPLLES __.fjscal Year : 1997 3 4 Debit/Credit : D - Account --Year ---- -_. (� las �:_-___ _ budgeted ? sY End Es_t_imate : UA90 _ 5 Status Code : n Allotment? : N 6 JC Required ? : N -- Locked : N -- - -- --------------- 7 S tandaru Acct? : (ti ____--. 9 Budget P r e pa_r at.i_o_n_ H.i ito r y 10 - Year ( not used ) (nut used ) Projected Dept . Request Mayor ' s Rec . Council Approp . 11 12 -- 1997 u. u0 0.00 U.i)D 0.0U u. u^ 0.0U ,3 1996 0. 00 0.00 U.UD 0. 0U v. U0 - 0.00 14 - 1995 u. 00 0.0U ----- u.0 0 ----- -- 0. 0U U . U O 0. 0U _ -..-.___ 15 - -- _ 16 Account history _ 17 Year Urig . budget Adjustments Encumbrances Expenditures Balance 18 19 1996 0. 00 0.00 U.00 262 . 87 -262 . 87 -__ 20 1995 u. 00 0.Ou u.00 1 ,664 .5U -1 , 664 .5021 - - _ 221 __ Account Activity -__-. .-- ---__-_-- . -- 23 Per Orig . buoget Acjustments Encumbrances Expenditures Balance _ 24 25 I U. 00 0.00 0.00 30.00 -30.00 26 .3 u. 00 0.00 280.89 311 .83 -622 . 72 27 4 u . U0 0.00 -28u.b9 2.80.89 -622. 72 28 b u. U0 0.00 U.00 2b7. 86 -910.58 29 30 Totals : u. 00 0.0U U.00 910.53 31 32 Transaction Uetall n - Per _ Jrnal Doc __-Type uec Date Post Gate Groyp Reference LescrTption Amount D/C --- 35 1 AV IN invoice 01/23/1997 01/23/ 1997 margiea Programs Programs _ - 30. 00 -13- 36 Vend : 079866 TACOMA Chk# : 143050 -_-_ ____ 37 3 AP PO encumber 03/12/1997 03/12/1997 Istephen 110594 Cables , adapters , connectors - - - 311 .83 38 -- Vend: 040001 JW TEL-TRONICS 39 3 AP -TN-Invoice 03/1o/1997 03/18/1. 997 amain 97148 - - Cables , adapters , connectors 3fl 83 C 40 Vend: 040-01 JW TEL-TRONICS Chk#: 145078 - - 41 3 AP LI encumber 03/ld/1997 03/18/1997 umain 47148 Caoles , adapters , connectors -311 83 42 - Vend: u40001 JW TEL-TRONICS Chk# : 145078 43 3 AP PO encumber 03/ 24/ 1997 03/24/ 1997 nneumann 110590 Video Tape Cassettes 2b0.89 44 Vend : 000148 A E V TAPEHANDLbRS INC -- O -- --4 AP - IN invoice 04/09/1997 04/LQ/ 1997 dmain 7512 Video Tape Cassettes 2d0. 89 1Y _ C V TAPEHANDLERS INC Ck# : 145432 46 - - Vend: 0014$ A _ 47 4 AP _ LI encumber 04/09/1997 04/09/ 1997 amain 7512 Video Tape Cassettes _ -2d0. 89 0Vend : 000148 A £ V TAPEHANDLERS INC Chk# : 145432 49 6 AP IN invoice u6/04/ 1997 06/04/ 1997 dmain 121277 DVM Video Tapes 108 .60 50 Vend: 054711 NAIL VIDEu TAPE CO Chk# : 147950 - -- - 51 -6 AP PO encumber U6/11/1997 06/11 /1997 Istephen u115555 10 DVM 1-hr Videotapes _ 108 .6u 52 Vend: 054711 NATL VIDEO TAPE CU ---�_ - 53 54 ------ ---- 55 Page : 1 56 57 58 59 /•'� __ pit --- / • F A _-, c.- J • NIDEOONLLy . . SSA• LES INVOICE �!1029O1ITHCENTER ) 176118 SOU1fk ENTER PKWY TUKWILA, Wg 9818 • (206) 575-6665 AR ACCOU ECETVAAL E 1W17014798 � -97 14:36 Register #1021 0054 Cashier #0054 • 003002 JEFF DwMS'- CITY OF RENTON 11565 $OLD 200 MILL AVE SO DELIVER CITY OF RENTON To.• RENTON,WA • 200 MILL AVE SO 9aa5 To: ' 1,06) 235-2502 RENTON,WA 98055 (206) 235-2502 • Salesperson Qty. Make Model • Description Unit Price Total Price 0054 1 MAGNAVOX GR1302C 13" REMOTE 142.5E 14 ,50 L ) O 4r-1 • 0) V N ©Y k0 3 Po /i .,� iiii a to 5741-0, o o, 3- 0-0- 30 DAY REFUND POLICY ,,�� 1. If for anyreasonyou are unhappy7G """ %`ce" For Shopping At with the _ ent you purchase from VIDEO ONLY,you may VIDE `u b t t t a t return I LL REFUND or exchange within 30 O O�LY 1+`'�A s of purci e/delivery.Units must be factory `'" �l'2'E•6%) 1 I, se Total Due - 154,7b 2. Opened-box'units may be returned for exchange Please do not accept this invoice CA°:!nt Recvd 154.76 credit only,'providing they are in as-new'condition with all original packing and accessories.Exchange if the above listed Chang )An r� 0.00 credits expire 12 months after date of issue. goods d S are 3. A no-charge exchange on units with incomplete or incorrect■ manufacturer's defects may be made within 30 days, I agree the above items are correct: providing the units are in as-new"condition with all original packing and accessories.Exchange units are then eligible for exchange or exchange credit only. X ACCOUNTS RECE I vABLE 4. Toqualifyfortheaboveprivileges,youmust • 1.,4„v present your original VIDEO ONLY Sales Invoice! o00d CUSTOMER SIGNATURE 5. Units with damage other than manufacturer's defects or units without original packing and Keep this invoice. It is necessary accessories are not eligible for return or exchange. for warranty and return privileges. • 078295 STOCK UP INC 0115568 06/11/97 DEPARTMENT FILE COPY ......end r..No><>'<>>:<::::::<:>:<>:::::::::s>:;:::»>�..'... or'Na...:...,::::::«>>::<.:::;<<:>:::>:<:><:<::. O .............: ... .....�..............:...,..:..::.:...end..:... m ::..:.:...::,.:..:.:.::...::. P No ..:::... ..... ::...:: 4d0 © Chapter 116, Laws of 1965 CITY OF RENTON Purchase Order City of Renton Certification ma I,the undersigned, do hereby certify under penalty of perjury, that the materials have been furnished, the services rendered, or the labor performed as described herein, and that the claim is a just, due and STOCK UP INC unpaid obligation against the City of Renton, and that I am authorized to 7026 21ST AVE NE authenticate and certify to said claim: SEATTLE, WA 98115 Signed • FINANCE DEPARTMENT STEPHENS, LISA • • Video Production Svcs 1,106.75 E 127.000000.004.5710.0010.41.000180 1,106.75 May 1997 Video Production Svcs 405.00 E 127.000000.004.5710.0010.41.000180 405.00 Senior Review/May 1997 1 ea Bulbs, cable, connector 70.66 70.66 E 127.000000.004.5710,0010.31.000000 70.66 • •J • Authorized By 1,582.41 1,582.41 • Accounts Payable Div.•200 Mill Ave.S.•Renton,WA 98055•Phone(206)235-2618•Fax(206)235-2513 DP 3119 11/94 Stock Up! Invoice 7026 21st Ave. NE Seattle, WA 98115 DATE INVOICE NO. 6/3/97 6 • BILL TO SHIP TO Marilyn Peterson City Clerk Renton Municipal Bldg. 200 Mill Avenue South Renton,WA 98055 • TERMS REP SHIP DATE SHIP VIA JOB NAME Net 30 LGJ 6/3/97 Equipment for May DATE ITEM DESCRIPTION QTY RATE AMOUNT 5/8/97 Reimbursable Reimbursement for 3 Omni bulbs for lights 62.55 62.55 5/9/97 Reimbursable Reimbursement for RCA audio cables 5.41 5.41 5/29/97 Reimbursable Reimbursement for 1 audio connector 1 2.70 2.70 • • .4"/V 2. • '1 � .� ?/a . d-V/a . 3/. 4-o-o a a e Total $70.66 • 063690 PROLINE INDUSTRIES INC 115537 05/14/97 DEPARTMENT FILE COPY PO No. PO Date;: : . �.� Chapter 116, Laws of 1965 �� CITY OF RENTON Purchase Order City.of Renton Certification saLL I, the undersigned, do hereby certify under penalty of perjury, that the • materials have been furnished, the services rendered, or the labor • performed as described herein, and that the claim is a just, due and PROLINE INDUSTRIES INC unpaid obligation against the City of Renton, and that I am authorized to 1233 - 120TH AV NE authenticate and certify to said claim: • BELLEVUE, WA 98005 • Signed • FINANCE DEPARTMENT • STEPHENS, LISA ........ :.: :.:::.::;.:::::;:;::::. ;;:;;.:>:;:::>i:>:.>:: mber:::>:: ;:>`_s ::::;>::::;::;.>r.:>: <:::.WO/Func : Amount • ....:..:..:..<:. ..;:: :. .Unit Pnce:: .:. Est..Amount .. .... .::.Account.Nu 1 ea 5 video equipment 59.73 59.73 E 127.000000.004.5940.0071.64.000084 59.73 cables • • Authorized By 59.73 59.73 • Accounts Payable Div.•200 Mill Ave.S.•Renton,WA 98055•'Phone(206)235-2618•Fax(206)235-2513 DP 3119 11/94 078295 STOCK UP INC 115550 05/14/97 DEPARTMENT FILE COPY Vendor::Now::::::::::::::�:::::::;<>:>::<.>:;;;::::::;>::•;.Ventlor:::Name;::;::,,;;<�::::::>:::>::::>:::<>:> PO No. �.� Chapter 116, Laws of 1965 �� © CITY OF RENTON Purchase Order City of Renton Certification I, the undersigned, do hereby certify under penalty of perjury, that the • materials have been furnished, the services rendered, or the labor • performed as described herein, and that the claim is a just, •due and . STOCK UP INC unpaid obligation against the City of Renton, and that I am authorized to 7026 21ST AVE NE authenticate and certify to said claim: SEATTLE, WA 98115 Signed • FINANCE DEPARTMENT STEPHENS, LISA W Func • Urnt•Price. Est. Amount:.: ;.:..:.. ..... .. .. Account Number:. ::.. .:.. ::: :,.,. :: :. .:::::.. mount . 1 ea Video prod. supplies--cabl 504.81 504.81 E 127.000000.004.5940.0071.64.000084 504.81 connectors, headsets, gels Video production services 1,111.50 E 127.000000.004.5710.0010.41.000180 1,111.50 3/28/97 -- 4/30/97 • • • • • Authorized By 1,616.31 1,616.31 Accounts Payable Div.•200 Mill Ave.S.•Renton,WA 98055•Phone(206)235-2618•Fax(206)235-2513 DP 3119 11/94 PLEASE REMIT PROLINE INDUSTRIES INC. INVOICE 1 PAYMENT TO: P 1233-120th AVENUE N.E., BELLEVUE WA 98005 (206) 451-1999 FAX (206) 637-9558 0308430000 BILL TO CITY OF RENTON H CITY OF RENTON \ ACCOUNTS PAYABLE I WILL CALL/BELLEVUE 200 MILL AVENUE SOUTH P BELLEVUE WA 9800C ATTN: JOE PEREZ T RENTON WA 98055 PURCHASE ORDER NO. I ORDER DATE I SALES ORDER NO. I INVOICEDATE : I INVOICE NUMBER 115537 ' I 4/30/97 00804022 4/30/97 80402E DATE SHIPPED SHIP VIA I TERMS SALES REP. I REGION 4/30/97 WILL CALL/DEST NET 30 DAYS CHARLIE NIEMI 4 OTY ORD'D OTY B.O. MODEL NO. _•. DESCRIPTION OTY.SHP'D UNIT PRICE I AMOUNT • . irk* ** THANK YOU FOR YOUR ORDER *It CITY'OF RENTO ** SO that ue can better assist you please ** ** revieu the "Terns a Conditions" printed + MAY 0 91997 ** on the back of this invoice. ** ** RECEIVED **:t*****k*Rk:Rit******AAAAAAAt CITY CLERKS OF CE 3 BBC10 COI1PREHENSIVE VIDEO CROUP 3 12.00 36.00 En TO BNC 10' CABLE 2 BBC6 COflPREHENSIVE VIDEO GROUP 2 9.50 19.00 MC TO BNC 6' CABLE . SALES TAX WA 4.73 TOTAL AIIOUHT DUE 59.73 b/„7• D'-eD-el ) . d i'71. s,i44 . "-9'J/• lr4. o-i",-0 (II • • •PLEASE SEE REVERSE FOR TERMS&CONDITIONS OF SALE .,'�':��''`�=''>> `.x's .i�s:.:; ORIGINAL 1 ,. . ... . . ' . 4 ' P RO LI N E INDUSTRIES, INC. INVOICE PAYMENT TO: ' : ' 1233-120th AVENUE N.E., BELLEVUE WA 98005 , . . . (206)451-1999 FAX'(206) 637-9558 - • . -....„ ._ . . . . • , BILL TO CITY OF RENTON H CITY OF RENTON ACCOUNTS PAYABLE - 1' -1 . \ , `,. • ,,, I WILL CALL/BELLEVUE P 200 MILL AVENUE SOUTH , .'.. I.. BELLEVUE WA 98005 ATTN : JOE PEREZ T 0 ' RENTON WA 930E5 • PURCHASE ORDER NO. I ORDER DATE I SALES ORDER NO. INVOICE DATE I INVOICE NUMBER - -• 1 1 5533 4/21/97 0080362-1 . . 4/29/97 . 1 801621 . , DATE SHIPPED SHIP VIA I TERMS I SALES REP. 'I REGION 4/29/97 WILL CALL/DEST NET 30 DAYS CHARLIE NIEMI 45 QTYORD'D ! QTY B.O. MODEL NO. DESCRIPTION QTY.SHP'D UNIT PRICE AMOUNT . . . . . , . . • - -.. ' , ' _... rA.AAAitAdishlinliiiii****4**1,10Y******PkitirtdrhitiO*** ' ' ...41. . .. . TIM YOU FOR YOUR'ORDER gree . . ., .. So that we ma-better-assist on please ** • 1* reuieu the "Terms & Conditions" printed h* ., . on the back of this invoice. fa, *It . . . . . 2 AGEZ1U PRDSONIC-P.I.C.- AU SYSTEMS 2;,, 3,050.00 6,100.00 DU IMPACT mom FAME i) PANOGBP15 PhriSONIC-P.I.C. HU sysEns 98.00 - 392.00 1. AD BATTERY - , ' 1 3181 BOGEN PHOTO CORP. ' 1 199.00 199.00 : ,•.., • ,LIGHTHEIGNT PROF. CIHE TRIPOD - --, '-'---- F.:'----:-..---:-1---:--'`.-13063-7-7''',7'''----LififirrafreitiV:"77---7--,-.7" --717::-!7•:-,;77------ ---,;.- 1----...--:----71-- -.-. - -,11240 KIK FLUID HEAD 1 3189 DOM PHOTO CORP. 1 29.50 29.50 NIB-LEVEL MINDER 3 EMU SONY COMMOTION 3, 179.00 537.00 !DOWER fICROPHONE , , 3 URPNERJ25 COMPREHENSIVE VIDEO GROW 3 22.00 66.00 RIR FLITS TO JOCH, 25' CHU . . . ' 3 1 KLRJAP25C ' h********qUALITY VIDEOftleir*AP ' 2 16.10 32.20 KIR JACK TO MINI PLUS 25'CACIE cilio. . 101111-LIGIIT . 1 145.00 145.00 . .,..o. . 811N/ LICHT . I ' , . • . - .0120 - ' 1.011EL-LIGHT- ' . . . ' . ' • . 1 .. - 58.'00 58.00 UNMOOR - . - '.-, . - '.. . - !-., • : ,. 1 .'. . pin. um-714w . _ - • - _ 1 05,44) - 85.00 '. NMI STAND ' '• • " , ', ' \.. .) PLEASE SEE REVERSE FOR TERMS&CONDITIONS OF SALE i , . . ... . .. . . . .. ._, . . . . . . . „ . • DUPLICATE • • 1„. . . . . • , 4ND CONDITIONS • BY ACCEPTING SHIPMENT THE CUSTOMER AGREES TO THE FOLLOWIiiG: • 1. INS11LVION_S,,ACCEPTANCE AND RETTRN: merchandise reee:ved Must be inspected it/kit receipt: Vtistaner-IS responsible-to.ffld-aity'claimS fot loss , pilferage, or damage in transit with the carrier from which the shipment is received. A notation must be made on the delivery slip before signing. Claims for loss or damage must not be deducted from our invoice, nor payment of our invoice withheld pending resolution of your freight claim. All returns must be authorized by a Customer Service Representative and are subject to restocking fees. Merchandise that has been engraved with the Customer's name, etc., or is incomplete, (not in original packaging, missing manuals, cables, etc.) will not be accepted back by Proline and the Return Authorization will be canceled. • 2. TERMS OF PAYMENT: Customer agrees to pay Proline in connection with any invoice amount within the specified terms of invoice. Proline may require payment in advance before making any shipment, or may extend terms of net 30 days with established credit. Customer agrees to pay Proline Industries, Inc. interest on any payments that arc received • beyond the paYment due date described herein, at a rate equal to the maximum rate of interest permitted by law. Customer agrees to pay all collection costs, including but not limited to, court costs, attorney fees, etc.. PROLINE.RETAINS TITLE TO ALL MERCHANDISE UNTIL INVOICE IS PAID IN FULL. • 3. CHANGE OR CANCELLATION: Customer may cancel or make changes to an open and unshipped order only upon written notice to Proline. Special order items will require a deposit. Customer will lbrfeit any deposit made for products that are special ordered and subsequently canceled. 4. RENTAL/DEMO EQUIPMENT: Proline Industries, Inc. retains title to all merchandise released tor rental or demo purposes. Customer is , responsible to keep all Merchandise secure and in good condition. Customer agrees to pay for damages to, or replacement value for loss of equipment. Failure to return rentedieleruo equipment as per contract will result in criminal prosecution in accordance with Washington State Law RCW 9.45.060 and in accordance with criminal possession of lease 9-A56395. If the Customer is located outside the State .e.f Washingtort, the equivalent laws of the"ship to" state will apply. 5. WARRANTY: • • • Proline will support the manufacturers standard warranty On 1,.nanneet sold. Proline shall not be liable for any injury, loss or damage, direct or consequential, arisiou ten: of t 50 of or the inability to use the product. Before using, Customer shall determine the suitability of tln. nor ',Pti,13fi(d use, and Customer assumes all risk mid Lability whatsoever in connection therewith. •,. 6. POJIcL,P.: Should a delay in the delivery of a customers order occur eltea oes tn,vontl Proline's control, including but not limited to, acts of government or compliance with government rules ee regulatiens, acts of God,acts of civil or mandatory authorities, acts of purchaser, strikes, riots or war, Proline will make every reasonable effort to complete shipment,but shall not be liable for any losses or damages the delay in delivery or failure to deliver may cause the Customer. • • • r ''''':'-'1 PLEASER(MIT PROLINE INDUSTRIES INC. fl VOICE ' PAYMENTTO: 1233-120th AVENUE N.E., BELLEVUE WA 98005 . . (206) 45,1-1999.FAX (206) 637-9558 ' 03O8430000 / ' BILLTM CITY OF RENTON \ H /CITY OF RENTON \ ACCOUNTS PAYABLE f WILL CALL/BELLEVUE - ' 200 MILL AVENUE SOUTH P BELLEVUE WA 98005 ATTN : JOE PEREZ . T RENTON WA 98055 -_-- PURCHASE ORDER NO. I ORDER DATE SALES ORDER NO. INVOICE DATE INVOICE NUMBER ' - -- H. 115533 4/21/%7 00803621 ' 4/29/97 1 803621 ' DATE SHIPPED I SHIP VIA ' TERMS I SALES REP. I' REGION 4/29/97 WILL CALL/NEST NET 30 DAYS CHARLIE NIEMI 45 QTY ORD'D � QTY B.O. MODEL NO. 1 DESCRIPTION QTY.SHP'D UNIT PRICE AMOUNT 1 . . ' • TI3N , LiIffaL-LI T 1 21.00 . 21:,00 ' . . .TOT 1 .CL6DPS, ' ' -3 DI3C1O . COId.,,. HERSitiE113 0-01iC3' - 3 12.00 36:00 ' 'V BC T©,Dii6-10' CADLE "` 2 ITBCb Df��t 6. G4Is9f:�fSIE9 UI@Ip GROUP2 9.aO 19.00 , qqo° r 1, HNC TO ThC 6' CilLE , ,. l SALIS Tuft ►fA - - /3.53 ' TOTAL tMUNT DUE ,, . O,50 .23 .. I. y,p PLEASE SEE REVERSE FOR.TERMS&CONDITIONS OF SALE J DUPLICATE +. 1 e TERMS AND CONDITIONS DY ACCEPTING SHIPMENT THE CUSTOMER AGREES TO THE FOLLOWING: • 1. INSPECTIONS,ACCEPTANCE AND RETURN: All merchandise received must be inspected upon receipt. Customer is responsible to file any claims for loss , pilferage, or damage in transit with the carrier from which the shipment is received. A notation must be made on the delivery slip before signing. Claims for loss or damage must not be deducted from our invoice, nor payment of our invoice withheld pending resolution'of your freight claim. All returns must be authorized by a Customer Service Representative and are subject to restocking fees. Merchandise that has been engraved with the Customer's name, etc., or is incomplete, (riot in original packaging, missing manuals, cables, etc.) will not be accepted back by Proline and the Return Authorization will be canceled. 2. TERMS OF PAYMENT: Customer agrees to pay Proline in connection with any invoice amount within the specified terms of invoice. Proline may require payment in advance before making any shipment, or may extend terms of net 30 days with established credit. Customer agrees to pay Proline Industries, Inc. interest on any payments that are received beyond the payment due date described herein, at a rate equal to the maximum rate of interest permitted by law. Customer agrees to pay all collection costs,including but not limited to,court costs,attorney fees,etc.. PROLINE RETAINS TITLE TO ALL MERCHANDISE UNTIL INVOICE IS PAID IN FULL. 3. CHANGE OR CANCELLATION: Customer may cancel or make changes to an open and unshipped order only upon written notice to Proline. Special order items will require a deposit. Customer will forfeit any deposit made for products that are special ordered and subsequently canceled. 4. RENTAL/DEMO EQUIPMENT: Praline Industries, Inc. retains title to all merchandise released for rental or demo purposes. Customer is responsible to keep all merchandise secureand in good condition. Customer agrees to pay for damages to, or replacement value for loss of equipment. Failure to return rented/demo equipment as per contract will result in criminal prosecution in accordance with Washington State Law RCW 9.45.060 and in accordance with criminal possession of lease 9-A56395. If the Customer is located outside the State of Washington, the equivalent laws of the"ship to" state will apply. 5. WARRANTY: Proline will support the manufacturers standard warranty on product sold. Proline shall not be liable for any injury, loss or damage, direct or consequential, arising out of the use of or the inability to use the product. Before using, Customer shall determine the suitability of the product for his intended use, and Customer assumes all risk and liability whatsoever in connection therewith. 6. FORCE MAJEURE: Should a delay in the delivery of a customers order occur due to causes beyond Proline's control, including but not limited to,acts of government or compliance with government rules or regulations,acts of God,acts of civil or mandatory authorities, acts of purchaser, strikes, riots or war, Proline will make every reasonable effort to complete shipment,but shall not be liable for any losses or damages the delay in delivery or failure to deliver may cause the Customer. , r-,:c7., oll;'- PLEASE REMIT PROLINE INDUSTRIES, INC. INVOICE PAYMENT TO: 1233-120th AVENUE N.E., BELLEVUE WA 98005 (206) 451-1999 FAX (206) 637-9558 CITY OF RENTON 0308430000 . BILL TO CITY OF RENTON H CITY OF RENI. 'JUN ® N�99� ACCOUNTS PAYABLE I WILL CALIR,tg ) VUE ' 200 MILL AVENUE SOUTH P BELLI ADT 'CLERK'S OFFIet 9800E ATTN: .M. DOOHAN - T RENTON WA 98055 PURCHASE ORDER NO. I ORDER DATE SALES ORDER NO. I INVOICE DATE I INVOICE NUMBER J 115533 .�1 5/30/97 00803621C2 5/30/97 Adi 803621C2 • DATE SHIPPED I SHIP VIA I TERMS I SALES REP. I REGION 5/30/97 CREDIT MEMO CREDIT MEMO '-HARLIE NIEMI 45 OTY ORD'D I QTYB.O. MODEL NO. DESCRIPTION •TY.SHP'D UNIT PRICE I AMOUNT *h THANK YOU FOR YOUR ORDER ** ** ** *# So that Fse can better assist you ease ** *II revieu the "Teats I Conditions" printed ** , �� *" on the back of this invoice. ** . ( ^ tRk dlr* `91 tk *****t+lydtk4 fefek' >.iiziefthrtMkfredn'FirkAsdtlNtdt** CUSTOJER RETURNED EQUIPMENT ON RA #12303 • (SALES ERROR1 ' (IL) 2- KLl4JNP25C *s +*k►***rditUTY UIOEe ****** 2- 16.10 32.20- RLR JAC 0 RINI PLUS 25'CADLE 1- 7(LRJDP25C ***w*'•***QUALIT4 UIDEGAAAAdrAk 1- 16.10 16.10- RLR ACKK TO MIINI PLUG 25'CABLE , 1- FREIGHT P' LINE INDUSTRIES, INC. 1- 20.80 20.80- `0 MIGHT �� 1 FREIGHT PROLINE INDUSTRIES, INC. 1 ,04 00 4) FREIGHT $(3 • SALES TAD RD ' 5.94- TOTAL MOUNT DUE 75.04- CREOIT RELIC / i PLEASE SEE REVERSE FOR TERMS&CONDITIONS OF SALE . ORIGINAL • . . - " . .• . . . . , . ,,,, , . . ,,, . . . •. : .. . . . . .. . . . . . . • ' • . „ • . • • • -• • — `15.-•'• :3,2±f.)I,?i...' 'i.. ,„,-,,,,:•.,,.. '•.,•. •-", , --,:.: ..'''••, ::.:-:•,...• •,.'.".: - ,. '., ': .:„ ,:'• ••. :: '''.; ••,`;- ...--, .„.,.: ....".,`. --"....'71:,-• , ..- „ . . . , .. . . . . . . . . „. • • • ' •"• ' ' ' ' •'• - - ' ' . . • , ' • , • . • ' • . „. • ". , . . . . . - . .. . - - TERMS AND tONtiITIONS ' -.' - " • , . ; . . . . . . • , ' 0 i-,',0 r 1:r..::•••8 ii',I:0 ' • . . . , . . . . . . . . „ • . . . , •.:"' 'WC;T lel 11 5i 710 YTI3, . 13 0 . • , 1401-1: R -1 'I I 1 tj V a Vgdi-PiNtgAt31MINT TEM CVSTOMEP.AGREES TO TV;.`r011ilfeMigqditi tj 0":3::)A 7.'0 0:.?„C? i'',1„-1,-.,.... .(2" .' :. •; .."..41..)V3 U.343 . , . NT 9f.:)..".?, 3:../vi:3V ii ...1.„t Ili .C.,,I.)2 ' , . . : !//TIA . .- . . i:\1,4" :2 74;•';r:`".E, - V ci T i=13 7i . . . . • ... .,_,, .1,,::- ,,--, ._INSPECTIONS,ACCEPTANCE AND RETURN v,. .., - " : • '-: '-: All Metchandise'received nutst-be"inspected Upart:reacipt.---Custritner.is'respansibie to file"any'Claittis-foe... . . loss , pilfetage, or damage in transit with the carrier from which the shipment is received. A notation must be • $2 tiiiidefaii.the delivery (ifisk.fekitesigning tialtS_sh&OtOili'br damage Eigst,liat''$-;;;-!deducted from our invoice, not....:;;`:-?..4...1',.t . • .,... '..'payinent of our invoice„Withheld pending resolution of your freight claim. All returns.Must:be authorized by a ".-• - -. ..-. Customer Service Representative and are subject to restocking fees. Merchandise that has been engraved with the Cust.oiVkli?siihnii,Iele'.1,MIS incomplete, (ri-Ort.fl'..roriiiiiigli)ciacaging, missing latliilils',--fjaci3164.",1:retci):'Wilril6t,"--Ki :•:-2 . • . . ..,.... „. . ., accepted back by Proline and the Return Authorization will be eanceled- -.: •,. „...„,. - -::,,, ..... .. .:• .•.., „ , 2. TERMS +IF PAYMENT: ,., ,' . ' • • '• : " ' . •* . . . , • . : • Customer agrees to pay Proftfie.4Witifititeliar*itirarliii45feridtSa -aliin the specified terms of . • invoice. Proline may require paymenfin advancefalq.:kiEli4910441i1Pi1ent,or ma)'Fiiktend terms of net 30 days . ' ' ' with established credit. Customer agrees to pay Proline Industries, Inc. interest on anttayments'that are received : beyond the payment due date descrietd heTeli,114EVtaIdialltan(110:k,44.-40abi-ilret trinterest permitted by'law. • : Customer agrees to pay all collectioirt ostsPlittlittniriglkietticilditildldco,iiit UtAttlatidfney fees,etc.. ' •,.. . . ' ' . 71.1 .`1'31i ciii: iii:f '" . . PROLINE RETAINS TITL:11'TO ALL MERCHANDISE UNTIL INVOICE IS'PAID IN FULL. .,, :1• . . - 1,-•::47.,,,,,,mv,: 4;;.:::,..,a,thitits:0;.-vit...*;:,,,,t7w!ltr2AY::,::•iir, 1;:ifi•NE:kit,7/C1::::11:',1 • „ 3.. ,, , . CHANGE Olk.CANCELLATIIN: . , . . . , . .• , . .. • ' ':-• :' . . ':' " Cpstomer may cancel-or.'•make changes'to an open and,tfigliikal tQrferreliilf:iiiiiViltiei•Plibig5b.-to' • " -'-•''" • "'- Proline. Special order items will require a deposit: Customer will forfeit any deposit made for Wslitic04.4at are - - l• ,-,.., • . .special ordered and subsequently canceled. . RENTMC/DENICAEQUi.!•114ENT: ,:',4•••Ait'',:;''fliqI.0 YFl.h1i'i;l':"A.'',,,'''''''''''''‘'A : • Proline Industries,Inc. retains title to all nikitifiiiiiligtf-.49egUi i'ii.r4.61:lailirr demo purposes. Customer is .. -0.r,Of.responsible fti'lkep all rnelichandise smug and in tOtt'tiiiitTlibt4Y7,Mtofiit'ffitit„esi to palifiZT:'.:...:;.' :..ges to,•ori..::._.-.-. --: • --. • -replacement value for loss of equipment: Failure to,'tettk-irirelkia.Vdttildskagait'i as-per.Contract Wilt:iesult "-i---tincrimina/ Prei.)&,illion inackfordance with Washington Statelliaw..14Z•VOR-4.!").660Viti. in accoraikid4ith criminal possession of lease 9-A56395. If the Customer is located outside the State ofIcWk§iingtan, the equivalent laws of •' . (0. the"ship to":•-diate will applf. , • . .3111.,Ni:II",?ill1}17. 5412.014 •:., TiDII:nl. • . . . 1...-gl i : • . 5. " WA:::::t:.4. STY: , . • Proline will support the manufacturers standard warranty on product sold. "Proline'shall not be liable for . ,. se any injury, loss or damage, direct or.conseqdYntialgirighleout of the use of or the inability to use.the product. • . Before using, Customer shall determine the suitability of the product for his intended use, and Customer assumes '" -. • . , all risk and liability whatsoever in connection therewith. ; • . . -00.4C - ' . :_!,,W Tf11.10i0 JOff:ti• . .,... . • Igti. fell•-"..3 7ORCE MAJEURE: "• , . . • -. Should a delay in the delivery of a customers order occur due to causes beyond Proline's control;ineluding. • •: but not limited to, acts of government or compliance with government rules or regulations,acts of God,acts Of civil or mandatory authorities, acts of purchaser, strikes, riots or war, Proline will make every reasonable effort to . complete shipment,but shall not be liable for any losses or damages the delay in delivery or failure to deliver may . • . cause the Customer. . . • . • • „.,_. . . •. •• ... ,. . .. .. . . . .. ..• . ,. :. . . . . . . . _ : ,. .• ... . • . . . . . . . . . . . . , . . • • • •. . . . ,. . . . . .. . .. . . . . . . . . , . . . . . . " . • • . . . . . , . • , . . . . . . . ., .. . . • '•,./ 1 - - „. . , ,, ,, , • . , ( ,....-- PLEASE REMIT PROLINE INDUSTRIES, INC. INVOICE • ,- PAYMENT TO: . , 1233-120th AVENUE N.E., BELLEVUE WA 98005 , . . ., . • (206) 451-1999 FAX (206) 637-9558 , . ,. • - ' '0:3,0SO-0.900 . ' , - ': ,, ' " "' ' " . , H . ... . , BILLTO CITY OF RENTON H CITY OF RENTON ACCOUNTS PAYABLE • I WILL CALL/BELLEVUE P • -400 MILL AVENUE SOUTH BELLEVUE WA 98005 ATTN: M , DOOHAN . T 0 RENTON . WA 98055 ... PURCHASE ORDER NO. , ORDER DATE I SALES ORDER NO. I INVOICE DATE INVOICE NUMBER • ' . • . ' . 1 P-t)----3-- - - -- -;-----•-':-77 ---7.-,--; - 7,- --;.:-'''. ,•••'-•-L----'-- --:-- -- ----, - --- --... _._ .„,...._ . ., . 1 15I333 .1./1` ',),9.1 • .- . - 5/10/9-7. • -. - 00803621C8 5/30/97 803621CP. DATE SHIPPED SHIP VIA 1 TERMS I SALES REP. REGION / 5/30/97 / CREDIT MEMO . . CREDIT MEMO CHARLIE NIEMI 45 ' . . , QTYORDD &VB.°. MODEL NO. . DESCRIPTION OTtSHPD UNIT PRICE I AMOUNT • .:• A*Vaittc...1.21;M:,e,;a.-*C;MIt**Malciintlar.•:-.A-frallic:a.-X-Aticiaitrar.Aefr , MOM VW FOR YOUR CRDER . . . . , . . . , • . !471 lo that ue pn hetter,zssist von,gease mt. . • , _ . . . • . ., • • gk: revieu the "Tem5A Conditionebprintod . 0i0r, . , . . , • . on tha bad of this invoic . . .,' • la . Mt . ' . l'..,tlatiNr.W.AW.T**AditWestititft .frAliikskfildrOM.** . cuSIOIR RHUMB EQUIRIEHT Cli Ell R12303, ( LE ERROR) ' . 2- XITUPP251; /4*--4Ata-ftgialkliTy ungegmAttois 2- 16,10 32.20- , RR JAC,IL TO NIOt HA 25164 - , , , , • • 1- -.,, ,‘. : i,,,,.,.:-1111011725E„,;„,,.:.:,,,,,.-41.c.A . MITV;,0I0E0110-A-. -,-,.:*.",-;' ::...;.,..,,,:!*..-..., .i.,,,,,'. ,i.- , - ,,,,, 16:10,1,*,-,*• : . :*16,10- - „gie,a0 W H/E-110,25'INELE , „- . v...; . ,...;:r., . - -- ,,,.. • ..., .._ . :. . . ' • • . . . . , . , 1-, •• ,- •-.--From- z.,7----:• ROLM•INDU3IRIM-IPK,.:----'I- , -;: —':-- - -:' - .,-,' --1-** '-- •'-'20.80.- ' TREiCIT 1 FREFAT PROM INDUSTRIES, IR. 1 .09 .09 ' FREIGHT . , . . . . / SALES Mg MO * . 5.9q- . ' • . TOI01 Oricum DUI • . . , . • • ' . , - -• , MUT JUNO • . , , . . . , . '. • . , , . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . , . . . ,. . • • - , . . . . • „ .,, . . . ,. . . PLEASE SEE REVERSE FOR TERMS&CONDITIONS OF SALE ,c ., . ,i, , . . . . . , . . .. . .DUPLICATE , . • • • TERMS AND CONDITIONS • BY ACCEPTING SHIPMENT THE CUSTOMER AGREES TO THE FOLLOWING: 1. INSPECTIONS ACCEPTANCE AND RETURN; All merchandise received must be inspected upon receipt. Customer is responsible to file any claims for • loss , pilferage, or damage in transit with the carrier from which the shipment is received. A notation.must be made on the delivery slip before signing. Claims for loss or damage must not be deducted from our invoice, nor • payment of our invoice withheld pending resolution of your freight claim. All returns must be authorized by a Customer Service Representative and are subject to restocking fees. Merchandise that has been engraved with the Customer's name, etc., or is incomplete, (not in original packaging, missing manuals, cables, etc.) will not be accepted back by Proline and the Return Authorization will be canceled. 2. TERMS OF PAYMENT: Customer agrees to pay Proline in connection with any invoice amount within the s*illed terms of invoice. Proline may require payment in advance before making any shipment, or may extend terms of net 30 days with established credit. Customer agrees to pay Proline Industries, Inc. interest on any payments that are received beyond the payment due date described herein, at a rate equal to the maximum rate of interest permitted by law. Customer agrees to pay all collection costs,including but not limited to,court costs,attorney fees,etc.. PROLINE RETAINS TITLE TO ALL MERCHANDISE UNTIL INVOICE IS PAID IN FULL, 3. CHANGE OR CANCELLATION: Customer may cancel or make changes to an open and unshipped order only upon written notice to Proline. Special order items will require a deposit. Customer will forfeit any deposit made for producls that ace special ordered and subsequently canceled. 4. RENTAL/DEMO EQUIPMENT: Proline Industries, Inc. retains title to all merchandise released for rental or demo purposes. Customer is responsible to keep all merchandise secure and in good condition. Custorrnr agrees to pay for damages to, or replacement value ler loss of equipment. Failure to return rented/demo equipment as per cOnErac iii result ;It criminal prosecution in accordance with Washington State Law RCW 9.45.0150 and in accordance with criminal possession of lease 9-A56395. If the Customer is located outside the State of Washington, thc equivalent imvs of the"ship to"state will apply. 5. WARRANTY: Proline will support the manufacturers standard warranty on product sold. Proline shall ua he iable for any injury, loss or damage, direct or consequential, arising out of the use of or the inability to ;Ise the product. Before using, Customer shall determine the suitability of the product for his intended use, and Customer assumes all risk and liability whatsoever in connection therewith. 6. FORCE MAJEURE: Should a delay in the delivery of a customers order occur due to causes beyond Proline's control,including but not limited to,acts of government or compliance with government rules or regulations,act-,;;-)f Gad, acts oi civil or mandatory authorities, acts of purchaser, strikes, riots or war, Proline will make every 11.7;Rsonable adbrt to complete shipment,but shall not be liable for any losses or damages the delay in delivery or fiditixe to deliver may ' cause the Customer. . . City of Renton Finance Department Request for Claims Date of Request '// -a- / 97 Date Required 10 3l Q-7 Requesting Department 54 eier , Authorized Signature ;11/LA-4 ,,f 9* 1.--,,,,/ REASON FOR CHECK Deposit Refund • Name Amount Finance Receipt No Receipt Date Other Describe Circumstances Requiring Issuance of Check: CHECK PREPARATION INSTRUCTIONS Amount $ 51 5% 0 D Charge to Account(s) / % 000000i 005,5 yy0, 00'7/. �o/, . ODO°8y Payable To Melrket e k Video SPp!y Address Sf''e r l 69( 397) Sa 9 el- ii'5 e N/ 12977 2977 0 Mail Check to Payee T X Return to Dept: Soc Sec or IRS ID No . 0 Other: CHECK AUTHORIZATION - Finance Department Use Only Approv t:. J/lea �'.+ Date 1'Z a3 q 4 0 Claims ( Check No:.,, ::0y6l/ .0( CTY006/7/89 ' 04/17/1997 14:16 206-729-048B D.S.I. PAGE 02 ,4 a 4 it/t t x-/". cit il ti/P Recommendations for Purchase of Video Equipment Based on the equipment already owned by the City of Renton and the City's present need for video equipment,we recommend the following be purchased: FROM PROLINE: Quantity Description Price Total 2 AG-EZ 1U Panasonic Digital Cameras Ns Ft? S 50.00 $6;399 00- -G►/Ofl • d'd 4 AG BP15 Panasonic Battery Packs $98.00 $392,00 I Bogen 3181 lightweight tripod $199.00 $199.00 1 Bogen 3063 fluid head $112.00 S112.00 ,�.-411--+Q I Bogen 3189 Mid-level Spreader $29.50 •$29.50 • 3 ECM-44B Sony Lovelier Microphones $179.00 $537.00 3 XLRP-XLR.125 Comprehensive Audio Cables $22.00 ' $66.00 2 XLR-Mini Audio Cables $16.00 $32.00 1 01-10 Omni Light(Standard) $145.00 $145,00 1 01-20 Complete Barndoor $58.00 $58.00 1 01-33 Lowe'Omni-Stand $85.00 $85.00 1 T1-30 Tata-slatQp $21,00 $21.10. TOTAL 9 FROM OTHER LOCATIONS: 1 Sony CD player $150.00 S 150.00 1 Box of clothespins for gels $2.50 $2,50 1 Samson SAM-31 wireless lav mic(Marker Tek) $549.00 $549.00 (with Cable B) 5 Roscoe pre-cut lighting gels(Glazer's) $5.25 S26.25 1 Anvil mobile equipment case $400.00 $400.00 2 50'power cords 512.50 S25.00 1 Power strip surge protector $10.00 $10.00 1 CD music sampler library $250.00 $250.00 4 Radio Shack 5-channel conumwucati9n headsets $49.95 $199.80 TOTAL $1612.55 GRAND TOTAL(not including tax) S95119:95 vie 44- io, i7?'73` ' 04/17/1997 14:16 206-729-0488 D.S.I. PAGE 01 Leann Johnson and Joanna Wedge 7026 21 st Ave. NE, Seattle, WA 98115 (206)522-5497 TO: Marilyn Peterson FROM: Leann and Joanna FAX: 235-2513 FAX: 729-0488 Pages 2 including cover sheet Marilyn: 4/17/97 included in this fax please find a list of video equipment that we are recommending the City of Renton purchase. If this looks o_k_to you,we should probably go ahead and stag placing orders since the Senior Revue is on May 18t. Give us a call at 522-5497 with any questions/comments. Thanks! e-7°-11 - 21 g 4'rYVrib 2 /V4IA° )71) • fa ° g #A .L „ e, '2-092 7--P1''').#21'1frvi- pooig # CITY OF RENTON CITY CLERK DIVISION MEMORANDUM DATE: February 21, 1997 TO: Jay.Covington, Executive Assistant FROM: Marilyn Petersen, City Cle SUBJECT: Video Production Equipment There are two alternatives available,to achieve our production goals: to select a larger company which has staffing depth and equipment, or a free-lance videographer who would use the City's equipment. The former alternative is more costly in the long run. The applications received from full service companies quote from $50 to $200 per hour, depending upon the job. Using our equipment, the quotes appear to be from$20 to $50 per hour. (See attachment I) For example, Patrick Hirsch is charging us $18 per hour for Monday nights or$50 minimum, whichever is greater. Attached is`Patrick's proposal (Attachment II). For the production at Valley Medical Center, he will charge $30 per hour. This is a three-person shoot and the total cost with assistance by Lori Wood and another videographer, Bob Neal,will be $725 ($600/Patrick and $125/Bob). This breaks down to 15 hours for the shoot and eight hours for editing. Patrick will use our Camcorder and rent a second Camcorder for$100 per day, and he will direct. The production will require break-down of our equipment from the booth, trip to Seattle to pick up the rental camera, and reinstallation of our equipment after the shoot. If Patrick hired Sierra Media for the day(the company that brings in cameras and staff for the Redmond POV magazine show), they would charge about $1,000 per day for the cameras and cameraman (or$100 per hour) added to Patrick's time of$600 to direct and edit the final product= $1600. At that rate, the equipment (if purchased)would be paid for after 11 full-day field productions. The equipment list supplied by Patrick is also attached. (Attachment III) I have confirmed the prices with ProLine, and they have underbid the total quote on some equipment by over$200. I am waiting for a quote from a second company, VMI, located in Edmonds. The total appears to be about $9,650. My remaining equipment budget is $5,000. Within the last six months, the digital cameras Patrick recommends have come on the market and represent cutting edge technology. I have been told by an independent source that even by dubbing down from digital to the analog format we need to use our editing equipment, there is a loss of only one generation of picture quality. Regarding the possibility of leasing the equipment, I have checked several sources and none provide a leasing program with the exception of lease-to-buy(which means that we will end up with the same equipment at a higher price). The only other option is to rent equipment by the day, and these rates are from$100 (for a Camcorder like we own)to $300 per day for a higher grade model Camcorder. There is also the inconvenience factor of having to pick up the equipment and return it to Seattle. I have also been discussing another issue with Steve Elliot. As you know, the portable Camcorder is mounted on a shelf in the Council Chambers to provide,a cover shot when needed. Steve has a part-time employee who frequently borrows the camera to shoot footage for"archival" purposes. It has become inconvenient to gain access to the Chambers since it often is in use. Steve has obtained quotes on buying his own camera, tripod, etc. ($2800). I have a better suggestion. I would like to buy a small surveillance camera to permanently mount in the Council Chambers at a cost of$570. It is my understanding that Jim Shepherd and Garry Anderson are also obtaining quotes for surveillance cameras from Proline. If we coordinate our efforts and purchase all equipment as a package, the City will receive a discount. By spending $570 or less, we will regain access to our portable Camcorder for use by other City departments and save over $2200 for the City. Before we discuss this proposal with the Mayor, I would like a chance to carefully screen the proposals and feel confident that we are moving in the right direction to accomplish our long term goals. 040001 JW TEL-TRONICS 110594 03/12/97 DEPARTMENT FILE COI5Y PO No. (80 Iko Chapter 116,Laws of 1965 CITY OF RENTON Purchase Order City of Renton Certification ma I, the undersigned, do hereby certify under penalty of perjury, that the . materials have been furnished, the services rendered, or the labor - performed as described herein, and that the claim is a just, due and JW TEL-TRONICS unpaid obligation against the City of Renton, and that I am authorized to 17701 17TH AVE W authenticate and certify to said claim: LYNNWOOD, WA 98037 • Signed FINANCE DEPARTMENT STEPHENS, LISA ' 1 ea Cables, adapters, connectors 311.83 311.83 E 127.000000.004.5710.0010.31.000000 311.83 for installing large screen television in Chambers • Authorized By 311.83 311.83 Accounts Payable Div.0 200 Mill Ave.S.•Renton,WA 98055•Phone(206)235-2618•Fax(206)235-2513 • DP 3119 11/94 / /IA/i{lll,.r y,.h • 17701 17th AVE. W. LYNNWOOD,WA 98037 (206) 745-9544 FAX(206) 742-9483 - 11!!!!!!!!2ill r • CITY OF gENTON INVOICE NUMBER : 97148 CUST. P .O.. NUMBER: 1 -5-7 I )O sg't T E L T R O N I' C S MAR 0 5 BILLING DATE: ' 03-03-97 1997 City of Renton • RECEIVED TAX ID NUMBER : • 200 Mill Ave. So. . CITY CLERK'S OFFICE Renton, WA 98055' PHONE: (206) 235-2619 . ATTN : Marilyn Petersen DEPARTMENT: City Clerk LIST OF PARTS SOLD ID # DESCRIPTION SHIPPED QTY U/M UNIT COST TOTAL 3040 Coax Cable, 1505A, RG-59, 75 ohm 02-06-97 195 Feet $0 . 38 $74. 10 176 Coax Cable, 8241 , RG-59U, 75 ohm 02-06-97 . 26 Feet $0 . 25 $6.50 3417 Adapter, S-VHS > BNC Female 02-06-97 1 Each $17 . 38 $17 . 38 3345 Adapter., S-VHS > BNC Male . 02-06-97 1 Each ' $17 . 25 $17 . 25 2872 BNC Panel Mount Barrel 02-06-97 6 Each $8 . 93 $53. 58 1093 Adapter, BNC, Right Angle, Male / 02-06-97 . 3 Each $6 . 38 $19 . 14 824 Adapter, BNC Female / RCA •Male 02-06-97 1 Each $3. 74 $3. 74 3107 Crimp Connector, BNC. RG59/8241 , 7 02-06-97 12 Each $2 . 00 $24. 00 -23 Labor 02-06-97 1 Hour • $65 . 00 $65. 00 TOTAL PARTS :. $280 . 69 SHIPPING CHARGES : $7 . 51 SUBTOTAL : - $288 . 20 • Snohomish County Tax @ 8. 2%: $23. 63 TOTAL : $311 . 83 ADJUSTMENTS : PAY THIS AMOUNT: $311 . 83 Marilyn, This invoice is for the cables and miscellaneous parts that we supplied for the addition of the new large screen TV in your council chambers . 'Some labor time was also necessary to measure out the cables and install connectors as necessary. • PAYMENT DUE UPON RECEIPT. A 1 .5% MONTHLY. SERVICE CHARGE WILL BE ADDED TO ACCOUNTS PAST 30 DAYS! PLEASE INDICATE OUR INVOICE NUMBER ON YOUR CHECK. Broadcast Engineering •Consulting, Maintenance and Repair 02/25/1997 15:13 2067715081 VMI,INC. PACE 01 YMI I nc . 120 West Dayton Street Suite B3 Edmonds, WA 98020 Phone(20b)778-1330. FAX(700 771-5O81 FAX Transmittal Cover To: Marilyn Petersen Company Name: City of Renton Fax Number: (206) 235-2513 From: Fred Boor Number of Pages (including cover): 2 Date: 02/25/1997 Message: --- Hello Marilyn,. Here is your quotation as requested. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thanks, Fred 02/25/1997 15:13 2067715081 VMI,INC. PAGE 02 YMI , I 120 West Dayton Street CONFIDENTIAL QUOTATION Suite B3 Edmonds, WA 98020 F1toire(206)776-1330•FAX(206)771-5081 BILL TO; City of Renton SHIP TO: City of Renton Accounts Payable Marilyn Petersen PAGE 1 Of 1715 Maple Valley Highway 1715 Maple Valley Highway REF: Quote Renton, WA 98055 Renton, WA 98055 BY Fred Boor QUOTE NUMBER DATE VALID .•• TERMS ti00= 225197 30 Daya Net 30 Drys LIVERY........ SHIP VIA' .. FOR PliNt .... TAX 3D Days or Leas UPS Shipping Yes CITY DESCRIPTION UNIT PRICE TOTAL • 2 Panasonic AO-EZ1 U Dlgial Camcorder 33,328,0D 36,t158.00 4 Panasonb AG-8P15 Battery $103.00 3412.0D 1 Bogen 3142 Tripod with Fluid Heed 1289,00 3280,m 3 Sony EGM-448 Leveller Microphone 6188.00 1566.00 1 Samson SAM-35 Wireless Microphone System(MR-1#SWM81.4 w/ECM- 4 Microphone) 3479.113 $429.03 1 Land Tote-LI5M T1-10 $117,00 3117.00 1 Loa*Omni-Mend 01-33 377,00 $77,00 1 Lowel Tota-Frame Ti-20 523.03 $3.aD 1 Roscoe Cinegel Sampler 60010 $43.00 340.E 4 Radio Shack 5 Channel Comm.Headsets-Alternate Nady PRC-3X Wireless Headset $100.tn $432.00 4 Various Buy-Out Production Music CD's-SIgniture SML-1r/AD Value Pack 1 (11 CD's) $545.03 32 184.R) 1 Sony CD Player-CDP-L3 Compact CD Player 35135,00 I565.00 3 75 root XLR Audio Cable(Switchoraft)XLM-XLF-25 524-03 372,1:0 2 Anvil Mobile Equipment Cease(Need to define size)No Bid 60.C3 These terms end conditions shell■uperoede any provisions,terms end conditions contained on any confirming Pwghsess Order or ogler writing Ole buyer may gi a or receive. The rights d ale ponies shill Its gowmed exclueh.ely Cy the provisions,terms end conditions ai this TOTAL i11,800.00 conf d.mt.l Quatetlen elate e■ ,pt Ili• may mutually agree In writlnp.This connect le null sod void M e manufacturer elect*b change their peeing to Vb11.Inc.. submitted By L L\a-'' -. Accepted By s . M. Sales En, N' Title Date L..41:11 Dew l VMI,Inc.,120 Wed Dayton Ot.,Suit.83,Edmonds,WA 00010,(206)770.1330-FAX-(200)7/14001 y 02/21/1997 08:08 PROLINE INDUSTRIES INC. 00 206 646 9521 P.01 r pRoLINE • • CORPORATE OFFICE - WO 4514 007 - 1233 120TH AVENUE NE FROM THE DESK OF CHA,RLIE NIEMI 6EIEVUE,WA MS .� (Zoe)451-1999 FAX(208)845.952T DATE: 02 - o � - ci7 BRANCH OFFICES TO: M 94«Y0 FE; -$off (BOO)522.2217 . COM A?4Y: CL-s-I 1) F 2 235 Z5I5 433 N.?UCKCANYCN HWY. } OF PAGES: 3 C-Lu pt ri(r C SUITE 150 PHOENIX,AZ E5021 (en) S-22 5 144 XOLL CIRCLE SUITE HIS COIV irrEYTS: Ra�.t N�,1 .1 5� Tr s }l-tz , F41-SAN„CSC,CA 951T2 C141-1 Q4Lorz F.� rt�� C��S C-9RAW 4900 32NG STRET SUITEK k,jWSq..T r CJN C"sFT , 66.,r Lab%LL D Nifi-9) T o-v4 SAGRAMENTC,CA S5026 (918)45302 k.S.-w15e, 5529 ERINOALE ORNE LGRAC4 SPRINGS.CO 80918 Nkt A`0 k D 1--1 u N I $Z 5U- 1.42444(4) i/f-f../1) (719)481- 151 OFF or fl4 Z T-TU"1.S or,/. -FOS Qu.o T-r- 7310 SO.ALTCN WAY UNITa Q- WrG�rL d rZ2. �TMt A ENGLEWCCo.CO 80112 �}� *`C.- St^ Gl Uti-. (303)741-9010 CAIA c r✓ yen.,. 1444- kiy Qu,-511 a uk', /40 Tilts 05ao SW CAPI?CL HWY. PORTLIND,OR 97219 f 1 (-psi 44 E.EXCHANGE RACE GARDEN LEVEL ;AL1•LAKE COY,UT Mtn • (aat)304..7700 • PLEASE REPLY BY PHONE(206)4.51-1999 EXT.3070,BY FAX(206)646-9521_THANK YOU! 1 z1C Ian AVENUE NE . DELI NE WA SB<r5 _ (208)451-1009 4823 EAST SPRAGUE SPOKANE.WA 9921Z (509)3 5 - 02/21/1997 08:08 PROLINE INDUSTRIES INC.OLINE 00 206 646 9521 P.02 It AZ 85021 17 MD S.W.CAPITOL HWY. ❑ ea33PHOENIX N.BLACK, CANYON HWY.,$1E,156 0 44 E.EXCHANGE PL.,GARDEN LEVEL PORTLAND.OR 67219 (503)245.4685 FAX(SD;1)244-9449 (602)995 2205 FAX(602)995-1405 (801)904 7799 FAX gm))364-7790 fl SOUTH 109 SCOTT ST.,I.1NIT 8.6 fl 4300 82ND STREET,STE.K [7 7310 SO,ALTON WAY,UNIT 0 SPOKANE,WA 99202 SACRAMFNT SALT LAKE CITY,UT 64111 O,CA 95826 ENOLEWOOD,CO 80112 CORPORATE HEADQUARTERS (509)534-2626 FAX(509)534-2628 (916)455-3072 FAX(916)455-3011 (303)741-9010 FAX(303).741-9013 1233 120TH AVENUE N.E. 1:1 1435 KOLI,CIRCLE,STE.109 Il 5525 ERINDALE DRIVE,STE,121 BELLEVUE,WA 98005 SAN JOSE,CA 95112 COLORADO SPRINGS,CO 8091B (206)451.1999 FAX(206)846-9521 (408)453.05E6 FAX(408)453.0557 (719)260-5905 FAX(719)461-8151 -. •DAlr2/20/9I IhN Pleasnumbere Iri "6 whin ordering YOUR INGUIPYDATED TE City of Renton Wilt 30 D: 200 Mill Ave.S. I1)NBSED SHIPPING UAlg TO VairED VIA ' Renton,WA 98055 WM N ism l P•iellevue PPox DOLL. Marilynn Peterson ' RE IS OUR QUOTATION ON THE GOODS NAMED,SUBJECT TO THE CONDITIONS NOTED: Qunr41I1 v 1'L•`_iCFill'1 aura I•Itlia nnn,iimi 2 AO-EZ1U Panasonic Digital Cameros 3,150.00 6,300.00 ✓ 4 AG-BP16 Panasonic Battery Pack 98.00 392.00✓ 1 3142 Bogen Tripod 189.00 189.00 ✓ 1 T1-10 Lowell Tote Light . 123.00 123.00 ✓ 1 0133 Lowel Omni-Stand 85.00 86.00 ✓ 1 T1-20 Lowel Tote Frame 31.00 31.00 V 3 XLRP XLRJ26 Comprehensive Audio Cable 22.00 66.01) ✓ 3 ECM-44B Sony Lovelier Microphones 179.00 537.00 A. TOTAL 7,723.00 This Quote is valid for 30 days and cancels any previous quote for the same project, QUOTE VALID FOR3b, DAYS CE_ TATION ACCEPTED BY, QUOTATION SUBMITTED BY: TOTAL P.02 Marilyn J. Petersen From: Jay B. Covington To: Marilyn J. Petersen Subject: RE: Cable Budget Date: Thursday, February 13, 1997 1:52PM Yes, let's have a discussion with the Mayor. I can see pros and cons to both approaches. Making the contracotr bring his or her own stuff costs us more per hour, but we dno't have to pay for the wear and tear, or be left with outdated technology after a few years. On the other hand, we can be guarenteed of production quality because we know we'll have the right equipment on the "shoot". And, as you point out, our hourly costs should be lower, which is where our budget is the tightest. Let's talk more about the options to production levels at the same meeting. You and I should get our act together prior to meeting with Jesse. Tuesday the 18th after 2:00 pm would work for me, or Friday the 21st. From: Marilyn J. Petersen To: Jay B. Covington Subject: Cable Budget Date: Thursday,February 13,1997 12:06PM I have received the equipment inventory list from Patrick Hirsch (Redmond).to augment our existing field equipment for video productions. The list is detailed and includes prices. The total is about $9800; however three items are optional and would reduce the cost to about $8800. The new equipment would include two digital camcorders at $3200 each, one tripod, three lavalier microphones, lights, headsets, wireless microphone, etc. Victoria has the money in the 316 account, and this would not need to be part of the budget adjustment ordinance. Would you like me to meet with you and the mayor to discuss the rationale for purchasing our own field equipmentrather than paying a higher rate either to our videographer or a video company to supply cameras and equipment. For instance, Patrick has submitted a proposal for the pilot magazine show @ $30 per hour/30 hours (_$900), with an eight hour addition for INTRO production, format meeting and music/graphics selection (add'I $240). Tim Rasmussen charged us a minimum of $1500 just to shoot a one or two hour production of "The Music Man", the Senior Revue, or a band concert with almost no editing. Tim used his own cameras and our staff (Lori) for the Carco shoots. His contract called for $2500 for the 30-minute Disaster Preparedness Video (shoot, edit, produce) if he had completed it, and he used the City's camera. • Patrick has also given us a bid of $18 per hour or $50 per Council meeting, whichever is greater, for cablecasting the Monday night meetings. This proposal is for a six-month period. The City of Redmond is currently paying $3000 per month to Sierra Media to provide cameras and crew for the Council meetings and video productions.Redmond's Council meetings are shot with three hand-held cameras. I believe we are in a better negotiating position for a reasonable hourly consultant rate if we provide our own equipment. I will send you the list of equipment prior to our discussion and decision. Thanks very much. • Page 1 FEB 12 '97 09:38AM PLANNING DEPARTMENT P.3/4 Proposed Equipment List-City of Renton,WA. The following list would allow the City to produce both single camera(film style)or multi-camera programming when used in concert with.existing components: # Item/Descriptwn Cost Per Extended r o JNE 2 Panasonic AG-BZ1U Digital Camcorders(or equivilentl 3200.00 6400,00 ODD 4 Panasonic AG-BP15 batteries 9$00 392.00 39A I Bogen 3142 tripod/fluid head combo(silver) 275.00 275.00 15f 3 Sony ECM-44B laya_lier microphones 180.00 540,00 01 1 Samson SAM-35 Wireless mic 499.00 499.00 I Lowell Tota-Light T1-10 I29.99 129.00 /A3 1 Lowell Omni-Stand 01-33 89.99 89.99 $5. 1 Lowell Iota-Frame T1-20 37.99 37.99 3) 1 Roscoe Cinegel Sampler#9010 34.95 34.99 4 Radio Shack 5-channel communication headsets 21-407 49.95 199.80 4 Various buy-out production music cd's 60.00 240.00 1 Sony CDj,14yer(if necessary) 150.00 150.00 . 3 25'XLR audio cables(if necessary) 25.00 75.00 1t- to& 2 Anvil case mobile equipment cases (optional) 400.00 800.00- Total: $9863.76 _ y/io List assume mastering/playback on SVHS format with single camera acquisition via 6mm digital tape. . Costs are likely within 10% _/- Most items could be part of group bid which could lower pricing. iF oPTiotIAs- 17701 17th AVE.W. LYNNWOOD,WA 98037 (206)745-9544 FAX(206) 742-9483 filumloM T E L T R O N 1 C S City of Renton 2-05-97 107 Williams Ave. N. Renton, WA 98055 Attn: Greg, • . • !Here is the collection of cables and parts we discussed for your hookup of your new video projection Monitor unit. 2 8' BNC-BNC coax cables 1 1' BNC -BNC coax cable 3 65' BNC -BNC plenum coax cables 1 6' BNC -Y/C adptr. cable(with female BNC's) 1 6' BNC - Y/C adptr. cable(with male BNC's) 6 Chassis Mount BNC Barrels • 3 BNC Rt angle adptrs. for wall panel 1 .BNC -.RCA adptr. The three Black BNC°cables are to connect to your wall panel with the right angle adptrs. The two shorter(8') black cables are for the Y/C signal from the computer converter box. The • other end of the short,(8') cables would connect directly to the BNC - Y/C adptr cable, with the .female•BNC ends, and then connect to the YC input on the monitor. The longer black cable would run directly from the wall plate to the composite input of the monitor. If you have any questions,please feel free to give us a call. Si cerely, John Weist • JW Tel-Tronics 17701 17th Ave. W Lynnwood, WA 98037 • Broadcast Engineering •Consulting, Maintenance and Repair 046285 • MAGNOLIA HI-FI 110552 01/23/97 ORIG• A iNL ...... e.dor..N.on..........::::.::::::::.::::::Vendor:::Namo;.;:.o:.;:;.;:.;:.:.;.:.::.:; PO No. :::<:::>nPO:<Date:»::::»::>: . . • Chapter 11'6,Laws of 1965 CITY OF RENTON Purchase Order • City of Renton Certification I, the undersigned, do hereby certify under penalty of perjury, that the materials have been furnished, the services rendered, .or the labor • performed as described herein, and that the claim is a just, due and MAGNOLIA HI-FI unpaid obligation against the City of Renton, and that I am authorized to 16600 SOUTHCENTER PKWY authenticate and certify to said claim: TUKWILA, WA 98188 *************************** Signed • * CONFIRMING * *************************** FINANCE DEPARTMENT • STEPHENS, LISA • :<:::it ::r<:»::>::>::Unit:>:<::>::<::::«::<:�>�:::>:::«::<:D.. ...... 1 .ea 60" screen Television 2,799.98 2,799.98 E 127.000000.004.5940.0071.64.000084. 2,799.98 for Council Chambers • . Mitsubishi — VS 6043 1 ea 8.2% Wa. St. Sales Tax 229.60 229.60 E 127.000000.004.5940.0071.64.000084 229.60 • 1 ea 8 meter Standard Video 34.95 34.95 E. 127:000000..004.5940.00.7.L.64.00008.4 -34.95 Cable (#11436) 1 ea 4 meter Standard Video' 29..95 29.95 E 127.000000..004:.5940.0071.64.000084 29.95 Cable (#09326)• . 1 ea 8.2%• Wa.• St. Sales Tax 5.26. 5.26 E 127..000000..004.5940.0071.64.000084 5.26 3,099.74 . 3,099.74 Authorized By 3,029.58 3,029.58 Accounts Payable Div.•200 Mill Ave.S.•Renton,WA 98055•Phone(206)235-2618•Fax(206)235-2513 DP 3119 11/94 © CITY OF RL_dTON r . , 1-�rchase Order Accounts Payable Division•200 Mill Ave S. •Renton,Washington 98055 •Phone(206)235-2618 •Fax(206)235-2513 INSTRUCTIONS • 1. Send invoices to Accounts Payable Division. Purchase Order No. 110552 2. All prices are FOB destination unless otherwise stated. 3. Indicate the Purchase Order number on invoices and all labels. 0 1 7 • 9 4. Label all shipments as specified on the Purchase Order, and /2 3/ enclose packing slip with each shipment. 046285 MAGNOLIA HI-FI I Ship To: 16600 SOUTHCENTER PKWY MarilynPetersen, CityClerk TUKWILA, WA 98188 Y City of Renton • 200 Mill Avenue South Renton, WA 98055 (206) 235-2502 tfan.I ...:......................:............. --- ... .... ...#tY......... t......................:::.:::::::::::.:::::.::..::.D.escrlptlon :. ...::::. .: . .:..: .:.: .::.::::.;:.;:.;::;Unit:.;:P.,rtc.e<:»>::>::;::;::;:;:::>:;>Est..;Amount <: <:: 1 ea 60" screen Television 2,799.98 2,799.98 for Council Chambers Mitsubishi - VS 6043 . 1 ea 8.2s Wa. St. Sales Tax 229.60 229.60 • • • 10-DAY 'MONEY BACK GUARANTEE. 0 :. 3° • PLEASE DELIVER AFTER �v A.M. ON MONDAY, JANUARY 27, 1997. • • • • • • • Authorized By TOTAL 3,029.58 CONDITIONS • 5. The Seller affirms by the acceptance of this order that to the best of 1. No substitutions or changes in this order will be accepted unless its knowledge, information, and belief, the.prices charged herein do not approved in writing by the'Purchaser. exceed the maximum price established by any applicable government regulation. • 2. Purchaser reserves the right to cancel this order or any part thereof, at any time without penalty and shall be the sole judge of its decision to ASSIGNMENT OF ANTITRUST CLAIMS TO PURCHASER cancel this order. Such cancellation may be based upon the failure of Seller to comply with the terms and conditions of this transaction, failure Seller and Purchaser recognize that 'in actual. economic practice to perform the work with promptness and diligence, or failure to make overcharges resulting from antitrust violations are.in fact usually borne by shipment within the time specified, the Purchaser. Therefore, Seller hereby assigns to Purchaser any and all claims for such overcharges as to goods and materials purchased in 3. ALL SHIPMENTS MUST BE PREPAID. connection with this order or contract, except as to overcharges resulting from antitrust violations commencing after the date of the bid, quotation, 4. Warranty. The Seller warrants that the merchandise will conform to or other event establishing the price under this order or contract. In its description and any applicable specifications, shall be a good addition, Seller warrants and represents that each of his suppliers and sub- merchantable quality and fit for the known purpose for which it is sold. contractors shall assign any and all such claims to Purchaser, subject to This warranty is in addition to any standard warranty or service guarantee the aforementioned exception. given by Seller to Purchaser. DP 31 1 B 1 1/92 r - ROOSEVELT INSURANCE CLAIMS EVERETT BELLEVUE SOUTHCENTER LYNNWOOD TACOMA - SILVERDALE . SPOKANE BEAVERTON CLACKAMAS AUDIONIDEO AND COMMERCIAL AUDIONIDEO: AUDIONIDEO: AUDIONIDEO:.... .. AUDIONIDEO: ... . AUDIONIDEO , AUDIO'VIDEO AUDIONIDEO:36 _ AUDIONIDEO: .. AUDIONIDEO: (206)525-1961 •. DIVISION ' (206)513-2565 (206)747-0850 ' (206)575-0851 .'' (206)775-7288 (206)475-2330 ROOSEVELT (206)525-5522 MOBILE: MOBILEMOBILE: MOBILEMOBILE ( MOBIE (SO MO467-4434BILE: (SOMOBI 3-4164 E (MOBS LE 1280 CAR STEREO LONG DISTANCE (206)513-2575 (206)641-4479 (206)575-3055 (206)774-3938 (206)475-2321 (360)698-1679 (509)467-6548 (503)520-1535 (503)653-7425 (206)522.5747 1-800-938-4434 MOBILE INSTALATION: MOBILE INSTALLATION:- MOBILE INSTALLATION: MOBILE INSTALLATION: MOBILE INSTALLATION: MOBILE INSTALLATION MOBILE INSTALLATKA MOBILE INSTALLATION MOBILE INSTALLATION: MOBILE(206)NSTALLA525-01�TION (206)513-2588 BE(206)747-710 OM 34 (206)575.4775 (206)771.3323 (206)475-3895 (360)698-1960 (509)467-7023 (503)643-3568 (503)653-2026 DATE (206)747-4208 I TIME INVOICE NUMBER 01---27--97 : 7:55 I 5860 . Zrs ' t�1 I u h t ON ..:1.4S •1 10 0--0 SOLD TO: 00 MILL AVE S SHIP TOt: TY OF RENTON 200 MILL AVENUE SOUTH RENTON WA 98055 M. PETERSEN,EN, CITY CLERK RENTON WA 98055 • • 2062352502 .. ACCOUNT NUMBER,__...... ... INSTALLED BY OR P.O.#-_ DATE SHIPPED . .. TERMS -.....- DELIVERED ORDER CC OD 110552 Iv1O EEPH: C:06 .•.}...ILL i 6 • SALESPERSON: 901 COMMERCIAL DIVISION 9)Z18 JOHNSON, TODD ( 1 IITEM NUMBER_ .. DESCRIPTION .. OTY OTY BACK UNIT ORDERED SHIPPED ORDER UNIT PRICE AMOUNT V£>6043 MITPJ 60" BLACK FINISH PTV W/P A 1 1 0 2799. 98 2799. 98 SEfiIAi_.# 015475 • DELFREE MI IF: DELIVER TV' S 31 " AND UP EA 1 1 0 t . `i. f:: 4r . ,.• ! - ,..7 -/ _-Y _i.,1 .. .-L .'� -.,,. + `Y�In /e/-C S;%_' -t.. (`.r•-- -A • rL_s..� A,//- . "7(4-tom 6.'7-'`. • Tfif-;)JV YOU i- , :IM I'1,i1=q.1C11.-Ti-1 HT—FT. SAME PRICE. BETTER 5ERV I :E. COMMENTS • DELIVER TO MARILYN PETERSEN, CITY CASH ' eel SALES AMOUNT c7'?9• 3 CLERK—PHONE 2352502. CR.CARD O SALES TAX `=` j• 6 k3 0 FINANCEICO.D :.�;'IP9• `•a3 FREIGHT . 4'0 w DELIVERY APPOINTMENT JAN 27 1 j— _PMMON . (illy • OTHER U DEPOSIT At!PL • DEPO:31T LE(=T TOTAL 3029 58 10-day return policies and MGPA information-on reverse side.•-...._.. - - • • ROOSEVELT INSURANCE CLAIMS EVERETT BELLEVUE SOUTHCENTER LYNNWOOD TACOMA SILVERDALE SPOKANE BEAVERTON • CLACKAMAS AUDIONIDEO AND COMMERCIAL AUDIONIDEO: AUDIONIDEO: AUDIONIDEO: AUDIONIDEO: AUDIONIDEO: AUDIOMDEO: AUDIONIDEO: AUDIONOEO: AUDIONIDEO: '/ •(206)525-1961 DIVISION (206)513.2565 (206)747-0850 (206)575-0851 (206)775-7288 (206)475-2330 ROOSEVELT (206)525-5522 MOBILE: MOBILE: MOBILE: MOBILE: MOBILE: ( MOBL E 8584 ( M 467-4434 OBIL ( MOBBIILE4: (S�MOB LE: CAR STEREO LONG DISTANCE: (206)513-2575 (206)641-4479 (206)575-3055 (206)774.3938 (206)475-2321 (360)698-1679 (509)467-6548 (503)520-1535 (503)653-7425 (206)522-5747 1-800-938-4434 MOBILE INSTALLATION: MOBILE INSTALLATION: MOBILE INSTALLATION: MOBILE INSTALLATION: MOBILE INSTALLATION: MOBILE INSTALLATION: MOBILE INSTALLATION: MOBILE INSTALLATION: MOBILE INSTALLATION: MOBILEPISTALL TTION )525-0148 (206)513-2588 BE(206)747- 71034 (206)575-4775 (206)771-3323 (206)475-3895 (360)698-1960 (509)467-7023 (503)643-3568 (503)653-2026 DATE (zos)747 4zo6 I • TIME '] // INVOICE NUMBER }} I .-i / _q l._L. SOLD TO: i { SHIP TO: — 3 "C (- . , f'- • • •J ACCOUNT NUMBER ...., ... .. INSTALLED BY OR P.O.# - DATE SHIPPED TERMS - • • SALESPERSON: iITEM NUMBER . . . DESCRIPTION UNIT CITY OTY BACK UNIT PRICE AMOUNT •• ORDERED SHIPPED ORDER• 1 I 1.1 aco gyie-i- .R 5-tAnclAkck e ici 1 L.) -Pt 3 • 1 • O93 (p e- V. id. e• o .,. . h, "'•. . .. . - - -- f14eo - - I. . • . . .. . ._ _ ....., .......... . . . • . . • • • . . . . • . . . . X '' • s{�,. r/f,f,- , `.� r COMMENTS O • CASH SALES AMOUNT w CR.CARD • SALES TAX • p FINANCE/GQD FREIGHT • v~). OTHER -- . 0 U 10-day return.policies and MGPA information'on reverse side.—. - TOTAL . • 70 �� :.- CITY OF RENTON • MEMORANDUM DATE: November 21, 1996 TO: Jay Covington, Executive Assistant FROM: Marilyn Petersen, City C p• SUBJECT: Cable Budget Expenditure (127 Account) Camera Relocation in Council Chambers: As we discussed last summer, the cost of purchasing a fourth camera in the Council Chambers was approximately $10,000. Instead, I decided to relocate one of our existing cameras to improve,the camera shots of the staff table, podium and audience. The cost of replacing the three robotics was $11,000 and was absorbed by TCI. The cost of relocating one of the cameras was $1,000, and is the City's responsibility. A copy of the bill is 'attached. J. W. Tel-Tronics spent from 10:00 a.m. to midnight on replacing the robotics and relocating the camera. The invoice will be paid out of the capital outlay account in the 1996 cable budget fund 127. Please let me know if you have concerns or comments regarding this matter. 17701 17th AVE. W. LYNNWOOD,WA 98037 (206)745-9544 FAX(206) 742-9483 jim INVOICE NUMBER:- 96851 T E L T R O N I C S OUST. P.O. NUMBER: � ` �AtAlet- BILLING DATE: 11-13-96 City of Renton TAX ID NUMBER: 200 Mill Ave. So. Renton, WA 98055 PHONE: (206) 235-2619 ATTN: Marilyn Petersen DEPARTMENT: City Clerk SUMMARY OF CHARGES • TOTAL PARTS: $109.69 TOTAL LABOR: $750 .00 TOTAL PARTS AND LABOR: $859. 69 TOTAL Pick up-Delivery, Service Call , and/or Shipping Charges: $65.00 SUBTOTAL: $924. 69 Renton Tax @ 8.2%: $75.82 TOTAL: $1,000.51 ADJUSTMENTS: PAY THIS AMOUNT: $1,000.51+ Marilyn, This invoice covers the labor and parts costs for moving one of your cameras to a new location. CITY OF RENTON NOV 151996 • RECEIVED CITY.CLERK'S OFFICE PAYMENT DUE UPON RECEIPT. A 1.5% MONTHLY SERVICE CHARGE WILL BE ADDED TO ACCOUNTS PAST 30 DAYS! PLEASE INDICATE OUR INVOICE NUMBER ON YOUR CHECK. Broadcast Engineering •Consulting, Maintenance and Repair d INVOICE NUMBER: 96851 EQUIPMENT REPAIRED INFORMATION JWT Misc. Production & Editing Equipment SERIAL NUMBER : ID #:-10 RECEIVED: 11-05-96 RETURNED: 11-05-96 MACHINE HOURS: LABOR HOURS: 10. HOURLY RATE: $75.00 LABOR FEE: $750.00 Pick up-Delivery (PU) IService Call (SC) IShipping (S) I (SC) : $65.00 SYMPTOMS: Move one of the cameras in the council chambers from its location near the front entrance to a position behind the main desk. REPAIR ACTION TAKEN: We removed all of the mounting hardware and associated wiring from the camera location near the front entrance of the council chambers and remounted the system behind the main desk, right at the very end of the back curved wall just behind the council chairs. It was necessary to drill anchor holes in the cement ceiling 2 feet above the suspended ceiling and then mount a 1 foot square piece of heavy metal just above the ceiling tile. Spacers were then installed so the new pan/tilt head could be mounted without actually contacting the ceiling tile. Wiring was pulled through conduit to run the pan/tilt system, control the camera and carry picture information back to the production area. The system checked out quite nicely. REMARKS: We had to reroute the CCU cable for this camera because it wasn't long enough to go the same route as the other cables . This one cable now goes down inside the control room wall , just to the left of the window, and comes out through the baseboard right at floor level behind the computer table. The cable then runs along the wall directly to the production counter.. It does run in conduit all the time it is in the ceiling area. PARTS USED FOR THIS REPAIR ID # DESCRIPTION QUANTITY UNIT COST TOTAL -12 Misc. Mechanical & Electrical components 1 Each $109. 69 . $109.69 PARTS TOTAL: $109. 69 CITY OF RENTON MEMORANDUM • DATE: November 21, 1996 TO: Mayor Jesse Tanner, and Members, Renton City Council FROM: Marilyn Petersen, City • SUBJECT:. Council Chambers Lighting I have been working with Larry Sleeth and the Facilities Division crew to improve the lighting conditions in the Council Chambers for the weekly Council meeting cablecast. There have been three modifications: 1. The spotlights over the Mayor and Council chairs have been readjusted to shine directly over each chair. Due to the brightness of the spots, I would caution you against looking up directly into the light. These spots can be tilted (with certain limitations) for individual preferences, so please let me know if you prefer having the light diverted away from you. 2. The spotlights in the ceiling in front of the staff table have been raised to the maximum tilt to direct the light upward more towards the Mayor/Council seats than the staff seats. Unfortunately, the overhang in front of the lights in the ceiling blocks the light beam and prevents any further adjustment upward. The overhang also partially blocks the light from shining directly in your eyes. 3. The three spotlights in the ceiling directly in front of the video screen have been temporarily inactivated. By darkening that area, the quality of the projected image on the screen should improve. We welcome your comments and personal preferences for lighting. With your input, we can continue to make adjustments until we have the ideal lighting situation for purposes of cablecast without compromising your comfort. Please give me a call (X2502) or provide your comments to me at the next Council meeting. If necessary, a lighting consultant could be hired to provide professional advice and cost estimates for additional modifications. cc: Jay Covington • FRANCHISING • REFRANCHISING • COMMUNITY NEEDS ASSESSMENTS • ORDINANCE PREPARATION • NEGOTIATION • EVALUATION • FRANCHISE ADMINISTRATION • ACCESS minem May 22, 1996 CITY OF RENTON Marilyn Petersen City Clerk CI i'Y CLERK� � 4 9996 City of Renton 200 Mill Avenue South RECEI'S OFFICEVED Renton WA 98055 Dear Marilyn: Enclosed is a correspondence from Gary Hokenson and a response from us regarding the robotics in the Council Chambers. Additionally, I have estimated the cost to add a fourth camera in the chambers at approximately $10,000 to $12,000. Keep in mind these costs are only estimated and are not exact. For the equipment, we used the list prices out of nine month old catalogs and are uncertain as to how much of a break we may get as a part of bid package. The installation is also estimated as we are not sure what it will take to get the appropriate wiring in the correct pathways. If needed we may be able to get a closer estimate of the installation. To get actual figures, however, we will have to put the equipment and installation out to bid. Please let me know what you would like to do in this regard. Sincerely, 3-H C B E 4 OMMUNICATIONS CONSULTANTS Lon H rd Vice President/Director LH/sb . . 504 East Main Street, Auburn, Washington 98002 • (206)833-8380 • 1-800-222-9697 • FAX: (206)833-8430 ,i • • FRANCHISING • REFRANCHISING • COMMUNITY NEEDS ASSESSMENTS • ORDINANCE PREPARATION • NEGOTIATION • EVALUATION • FRANCHISE ADMINISTRATION • ACCESS 11111111 (Nit May 22, 1996 Gary Hokenson General Manager TCI Seattle,Inc. 15241 Pacific Hwy. So. • Seattle, WA 98188 Dear Gary: • Thank you for your letter of May 20, 1996 regarding the purchase and installation of the new robotics in the Renton Council Chambers. You raise some good questions. • Let me inform you in part of.how we have gotten to this point. • ' Approximately a year ago we attempted to purchase robotics similar to • • those used in Renton to be installed at the City of Kirkland. In doing so we found that due to the distance from the cameras to .the controls, robotics similar to the ones in Renton could not be used in Kirkland. At this we set out to find an alternative. Because of the work he had done.for you in Kent and Renton we contacted John Weist. It is our understanding that John custom designed units that would work for • the City of Kirkland. I am uncertain whether or not someone else could duplicate this system and if so what the cost might be. In specific response to your questions #1 & #2, I believe John anticipated that the figure be a firm price not including taxes or shipping. However these are small units that should not require extensive shipping fees. The answer to question #3 is that they are not the same as in Kent. As for question #4, I can only tell you that John did put them into operation and the City of Kirkland is very happy. • After the completion of the installation Scott Scowcroft and I went to Kirkland and looked over the operation. I was very pleased with their performance. • 504 East Main Street,Auburn, Washington 98002 • (206)833-8380 • 1-800-222-9697 • FAX: (206)833-8430 Gary Hokenson May 22, 1996 Page Two Finally, I think that much of the information you are interested in is based upon the reputation of John Weist, and since Scott Scowcroft has more experience in dealing with him than I do, I suggest that you speak with him. Thank you for your help on this matter and we look forward to getting this all worked out as soon as possible. Sincere , 3 B COMMUNICATIONS CONSULTANTS • Vi e P si nt/Director cc: Marilyn Petersen lkiAc taking tcic iNian into Minot-mi. TCI Cablevision of Washington, Inc. May 20, 1996 • • Lon Hurd Vice President/Director 3H Cable Communications Consultants 504 East Main Street Auburn, WA 98002 RE: Renton Camera System Dear Lon: Thank you for your May 3, 1996, letter and the attachments from J.W. Tel-Tronics. As we discussed late last year, I would be willing to cover these costs in exchange for settlement of the rate increase refund in question. After reading John Weist's letter, I have a couple of questions: 1. Is the $10746.00 a firm price (excluding tax and shipping)? 2. What would be the total price with applicable taxes and shipping added in? 3. Are these the same parts used in Kent's council chambers? 4. I am concerned by John's last statement: "There are no specific part numbers because it is mostly made up of custom components." Is this system guaranteed to accomplish what is needed in the Renton council chambers? Please answer these questions at your earliest convenience. Sincerely, • Gary Ho enson General Manager South Seattle Office 15241 Pacific Hwy.S. Seattle,WA 98188 (206)433-3434 FAX (206)433-5103 e-F:,..min--.,,.,. ,•.,<.,-.,r„,a. • kAIVCHISING • REFRANCHISING • COMMUNITY NEEDS ASSESSMENTS • ORDINANCE PREPARATION • NEGOTIATION • EVALUATION • FRANCHISE ADMINISTRATION • ACCESS NMI MOnStet May,3, 1996 CITY OF RENTON Gary Hokenson (� y 1996 General Manager RECEIVED TCI Seattle, Inc. CITY CLERK'S OFFICE 15241 Pacific Hwy. So. Seattle, WA 98188 Dear Gary: Enclosed is a copy of John Weist's letter regarding the issues raised in our correspondence to Marilyn Petersen of yesterday. This should answer those questions and allow the project to be started. • • Please let us know what further action is needed from the City. Sincerely, 3-H C BL OMMUNICATIONS CONSULTANTS Lori Hurd Vice President/Director cc: Marilyn Petersen 504 East Main Street, Auburn, Washington 98002 • (206)833-8380 • 1-800-222-9697 • FAX: (206)833-8430 MIR - T4 7. ' -- 17701 17th AVE.W. LYNNWOOD,WA 98037 (206)745-9544 FAX(206)742-9483 T E L T R O .N I C S 3H Cable Communications Consultants 5-01-96 502 East Main St. Auburn,WA 98002 Attn:Lon Hurd Dear Lon, This information concerns the new Pan/Tilt remote control camera system that the City of Renton wants to install in their Council Chambers. I have written up a basic step by step procedure that we would have to go through to get and install the new equipment. The system we were discussing would consist of 3 Diawa pan/tilt heads and an ESI pan &tilt controller. The controller would be housed in a 3.5"high by 19"wide by 12 inch deep chassis. The unit will have 3 separate joysticks and 3 sets of pan/tilt electronics. The cost to you for the 3 pan!tilt heads and the controller unit would be$9706.00. Our installation wo enld ns mist o the following stems A) Install the new heads onto the existing mounts up inside the ceiling. Three new ceiling tiles will be needed because we will have to drill new holes up through to the tiles into the mounting plates inside the ceiling. B) We will be able to use the existing remote control cables that are already run through the conduits. It will be necessary to install new connectors onto each of their ends. C) Make up 3 short coax cables( 12" )to run between the camera heads and the pan/tilt mount. We estimate the time to do this install at approximately 16 man hours. Labor at S65.00/hr =$1 040.00 Pan/Tilt System:= $9706.00 TOTAL >>>>$10746.00 There are no specific part numbers for this system because it is mostly made up of custom components. Because it is a custom designed system delivery would be within 30 to 45 days. Tax and shipping would also need to be added to these figures. If you have any questions about this system please give me a call Sincerely John Weist J.W.Tel-Tronics Broadcast Eng neeting•Consulting,Mentenance and Repair • 'FRANCHISING • REFRANCHISING • COMMUNITY NEEDS ASSESSMENTS • ORDINANCE PREPARATION • NEGOTIATION • .. .:.....:::::. . EVALUATION • FRANCHISE ADMINISTRATION • ACCESS ..: . CITE'OF RENTON May 2, 1996 MAY 9 6 1996 -a::;./c1/ED Marilyn Petersen CITY'CLERK'S OFFICE City Clerk City of Renton 200 Mill Avenue South Renton WA 98055 Dear Marilyn: Another week and a half has now lapsed and I'm sure your concern grows as you see nothing to indicate we are getting any closer to having the new robotics system for • the Council chamber video production facilities installed. Therefore I wanted to take a few minutes to update you as to the progress and to create written documentation of exactly where we are and what responsibilities are left. . At this point TCI has agreed to purchase and install for Renton the same quieter robotics system that the City of Kirkland has found to be so effective. The reason it is taking longer than anticipated to get the project completed, is that a few issues have arisen that appear at first glance to be minor, but do need to be addressed prior to beginning. For example; do the existing mounts in the Council Chambers need to be changed to fit the new robotics, and can the existing wiring be used to operate the robotics? These are a couple of issues that require review not only by us but also by the persons that may be installing as well as the manufacturer. The good news for all involved is that in talking to the suppliers, the cost for the equipment has not changed to any great extent and is not expected to do so. We are anticipating the final word on the outstanding issues within a couple of days, at which time we can complete our list. We will get back with you then. Sincerely 3- C t/L r C o MMUNICATIONS CONSULTANTS j LonH'rd • Vice President/Director • • LH/sb • cc: Gary Hokenson;TCI Seattle • 504 East Main Street, Auburn, Washington 98002 • (206)833-8380 • 1-800-222-9697 • FAX: (206)833-8430 063690 PROLINE INDUSTRIES INC 096629 02/16/96 DEPARTMENT FILE COPY O No. s>:z:»::PO<Date:::>::::<:: %0 © Chapter 116,Laws of 1965 CITY OF RENTON Purchase Order City of Renton Certification sal I, the undersigned, do hereby certify under penalty of perjury, that the materials have been furnished, the services rendered, or the labor • performed as described herein, and that the claim is a just, due and PROLINE INDUSTRIES INC unpaid obligation against the City of Renton, and that I am authorized to 1233 _ 120TH AV NE authenticate and certify to said claim: Signed BELLEVUE, WA 98005 FINANCE DEPARTMENT . STEPHENS, LISA Number:.;:.;:.;:.;:.;:.;:.;:.;:.;:.;:.;:.:;.<..::.::.::.::.::.::.: 1 ea. Sharp Video Projector 4,580.00 4,580.00 E 127.000000.004.5940.0071.64.000084 4,580.00 1 ea sales tax 375.56 375.56 E '127.000000.004.5940.0071.64.000084 375.56 • Authorized By 4,955.56 4,955.56 Accounts Payable Div.•200 Mill Ave.S.•Renton,WA 98055•Phone(206)235-2618•Fax(206)235-2513 • - DP 3119 11/94 .....—____._______ __ . .. . ,_ . ,. • . . . _ .. . 1,4(....rA;E REMIT PROLINE INDUSTRIES,- INC. INVOICE PAYMENT TO: ,;'-•::::"•;• . 1233-120th AVENUE N.E., BELLEVUE WA 98005 VS,'.: . • (206) 451-1999 FAX (206) 637-955: ,. • ,.:.. ,. :-. ... .. • . ,i;:.•-:•;;W...;..„.„.„.••,:„.: .,„•,.„.0-.31L-13-43 0,o-o.n.,..,...,,,,,,,,,,..1,,,,,,,,,......„,,,pri,,,:,,.;,.,......,,,,,;..,;;...4•,—,,,,..f.„-,,,,—,7„c„.1„,:,,,,,,,,,,.„,„:„ _,.„.,,,,,,,„,.,...„...,,,v,-,,,,,,...,:,„,,,,....,,,,,k,:,41,2-...,......,,,,,,,,,,,,,,-....,.. ..• .. •;;,-;,:iV.-?*:.'Zi....,;•.,?.•:.°4.:":4,0"7,3;;-...r.'"'-'7, --:1;,'.,' .."..44v,.!....,.,),Nr,.. -,n4,44';',:r,'4..;;V,,, ,,,,,,,,l'ilf;.:;:,5_,:;-,7,Y,..,:.-p.,,,..„,,,,-....,..:,,,r\V.\::-..,..t::r1,41:,:74,...1716, .;41107,,':X.7`,ef,,ri;;;V: erP,iln?',474,714.24'1,4*^:,t"j::,.,,,i."':'-;*%i''',.t?:''''''''' ....,Y '. I TY OF RENTON STCITY OF RENTON ;•-.'s.,:,;•,.,,?„,. •:•.....,,,,,,,,,,4„-;- -...• I'l•-. 4.t.:-,..PII4JP:',•-,!;,•ACCOUNT S PAYABL E . f...',ITY 0 j1•,‘ 1,. ON• 1-1 4078 148TH AVENUE NE •ti.,,, -.`;•:•:;.1,?..z.,';•;';;s-,24:••,2,-, it.,- - • - • • • ',,zi,e,,,•-•.:7,-:.q;•2:,t::§:-.'4.,t 200 MILL• AVENUE- SOUTH. - ' •••••• •• '.:. ..•-•:,:"::: ..': •••-1::: :0,-- VISION.VIDEO/TIM RASMUSS 'lq..:;•z0" !,' PeZ.s x• - ';.•!, 4•::1-,-„r:,.'-:.%?:,u4ATTN: JOE PEREZ . . •- FEB 1 61996 . 4,1:, REDMOND . WA 9805 ''•:'.. .•,•-)::•••;•.,-•,••.•:•,!2;••.,,:i..-:•,,,.{,--•••:•: •••:-..,,,*,•:.,f.::•-•::'?•;•,.•-•,iv,,..,;(z,. RENTON WA 98055 • .• • • i-.'•-•-••. --'Ai ,,, :-.5-„-_,.. • T-..,,;',-4-::.:•,:•/.. 1-,0•37,i-,„Ii.„..f,,..4,,,,•,;.:;:b,,,...,,,;,,„_,,,,,,:.1_,,,,,.. .,,:,,,...,-,,,,:,,,..- .,i4;:xgit.,,,-;:fivf.,,,.. :;,?3-,4;4ffie:1;-4,--•::,;;:•,;,-,.-7 17,:,‘ k",-7C-4:i:;'4'-'4'•zrikil,t, -'‘.-,1-4..-- 'PA•Vo.iWW1L:aq..4i6c:elii2;:;-kW,':',:75. 7.,-..4:J..f ,•„: 4 PURCHASE ORDER NO. ,i ! ORDER DATE I SALES ORDER NO. I INVOICE DAT:: INVOICE NUMBER !!It''. • . i. 96 . . . . ',•:‘,;. .-. 6 29 . - - 2/06/96---'--:•-• •••••-•'00779503PA-. . : • 2/06/96 . •• . 779503PA - ,..,, . ... . . A., :.: DATE SHIPPED ;.. ito SHIP VIA ' TERMS • SALES REP. I REGION • .. •. • . . ,. 2/06/9.6 PRICE ADJUSTMENT CREDIT' MEMO. • -- . MARGARET SPENC 1 ' •-'-, '.:2.:-.'•.--':-'!••!•••••'•..••:: '': :-.--;'••.•'•P'•':. ',"--f's::••••••`:';-*:•.-Y•i••:. :::-'•:'-7.'f'-'::W•:`-• ••'•-h•••;W,:::••:41 .;i1-..i •AV,',iaki.i'.:4.1'1•2'1:-•igfil.14 . 2.-0,,:- ,'•21.-ei;;;••.':Xl-FZ2_:lici4g',-„,.:,,ii?,:•Y4A4'.'.'.,,,`•4;•1:•-•a.li'irr::,,,-e•,-,t.f.f,. •••••••::•;"-•.• •••••:••• ",:•'.• OTY ORD'D OTY B.O. ! MOIIEL NO. DESCRIPTION QTY.SHP'D UNIT PRICE AMOUNT **if . • . ** THANK YOU FOR THIS ORDER!!! ** ** - ** ** SO THAT WE CAN BETTER ASSIST YOU ** .-. ** PLEASE REVIEW THE "TERNS AND ** *4 CONDITIONS" PRINTED ON THE BACK ** - 4* OF THISINVOICE. ** • -.•=2, . . . .-, CUSTON .ER WAS CHARGED INCORRECTLY ON ORIGINAL • • - INUOIdE. UKIT PRICE SHOULD HAVE BEEN $4580.00. '. . - . • . . - THIS ADJUSTNENT WILL CORRECT INVOICE #1779503 - - " • TO REF.ECT CORRECT At1011NT. . APPLY 0 INUOICEN 779503. • . • . • „ ITU - . . •' : 1- XGE650IIKII • SHARP ELECTRONICS CORP-810444 1- 4,895.00 4,895.00- **SEE ... NOBEL*XGE65088 ** * ' • 1 XCE650NKII SHARP ELECTRONICS CORP-810444 1 4,580.00 4,580.00 **SEE NOBEL XCE65088 ** ,. ' .... • • SALES TAX- WA ' - . - • - 25.83- . • ' . • - - TOTAL ANOUNT DUE • 340.83- : CREDIT KENO ' . . ., . • ' , , . . • • • • • . •• - . . i • PLEASE SEE REVERSE FOR TERMS&CONDITIONS OF SALE „. . . .- .,:-. -,..-- • I :z'-,,..-, ':, ' . , • . - _... ,... . . ................. ... . • . . . ..... .._.. ...`• .. • .:, .., ,' ,• ... •4•'.. 1,.','f.: :,:•:.:.,. : ,,,' :;;,:-.:: ifi;4. ,i'qkli:iNc'•:.0. ).';•`,V4•':-G.Z:2A;';f1; 4-, •••7,,,..i'.,':;.•'i;;., ••••?;:'4:!'s,'n'::.,:•':,• , :' •,•,:•: •,f,.,.:..••••••. ;:,, i •;':.',41'‘ ,'7:..i.•,:-:,;•••-7,-a•;•,-:::;N•;.•`..A;;;I::4.,,,•gfA,';,;,eVA", •.;-4.61,;iM•pt,itypOf„51% 2,4-mIN•1;,„ .,:,-,T1::..n.:,:;;y...:::q .Lv-;,•N,;,;,';•-.•',:•;:',7t;i-•;•?.'A':.,,:a.: 1•,": '•:•... 1,-.,4: INVOICE PLEASE REMIT E PROLINE INDUSTRIES - INC. • . y :,.... PAYMENT TO: • -•'::-',. VaZil: 1233-120th AVENUE N.E., BELLEVUE WA 98005 (206) 451,1999. FAX (206) 637-9558 • ' 6. 10-r. ::,',-,.7.-..;: •;':,',i., :. •: 4 I r:./.:,.; • •,•„fi•.,,2;:•.'il ':::',.: re:2•Vit-MV 60 a;',41iititl'AP.VAPPAMMPOSW,dirtWontgrOc, *1049RPRROTAVAXWA•V;'::'',7' '‘v, i:,.:4 ,...0iNf•;;.:•:•r•6,••••,q,,4••••;•cv,a,1,-;, :ii-;,,4.1-W3,i4.'0=R4:-•-•,-Izti.t4-••;---•,,g,-,:t,;(1:',':',6•,1•.,i•.i..,„.'tk-tX.5,,,x,,4:4,,-.,• w,•• - '4 '' - 4•''',.:,•-Ot A--w::!,•-0-2-ti•-•tyild:.:Ar•ge•„•!:.a•k•:•,.i**', itei 111,'T'a`41 CITY OF RENTON • n_./ . t-Fil CITY •OF •RENTON 4firie -• ACCOUNTS':PAYABLE :.•,% :' .. •:...., 1--,-.;-.4. '• •••=7. . • . 4 -rduoi. •0.:-.4.03,8-7-1 48 TIC: AVENUE .NE . ' 200 ]TILL AVENUE SOUTH . . ' . ' . .-.;VE-D ..VISION"V I DEO/T I M RASMUS S EV-.. o=1 0;;,:-.,4:.V,..,•:;:f.; R ENT ON ATY CLERK r, • .. . . - WA 98055- - - SOFFI• - ,-Z• REDMOND • ..WA 980555:::,---e.,?,vilti :i.' . • 7: tgi' • • • . • • • . . ;,'.. 'et,:!A-':*..7i;Ot • . . . . ,--.,: i."; ',VitIETA.P ,i-f,: ::::.',Yik.W '?;:lv. k.-tAtii.if..giN,',:',W$,TiVW4Wig.Z-NiiitkArgs4.*A.44M.V.,".AVRAWAMMAAMMVinktillagiai 7-'4,..'. .AZ 4 PURCHASE ORDER NO. ORDER DATE SALES ORDER NO. INVOICE DATE : INVOICE NUMBER ;':11^i • .. . .. .,..:, :=4e., - . '.•:', _,,... • ..: . •: ._ :._ .....72.::.i..., ...__..L...::,:,:2.:..::',..,','-'. !'. :i.Z.,::::::_11..LIL "3„...L...:.t:.!. •,-:::.:.e . ::-%:-.r-- :.' -..,:.:—.! ,:,:.. ...:—.--,-...- .. •-•-.-:''. . • • - :',4::: c..6625i - , • • -. ' , , .,•••• • 1/15/96. - : .:. -.00.7779501::. , .:,--z..;: 1/22/.96.- --,-.:- ....- 779503 DATE SHIPPED SHIP VIA TERMS 1 SALES REP. REGION i*• • t•-1.,,, .•e--•• .. . . Ifi•ti, 1/22/96 DEL/DEBT • - .• :. - NET •30. DAYS' . • •. • MARGARET SPENC E 1 0 . •'6,:', `i" ,'Rfe,.;':,:i'la.:'."-::.;'1?- 0.g:;.-:.:: ::i;•:4,M.i.-' ).)-gii::•il:=4.\:•:W.VAA;i-Ni-MgiVi-VAP:Alliq1agik4ifilAP:.41ti.;5:M ,. .4:••• •;••,::',',:f:,':;7..• OTYORDD I OTY B.O. ' MODEL NO. i DESCRIPTION OTY.SNPD UNIT PRICE AMOUNT ., L:','-; • . ,A-'.-, • . ,. • '•;;'?' • . NOTE: PROLIHE HOLDS.TITLE.TD THE BELOW LISTED. MERCHANDISE ITEMS UNTIL ..•• • 6.';-.-•' •. NIS lill ONE HAS:DEIN.PAID IN f DLL; TITLE FOR,MERCHANDI 3E ... .. . . ;t •'":1 • •... ITEMS (EXCLUDING RENTAL ITEMS) MILL.PASS-TO JHE.PARTY LISTED, . • . • • • • ,-:, ,,•,. IN.THE 'BILL-TO" SECTION ABOUE ONCE ALL FUNDS HAUE CLEARE.1•THE • : .. . .- ,.,• '-.• . ••. . APPROPRIATE FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS), AT HO TIME HILL TIT.E OF • .. . :.•:-.-, RENTAL ims BE PASSED TO "BILL-TO" LISTING UNLESS SPECIFICALLY •:.•'•'•: 5:f.l', . • STATED. ... - ",. . . . •.::::- r3':':.! • - •-• . • - ., NOTE: THESE FENS HAVE BIER ORDERED SPECItICALLY FOR YOU. THEY .-. ARE MOT RETURNABLE. IF ITEMS ARE DEFECTIUE THE MANUFACTU3ER'S ,'•k: . STANDARE WARRANTY MILL GOUIRN. THE.REPAIR/REPLACEMENT OF FIN(S). . •:.:: :4,,, • -. .- • • .: . • . - . - -. • .. . • .. S/N 507311481 - • ,..,,,, , ,:• 1 NE650MKII SHARP ELECTRONICS CORP-8I0444 1. : 4,895.00. • 4,895.00 11-:' - • • . . . - **SEE nom. XGE65OUB :Ty, •. nt.;:,• , • ;,.. . • ,.:..,, • - , • . .• . • . . ' '.. .: SALES TAX HA 401.39 . -';.' . • . . . • • -..- . - • ' .• . . . • TOTAL AMOUNT DUE 5,296.39 • • . ... .. . , .,•:. . . . • . . • • • - . . . ",.... , • . . ' • •• . . . • • • .. • . • .. • • . • • . '.! • . • -,'- , . .• • ::e.• . . . ••,:: . - • . •,•-•. - . • .. . . . , . • • .. ., • . . •. . . • •, . . . .. . . ' .. . • • .. . . .'.;,: • . • . . ' . - . PLEASE SEE REVERSE FOR TERMS&CONDITIONS OF SALE • . • • • • ,-, ••,'•••::::::,.--.:''..;.,• ,:::,• ';'-'!.,:,.., ,;` 7;...'z:.•,:f.c, -• •;;;•1,•=?.:-,(••.- •:• -••:.'2:•::,:•,.•,.., -••••:.•::..•-•,•::'.,,:..,',„. . :::.:.-;',..:.. ••, . ,. . . . - ;.,.-• 1..:..::•:;..-• ;.,.;.f..1:.:;',:,-;;:-.: .:-- ,5.--.•1:5.Z.'c•- 't'•,•:V.P':,, •'--" -',',..-;:k-N'.-::,'.;:::,:'.'':`, .':...f= :.:=-.''"!..;-:,i•i....•?'1;; :...-...'.-,--i':.:•?...!-, 4.:'''.".'. '':' -'., . ' -•-•-. • - ...: '-,•-• ,:.;;;,..,'-', - •:--•:::(- :.':::,..':: : :,:,'•4,': ',6":-••.;, :'?-,: .... ;;;;:."'..',.'-:'•:-."-:.:•-:::"::"e-,-r'':- `;:'-i',. .:-:',',"-i,...:':::'.:- •' '..?:-,.;;.:=-.:::-:..;!.',,':'• : ,, ._.,....._,_..L._..... . .... .. .�. •.....r.....;.. ... ••. .. r.. 1....j°,.i:. ,.b;t ,'v.....,.., �iq.)•'vt i �.•.N�.:. ::1,`L...r. PROLINE INDUSTRIES, INC. ``7- PACKING SLIP 1233-120th AVENUE NH., BELLEVUE WA 98005 (206) 451-1999 FAX (206) 637-9558 . . . .030843 BILL TO CITY OF RENTON • H CITY OF RENTON ; :;i ACCOUNTS PAYABLE I` MARGARET TO DELIVER >=_ 200 MILL AVENUE SOUTH 4078 148TH AVENUE NE • T VISION ;,- VIDEO/TIM RASMUSS RENTON WA 98055 REDMOND WA 98055 .;;PURCHASE ORDER NO. • 'I ORDER DATE. ' I SALES ORDER NOS I. INVOICEDATE;; •` ^;_: I 'INVOICE NUMBER 9 _-9 .;DATE SHIPPED I SHIP VIA, - - 1 ! 1 C.1 t TERMS ,ti,••...I•°:SALES•REP. ' +. I 'REGION=' YL � S ► k 1 I1 ►. I OTYORD'D; QTY B.O. MODEL NO..,.` • . DESCRIPTION'-„ O .SHP'D UNIT PRICE. .I"• .-. AMOUNT' 1 XGE650ttKII SHARP ELECTRONICS CORP-810444 4,895.00 **SEE MODEL XCE65OUB ** 01 #95073452 _d731/yf/ FP/4'7 0`1`-i` . 5 9, . . 7/. 64Z. r -e S� PULLED BY NUMBER \ OF CARTONS SHIPPED BY •• • CONTROL CITY OF RENTON MEMORANDUM DATE: January 17, 1996 TO: Victoria Runkle FROM: Marilyn Petersen SUBJECT: Data and Video Projector Demo The new video projector will be delivered on Thursday. We will need a PC in the Council Chambers on Friday morning at 9:00 a.m. to test the equipment, and would also request that Steve or other IS staff be there as well to test run the projector. If this time is not convenient, please let me know as soon as possible. When the equipment has been tested, we will set up a demonstration for all City staff. . cc: Steve Dennison ipA4) -z,,,,,, kii._/,..- „,..., , _ _ , • .4 r • je � �,c; )(GE- GS'�'/-1A- &/-711,-(47:6t:--/i/u. i.ku-c.' A6 D' d.l.&. sk-- 7.('-i-ev,toa , 5ue4 Atti, - --- -------- -, - G et-u C .ice - - - C."eu el - i 1,-Zet/ .vu I, titt 4q-K- 4 s CITY OF RENTON MEMORANDUM DATE: January 17, 1996 TO: Jay Covington Victoria Runkle FROM: Marilyn Peteryld SUBJECT: Purchase of Data and Video Projector As you know, I was awaiting authorization from Victoria for the funding to purchase the subject equipment. It is sorely needed, not only for training purposes but for the Council meeting audiences as well. The image clarity projected by the existing equipment (which was provided by TCI as part of our original package) at Council meetings is very poor; however, the monitor projects the images very clearly to the television audience. We have decided to purchase a Sharp XGE-650 data and video projector for $4580 plus sales tax. Our consultant, Tim Rasmussen, has obtained a price quote from Pro-Line, our major supplier, and this office has ordered the equipment which should be delivered this week. This unit is portable and can be used off-site for training purposes and seminars. Once Tim and I are satisfied that the new equipment meets our needs for all purposes, we will set up a demonstration for all City staff, including Information Services. The vendor guarantees satisfaction or the equipment may be returned. I contacted Victoria regarding your request to purchase a portable computer with power point which can be left in the Chambers for use at Council meetings. She confirmed that the request has been handled. Tim Rasmussen will not be available for the Information Services training session on January 31, 1996, to tape the session for future reference. If taping is desired, Tim's backup, Lori Wood, will operate the equipment. Vik should contact me if this service is desired. If I can provide additional information regarding this matter, please let me know. And, Jay, thank you for authorizing this expenditure. Uti,tY o� CITY OF RENTON ' FINANCE& INFORMATION SERVICES DEPARTMENT ,NTO MEMORANDUM DATE: January 15, 1996 CITY OF RENTON TO: Marilyn Petersen Jay Covington t� FROM: Victoria A. Runkle,Administrator `� LF ,',� 6 1996 ii CEiVtL_) SUBJECT: New Projector for Council Chambers CITY CLERK'S OFFICE We have been using the Council Chambers for training for several months now. The projector • that is currently there is not adequate for computer training. It does not provide the resolution to be able to read the thing from the seats. It was purchased to operate through the television software, and it does work adequately for that. However, we would like to replace the projector that is currently there with one that provides more than adequate visibility for training, and excellent quality for television. The cost of the new projector is estimated to be more than $4,500-- I am rounding the cost to$5,000. We made more than we ever imagined in investment earnings in the Cable Communications Fund. I have outlined the financial picture in the attachment. We are asking for approval to add $5,000 in expenditures in the carryforward ordinance for this purchase. If you are not comfortable with this request, please let me know. This is a necessary expenditure for us to complete our mission for training, and need a new projector in there before January 28th for the Equip Mngmnt Training. If this source of funding is not acceptable, then I will go through my budget and make the necessary adjustments. It will not be easy to do that this year, but it is important we have this invaluable tool. In any case, I would ask that Marilyn please continue to allow Steve to work directly with Tim in getting this purchase made by next week. Thank you for your consideration. Attachment CC; Steve Dennison Eric Iverson • Attachment 95 Beginning Fund Balance $187,469 95 Revs 22,901 95 Exps 8,754 95 carryforward (for Nov. Billing not received) 1.000 95 Ending Fund Balance 200,616 96 Revenue 8,000 96 Expenditures 12.000 96 Ending Fund Balance 195.616 Request for New Equipment 5,000 Estimated New Ending Fund Balance 190,616 1996 Budget Estimate Fund Balance 174,969 Thus, we are still above our 1996 Budget Estimate. CITY OF RENTON MEMORANDUM DATE: October 12, 1995 TO: Jay Covington, Executive Assistant FROM: Marilyn Petersen, City Cler SUBJECT: Panasonic VCRs After obtaining model numbers, price, etc. from the City of Kirkland's purchasing agent for the two VCR's, I called the vendor, Troxel Communications, Inc. They will deal directly with the City of Renton at the same price quoted to the City of Kirkland for the equipment. Unfortunately, the manufacturer's price has risen slightly since the quote, and instead of $2168, the price of the VCR is now $2305--and Kirkland will pay the same price. The total for two units is $4610, plus $378.02 tax, equals a grand total of $4988.02. With four VCR's operating, Tim Rasmussen can create six hour playback tapes for video cablecast. The six hour cablecasts will be scheduled during the time Lori updates the Omega character generator, thus eliminating the need for a second Omega. Installation costs are also eliminated since Tim Rasmussen can do that for us. • The good news is that instead of $12,000, the cost to update our system will be less than $5,000. If you approve this request, we can order the equipment immediately. This will be a tremendous help to my staff. Sincere thanks for your support of this request. If I can provide additional information, please feel free to call. cc: Victoria Runkle Lori Wood CITY OF RENTON MEMORANDUM DATE: October 9, 1995 TO: Jay Covington, Executive Assistant FROM: Marilyn Petersen, City Cler SUBJECT: Government Access Channel - Video Cablecast Channel 28 now has a schedule for videos! Attached is the cablecast schedule for the week of October 3-9, 1995. Our two VCRs (labeled 2 and 3 on the schedule) can each play a maximum of two hours. Since the number of videos far exceeds the number of VCRs, each video must be manually programmed each time it plays. Either Lori or Michele must go to the video control booth periodically during the workday to change the tapes and reprogram the VCR. On the weekend when staff is unavailable, only the Council meeting video is programmed to cablecast if the meeting exceeds two hours because both VCRs must be programmed to play. We currently have one Omega character generator. This is the computer that generates the scroll text. Currently, a tape of the text must be recorded and played while the messages are being updated on the Omega. Otherwise, the broadcast would be interrupted while the text is being updated in full view of the audience. If the Omega should malfunction, Channel 28 would be inoperable until the computer was repaired or replaced. A second Omega would ensure continuous broadcast of current.information during inputing, would provide the security of a backup replacement, and would result in a better use of the operator's time. Phil Jewett has provided me with price quotes for additional equipment: the per unit cost of the VCRs is $3,000, and a second Omega player is $5,000. Installation costs would run about $1,000. The total for one Omega and two VCRs with installation would be $12,000. I understand that the cable fund (#127) currently has a balance of $180,000. It is my goal to make this program a success. However, its success depends upon acquisition of the necessary equipment to preschedule video cablecasts and provide the weekly schedule to the public. Once the schedule is stable, it can be published in the Renton Reporter and the Valley Daily News. This has been successful in the cities of Tacoma and Vancouver, and should alleviate confusion for the residents who have called me about the schedules. I have been awaiting a response to my request from IS for additional equipment. Therefore, this request is late for inclusion in the 1996 budget. We are fortunate to have state-of-the-art equipment; however, to enhance the capabilities of the program and make the best use of staff time, additional equipment is vitally needed. As I recall, the cable fund was established for just these type of uses. Councilmembers who voted to televise Council meetings are probably not aware of the mechanics of the operation. However, I sense they would support using cable funds to purchase the equipment needed to reach our potential. I appreciate your consideration of this request. If I can provide additional information, please let me know. Channel 28 Weekly Schedule October 3 - 9, 1995 ................ . ........................ ........... ... . ..........:..:..:...,...:.:.....,..:........ HURSDAY:.:.�::::::::._::.�::.�::.::.::::::.::::::::::::::...:.........:....F.,.IDA. :::.�:::::::::::::::::::::::.... ........:.:. Deck# Deck# Deck# Deck# 7am 7:30 8am 8:30 9am 9:30 10am ........CQunct . eettn :.::::::::::::::..::::.:�::::.�::::::::::. ..:::..::::.::::::: ::: ;:.;:.;;:.;;;;::.:::.;::.;:.:.;;:;.;;:;<.:..::;::;.>:.;;:.:::.;::;:.;:.::.;:.;;:.;;:.;::.;; ..,....., . ...........:::::::: ... .N. . . .....................................: .................ESca eon.. ::Cruise.............................. ;.. . . . :.::::::.�:.�:::....................................... .....P a None ....... . h............. � me enc ;>:.;:.. artln .. Y..... ...............:::.. ..,......... :.. .g .:. y.:P..rep .. 10:30 11 am .............:::: ........ .. ... . 11:30 . NOON 12. 0 •3 1pm 1•30. 2pm .;;::.;:.:.;;:.;;:.;;; gotkOtt 2:30 ............... 3p m rf» ae t .....;:.:.;:.;:.;:: 3:30 ......................................................:.:.............:::.:::::::: 4pm x.ri>A > <}r> m 5P 5:3 0 6pm P 6:30 ............................................................................... 7pm 7:30 8pm 8:30 9pm e 9: 30 • 10pm 10:30 Page 1 _ 1 . Channel 28 Weekly Schedule October 3 - 9, 1995 . . .... .................... ........... . DAY::<:>:: <::;:`�`>::>::<<:»�::::::»::>:::<:::::»:::��:<::<:>::::::::::::>:::<:::>:::<>:»::::>::>::::: :;::;::.;:<.::;.:;:.;:;:.;:.;;:;.;:.;;;:<.;;:.;:.;:.;:.;:.;:.:;.::.;:;::.::•.;:.;:.;::�;:.;:.:;.;;::.,. ,.,.,.,...,:.. . ...............::........... . ......,....,.:..........:................:.........:::.:..::::::::.;:::::.�:::::;NOTES:::::;:::..<;:,:::.::.;:.;:.;:.;:.;;:.:;;:.;:.;:.;:.;:.;:.;;;;;:.:::.:;;:;.;:.;:.: Deck# Deck# Deck # 7am 7:30 8am 8:30 9am `: GSTI >;Leadership:419..5 >; ``> >; 9:30 ............... . ..... ............ . GS::: <:aLeadershc ;:: �::>`>>:<�:::::::: .... 10:3 0 ............... e.s ............... 11am . . .... .............:::.:,,..,,. • 11:30 NOON iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii :::::<:'r : • p 1.30 2pm 2:30 3pm • 3:30 4pm 4:30 5pm Council ee :.... .................. 5:30 6pm 6:30 7pm :::::�:>;: ....::cloOz.:....:.::::::;:.::.;::;;;::.:;•:.:.;;: Council Meeting (LIVE) 7:30 8pm m 8:30 9pm 9:30 10pm 10:30 Page 2 CITY OF RENTON MEMORANDUM DATE: September 22, 1995 TO: Phil Jewett, Information Services Manager FROM: Marilyn Petersen,City Clerk SUBJECT: Tape Players We now have four new videos of City performances which Tim Rasmussen has produced. These include the teen play, Wizard of Oz, the Renton Youth Symphony, the Senior Review, and the Renton Concert Band. Because we have an insufficient number of tape players, we are extremely limited in cablecasting these videos. We-have discussed this matter previously, and you indicated that you would place an order. If you would like to discuss this matter, please give me a call. The Council has repeatedly requested that use of the channel be expanded to include more videos of City productions. Now that we have the videos, I would like to comply with their request. Thanks for your assistance. cc: Jay Covington • 1< .,r06 25� 15:23 1995 FRO fd: TO: 4622853 PAGE; 1 TEL : . Sep 25 '95 11 :44 No .006 P .01 WC'T taking television into tomorrow. • • ICI Cablevision of Washington.Inc_ MEMO TO: . DEB KEITH • FROM: GARY A. HOABNBON 64. 17. DATE: SEPTEMBER 25, 1995 RE: =Ma= You are correct in that we paid out $92,058.40 to equip the City of Renton Council Chambers with equipment necessary to allow them to produce programming over the City Government access channel . This was a negotiated requirement for a 15 year franchise renewal. Expenditures were made as follows: • • System line equipment (amps. , bridgers, etc. ) to allow transmissions of signal from City Hall to the Vista hub site. TCI incurred $ 1819.00 • • Durchaee of a modulator and demodulator from JW Tel- . Tronics on 8/15/94 and 8/19/94 $ 2805.00 • studio equipment package from Proline Industries Inc. in August, 1994 • $80657.00 • Labor: TCI $ 386.40 JW Tel Tronics 7191 0_1 . $93058.40 We have all the invoices, etc. in case we need them. • • South Seattle Office 15241 Pacific Hwy.S. Seatg6,WA 98188 (206)433,3434 FAX(208)4335103 An E0,04)***Mer- ,p`bri., • ;t • FRANCHISING • REFRANCHISING • COMMUNITY NEEDS ASSESSMENTS • ORDINANCE PREPARATION • NEGOTIATION • EVALUATION • FRANCHISE ADMINISTRATION • ACCESS Rom September 11, 1995 Phil Jewett Information Systems Director City of Renton 200 Miii Avenue South Renton, WA 98055 Dear Phil: This is to follow up our meeting of August 24, 1995 with TCI's rate compliance manager, Deb Boten Keith. We received a copy of her letter of September 7, 1995 and wanted to let you know we asked that she further clarify and verify the amount they totalled for the government access equipment required by the City of Renton. We will get back to you as soon as we here from her. Sincerel 31-H ♦A$LE OMMUNICATIONS CONSULTANTS on Vice President/Director LH/sb Enclosure • 502 East Main Street, Auburn, Washington 98002 • (206)833-8380 • 1-800-222-9697 • FAX: (206)833-8430 • CITY OF RENTON CITY CLERK'S OFFICE MEMORANDUM DATE: January 29, 1997 TO: Mayor Jesse Tanner, and Members, Renton City Coucil FROM: Marilyn Petersen, City_5J ,r6(1d SUBJECT: Channel 28 Programming As you observed last Monday night, a 60-inch TV monitor has replaced the video projector in the Council Chambers to display staff presentations to the studio audience. Credit for the idea goes to Mayor Tanner who felt that the projection of staff presentations could be improved via television transmission with the added bonus that the lights would not need to be dimmed. The results have been impressive - even from the back row, power point presentations are legible. The next step is to acquire a larger screen television monitor to replace the existing 13-inch monitor for the Mayor and Councilmembers. Also planned in the next few weeks is the installation of 19-inch monitors in the two Renton libraries and the Community Center. The monitors, which will be tuned to Channel 28, will be either ceiling or wall-mounted. We have obtained and screened numerous videos for cablecast on Channel 28. Three have been found to be of interest for our residents. They are: *"Health Care Directives" Produced by Valley Medical Center, this 11- minute video offers vital information about living wills and durable powers of attorney. *"Legal Addictions" Produced by City of Tacoma, this 24-minute video provides information about the abuse of prescription drugs and assistance available for abusers. *"Sexual Predators & Your Children" Produced by City of Tacoma, this 19-minute video provides valuable information to parents of young children. Attached is the Channel 28 schedule for the week of January 28, 1997. If you have questions or suggestions, please feel free to give me a call. cc: Jay Covington RENTON GOVERNMENT ACCESS CHANNEL 28 PROGRAM SCHEDULE FOR JANUARY 28-FEBRUARY 3,1997. IF YOU HAVE COMMENTS OR QUESTIONS ABOUT OUR PROGRAMMING CALL: 235-2573. Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday Sunday Monday 6am ::Putting'.:Education>Togethee: ::>`> Legal Addiction;> ; '. 6am 6:30 6:30 7am >::::>:;>:' rid:UseActions llfi ::: :s::LandUse'Actions;f124:<:>:>::<::>::Land:UserActiotis:al2A'>`::»:::i::::LandUse'Actions>] d:::<:' :::>:>Land:UseAotions'.1124:::>:::>•:Mi Larid:tJseActions<1124:::>::> >'>:Land::Use'Actions::1124. >:> 7am 7:30 7:30 8am €€:'111:A11:You tleed to#<tiow:> 8am 8:30 8:30 9am :>:>:: .;:.;mit eeo • ::,:::..;; ... ommrtteeatahe<Whole>::>:: >:>:>Healthcare:[ArecLves.<.»:.zz>:>:;:<:>::.;:5 ual>..edafo >: 9 .:... :::... .. .. ex Pr rs.;:;:<::::::::: :::>::::::>::::>:Lega[Adiiicticn:':>:;><:.: am . : :... . 9:30 .>€ >'> Replay>z ; €> >< 9:30 10am;Renton:City;Council: 10am 10:30 10:30 11am ::::>::..::. exu P. ors...:.::::: :: � '5exiiaEPedataYs'.;:�;;:>: >>: >l�leattttcareDirgrtiire$; <:: 11am 11:30 11:30 noon :: ..:::; Legal Addiction::;:::>:::::<:::: :::::;;;:Healthcare;Directives€€€<#>; >Preventing lionie8urglary>: noon 12:30 12:30 1pm ::::::::::::..::::::::.: ........ :.>: ...:. .::;.<t'e:;d to o :: >:;>:The:Musk::Marx::>::>::>::»::>::::>::>::>::>::>::>Sexua[.#?redatots:::>:<:::;::::>::::>:»,::<:>::>::<:Le aE:}1dd�cbon:::::;::;::;:;;:::: :>:;91."1:Atl>Y,ou::(�teed:.to#fnavr::::>: 1pm g 1:30 1:30 2p m >:' . :Belie itso:Parks a:::>::::> 2:30 • 2:30 3pm :::>:land:VO•ii ctions�::/2 : ::::::>::E a Use .;: o s::AcU n .1124<:>:> ::':>:::>Land:fJse::Acfioiis:>1E24:;:>s>:`::s ''tand:.Use:Acftons::12d::::::.::::::ia d.Us >A i 1 2 ::;::>::> >;:<:>::L p : ... .'# ........:...... n .. e.:ctans../4:.::.:...:. andalse>Actions:>1/2�1:>::::<::::::::>:::::>:Land:>:fseRctrons::�/24`< >: 3pm 3:30 3:30 4pm z Le al'Addictiori:::>:><:>: >:Committee of the Whole>:: 4 m P ;.; g p 4:30 €>Replay:::>:>> : >: 4:30 5pm m :::'::te a1 Addictio�?>:':'>::'['.>:'.:'. 12en o ::C :Cou c : a ;::::>::<:«::<::: ::: 5 <;:::>:..... 9 �......:::::::... t n. .ity. ...n�tftepl yLegat>kddictron:::»::::::::>s:::::>::I�reitentirig:E�lame8urgiary;.,. pm 5:30 5:30 6pm Legal Addiction ;Com iitlee of the Whole; 6pm 6:30 ::::.. .......tteeo................a: P :::<:::>::::>::::>::::>::::>:RaPlay;'..::::>::::;:: ::' ::>Cotgii'fifteeoT>tkeWlj:o�e > 6:30 1 a d. ::::..::.:::....n . .. ... n Use.Actons:1124:::::::Renton:C� :Council:Re /a;:: :;:.;:::tand:UseAct�ons:.. �d.;.;:.;:.:.;:.;:.;:Land. s o ;::;:>:<::;::>::>::>::>:: ....... .. .::.:::::::::::::::::::::.....:::::::::::::::::.::. 7pm _... . . ty P Y .:.. 1/2.,..:.......:.. U eActtns::fl2�..:: Sexuab:P,.redafor$::::>::::>::::>::::::>::>:<:>Lang(UseAct+ons:;l/2Q::<:>r<::->;»::>;»::;::;::>::>::»::Ln!e:::>::>::>::>::>::>::;:<:>::>::> 7pm P 7:30 7:30 :::tyrevenhn :Home Bur la ;:::: :«:::::>::::Sexual.:P.,redators::>:<:::::>::>: :.>:.;:.;:.;:.;:.;: diction:::>::>::>:;::;:::>::::»::>:::.:5 da :::::::>;::::>::::>::::>::::»><:>::::>::::>::::>::....::>::::>::::>::::>::::>:::::>::::: 8 m 8pmg 9 n< .... ::........Lega[A d .... P ::.:.:.........:..::: exua[f!re torsLIvQ:.;:.;:.;:.;::.;.;:.;:.;:.>:.;:. 8:30 >>cofitinu2[t >::> ::> >: 8:30 9 enefi of Pa ks&Rec'>` >:p .... . . ts.... .. :. .. ... ..:..:. [>: >:'>' continued> > >> >> 9pm_ 9:30 daitiriueii 9:30 10 m ::::.... ::::::.....:::.;;:.::::.:. . . .Land:Use.Actrons::1724:::::<::::•.:;s.Land:lJse:: ctlo ;912�1::::<:>::>:::>:::<;La d � ::>:::<:>:<:;:>::>:::.. .. . ;.....�::::..::::::..:... . .....:.. ...... . P . :.. A ns. :..:.:...::.: n tlse.Aotons.1J24,:.....:.:::Land;Use.Achons.1124<;:::::>;>:<:.:Land.Use.Actions..iL2d:: >::>::::;::>:;>:Landa3se:Actrons.l%2�i:::>>::»:>:::>:Land:als�Aotiaris:1124:::>:.> 10 m 10:30 10:30 11pm 11pm 11:30 11:30 12am ::>::::;::>::>:::;::<::<. .;.:> :«.:r;:;:::::>::>:>.;::»>::>::;::> .:;;:;::: <:>9:1. 1>: o eed#o... 1..A 1Y u.N Know::::;::>::>::>::>:::<:>The;Mus�c:Man:::>::>:::<:::::>::>:::>::»::>::>:::Sexuat Predators;:.::<:»::>::: >::><:Le aE Addiciio"::<:>::::<>":12am 12:30 12:30 :..:... lam . ts::o::ar s& eG:::::> > 8enefi f.P rks. Re ... a :>:Be is. :..da '.;... 1 m . .._ . :.. :::::::::::::::::::.::::::::::::::::::::::::.::. ...:.:...::.:.x i Pre...tors::;'::>:::: 1:30 1.30 2am ................................................ _tam 2:30 2:30 3am ........land::UseActions::116;::::>::>:: >:::>LandUse:Actions;If2'l:<::: »':::Land::Use:Actions::112?3::>:::::':::::::>Land:.Use:Actions::1124 :::::::::::::>:1and:.Use Actions::1/24:::>::>:::>:':LandUse:Actions<1/2't:::::»::> ::::>:<:::tavid::Use:Actions::1124::::>?::: 3am 3:30 3:30 4am 4am 4:30 4:30 5am s:,:Preventin Home:Bu ta::: < ,;_:::>::>:: k:::..a ddcti �:::::L a ctia :_;;:.;:.;::;:.:.:.;:.;:.;:..;:.;;:.: ::: 5am_ .:.. ..... ..... ...::: g rg ry...: ....:....... e9 lA i on.::;.;::>::::».:::>::;;: eg E.Add� rt.:....:::...:.::.....:::Legal:Addictmn:>::::<:::><::::T>::::>:<:::: Sexual`:F+redators::><;:>::... 5:30 I 5:30 CITY OF RENTON MEMORANDUM S DATE: July 25, 1996 TO: , Mayor Jesse Tanner, and Members,Renton City Council FROM: Marilyn Petersen, City Clerlpvf SUBJECT: Channel 28 Video Schedule Last night, a special performance of the new teen musical, "The Music Man," was videotaped by Tim Rasmussen and Lori Wood, our multimedia specialist. The performance is wonderful! Edits will take about two weeks and the show will start airing on Channel 28 about the second week in August. Another new public service program Lori has started videotaping is"Land Use Actions," in which the Development Services Division presents an update (including visual aids) of new developments proposed in Renton. These segments are aired once or twice per day and are updated twice monthly. I am attaching a copy of the current video schedule for the channel. We anticipate beginning a new series soon which will spotlight each department and its activities. We are also discussing with the Valley Daily News the possibility of publishing the weekly video schedule. If you have suggestions or comments regarding this program, please give me a call at X2502. cc: Jay Covington Lori Wood City of Renton Govt.Access Channel 28 July 23-29, 1996 : THURSDAY:�3s<�»»3%'r.>:�>�> >�> ::>:><'»�»�<?<. R>�:�»:>>::>::>>:::>::�>::>TUESDAY::>:�>:z:�:>:>:>:;>:>:s:»::»»:>:�»::>::;<:r�s:>:>:s:WEDNESDAY:::�>:�:�>::>::�:>::�>::>::s�:>::�>#>:�:��;.;x;:< .............. ................ • :. a e`arin"or:fhe`Futurez#s<:>:::€«':Tairi:%:::.7am:;;;:�::>:•;<;<::>:e<;<::;:•:;;;;;::•:::•;;::;•;::;;:�;;••;;:•;:;::;:•:z;:•;;::<z:<z:::>::::•<:::�>:>:>:>:�>:>:.Rre ann :for::the Futur ............. ...... ... .................. 7:30 7:30 ...................... ..A ... ;,....:.::::.::: 8:30 8:30 :,�:`:;`:'`E;z:::>:Committee' � 'e: '.'ote .2 9E's� < �`�'><>`•�zz<## � ## E:# '.�<�> ':'•.."':<' '%z�><�z��<<,,;;>�E< �'•�«< •`:<�s�>��<�<��<�a�E>#??% #? <<�<:??��i' �»>`»? s�';•»>��»�#>`�??�s�`�> »>`;..,,.,'';``�" ,,.s?#>` 9:30 9:30 .. r::::::::::::::::::Cou. c ...t 2'9.6:::: :::::::::::::::: ::::::: ::: ::Land:Use otiohS?:::::::::::::::::::::::: <::::::::: :Renton:•River?:Da'5:::::::::::::::::::::: :: :::s:::::: ::<:Land:;Use;Action§: ':: :::::::::::'::::<:1:Q4[lYi': ...................:.....:..:.:.:........:.:..:..:...................... 10:30 :>:: 10:30 11:30 11:30 to• e a s... ...... ::::::::;:::::::::::::::;::`E 12:30 12:30 1.30 1:30 .recr. o:r;:: G :;:;: f;`'??< ' 1<'? ?`�:`; `` ?+?#2's <i<'+.'f<;`E':E�'f < ' � '•s5'`% > � � < %```: fo the:::Filtu.e........... 2:30 2:30 ..R.. 3:30 3:30 ::::d :.:>A ><.; :Needt bW 91.1:. ff:.:Y �u:::Need::ts: noVJ::»:»»:<<:::::«:::9;1::1:All`;You<'Need:`:t0<:Krio:w:::>:>>'.'.:>[�>':'.>:>9;t ':AiI:You'•fJ�ed::a<Know:'.>'.:::<'.::'.ss:4.3rt<::: 4:30 4:30 �::::::1?:.:::::::......... 9. 9-�Y........... .............. 9 9 �1!......... ...................... .9. 9 Y. 9 9 ry _ ::....P......... 5:30 5:30 6.30 6.30 .. :> P e ann 'zfor':the'.:Future:€<:'.> :> »1"rit'•«»:::7.......:>:�?:�;>?.>.:>:>:::::�>:?::>::;>s:�::::>::::>:�'s:�»»:�>><:�:<::»:>•az>:'s»:. ::»»»::::?z:'.»:'•»:'>:<»Goiincit:lvleet�ri '.:7 22.9�: �»'.<'.>«�'.> >s':z•>?»>'.>:>L:arid>`Use:Aottons:'.:'.>:'.:'.:<:>:�>:'.:�>:::'.>:'.:'.::.>:::......r ... 7:30 7:30 'arid s c ns::»<:`;:<::: €'�$;.;•:r''•'• :.. > e < 9�< .:to::: fiver'•t?�`s?:>> >.:>:;:zz�««<� z�E;'•''"•<>< ';>'<� ;<`'<'�i>��':3:'•.<>'•'• >.... 8:30 :::.:::,,...:......:..............:...::...:..::•::•.:,•..•:.,................:...........,..::•:....... ................ 9:30 9:30 • ................ <:>:<::F eve tin ::Home:.Bur lac ;;:•;:<•::•::•;..;:;<•;:•;>;::;P:.revehtih ::Horrie:But lat:.;:.;:.;:;•;:;•:.:;•;:<.;;;;:;•:Preventih �:;Horrie:Bur la[ .#>:»>:«: ::»::::;Preveritiri '::Home:: ur la.;; '.>::>::::>:. .ri�.:: � 9 9 rY .::::•Qp:::.,.. 10:30 10:30 ' 1 - .r City of Renton Govt.Access Channel 28 July 23-29, 1996 ONDAY::�>:�:�»:>::�>:::>:�>:�> 5TH MONDAY 7:30 NO COUNCIL MEETING 7:30 29`: e�ed::'o aCn vet /96 5::;:5:ii:�>:>:>:�>:;is�>i;:::;:>i;5:�>:::>::>:�>::;;;;i;:;;::�;;:';:>:�»:;;::<:;;:;•:>::;::>:=:>:>:�and::Usa':>A tioils:>::>::�>:�:»:�::>::fi: :'<:�>:<�::91:�::: II Y N .................................... 8:30 - 8:30.. o::: :. eilii.t -. 1:1>AII:�Y6u:�:Neetl>:to.. now»>::»>•=>::><;.:;;.:<.:;.::>.;><:>s:;»>:�>»»s:�>:�<c<:>?:�;:>�»»>:�>:�s:�>:s>:�»:its><>s: COUNCIL MEETINGS 9:30 CANCELLED 9:30 5 996 AUGUST 4 AND 2 1 to'�ease:: ti4'1;0:a:IYI< : . ....::::.::;;:.;::::::::.::::::.:.:::::::::::::::::::;:::;;::.:::::.:.;.;:.;:.;;:;;•:;••:, rid n ...............::::::::: 10:30 10:30 • 11:30 - • 11:30 .�...04N:;:;?:::<>:::>:>:Preparing:for:.the;Future.::.;:::::.; :•;;::;::•::•:;:�;:;::;>;:;�::•.;:.:;;.::.::�:.�:.:::,•.:�:::.:::.:::::.::::.::�: :::::::.;:::::::::. 12:30 12:30 ................ 1:30 1:30 e> » >> :::::::::.::::::::::Renton:R�ver:Da s:'.>::>:� ::>�:'.::::<: ::�•:•::�::<�>:•:«;«.:`•:<•: `•:<•:<•:<•;:::::,;:.:.•,:>,;::.:.�::::.<;;�:<•�> : ::..P rrn ...or. $... .......... .R......, �:`� .ism;»:: ::::::.:::.::::. ... y . ... ..,. . ...:.......:.:...:::...:.....�•••.:�••.,:::::.:....:..:...........:....:.:.:::>•;:�;:;:: . P 9 . 2:30 2:30 3:30 3:30' 9:::: ll:;: a..:::to: noiiv><` >: ::::'.::>...... .L1..A .You..N . . ., ..P..,:::.. 4:30 4:30 530 5:30 ..,„, i� L d s ot'o 6:30 6:30 30 > Wi a d of Qz<> >:>s: > >> 7:30 7 <..;�1��;;;•:.........:....P.ep. mg... ..t. ... . [.;;.,....:.;...;.:........::... ..R nt ..R..:. ... 1ts..:..:.:.....:.... :.........::;......:......................:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: ::,:::..P,,,,:::.: 8.30 8.30 9:30 9:30 ............... _ :.: ...::•::.�::•:: reventm ::Hon1e:B r :..::•::::,::............:.,..:,:..�:.:::::..�::..:�::::::.�:•::..�:.�.:,•: 10:30 10:30 2 • CITY OF RENTON MEMORANDUM DATE: September 20, 1995 • TO: Shawn Daly, Senior Services Coordinator Steve Elliott, Recreation Program Coordinator FROM: Marilyn Petersen, City Clerk SUBJECT: Video Programming on Channel 28 Tim Rasmussen has given me the videos he produced of the performances by Renton Senior Review, Renton Concert Band, Wizard of Oz, and Renton Youth Symphony. We are looking forward to cablecasting them on the channel. In order to start showing each video, a cablecast request should be completed for each video. Attached are copies of the form. As soon as you return the completed forms, Lori Wood will program them to play. A second item: I have also included our video release form which should be signed in the future by each person videotaped for cablecast on Channel 28. Thanks very much for your help. • ' r • • • • • • • • RENTON COMMUNITY ACCESS CHANNEL REQUEST FOR USE OF CHARACTER GENERATOR AGENCY DEPT/DIV FOR PRERECORDED (VIDEO) CABLECAST REQUESTS SUBMITTED BY PHONE Program title User agrees to hold harmless the City of Renton, its officials, Producer name employees, agents and operators for any and all liability, damages or Address losses incurred because of actions, errors or omissions related to the Format Length (exact running time) use of the Character Generator. Cablecast time • Brief Description Signature Date • • DIRECTIONS All messages must be typewritten. Compose the message the way Intended audience you would like it displayed. Type the message within the margins set below. Use separate forms for messages with different start I hereby assume all responsibility for the content of this video and and/or end dates. Attach any photo or graphic to be used as assume all liability that may arise from the cablecasting of this background for the message. product. I further certify that the content is comprised of no material prohibited by the Federal Communications Commission MESSAGE Rules and that I am authorized to permit cablecasting of the above described product. Name Organization Address • Phone • Signature • Date • • Display dates for messages/videos on this form: Begin End • .................. ........... .. -.......... ., ...,.......n;••,v..a:•.vw:mv.{???-v:?•:{?{S:{?{•:{4:'O:{vy:?.}}:4:riii;}i:::?.:i};}:;}:}?}4: ............ .....v......... ,......n...n........r..x.n....... .........v.........,.........v...x...........v...n.vu.a,.,.:.. r.Y..... .x:•.v.r::::::v:v: ........:v:•.....v.....+...n...,...n.nnv..,........ .... .............. v............ ....hv:.......t......v:::...vnvt......nvn•:::.v.,•.a...v...v.......a}:•.}:•::::nt::,}}}y;.t}};;.t;:q:}y.v}::•:.vvw.va•.}•-v};:{.y}}{..-}}iv:•}}:?•:6y;}+^ :}(2:?:vi�i�L:=ii�tit��iti4:i-:vi:i:::i�{+'{:}}`?.;t' t ........ ................. ...........v:w.v....tvay.n....n...t....v......v.....t..ay.v,nn•• .. }....... .a...v..x:•.�::.::. ............. a.n.....v nt n.....•..t....v ........ .. ........... ..:;.•.:. t..x.ay.aw::n:v....... - ............... ........... ... .. ... a.a....n..{............t. ..,.....n w.vawn}`}}}•............ a......:w.::v.:nt. ...--. ,........v::::•.v.vnn:•.w.vn •w::.:w:.vxv:•.v.v::.vi:: .......... .. ....... .n........ .:.•v vv::::.t•.....v.,..t...v.....t.t...vvv,.n.............. .n.:•:.v;:::::::w::;x:•. k.v:..v}}}}:4:•}}}}i+}::::^}':.y}:{x..vn:•::::.v::•.v:.. T ..a.. ..... ........... ........ , t.A �} ..,a ......y:::::::ny:.vn,vy:;:::•.v:•:v.vt{.:. CITY OF RENTON VIDEO RELEASE FORM GOVERNMENTAL ACCESS, CHANNEL 28 For valuable consideration received, I hereby give the CITY OF RENTON the following absolute and irrevocable rights and permission, with respect to the audio and video recording, and to the audio and video tapes that he/she has taken of me, or in which I may be included with others. Also any video tapes he/she has taken of my property, structures, vehicles and/or equipment. • This release shall apply to all interactions, processes and products associated with, or resulting from, this video tape. (a) To copyright the same in his/her own name or any other name he/she may choose. (b) To use, reuse, publish and republish the same in whole or in part, individually or in conjunction with any other audio_or video tape in any medium and for any purpose whatsoever, including but not limited to illustration, promotion, advertising and trade, and graphics. (c) To include my name in the credits at the end of the video tape if he/she chooses. The individuals may be acknowledged as a group,with no use of individual names. I hereby release and discharge the CITY OF RENTON from any and all liability claims and demands arising out of or in connection with audio or video tapes, or any other process, product or interaction arising from the video tapes. This authorization and release shall also insure to the benefit of the legal representatives, licensees and assigns of the CITY OF RENTON. • I hereby release and absolve the CITY OF RENTON from any and all damages, responsibility, loss injury, accident, and any and all forms of consequential and incidental damages for myself in connection with travel to and from location sites for recording. I am over the age of eighteen years. I have read the foregoing and fully understand the • contents thereof. NAME (Please print) • ADDRESS • SIGNATURE • DATE PHONE • If subject is under eighteen (18) years of age, the name and signature of a consenting parent or legal guardian is required. Said party warrants and represents that they have the authority to execute this release. • NAME OF GUARDIAN (Please print) ADDRESS SIGNATURE OF GUARDIAN PROPOSAL City of Renton DATE:2/21/97 PROJECT:RENTON ALL-AMERICAN CITY WORKSHOP SERVICES:VIDEO TAPE&POST PRODUCE PROJECT HIGHLIGHTS FOR AIR ON MUNICPAL CHANNEL 28. Through use of City and Contractor resources,Contractor will provide a finished program to the City of Renton no later than March 10,1997.Project costs will include all pre-production,on-site production and editing(to be completed at the City of Renton),total hours estimated for this is 23. In addition,the Contractor will include the rental costs of an additional video camera package, cables and wireless communications.The City shall provide use of:Panasonic WJ-MX 50 A/V Mixer, triple preview monitors,program monitor(1),Mackie audio mixer,SVHS record deck(1)and Panasonic AG-460 camera package.The City shall also provide salary for an additional camera operator at$125/day(under separate contract) and one staff member to assist in pre-production and on-site production. CONTRACTOR BID AMOUNT: $600.00 Respectfully Submitted, Patrick Hirsch 387 P01 FEB 18 '97 15:04 ' FROM : Pomegranate Center PHONE NO. : 206 557 4662 Feb. 18 1997 11:59PM P2 ntl et(t - Pudgy'-lori Guk) 3 5 cd 93 Summit Agenda - For internal purposes 7:00 Entryway: 12 posters; 4 with images;4 with maps; 4 with quotes (Possible archway above the entry to the hall: Renton- the force is with you!) 8:00 Registration 8:30 High School music presentation ednaytt,-t-- 8:40 Sharon Johnson - Introduces the Mayor Welcome by the Mayor - 5 minutes Sharon Johnson - Introduces MC Bernie Dochnahl 8:45 MC: Introductions a: Who is here (have people stand up according to how many years they have been here) b. Quick small group work: What is the one most important thing Renton ought to be doing? At the end, each group calls out its choice; we write them down and put them on wall where they stay for the duration 8:55 MC:The Summit's purpose, goals, day's ground rules, and agenda (overheads) 9:10 `Where we've been and who we are"- 40 minutes • History - slide show - 10 min. • Data, maps, trends - Mike Katterraan - 10 min. • Community Assets - Marcie Maxwell -10 min. • Identity and Character- slides with live music 9:50 "Where we want to go" - 30 minutes • Review of civic priority areas as identified by citizens and Blue Ribbon Group - MC (with overheads) • All America City video-introduced by MC • Long term vision: Renton as a healthy, vital, future-looking community with a clear civic agenda; articulate the mandate and payoff of this civic work-Bernie, Milenko (to be reinforced by Mike F.) • Moment of high drama: a motion to go for the All America City award (Chamber President) 10:20 Break - 15 minutes 104..35 Review of Criteria for civic project selection and introduction to six preselected civic projects - 10 minutes • Bob Gognier(using recent surveys and the Blue Ribbon's work - overheads) 10: 45 Civic projects presentations, followed by open mike for introduction of other, yet not identified, civic projects - 1 hour and 15 minutes ixatt )j-kLa - , (eitst.dttiv-iv) 387 P02 FEB 18 '97 15:05 rnuiv . ceJo DD f .4004 rep. l0 177! 11.ommi l r'D e At the end, every participant will be asked to write on a 3x5 card their choice of the project(MC: you can lobby for your projects during lunch, and some of you may change your mind, but if you can indicate your preferred project now, it will help us assign appropriate rooms for the break-out groups"); we collect cards at exit 12:00 Lunch and Keynote Mike F. talks about civic and economic vitality n5 MC reminds participants about the next task: attend a workshop with j representatives of civic projects; they should choose a project which J hest in ( QC111 their view, the most promise for community - choose strategically and vote with your feet; tell which group goes where 1:30 Civic projects break-out groups - 1 hour and 30 minutes Goal: How to move these projects ahead? What can corporations, organizations,and individuals do to turn them into success? 3:00 Break - 15 minutes 3:15 Report on small groups'decisions and commitments - 60 minutes ( , Goal'Further explain the strengths of each project, their next steps, and what commitments have been made;if none, encourage people to get involved, develop the idea to the next stage, and present it at the next Summit gathering_ 4:15 Next steps; MC, Sue,Betty, with Milenko's help if needed Goal: Sum up what was accomplished; reconfirm the next steps; evaluations and questionnaires; collect commitment forms; open mike; MC looks back at the initial list of responses to the question of"what Renton ought to be doing"; identifies what priority areas current initiatives are already addressing, and encourages follow-up with others 4:45 High School music presentation 5:00 Adjourn Renton Summit Excel 0 /B4 RENTONSUMMIT Draft Agenda - 1/24/199741/ TIME SPEAKER FUNCTION KEY COMPONENTS TO BE COVERED /le' rig2A) 8:00 Registration Coffee, donuts, etc. 8:30. Kirby Welcome & introduction Thank you to sponsors _kfAxe .,40 tA.v .z4t, Welcome (to new employers) X 61 (9 igi 4t General purpose and goals 8:45 ? "Where we've been and who we are" Slide Presentation . d. _ •4,4, Images of Renton Community Treasures Key data & trends (population growth, etc.) Surveys overivew • `i, Renton's assets Previous civic rocesses 9:45 i_o ; * rt Break 10:00 "Where do we want to go?" ilenko Key ideas on healthy communities How do we recognize vital, healthy communities Bob Gagnier Renton's Priorities Review of the goals as identified by the leadership group Milenko Overview of the Process (�, ? What happened so far, today's work, long term goals ? All American City Award ( _.„,,,, ,�,,,,�-•) Explain the benefits, criteria and process r `Bill IN/, ��,� �`S IPrP'N�1N � 1 4GO M.Fitzgerald Keynote Address — Big icture and reinforcing key ideas • I of �h'� �12:45 ? Review of Criteria for selection Criteria as defined by the leadership group 6uH+I- Commitments to selected projects Indicate that this will be treated seriously ;I.,,„k „t,q,,j 1,1,,,,R e/G,•44 c.p7e, rcrS4,74-, "'? 1:00 Project reps 6 civic projects 10 minute presentations + 5 minutes for questions 4-z {'* 45 Break -Z._ ' 3:00 . ALL 6 (or more?) small groupsft Task for small groups: prioritize projects 4:15 ? Selection of top 3 projects — 4:20 - ? Next Steps Reaffirm commitments to succeed with selected pro'ects 5:00 Adjourn I Page 1 CITY OF RENTON MEMORANDUM DATE: January 25, 1996 TO: Tim Rasmussen FROM: Marilyn Petersen, City Cler SUBJECT: Video Taping - Metro Six-Year Transit Plan Sounding Board Meetings Sandra Meyer, Transportation Systems Division, has requested that three Metro Sounding Board meetings be videotaped for broadcast on Channel 28. The discussion will focus on the Metro Six-Year Transit Plan. The schedule is as follows: Wednesday February 7 7-9 pm Renton High School Saturday February 10 10-noon Renton Tech. College Tuesday February 13 3-5 & 5-7 pm Renton High School Sandra and Jack Latiman, Metro representative, would like their introductory remarks videotaped and cablecast prior to each session. We will need to set up a taping session for that purpose. I have suggested that Sandra write a short script prior to the taping session. When you return from vacation, we can discuss this further and schedule a meeting with Sandra to work out the details. Thanks for your assistance. cc: Jay Covington Sandra Meyer August 21, 1995 Renton City Council Minutes Page 327 NFW BUSINESS Councilman Stredicke inquired about projected economic impacts from Council: Initiative 164 Initiative 164. Executive Assistant Jay Covington said contingency plans are (Property Rights/Takings) being developed in case the referendum that would invalidate the initiative fails in November. Staff will return to Council in mid-September with more information. Council: NLC 1995 MOVED BY SCHLITZER, SECONDED BY TANNER, COUNCIL Conference Authorization AUTHORIZE THE NECESSARY EXPENDITURES FOR CITY REPRESENTATIVES TO THE NATIONAL LEAGUE OF CITIES CONFERENCE FROM NOVEMBER 28 TO DECEMBER 2, 1995. CARRIED. Executive: Audio/Visual Councilman Stredicke commended the Administration and staff for the Presentations in the presentations this evening during the public hearing portion of the meeting, Council Chambers noting they made excellent use of the Council Chambers' new audio/visual capabilities. ADJOURNMENT MOVED BY STREDICKE, SECONDED BY SCHLITZER, COUNCIL ADJOURN. CARRIED. Time: 9:10 p.m. MARILYN ..ar TERSEN, CMC, City Clerk Recorder: Brenda Fritsvold 8/21/95 August 21. 1995 Renton City Council Minutes Page 326 CONCUR IN THE COMMITTEE REPORT. CARRIED. (See page 326 for ordinance.) ORDINANCES AND The following resolutions were presented for reading and adoption: RESOLUTIONS Resolution #3143 A resolution was read approving the West View final plat for 12 lots on 2.02 Plat: Final, West View, acres, located in the vicinity of Aberden Ave. NE and NE 12th St. (CSL Aberdeen Ave NE/NE Development & Archer Development, Inc.; File No. FP-95-155). MOVED BY 12th St, FP-95-155 STREDICKE, SECONDED BY EDWARDS, COUNCIL ADOPT THE RESOLUTION AS PRESENTED. CARRIED. Resolution #3144 A resolution was read authorizing the Mayor and City Clerk to enter into an CAG: 95-, Agreement interlocal cooperative agreement with the City of Seattle for the emergency with City of Seattle for purchase of water by the City of Seattle. MOVED BY SCHLITZER, Emergency Sale of Water SECONDED BY EDWARDS, COUNCIL ADOPT THE RESOLUTION AS PRESENTED. CARRIED. The following ordinances were presented for first reading and advanced for second and final reading: Planning: Residential Zone An ordinance was read amending Chapter 31, Zoning Code, of Title IV Minimum/Maximum (Building Regulations) of City Code relating to the minimum and maximum Density Changes density requirements in the Resource Conservation (RC), Residential - I Unit Per Acre (R-1), Residential - 8 Units Per Acre (R-8), Residential - 10 Units Per Acre (R-10), Residential - 24 Units Per Acre (R-24), Residential,, Multi- family (RM) and Residential Manufactured Homes (RMH) zones. MOVED BY STREDICKE, SECONDED BY SCHLITZER, COUNCIL ADVANCE THE ORDINANCE FOR SECOND AND FINAL READING. CARRIED. Ordinance #4548 Following second and final reading of the above-referenced ordinance, it was Planning: Residential Zone MOVED BY STREDICKE, SECONDED BY EDWARDS, COUNCIL ADOPT Minimum/Maximum THE ORDINANCE AS PRESENTED. ROLL CALL: ALL AYES. Density Changes CARRIED. Planning: The Orchards An ordinance and summary ordinance were read establishing a residential Demonstration Project, development demonstration project for parcels E, F and G in The Orchards NE 4th St/Duvall Ave NE development, located in the vicinity of Duvall Avenue NE and NE 4th Street. MOVED BY STREDICKE, SECONDED BY KEOLKER-WHEELER, COUNCIL ADVANCE THE ORDINANCE AND SUMMARY ORDINANCE FOR SECOND AND FINAL READING. CARRIED. Ordinance #4550 Following second and final reading of the above-referenced ordinance and Planning: The Orchards summary ordinance, it was MOVED BY STREDICKE, SECONDED BY Demonstration Project, KEOLKER-WHEELER, COUNCIL ADOPT THE ORDINANCE AND NE 4th St/Duvall Ave NE SUMMARY ORDINANCE AS PRESENTED. ROLL CALL: ALL AYES. CARRIED. The following ordinance was presented for second reading and adoption: Ordinance #4549 An ordinance was read amending Chapter 31, Zoning Code, of Title IV Planning: Residential Zone (Building Regulations) of City Code relating to the setback provisions of the Setback Changes Resource Conservation (RC), Residential - 1 Unit Per Acre (R-1), Residential - 8 Units Per Acre (R-8), Residential - 10 Units Per Acre (R-10), Residential - 24 Units Per Acre (R-24), and Residential, Multi-family (RM) zones. MOVED BY STREDICKE, SECONDED BY EDWARDS, COUNCIL ADOPT THE ORDINANCE AS READ. ROLL CALL: ALL AYES. CARRIED. • FRANCHISING • REFRANCHISING • COMMUNITY NEEDS ASSESSMENTS • ORDINANCE PREPARATION • NEGOTIATION • EVALUATION • FRANCHISE ADMINISTRATION • ACCESS tcaa February 13, 1995 Phil Jewett Information Systems Director City of Renton 200 Mill Avenue South Renton, WA 98055 Dear Phil: • As you may remember, TCI's removal of FM service last year was met with a large public outcry and TCI was forced to reinstate the service. In April of this year they will temporarily remove some of the stations once again. TCI is:legally allowed to change programming in this way with 30 days notice to the franchising authority and subscribers, however we must be prepared for an outcry from dissatisfied citizens. You may wish to make the Mayor aware of this since he received TCI's notification on or around February 9, 1995. We will keep you updated on any further developments in this matter. Sincerely, 3-H Ca o' : Communications Consultants // G Lion urd. • . . Vice President/.Director. LH/sb • 502 East Main Street, Auburn, Washington 98002 • (206)833-8380 • 1-800-222-9697 • FAX: (206)833-8430 What's new on Renton City Channel 28? The second edition of CityView, the City's half-hour video magazine, is'now airing daily on Channel 28. Tune in to see new segments showcasing Renton's extensive parks system. Other segments focus on the Graffiti Abatement Program, Housing Repair Program, and the City's summer festivals: Piazza Party, Highlands Neighborhood Community Party, River Days, and the bench dedication ceremony honoring retired elected officials Earl Clymer and Dick Stredicke. (Mon., Weds. &Fri. at noon; Tues. & Thurs. at 7 p.m.; Sat. 10 a.m.; Sun. 6 p.m.) Live cablecasts of City Council meetings air at 7:30 p.m. each Monday preceded at 6:30 p.m. with the Council's worksession(Committee of the Whole). Replays air each Tuesday at 10 a.m., Wednesday at 7 p.m. and Saturday at 6 p.m. Replays of Committee of the Whole meetings start an hour before the Council meeting. Please call 235-2604 with your reactions and ideas and questions. Keep in mind that this is a government access channel and all content is coordinated by the City of Renton. CitySource,November, 1997 _.__- -., tr rarr: vx -, ,:', X.i �5f =3u rlilZ ;. ,. . _... :: . _ .. . • , iii /if - t ,�iFI NE 104 ST A. A. IO EDUCATION HILL 45 Redmond City Channel 27, V" STORAGE TANKS �� _�" �''pf^ EDUCATION HILL , that's what!A new look o i BOOSTER PUMP " and lot. will - F W STATION of information about people, MANN �, z : / ,E>an� ELEMENTARY :i HARTMAN allation PARK places, and issues in Redmond. ks near This includes: 3d area nd fireI. • Live cablecasts of City Council meetings (1st& 3rd Tuesdays at 7:30 p.m.)and Planning Commission (2nd <out NE 100 ST Wednesday at 7:00 p.m.)with replays aired several times during the intervening weeks; and . ,..__.�t • TO SE REDMOND • Redmond Point of View, a 1/2 hour video magazine show that showcases city programs and services while e-third (FUTURE) NK providing useful information to the public(Mon. & Fri. at 6:30 p.m., Wed. at 11:30 a.m.); z w • Programming on a variety of topics and events related to the public interest, including videotapes produced for _,k: -. �kli "'�" "' )Ives a • LOOKOUT T the Redmond Community Forum(each on a specific topic); '� iv,r tanks SUBDIVISION ., mond. = -. NE 95 ST • Colorful information screens presenting current i ,;. Rves a -� - .R information about timely events, meetings, and programs; . ;_u`k'Y ''. ailed • r - :y Redmond lily Te!bvis.on r • Interactive television --you decide! Dial 702-9854 will be continued down the hill to link with pipes already from a touch-tone phone, punch in the 3-digit code fors -K s.'' I ultimately connect to the SE Redmond water tank. your topic of interest followed by the#sign, and watch ri�` �,�-= ,, the information appear on-screen. j k ;',t, _,.- :.:•.' for residents and on the east side of the Most of the city's special programming is shown between for residents Campus, on NE businesses St. just north of the NE Noon and 2 or 3 in the afternoon, between 6 and 8 in the evening on weekdays, and during the early evening hours on iunicInes to meet increased needs without having to purchase weekends. Since this is a demonstration project still in its early stages, we need to hear what you as citizens and viewers a utility fund and customer rates are not expected to think about the new and expanded programming. Please call 556-2439 with your reactions and ideas. Keep in mind that this is a government access channel and all content is coordinated by the City of Redmond. cipated to stay that way through at least next year. Arerit Fox ATTORNEYS AT LAW • D. Jacques Smith 202/857-6154 April 3, 2007 smith.jacques@arentfox.com HAND DELIVERED Alan G.Fishel 202/857-6450 fishela@arentfox.com Office of the Clerk United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit 21400 U.S. Courthouse Jeffrey E.Rummel 202/715-8479 601 Market Street rummeij@arentfox.com Philadelphia, PA 19106-1790 Re: Petition for Review To the Clerk of the Court: Transmitted herewith on behalf of the National Association of Counties ("NACo") are an original plus four paper copies of NACo's Petition for Review of the Report and Order of the Federal Communications Commission in MB Docket No. 05-311 released March 5, 2007, 72 Fed. Reg. 13189 (March 21, 2007). In addition, enclosed is a check in the amount of Four Hundred Fifty Dollars ($450.00) as payment of the required filing fees. An additional copy of the Petition for Review is being presented by the courier submitting this filing. Please date-stamp the additional copy of the Petition for Review.and provide the date- stamped copy to the courier as proof of filing. Should any questions arise with respect to this matter, please communicate directly with this office. Respe A 1 sub !.1 D. Jacgw S ;, Alan G ' ishel Jeffrey" . Rum Attorneys for Petitioner Arent Fox PLLC WASHINGTON, DC NEW YORK 1050 Connecticut Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20036.5339 202.857.6000 PHN 202.857.6395 FAx www.arentfox.com IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT ) NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF COUNTIES ) ) Petitioner ) ) v. ) No. ) FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS ) COMMISSION and the UNITED STATES ) OF AMERICA ) ) Respondents ) PETITION FOR REVIEW Pursuant to 47 U.S.C. § 402(a), 28 U.S.C. §§ 2342-2344, and Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 15(a),the National Association of Counties ("NACo")hereby respectfully petitions the court for review of the Federal Communications Commission's ("FCC") Report and Order, In the Matter of Implementation of Section 621(a)(1) of the Cable Communications Policy Act of 1984 as amended by the Cable Television Consumer Protection and Competition Act of 1992, FCC 06-180,MB Docket No. 05-311,which was adopted December 20, 2006, and released March 5, 2007 ("Order"). A summary of the Order was published in the Federal Register on March 21, 2007. 72 Fed. Reg. 13189 (March 21, 2007). A copy of the Order is attached as Exhibit A. This Petition for Review has been filed within ten days of the issuance of the Order, and thus is subject to the procedures established under 28 U.S.C. §2112(a), should other qualified Petitions for Review be filed in different Courts of Appeals. Venue is proper under 28 U.S.C. §2343 because NACo is a corporation organized under laws of the State of Delaware. NACo is the only national organization in the United States that represents county governments, including local franchising authorities within the meaning of Section 602(10) of the Cable Act of 1984, 47 U.S.C. §522(10). NACo filed comments in the FCC proceeding leading up to the Order on review. In the Order,the FCC adopted rules and policies addressing issues concerning the award of competitive franchises by local franchising authorities. NACo seeks review of the Order on the grounds that it exceeds the FCC's statutory authority, is arbitrary and capricious, an abuse of discretion,unsupported by substantial evidence, in violation of the United States Constitution, including, without limitation,the Fifth and Tenth Amendments, and is otherwise contrary to law. The Order also violates both the Communications Act and Administrative Procedure Act's public notice requirements. NACo respectfully requests that this Court hold unlawful, vacate, enjoin, and set aside the Order. NACo also requests that this Court grant such other relief as it may deem appropriate. Respe ■ ub red, D. Jacq Jeffrey .'• 1 Alan G. Fishel Arent Fox LLP 1050 Connecticut Avenue,NW Washington, DC 20036 Telephone: (202) 857-6154 Facsimile: (202) 857-6395 Attorneys for Petitioner April 3,2007 oI CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE ON RESPONDENTS I, D. Jacques Smith, certify that on this 3rd day of April, 2007, I served copies of the foregoing Petition for Review by causing them to be delivered by U.S. mail and by e-mail (as indicated)to the following Respondents: Sam Feder Alberto R. Gonzalez General Counsel Attorney General of the United States Federal Communications Commission United States Department of Justice 445 12th Street, SW 950 Pennsylvania Avenue,NW Washington, D.C. 20554 Washington, DC 20530 (By First Class Mail and Email) (By First la 41 ith CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE ON COMMENTERS I, D. Jacques Smith , certify that on this 3rd day of April, 2007, I served copies of the foregoing Petition for Review by causing them to be delivered by U.S. mail to the commenters in the underlying FCC rulemaking proceeding who are listed on the pages that follow. taitipv-411. . Jacque Smith List of Commenters Larry D. Gilley City Manager City of Abilene, Texas 555 Walnut Street Abilene, TX 79601 Access Channel 5 PO Box 188 Mayville,NY 14757 -0188 Erik Mollberg Access Fort Wayne 200 East Berry Street P.O. Box 2270 Fort Wayne, IN 46801 Access Sacramento 4623 T Street Sacramento, CA 95819 Ad Hoc Telecom Manufacturer Coalition Rodney L Joyce Joyce &Associates 10 Laurel Parkway Chevy Chase, MD 20815 Ada Township 7330 Thornapple River Drive P.O. Box 370 Ada MI 49301 Advance/Newhouse Communications Hogan& Hartson L.L.P. Gardner F. Gillespie 555 Thirteenth Street,N.W. Washington, DC 20004 -1109 Bob Hahn AEI-Brookings Joint Center for Regulatory Studies 1150 17th Street,N.W. Washington, DC 20554 1 Alamance County Office Building 124 West Elm Street Graham,NC 27253 Carolyn Fudge City of Albuquerque 1 Civic Plaza NW P.O. Box 2248 Albuquerque,NM 87103 Alcatel Paul Kenefick 919 18th Street,NW. Washington,DC 20006 Alhambra, CA 111 South First Street Alhambra, CA 91801 Daniel B. Phythyon Alliance for Public Technology 919 18th Street,N.W. Washington, DC 20006 Alpena,MI City Hall 208 North First Avenue Alpena,MI 49707 American Association of Business Persons with Disabilities 2 Wood Hollow Irvine, CA 92604 -3229 Andrew J. Imparato President and CEO American Association of People with Disabilities 1629 K Street,N.W., Suite 503 Washington, DC 20006 American Cable Association Cinnamon Mueller • Christopher Cinnamon 307 N. Michigan Avenue, Suite 1020 Chicago, IL 60601 2 Stephen Pociask The American Consumer Institute P.O. Box 2161 Reston, VA 20171 The American Corn Growers Association P.O. Box 18157 Washington, DC 20036 American Homeowners Grassroots Alliance 6776 Little Falls Rd Arlington, VA 22213 -1213 • City of Anaheim, California 200 S. Anaheim Blvd. Suite 733 Anaheim, CA 92805 City of Angels Camp William Hutchinson 584 S. Main Angels Camp, CA 95222 Anne Arundel County, Carroll County, Charles County, Howard County and Montgomery County Nicholas Miller Miller&Van Eaton 1155 Connecticut Avenue N.W. Washington, DC 20036 Town of Apex,North Carolina P.O. Box 250 73 Hunter Street Apex,NC 27502 -3305 Thomas Lawell, City Administrator City of Apple Valley Apple Valley Municipal Center 7100 - 147th Street West Apple Valley, MN 55124 Ellen Totzke City of Appleton 100 North Appleton Street Appleton, WI 54911 3 Archdale,NC 307 Balfour Drive P.O. Box 14068 Archdale,NC 27263 Arlington Independent Media, VA 2701-C Wilson Blvd. Arlington, VA 22201 Asheboro,NC 146 N Church Street Asheboro NC 27203 City of Ashland Michelle R. Merchant P.O. Box 1839 Ashland, KY 41105 -1839 Mayor Linda L. Blackburn Town of Ahoskie 201 Main Street W Ahoskie,NC 27910 -0767 Association of Independent Programming Networks Kathleen Waltman 9332 Ramey Lane Great Falls, VA 22066 AT&T Thomas F. Hughes 1120 20th Street,N.W., Suite 1000 Washington, DC 20036 City of Atascadero 6907 El Camino Real Atascadero, CA 93422 Town of Bailey P.O. Box 40 6260 Main Street Bailey,NC 27807 -0040 City of Banning 176. E. Lincoln Banning, CA 92220 4 Village of Barrington, Illinois 200 S. Hough Street Barrington, IL 60010 -4322 Borough of Bellefonte 236 West Lamb Street Bellefonte, PA 16823 Kevin M. Chun, City of Bellflower, CA 16600 Civic Center Drive Bellflower, CA 90706 BellSouth Bennett L. Ross 1133 21st Street,N.W., Suite 900 Washington, DC 20036 Mayor Jerry McLamb Town of Benson 303 E Church Street Benson,NC 27504 Ann Sheehan Berks Community Television 645 Penn Street Reading, PA 19601 -3543 Northern Berkshire Community Television Corp. Heritage State Park Building#6 North Adams, MA 01247 City of Beverly Hills Cable Television Office do Mark Geddes 455 N. Rexford Drive Beverly Hills, CA 90210 City Council of the City of Biddeford, Maine John D. Bubier 205 Main Street Biddeford, ME 04005 Billerica Access TV, MA 430 Boston Road Billerica,MA 01821 5 Billerica, MA Sam Schauerman 430 Boston Road Billerica, MA 01821 Birmingham Area Cable Board Michael Salhaney Beier Howlett, P.C. 200 E. Long Lake Road, Suite 110 Bloomfield Hills, MI 48316 City of Blue Lake P.O. Box 458 Blue Lake, CA 95525 City of Bonita Springs Audrey E. Vance 9101 Bonita Beach Road Bonita Springs, FL 34135 Curtis Henderson Jr./ Boston Community Access & Programming Foundation Boston Neighborhood Network 8 Park Plaza, Suite 2240 Boston,MA 02458 Boston Cable Office 43 Hawkins Street Boston,MA 02114 City of Bowie, Maryland David Deutsch Bowie City Hall 2614 Kenhill Drive Bowie, MD 20715 Ali Abulugma Pres. Branford Community Television, Inc. Box 1019 Branford, CT 06405 City of Brea 1 Civic Center Circle Brea, CA 92821.-5732 6 City of Brisbane Attn: City Manager 50 Park Place Brisbane, CA 94005 Broadband Service Providers Association 1735 New York Avenue N.W., Suite 500 Washington, DC 20006 Town of Brunswick Maine 28 Federal Street, Suite 2 Brunswick, ME 04011 Bucks County Consortium of Communities Frederick A. Polner Polner Law Office 4018 Mt. Royal Boulevard Allison Park, PA 15101 Burlington,NC 425 S. Lexington Avenue Burlington,NC 27215 Burnsville/Eagan Telecommunications Commission et al Stephen J. G z7etta Bradley& G11z7etta, LLC 444 Cedar Street Saint Paul, MN 55101 Mike Wassenaar Cable Access St Paul d/b/a Saint Paul Neighborhood Network 375 Jackson Street, Suite 250 Saint Paul, MN 55101 Susan Adele Huizenga Cable Advisory Council of South Central CT, Inc. 36 Surrey Drive Wallingford, CT 06492 Cablevision Systems Corp. Howard J. Symons Mintz Levin Cohn Ferris Glovsky and Popeo, PC 701 Pennsylvania Avenue,N.W., Suite 900 Washington, DC 20004 7 City of Cadillac 200 N. Lake St. Cadillac, MI 49601 Donna H. Prince Town of Calabash P.O. Box 4967 Calabash,NC 28467 California Alliance for Consumer Protection 37 Derow Court Sacramento, CA 95833 California Farmers Union 2881 Geer Road Suite D Turlock, CA 95382 California Small Business Association& California Small Business Roundtable 6101 W. Centinela Avenue, Suite 342 Culver City, CA 90230 Susan Fleischmann Cambridge Public Access Corporation 675 Massachusetts Avenue Cambridge MA 02139 Robert W. Healy City Manager City of Cambridge Cambridge City Hall 795 Massachusetts Avenue Cambridge, MA. 02139 Campbell County Cable Board 10 Hilltop Drive Highland Heights, KY 41076 -5023 City of Cape Coral Eleni C. Pantaridis Leibowitz&Associates 1 S.E. 3rd Avenue Suite 1450 Miami, FL 33131 8 Capital Community Television CCTV P.O. Box 2342 Salem, OR 97308 -2342 Carlsbad, CA Office of City Attorney Paul Edmonson 1200 Carlsbad Village Drive Carlsbad, CA 92008 -1949 Town of Carrboro,North Carolina 301 W. Main Street Carrboro,NC 27510 -2029 Cary, NC Town of Cary P.O. Box 8005 Cary,NC 27512 -8005 Town of Castalia P.O. Box 237 9507 Main Street. Hwy 58 Castalia,NC 27816 -0237 Caswell County,NC Chair, Board of Commissioners, Caswell County,NC County Courthouse P.O. Box 98 Yanceyville,NC 27379 Cavalier Telephone LLC John K. Shumate,Jr. 2134 West Laburnum Avenue Richmond, VA 23227 City of Cedar Rapids, Iowa James H. Flitz City Attorney's Office City Hall- 7th Floor Cedar Rapids, IA 52401 -1225 Center for Digital Democracy 1718 Connecticut Avenue,N.W., Suite 200 Washington, DC 20009 9 Jack Doerr Central St. Croix Valley Joint Cable Communications Commission 1492 Frontage Road West Stillwater,MN 55082 Certain Florida Municipalities Gary I. Resnick, Esq. Weiss Serota Heitman, et al. 3107 Stirling Road, Suite 300 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33312 Champaign, IL City of Champaign 102 N Neil Street Champaign, IL 61820 Champaign-Urbana Cable TV and Telecom Commission, IL Richard L. Atterberry C-U Cable TV and Telecom Commission 705 W. Washington Street Champaign, IL 61820 Town of Chapel Hill,North Carolina 405 Martin Luther King Jr. Blvd. Chapel Hill,NC 27516 -2124 Charlotte-Mecklenburg Office of Cable and Franchise Management 600 East Fourth Street- 9th Floor Charlotte,NC 28202 -2816 Charter Communications T. Scott Thompson Cole, Raywid& Braverman, L.L.P. 1919 Pennsylvania Avenue,N.W., Second Floor Washington, DC 20006 Barbara Popovic,Executive Director Chicago Access Corporation- CAN TV 322 S. Green Street Chicago, IL 60607 City Of Chicago 30 N. La Salle Street, Suite 900 Chicago, IL 60602 10 Jouett Kinney Cincinnati Bell Inc. 201 E. Fourth Street, 103-1280 Cincinnati, OH 45202 City of Cincinnati Deborah C. Holston City of Cincinnati 801 Plum Street, Suite 104 Cincinnati, OH 45202 Peter Stewart for Citizens Community Television 1132 Jefferson Ave. PO Box 581 Louisville, CO 80027 City and County of San Francisco Thomas Long City Attorney's Office City Hall, 1 Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett Place, Rm 234 San Francisco, CA 94102 -4682 City of Los Angeles Nicholas Miller Miller&Van Eaton 1155 Connecticut Avenue N.W. Washington, DC 20036 Joseph James,Deputy Commissioner Dept. of Public Property City of Philadelphia City Hall, Room 732 Philadelphia, PA 19107 Susan Littlefield Communications Manager, City of St. Louis Communications Div. 4971 Oakland Avenue St. Louis, MO 63110 11 City of Ventura, CA Joseph Van Eaton Miller&Van Eaton, P.L.L.C. Suite 1000 1155 Connecticut Avenue N.W. Washington,DC 20036 Clackamas County (#100) 2051 Kaen Road Oregon City, OR 97045 Clark County (#101) County Clerk's Office 200 Lewis Avenue Fifth Floor Las Vegas,NV 89101 Clay County Leibowitz&Associates Eleni C. Pantaridis 1 SE 3rd Avenue Suite 1450 Miami, FL 33131 Clayton,NC PO Box 879 111 E. 2nd St. Clayton,NC 27528 -0879 Clinton Township Communications Department 40700 Romeo Plank Road Clinton Township, MI 48044 City of Clovis/John Holt 1033 Fifth Street Clovis, CA 93612 College Township, Pennsylvania 1481 E. College Avenue State College, PA 16801 Communications Support Group 505 Scenic Avenue Piedmont, CA 94611 12 • Community Programming Board of Forest Park, Greenhills, and Springfield Township 2086 Waycross Road Forest Park, OH 45240 -2717 Comcast Corporation Willkie Farr& Gallagher LLP James L. Casserly 1875 K Street NW Washington, DC 20006 Consumer Coalition of California 11304 Jack Rabbit Trail Austin, TX 78750 Consumer Electronics Association 2500 Wilson Blvd Arlington, VA 22201 Consumers for Cable Choice P.O. Box 329 Greenwood, IN 46142 Consumers First, Inc. 33 Southwood Drive Orinda, CA 94563 City of Coral Springs, FL City Law Dept. 9551 West Sample Road Coral Springs, FL 33065 Cox Communications Dow Lohnes PLLC Gary S. Lutzker 1200 New Hampshire Avenue N.W. Suite 800 Washington, DC 20036 13 City of Delray Beach, Florida Leibowitz &Associates Eleni C. Pantaridis 1 SE 3rd Avenue Suite 1450 Miami, FL 33131 Democratic Processes Center, Inc. P.O. Box 329 Greenwood, IN 46142 Susan Bonilla, Mayor do Peter Dragovich Dir. of CM 1950 Parkside Drive, MS/01 Concord, CA 94519 Concord NC (#112) P.O. Box 308 26 Union Street Concord,NC 28026 -0308 City of Coralville 1512 7th Street PO Box 5127 Coralville, IA 52241 -1708 Tom Smisek City of Coronado 1825 Strand Way Coronado, CA 92118 -3005 City of Cypress 5275 Orange Avenue Cypress, CA 90630 City of Daly City 333- 90th Street Daly City, CA 94015 County of Dare,North Carolina c/o Sharp Michael Outten and Graham Bobby Outten P.O. Drawer 1027 Kitty Hawk,NC 27949 -1027 14 County Administrator Office 1 Public Square, Room 210 Darlington, SC 29532 City of Davis, California 23 Russell Blvd. Davis, Ca. 95616 City of Del Mar 1050 Camino del Mar Del Mar, CA 92014 -2604 Discovery Institute Hance Haney 1015 15th Street,N.W. Ste 900 Washington, DC 20005 Town of Dortches 3057 Town Hall Rd Rocky Mount,NC 27804 -9186 City of Dublin 100 Civic Plaza Dublin, CA 94568 City of Eden Honorable John E. Grogan, Mayor 308 East Stadium Drive Eden,NC 27288 City of El Cerrito 10890 San Pabloe Avenue El Cerrito, CA 94530 Village of Elk Grove Village, Illinois 901 Wellington Avenue Elk Grove Village, IL 60007 Mayor 104 South Williamson St. Elon,NC 27244 15 • Jon Funfar City of Enumclaw 1339 Griffin Ave. Enumclaw, WA 98022 Clay Phillips, City Manager City of Escondido 201 N. Broadway Escondido, CA 92025 Town of Esopus PO Box 700 Port Ewen,NY 12466 City of Evanston David Cook 2100 Ridge Suite 1450 Evanston, IL 60201 -1495 Fairfax Cable Access Corporation 2929 Eskridge Road, Suite S Fairfax, VA 22031 Fairfax County Department of Cable Communications & Consumer Protection 12000 Government Center Parkway, Suite 433 Fairfax,VA 22035 -0048 Town of Fairfax, California Law Office of Lawrence Bragman 142 Bolinas Road Fairfax, CA 94930 William H. Johnson, Jr. Mayor 100 N. Main Street Faith,NC 28041 -0037 Bristol Community College/Fall River Community Television 777 Elsbree Street Fall River, MA 02720 -7307 16 Pat Zavoral City Administrator City of Fargo,North Dakota The Bailer Herbst Law Group, P.C. Adrian E. Herbst 377N Grain Exchange Building 301 Fourth Avenue South Minneapolis, MN 55415 -1015 City of Farmington 325 Oak Street Farmington, MN 55024 City of Durham,NC Theodore L. Voorhees Assistant City Manager 101 City Hall Plaza Durham,NC 27701 Fiber-to-the-Home Council Kelley Drye & Warren LLP Thomas Cohen 3050 K Street,NW Suite 400 Washington, DC 20007 City of Florence, Kentucky Diane Whalen 8100 Ewing Boulevard Florence, KY 41042 -7588 City of Foster City, California Linda Koelling 610 Foster City Boulevard Foster, CA 94404 City of Franklin, KY W. Scott Crabtree 212 South College Street P.O.Box 615 Franklin, KY 42135 -0615 17 Free Enterprise Fund E. O'Brien Murray 1850 M Street,NW Suite 800 Washington, DC 20036 Free Press Institute for Public Representation Angela J. Campbell 600 New Jersey Avenue, N.W. Suite 312 Washington, DC 20001 Township of Ferguson Mark A Kunkle 3147 Research Drive State College, PA 16801 City of Ferndale Michael Powers City Manager PO Box 1095 Ferndale, CA 95536 Village of Floral Park One Floral Boulevard Floral Park,NY 11001 City of Fort Worth 401 W. 2nd Street Fort Worth, TX 76101 City of Fortuna 621 11 th Street PO Box 545 Fortuna, CA 95540 Foxboro Cable Access, Inc. PO Box 524 Foxboro, MA 02035 18 G. Thomas Donch Borough of Franklin Lakes DeKorte Drive Franklin Lakes,New Jersey 07417 Free Press Institute for Public Representation Angela J. Campbell 600 New Jersey Avenue,N.W. Suite 312 Washington, DC 20001 Free Press, Consumers Union, Consumer Federation of America 1801 18th St.,NW Suite 9 Washington, DC 20009 FreedomWorks 1775 Pennsylvania Avenue,NW Eleventh Floor Washington, DC 20006 City of Fort Lauderdale, FL 100 N Andrews Ave Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 City of Gainsville, Florida Russ Blackburn P.O. Box 490 Gainsville, FL 32602 -0490 City of Garland Texas William E. Dollar 200 N. 5th Street Garland, TX 75040 Town of Garner Judy Bass Post Office Box 446 Gamer,NC 27529 Mayor Kevin R. Burns • 22 South First Street Geneva, IL 60134 19 Georgia Municipal Association Ed Rutter 201 Pryor Street SW Atlanta, GA 30303 -3606 Hawaiian Telcom Communications, Inc. Latham& Watkins LLP Elizabeth Park 555 Eleventh Street,NW Suite 1000 Washington, DC 20004 -1304 Hawaii Consumers P.O. Box 179375 Honolulu, HI 96817 Office of the County Attorney Henderson County,North Carolina Charles Russell Burrell 100 North King Street Hendersonville,NC 28792 Mayor 129 West Main Street Gibsonville,NC 27249 City of Gilroy HCD 7351 Rosanna Street Gilroy, CA 95020 Village of Glenview Glenview Televison 1225 Waukegan Road Glenview,IL 60025 Mayor 201 South Main St. Graham,NC 27253 City of Grand Rapids Jon Koeze 300 Monroe,NW Grand Rapids, MI 49503 20 Mayor, Town of Granite Quarry 143 N. Salisbury Street Granite Quarry,NC 28072 Great Neck/North Shore Cable Commission et al 1505 Kellym Place Mineola,NY 11501 Greater Metro Telecommunications Consortium Ken Fellman 3773 Cherry Creek North Drive Ptarmigan Place, Suite 900 Denver, CO 80209 Green Spring, KY William M. Huff 7103 Green Spring Drive Louisville, KY 40241 City of Greenboro City Attorney's Office P.O. Box 3136 Greensboro,NC 27402 -3136 City of Greenville David A. Holec P.O. Box 7207 Greenville,NC 27835 -7207 Chairwoman Guilford County Board of Commissioners 301 W. Market Street Greensboro,NC 27402 Chairman Board of Commissioners Harnett County PO Box 759 Lillington,NC 27546 21 Harris Township 224 East Main Street P.O. Box 20 Boalsburg, PA 16827 City of Henderson Mark Backus 240 Water Street P.O. Box 95050 Henderson,NV 89005 -5050 City of Hialeah,Florida Leibowitz&Associates Eleni C. Pantaridis 1 SE 3rd Avenue Suite 1450 Miami, FL 33131 Hibbing Public Access Television P.O. Box 712 Hibbing, MN 55746 Becky Smothers Mayor, City of High Point 211 S. Hamilton Street High point,NC 27261 High Tech Broadband Coalition Derek Khlopin/TIA 1300 Pennsylvania Avenue,NW, Suite 350 Washington, DC 20004 Town of Hillsborough,North Carolina PO Box 429 111 E. 2nd St. Hillsborough,NC 27278 -0429 22 Town of Holly Springs, North Carolina PO Box 8 128 S. Main St. Holly Springs,NC 27540 -0008 City of Huntsville, Alabama Mayor Loretta Spencer Claudia Anderson P. O. Box 308 Huntsville, AL 35804 City of Imperial Beach, California James P. Lough City Hall 825 Imperial Beach Blvd Imperial Beach, CA 91932 Independent Multi-Family Communications Council William J. Burhop 3004 Oregon Knolls Drive NW Washington, DC 20015 City of Indianapolis Rick Maultra 2501 City-County Building 200 E. Washington Street Indianapolis, Indiana 46204 Institute for Policy Innovation • Thomas A. Giovanetti 1660 S. Stemmons Freeway Suite 475 Lewisville, TX 75067 Mayor 403 East Main St. Haw River,NC 27258 23 • Mayor 210 North Fourth Street Highlands,NC 28741 -0460 Institute for Policy Innovation c/o Thomas A. Giovanetti 1660 S. Stemmons Freeway Suite 475 Lewisville, TX 75067 Intergovernmental Cable Communications Authority do Timothy J. Currier, Esquire 200 E. Long Lake Road, Suite#110 Bloomfield Hills,MI 48304 -2361 City of Irwindale 5050 North Irwindale Avenue Irwindale, CA 91706 City of Irvine 1 Civic Center Irvine, CA 92623 Itasca Community Television Executive Director Beth George 724 Conifer Drive Grand Rapids MN 55744-2475 City of Iowa City do Steve Atkins, City Manager Iowa City, IA Jefferson County League of Cities Cable Commission do Linda K. Ain 4725 Inman Drive Lexington, KY 40513 24 City of Jenkins, Kentucky do Robert.Shubert P.O. Box 568 Jenkins, KY 41537 -0568 City of Kansas City, Missouri do William D. Geary, Assistant Ci 28th Floor City Hall 414 East 12th Street Kansas City, MO 64106 -2796 City of Killeen do Traci Briggs P.O. Box 1329 Killeen, TX 76540 -1329 King County, Washington do David Martinez Chief Information Office 700 5th Avenue, Suite 2300 Seattle, WA 98104 Town of Kitty Hawk Mayor PO Box 549 Kitty Hawk,NC 27947 Town of Knightdale,North Carolina do Mayor Doug Boyd 950 Steeple Square Ct. Knightdale,NC 27545 City of La Puente do Hal Ledford, City Manager 15900 E. Main Street La Puente, CA 91744 Lake Minnetonka Communications Commission do Sally Koenecke 4071 Sunset Drive Spring Park, MN 55384 25 City of Lake Worth Leibowitz&Associates Eleni C. Pantaridis 1 SE 3rd Avenue Suite 1450 Miami,FL 33131 City Of Las Vegas,Nevada c/o Larry G. Bettis 400 Stewart Avenue,Ninth Floor Las Vegas,NV 89101 -2986 City of La Verne c/o Bob Russi 3660 D Street La Verne, CA 91750 League of Minnesota Cities and MN Assoc. of Community Telecom Administrators 145 University Avenue West St. Paul, MN 55103 -2044 LEAGUE OF UNITED LATIN AMERICAN CITIZENS OF THE NORTHEAST REGION 41 Eden Street FRAMINGHAM, MA 01702 -6320 Gary Ortiz, City of Leavenworth, Kansas City Hall 100 North 5th Street Leavenworth, KS 66048 -1970 Lee County, Florida Leibowitz& Associates Eleni C. Pantaridis 1 SE 3rd Avenue Suite 1450 Miami, FL 33131 Leibowitz&Associates Matthew L. Leibowitz 1 SE 3rd Ave • Suite 1450 Miami, FL 33131 • 26 City of Lenexa, Kansas do Rebecca A. Yocham 12350 W. 87th Street Parkway Lenexa,KS 66215 City of Lincoln,Nebraska do City Attorney's Office Steven Huggenberger 575 South 10th Street Room 4201 Lincoln,NE 68508 City of Lincoln do Gerald F. Johnson 640 Fifth Street Lincoln, CA 95648 City of Long Beach do Gerald R. Miller, City Manager, 333 West Ocean Boulevard Long Beach, CA 90802 City of Longmont, Colorado do Jim Wall 350 Kimbark Street Longmont, CO 80503 Town of Loomis, Placer County, California do Rhonda Morillas 6140 Horseshoe Bar Rd., Suite K Loomis, CA 95650 City of Los Banos, California 520 J Street • Los Banos, CA 93635 City of Lynwood 11330 Bullis Road Lynwood, CA 90262 27 City of Madison Heights Jon Austin, City Manager 300 W. 13 Mile Road Madison Heights, MI 48071 -1899 Incorporated Village of Malverne N.Y. do Anthony J. Panzarella 99 Church Street Malverne,NY 11565 Manatee County do Manatee County Attorney's Office Robert Michael Eschenfelder 1112 Manatee Avenue West Ste. 969 Bradenton, FL 34205 Marin Telecommunications Agency c/o Richards, Watson& Gershon Gregory W. Stepanicich Richards, Watson& Gershon 44 Montgomery Street, Suite 3800 San Francisco, CA 94104 -4811 City of St. Petersburg, Florida c/o Muslim A. Gadiwalla One 4th Street North St. Petersburg, FL 33705 City of St. Petersburg, FL ICS Dept. One Forth Street North St. Petersburg, FL 33701 -3804 State of Hawaii do Squire, Sanders &Dempsey LLP Bruce A. Olcott 1201 Pennsylvania Avenue NW Washington, DC 20004 28 Town of Sunapee,New Hampshire do Douglas Munro, Chairman Sunapee Electronic Communications Board of Selectmen P.O. Box 717 Sunapee,NH 03782 -0717 City of Sunnyvale, California do Amy Chan 456 West Olive Avenue Sunnyvale, CA 94086 City of Susanville do Rodney E. DeBoer 66 North Lassen Street Susanville, CA 96130 -3904 City of Tampa, Florida do Miller&Van Eaton Nicholas P. Miller Suite 1000 1155 Connecticut Avenue,N.W. Washington, DC 20036 TelCo Retirees Associations, Inc 6168 Capri Dive San Diego, CA 92120 Telecommunications Industry Association 2500 Wilson Boulevard Suite 300 Arlington, VA 22201 City of Temecula do Richards, Watson and Gershon William Rudell 43200 Business Park Drive P.O. Box 9033 Temecula, CA 92589 -9033 29 Texas Coalition of Cities on Franchised Utility Issues.TCCFUI. do Clarence A. West 707 West Avenue Suite 207 Austin, TX 78701 Texas Coalition of Cities For Franchised Utility Issues.TCCFUI do Clarence A. West 1201 Rio Grande Suite 200 Austin, TX 78701 Texas Municipal League/Texas City Attorneys Association do Scott Houston 1821 Rutherford Lane Suite 400 Austin, TX 78754 Time Warner Cable do Fleischman and Walsh, L.L.P. Seth Davidson 1919 Pennsylvania Avenue,NW Suite 600 Washington, DC 20006 Town of Truckee 10183 Truckee Airport Road, Truckee, CA 96161 Truckee, CA 96161 City of Tulsa, Oklahoma do Tulsa City Attorney's Office Patrick T. Boulden City Hall, Suite.300 200 Civic Center Tulsa, OK 74103 -3833 Tuolumne County, California do Elizabeth E. Bass 2 South Green Street Sonora, CA 95370 30 City of Ukiah do Rapport and Marston David J. Rapport Ukiah Civic Center 300 Seminary Ave. Ukiah, CA 95482 UNITED STATES TELECOM ASSOCIATION do JAMES W. OLSON 607 14th Street,NW Suite 400 Washington,DC 20005 -2164 United States Telecom Association do Jeffrey S Lanning 607 14th Street,NW Suite 400 Washington, DC 20005 -2150 U.S.-Mexico Chamber of Commerce 1300 Pennsylvania Ave.,N.W. Ste. G-0003 Washington, DC 20004 -3021 VALLEY VOTERS ORGANIZED TOWARD EMPOWERMENT-VALLEY VOTE 14622 Ventura Blvd #424 Sherman Oaks, CA 91403 Verizon do Dee May 1300 I Street,NW Suite 400 West Washington,DC 20005 Vermont Public Service Board do John Bentley 112 State Street Montpelier, VT 05620 -2701 Vermont Public Service Board and Vermont Department of Public Service do Leslie A. Cadwell 112 State Street, Drawer 20 Montpelier, VT 05620 -2601 31 Video Access Alliance do Julia Johnson PO Box 14917 Tallahassee, FL 32317 Villages of Larchmont and Mamaroneck, Town of Mamaroneck,New York do Miller&Van Eaton Joseph Van Eaton Suite 1000 1155 Connecticut Avenue,N.W. Washington, DC 20036 Virginia Cable Telecommunications Association do Christian&Barton, LLP Peter E. Broadbent,Jr., Esqui 909 East Main Street, Suite 1200 Richmond, VA 23219 -3095 City of Vista, California 600 Eucalyptus Avenue Vista, CA 92084 Town of Wake Forest,North Carolina 401 Elm Ave. Wake Forest,NC 27587 -2932 City of Walnut Creek c/o Paul M. Valle-Riestra 1666 N. Main St. P.O. Box 8039 Walnut Creek, CA 94596 WASHINGTON STATE GRANGE 924 Capitol Way South Olympia, WA 98501 -1210 Town of Wendell,North Carolina PO Box 828 15 E. Fourth St. Wendell,NC 27591 -0828 West Allis Community Center Media Center c/o Mary Shanahan-Spanic 7210 W. Greenfield Avenue West Allis, WI 53214 32 City of West Palm Beach, Florida do Leibowitz&Associates Eleni C. Pantaridis 1 SE 3rd Avenue Suite 1450 Miami, FL 33131 Thomas G. Wilson, Town of Westport Attorney/Administrator/Clerk-Treasurer Town of Westport 5387 Mary Lake Road, Waunakee, WI 53597 City of Wheaton do Gary White 303 W Wesley Wheaton, IL 60189 -0727 City of Whittier do Stephen W. Helvey, City Manage 13230 Penn Street Whittier, CA 90602 City of Wilson,North Carolina P.O. Box 10 Wilson,NC 27894 Dodd D. Dixon,Attorney at Law Executive Director Kentucky Regional Cable Commission Mayor, City of Winchester Winchester, Kentucky . Windham Cable Advisory Board do Leo A. Hart 3 North Lowell Road Windham,NH 03087 City of Winston-Salem PO Box 2511 Attn Information Systems Winston-Salem,NC 27102 33 Wisconsin Association of Public, Education, and Government Access Channels -WAPC do Mary Bennin Cardona, Executive Director 4209 Bagley Parkway Madison, WI 53705 Women Impacting Public Policy 48 San Antonio Place San Francisco, CA 94133 The World Institute on Disability do Kathy Martinez, Executive Director 510 16th Street, Suite 100 Oakland, CA 94612 City of Yuma c/o Gregory Dean Huland One City Plaza Post Office Box 13014 Yuma,AZ 85366 -3014 Town of Zebulon,North Carolina 100 N. Arendell Ave. Zebulon,NC 27597 -2837 Zeeland Charter Township do Bradley Slagh 6582 Byron Road Zeeland, MI 49464 34 Town of Standish do Gordon Billington 175 Northeast Road Standish, ME 04804 . State College Borough do Thomas J. Fountain II 243 South Allen Street State College, PA 16801 City of Statesville do Rob Hites 301 South Center Street Statesville,NC 28687 -1111 Sun Prairie Cable Access do Pam Steitz-Executive Director 1350 Linnerud Drive - Suite 2 Sun Prairie, WI 53590 Mayor, Town of Tabor City do Marion S. Baxter PO Drawer Tabor City,NC 28463 City of Taylor, City Clerk's Office do Mary Ann Rilley 23555 Goddard Road Taylor, MI 48180 The Progress and Freedom Foundation c/o Garland T. McCoy Jr. and 1444 Eye Street,NW Suite 500 Washington, DC 20005 Village of Tobaccoville do Mayor Keith P. Snow P.O. Box 332 Tobaccoville,NC 27050 City of Toppenish Scott Staples 21 West First Avenue Toppenish, WA 98948 35 City of Torrance Michael D. Smith 3350 Civic Center Drive Torrance, CA 90503 United States Internet Industry Association James Anderson, Counsel 1800 Diagonal Road Suite 600 Alexandria, VA 22314 URTV 31 College Place Ste 20 A Asheville,NC 28801 Vancouver Educational Telecommunications Association(VETC) 2500 NE 65th Avenue Vancouver, WA 98661 Mayor, Town of Vass do Henry E. Callahan PO Box 487 Vass,NC 28394 City of Warrenville do Jennifer McMahon 28W701 Stafford Place Warrenville, IL 60555 Chair, Cable TV Advisory Committee do Maurice H. Stauffer Town of Wayland Wayland, MA 01778 36 Town of Whitaker,NC PO Box 727 302 NW Railroad St. Whitakers,NC 27891 White Plains Cable Access TV c/o James D. Kenny 4 Martine Ave. White Plains,NY,NY 10606 City of White do Mayor Randy Brown PO Box 682 White SD 57276-0682 Town of Wilbraham c/o Richard Scott 4 Chapel Street Wilbraham, MA 01095 City of Worcester do David M. Moore- City Solicitor City Hall Room 301 455 Main Street Worcester, MA 01608 Town of Yanceyville do Daniel G. Printz, Jr. -Mayor Daniel G. Printz, Jr. -Mayor P 0 Box 727 Yanceyville,NC 27379 Jeffrey Bullins Mayor Town of Mayodan 210 W. Main Street Mayodan,NC 27027 Charles L. Kelsey Village Clerk Village of Mayville PO Box 188 Mayville,NY 14757 -0188 37 Thomas Martin Mayor City of Maywood 4319 Slauson Avenue Maywood, CA 90270 Mecklenburg County Doris J. Boris Charlotte-Mecklenburg Office of Cable and Franchise Management 600 East Fourth Street- 9th Floor Charlotte,NC 28202 -2816 City of Medford Gary Wheeler, Mayor John Huttel 411 W. 8th Street Medford, OR 97501 Peter Franck c/o Media Action Marin Franck Law Offices 1115 Irwin Suite 101 San Rafael, CA 94901 -3321 Media Bridges Cincinnati, Inc. 1100 Race Street Cincinnati, OH 45202 -7219 Mercatus Center c/o Jerry Brito and Jerry Ellig 3301 N. Fairfax Drive #450 Arlington, VA 22201 Methuen Community Television 13 Branch Street Methuen, MA 01844 38 Metropolitan Area Communications Commission Bruce Crest 1815 NW 169th Place Suite 6020 Beaverton, OR 97006 Metropolitan Educational Access Corp. Elliott Mitchell 120 White Bridge Road MS 46 Nashville, TN 37209 Miami Valley Comm. Council Glenn Alexander 1195 East Alex-Bell Road Centerville, OH 45459 Miami Dade County, Florida Cathy Grimes-Peel Director, Consumer Services Department 140 West Flagler Street, Suite 90 Miami, FL 33130 Michigan Municipal League Gerald L. Lederer Miller&Van Eaton 1155 Connecticut Avenue N.W. Suite 1000 Washington, DC 20036 Microsoft Corp. Gerald Waldron and David Fagan Covington and Burling 1201 Pennsylvania Avenue,N.W. Washington, DC 20004 Microsoft Corp. do Scott Blake Harris Harris Wiltshire 1200 18th Street,NW 12th Floor Washington, DC 20036 39 Town of Middlesex P.O. Box 69 Middlesex,NC 27557-0069 Rick Menchaca City of Midland PO Box 1152 Midland, TX 79702 Jose Esteves Milipitas, CA 455 E. Calaveras Blvd Milpitas, CA 95035 Minnesota Telecom Alliance Stephen J. Guz7etta Bradley and Guz7etta, LLC 444 Cedar Street Saint Paul,MN 55101 Minority Media Telecom Council David Honig 3636 16th Street N.W. Suite B-366 Washington, DC 20010 Mobile,Alabama Mobile County Commission 205 Government St., Mobile, AL 36644 Missouri NATOA Miller&Van Eaton Frederick E. Ellrod III 1155 Connecticut Avenue,N.W. Suite 1000 Washington, DC 20036 40 Town of Momeyer 4868 Momeyer Way Nashville,NC 27856 -9091 Richard Singer Monrovia, CA 415 S. Ivy Avenue Monrovia, CA 91016 Chris Jeffers, City Manager Monterey Park City Hall Monterey Park, CA 91754 Russell D. Duree Montrose, CO City Attorney's Office P.O. Box 790 Montrose, CO 81402 -0790 Town of Morrisville,North Carolina PO Box 166 100 Town Hall Dr. Morrisville,NC 27560 -0166 Robert D. Slattery Mount Morris, MI 116 49 N. Saginaw Street Mt. Morris, MI 48458 Mt. Hood Cable Regulatory Commission—MHCRC 1120 SW 5th Ave., Rm 1305 Portland, OR 97204 Alan Bozeman 111 West Vine Street Murfreesboro, TN 37130 41 Lynn Johnson, Mayor Town of Murfreesboro P.O. Box 6 Murfreesboro,NC 27855 -0006 City of Murrieta 26442 Beckman Court Murrieta, CA 92562 National Association of Broadcasters Jerianne Timmerman 1771 N Street NW Washington, DC 20036 National Black Chamber of Commerce, Inc 1350 Connecticut Ave.NW Suite 405 Washington, DC 20036 National Cable & Telecommunications Association 25 Massachusetts Avenue,N.W. Suite 100 Washington, DC 20001 -1431 National Caucus and Center on Black Aged 1220 L Street NW Suite 800 Washington DC 20005 National Grange Leroy Watson, Legislative Dir. 1616H St.NW Washington, DC 20006 National Hispanic Council on Aging 1341 Connecticut Avenue,N.W. Suite 4.2 Washington, DC 20036 42 National Taxpayers Union 108 N. Alfred Street Alexandria, VA 22314 National Telecommunications Cooperative Association Daniel Mitchell 4121 Wilson Blvd., 10th Floor Arlington, VA 22203 NATOA,NLC,NACO, USCM, ACM &ACD Spiegel &McDiarmid Tillman L. Lay 1333 New Hampshire Avenue,N.W. 2nd Floor Washington, DC 20036 Naval Media Center 2713 Mitscher Road, SW, Bldg. 168 Anacostia Annex, DC 20373-5819 New Jersey Board of Public Utilities State of New Jersey, Division of Law 124 Halsey Street, 5th Floor P.O. Box 45029 Newark,NJ 07101 New Jersey Division of the Ratepayer Advocate 31 Clinton Street, 11 th Floor P.O. Box 46005 Newark,NJ 07101 Radhika Karmarkar New York City Department of Information Technology and Telecommunications 75 Park Place New York, NY 10007 43 New York State Conference of Mayors 119 Washington Ave. Albany,NY 12210 Newton Communications Access Center, Inc do P.O. Box 610192, 90 Lincoln Street Newton, MA 02461 -0192 Norfolk, VA Department of Law, City Attorney's Office Martha P. McGann, Deputy City 900 City Hall Building, 810 Union Street Norfolk,VA 23510 City of North Kansas City Thomas E. Barzee, Jr. 2010 Howell North Kansas City, MO 64116 Chris Hoffinan- City of North Liberty Telecommunications Commission 5 E. Cherry Street PO Box 77 North Liberty, IA 52317 -0077 City of North Richland Hills P.O. Box 820609 North Richland Hills, TX 76812 -0609 Village of Northbrook John Novinson 1225 Cedar Lane Northbrook, IL 60015 Northern Berkshire Community Television Corp Heritage State Park Building#6 North Adams, MA 0124 44 Northern Dakota County Cable Communications Commission,NDC4 Jodie Miller, Executive Director 5845 Blaine Avenue Inver Grove Heights, MN 55076 -1401 Northwest Suburbs Cable Commun. Comm'n Coralie Wilson CTV 15/North Suburban Access Corp. 950 Woodhill Drive Roseville, MN 55113 City of Norwalk 12700 Norwalk Blvd Norwalk, CA 90650 Oceanside Community Television(KOCT) 3038 Industry Street, Suite 101, Oceanside, CA 92054 Delma Collins Chair, Board of Commissioners, Onslow County 118 Old Bridge Road Jacksonville,NC 27540 City of Ontario, CA Mayhook Law,PLLC Jeffrey Mayhook 34808 NE 14th Avenue La Center, WA 98629 Orange County Government 201 S. Rosalind Ave. 3rd Floor Orlando, FL 32801 OPASTCO 21 Dupont Circle,NW Suite 700 Washington, DC 20036 45 Orion Neighborhood Television Diane Griffiths 698 South Lapeer Road Lake Orion, MI 48362 City of Oxford,North Carolina PO Box 130 300 Williamsboro St Oxford,NC 27565 -1307 Pacific Research Institute 755 Sansome Street Suite 450 San Francisco, CA 94111 Pac-West Telecomm, Inc. Swidler Berlin LLP Patrick J. Donovan 3000 K Street,NW Suite 300 Washington, DC, DC 20007 -5116 City of Palo Alto Office of City Attorney Grant Kolling 250 Hamilton Avenue, 8th Floor Palo Alto, CA 94301 -2531 City of Palmetto 516 8th Ave W Palmetto, FL 34221 -1209 City of Pasadena, California 117 E. Colorado Blvd, 3rd Floor Pasadena, CA 91105 46 • Patton Township Elliot Abrams 100 Patton Plaza • State College, PA 16803 Harold K. Logsdon, Mayor Peachtree City 151 Willowbend Road Peachtree City, Georgia 30269 Peachtree City, GA 30269 -3104 Township of Pennsville Thomas H. Strong, Sr., Mayor 90 North Broadway Pennsville,NJ 08070 City of Penis -Michael McDermott 101 N'D' Street • Penis, CA 92570 -1998 City of Philadelphia PA Joseph James, Deputy Commissioner Public Property City Hall, Room 732 Philadelphia, PA 19107 Pike County, KY William M. Deskins 146 Main Street Pikeville, KY 41501 -1180 City of Pikeville KY Frank Justice 118 College Street Pikeville, KY 41501 -1786 47 Town of Pinetops J. Vines Cobb, Jr. Post Office Drawer C Pinetops,NC 27864 • Town of Pittsboro,North Carolina do PO Box 759 635 East St Pittsboro,NC 27312 -0759 Plainfield Charter Township 6161 Belmont Avenue Belmont, MI 49306 -9609 Rick Wallace Mayor Town of Pleasant Garden PO Box 307 Pleasant Garden,North Carolina 27309 February 1, 2006 City of Pleasant Hill Debra Margolis 100 Gregory Lane Pleasant Hill, CA 94523 Plymouth Area Community Access Television By: Nancy L. Richard Executive Director PACTV 130 Court Street, Plymouth MA 02360 Kathy Oborn,Video Service Director City of Pocatello PO Box 4169 Pocatello, ID 83205 -4169 48 Clay Larkin,Mayor City of Post Falls Mayor Clay Larkin, City of Post Falls 408 N. Spokane Street Post Falls, ID 83854 City of Poway City Manager's Office PO Box 789 Poway, CA 92074 -0789 Princeton Community TV 369 Witherspoon St. Princeton,NJ 08540 Public Cable Television Authority 10200 Slater Avenue Fountain Valley, CA 92708 Public Utility Commission of Texas Rosemary McMahill 1701 N. Congress Avenue P.O. Box 13326 Austin, TX 78711 -3326 Public, Educational and Governmental (PEG)Access Oversight Committee of Nashville,Davidson County, Tennessee Alan D. Johnson, Chair 215 Second Avenue North Nashville, TN 37201 49 Qwest Communications International Inc. Melissa E. Newman Suite 950 607 14th Street,N.W. Washington, DC 20005 Quote...Unquote,Inc 415 Tijeras N.W. Albuquerque,NM 87102 Queen Anne's County Paul W. Comfort 107 N. Liberty Street Centreville, MD 21617 Prince George's County Community Television McCollum&Associates James E. McCollum, Jr College Park, MD 20741 -1717 Prince George's County, Maryland • Funk&Bolton, , PA Ernest A. Crofoot 315 High Street Suite 202 Chestertown, MD 21620 -0000 Ramsey/Washington Counties Cable Communications Commission 2460 East County Road White Bear Lake, MN 55110 City of Rancho Cordova- Robert J. McGarvey,Mayor 2729 Prospect Park Drive Rancho Cordova, CA 95670 50 City of Rancho Santa Margarita Steven E. Hayman 22112 El Paseo Rancho Snata Margarita, CA 92688 Harold Holmes Chair, Board of Commissioners Randolph County 725 McDowell Road Asheboro,North Carolina 27204 RCN Telecom Services, Inc. Swidler Berlin LLP Katie Besha 3000 K Street NW Suite 300 Washington, DC 20007 Town of Red Oak,NC PO Box A Red Oak Blvd Red Oak,NC 27868 -0016 Richard Duvernay& Gerry Kersten on behalf of the City of Redding City of Redding 777 Cypress Avenue Redding, CA 96001 Mayor James K. Festerman 230 W. Morehead Street Reidsville,NC 27320 Bonnie Walton 1055 S. Grady Way Renton, WA 98055 51 City of Richmond, KY Connie Lawson 239 W Main Street Richmond, KY 40476 -0250 John Kirkland Mayor Town of River Bend 45 Shoreline Drive New Bern,North Carolina 28562 N. Jerry Owens Chair, Board of Commissioners Rockingham County 371 NC 65, Suite 206 Wentworth,North Carolina 27375 Town of Rockwell Mayor Beauford Taylor PO Box 506 Rockwell,NC 28138 -0506 Douglas R. Prichard, City Manager City of Rolling Hills Estates 4045 Palos Verdes Drive North Rolling Hills Estates, CA 90274 Gus Andres Chair, Board of Commissioners Rowan County 130 W. Iimes Street Salisbury,North Carolina 28144 City of Rolling Hills Estates 4045 Palos Verdes Drive North Rolling Hills Estates, CA 90274 52 Sacramento Metropolitan Cable Television Conunission McDonough, Holland & allen, PC Harriet A. Steiner 555 Capitol Mall, 9th floor Sacramento, CA 95814 City of Saint Charles, Missouri Saint Charles City Hall 200 North Second Street Saint Charles, MO 63301 Linda Berman 555 Liberty Street ST, Room 220 Salem, OR 97301 Chris Bramhall 451 South State Street, Suite 505A Salt Lake City, UT 84111 County of San Diego 1600 Pacific Highway Room 208 San Diego, CA 92101 Rey Arellano City of San Diego 202 C Street,MS-9B San Diego, CA 92101 Curtis W. Morris 245 East Bonita Avenue San Dimas, CA 91773 City Attorney's Office/City of San Jose William H. Hughe 200 E. Santa Clara St., 16th Floor San Jose, CA 95113 City of San Juan Capistrano 32400 Paseo Adelanto San Juan Capistrano, CA 92675 53 City of San Marcos 1 Civic Center Drive San Marcos, CA 92069 -2918 San Mateo County Telecommunications Authority—SAMCAT Greg Rubens,Attorney at Law 600 Elm Street San Carlos, CA 94070 -3018 City of Sanford,North Carolina PO Box 3729 225 E. Weatherspoon St Sanford,NC 27331 -3729 City of Santa Clara 1500 Warburton Avenue Santa Clara, CA 95050 -3713 City of Santa Clarita 23920 Valencia Blvd Santa Clarita, CA 91355 Maryanne Rehberg on behalf of Community television of Santa Cruz County 816 Pacific Ave. Santa Cruz„ CA 95062 City of Santa Rosa, California Jane Bender City Hall, Room#8 100 Santa Rosa Avenue Santa Rosa, CA 95404 54 City of Santee Attn: Keith Till, City Manager 10601 Magnolia Avenue Santee, CA 92071 -1266 City of Saratoga Springs Valene Keehn City Hall, Suite 6 474 Broadway Saratoga Springs,NY 12866 Charles A. Comstock, City Manager, City of Scotts Valley Kirsten Powell, City Attorney City of Scotts Valley One Civic Center Drive Scotts Valley, CA 95066 City of Seattle Tony Perez 700 5th Avenue, Suite 2700 P.O. Box 94709 Seattle, WA 98124 -4709 City of Sebastopol, California 7120 Bodega Ave. Sebastopol, CA 95472 Self Advocacy Association of New York State 75 Morton St# 1 New York,NY 10014 Township of Shaler Timothy J. Rogers 300 Wetzel Road Timothy J. Rogers Glenshaw, PA.15116 -2288 55 City of Sierra Madre 232 W. Sierra Madre Blvd Sierra Madre, CA 91024 City of Signal Hill 2175 Cherry Avenue Signal Hill, CA 90755 Town of Siler City Charles L. Turner 311 N 2nd Ave Siler,NC 27344 -0769 City of Simi Valley 2929 Tapo Canyon Road Simi Valley, CA 93063 Sjoberg's Inc. 315 N. Main Avenue Thief River Falls, MN 56701 Village of Skokie Albert J. Rigoni 5127 Oakton Street Skokie, IL 60077 Town of Smithfield,North Carolina PO Box 761 350 E. Market St. Smithfield,NC 27577 -0761 City of Solana Beach, California James P. Lough 635 S. HWY 101 Solana Beach, CA 92075 56 Township of South Orange Village Marjorie O. Smith 101 South Orange Avenue South Orange,NJ 07079 City of South Portland Tony Vigue P.O. Box 9422 Portland, ME 04116 City and County of San Francisco City Attorney's Office Thomas Long City Hall, 1 Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett Place, Rm 234 San Francisco, CA 94102 -4682 South Slope Cooperative Telephone Company Davis, Brown, Koehn, Shors&Roberts, P.C. John C. Pietila 2500 The Financial Center 666 Walnut Des Moines, IA 50309 -3993 Southeastern Michigan Municipalities Neil J. Lehto 4035 Iverness Lane West Bloomfield, MI 48323 -1714 Southwest Suburban Cable Commission Moss&Barnett Brian T. Grogan 4800 Wells Fargo Center 90 South Seventh Street Minneapolis, MN 55402 -4129 Town of Spring Hope,NC PO BOX 87 118 W. Railroad St. Spring Hope, NC 27882 -0087 57 City of Springfield 840 Boonville Ave P.O. Box 8368 Springfield, MO 65801-8368 City of St. Charles 2 E. Main Street St. Charles, IL 60174 Mayor Chris Coleman 390 City Hall 15 West Kellogg Boulevard Saint Paul, MN 55102 City of Jackson do Alfred A.Nunes 33 Broadway Jackson, CA 95642 -2301 Town of Jamestown William G. Ragsdale, III PO Box 848 Jamestown,NC 27282 Jersey Access Group do Rich Desimone 500 Main Street Metuchen,NJ 08840 City of Kernersville do Curtis L. Swisher, Mayor 134 East Mountain Street Kernersville,NC 27284 City of Lake Forest do Scott C. Smith, City Attorney • Lake Forest City Hall 25550 Commercentre Drive, Suite 100 Lake Forest, CA 92630 58 Town of Lake Lure Don Mullen, Mayor 2948 Memorial Hwy Lake Lure,NC 28746 -0255 Town of Lake Mills James A. Heinz, Chairperson N7041 Faville Road Lake Mills, WI 53551 City of Lakewood c/o Lisa Novotny 5050 Clark Ave Lakewood, CA 90712 City of Lewisville Mayor Thomas J. Lawson PO Box 547 Lewisville, NC 27023 City of Lexington Mayor Richard L. Thomas 28 West Center Street Lexington,NC 27292 Los Angeles Cable Television Access Corp do Herb Isaacs, Corporate Secretary LA36 108 West 2nd Street Unit 108, Los Angeles, Ca 90012 Town of Madison Kenneth Y. Hawkins, Mayor 120 N Market St Madison,NC 27025 Bob Chemow City of Madison 215 Martin Luther King Jr. Blvd. Madison, WI 53710 -0002 59 Manhattan Community Access Corp c/o Manhattan Neighborhood Network Daniel Coughlin-Executive Director 537 West 59th Street, New York,NY 10019 Martha's Vineyard Plum TV do MacDara Bohan, General Manager 9 Main St. Vineyard Haven, MA 02568 City of Maxton Mayor Lillie McKoy 201 McCaskill Ave Maxton,NC 28364 Community Access Television Inc. 1126 West 17th Street Davenport, IA 52804 -3714 60 J' EXHIBIT A Federal Communications Commission FCC 06-180 Before the Federal Communications Commission Washington,D.C.20554 In the Matter of ) Implementation of Section 621(a)(1) of the Cable ) MB Docket No.05-311 Communications Policy Act of 1984 as amended ) by the Cable Television Consumer Protection and ) Competition Act of 1992 ) REPORT AND ORDER AND FURTHER NOTICE OF PROPOSED RULEMAKING Adopted: December 20,2006 Released: March 5,2007 Comment Date: [30 days after date of publication in the Federal Register] Reply Comment Date: [45 days after date of publication in the Federal Register] By the Commission: Chairman Martin,Commissioners Tate and McDowell issuing separate statements; Commissioners Copps and Adelstein dissenting and issuing separate statements. TABLE OF CONTENTS Paragraph I. INTRODUCTION 1 II. BACKGROUND 6 III. DISCUSSION 18 A. The Current Operation of the Franchising Process Unreasonably Interferes With Competitive Entry 19 B. The Commission Has Authority to Adopt Rules Pursuant to Section 621(a)(1) 53 C. Steps to Ensure that the Local Franchising Process Does Not Unreasonably Interfere with Competitive Cable Entry and Rapid Broadband Deployment 65 1. Time Limit.for Franchise Negotiations 66 2. Build-Out 82 3. Franchise Fees 94 4. PEG/Institutional Networks 110 5. Regulation of Mixed-Use Networks 121 D. Preemption of Local Laws,Regulations and Requirements 125 IV. FURTHER NOTICE OF PROPOSED RULEMAKING 139 V. PROCEDURAL MATTERS 144 VI. ORDERING CLAUSES 153 APPENDIX A—List of Commenters and Reply Commenters APPENDIX B—Rule Changes APPENDIX C—Initial Regulatory Flexibility Act Analysis APPENDIX D—Final Regulatory Flexibility Act Analysis Federal Communications Commission FCC 06-180 I. INTRODUCTION 1. In this Report and Order ("Order"), we adopt rules and provide guidance to implement Section 621(a)(1) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended(the "Communications Act"), which prohibits franchising authorities from unreasonably refusing to award competitive franchises for the provision of cable services.' We find that the current operation of the local franchising process in many jurisdictions constitutes an unreasonable barrier to entry that impedes the achievement of the interrelated federal goals of enhanced cable competition and accelerated broadband deployment.2 We further find that Commission action to address this problem is both authorized and necessary. Accordingly, we adopt measures to address a variety of means by which local franchising authorities, i.e., county-or municipal- level franchising authorities ("LFAs"), are unreasonably refusing to award competitive franchises. We anticipate that the rules and guidance we adopt today will facilitate and expedite entry of new cable competitors into the market for the delivery of video programming,3 and accelerate broadband deployment consistent with our statutory responsibilities. '47 U.S.C.§541(a)(1). 2 While there is a sufficient record before us to generally determine what constitutes an "unreasonable refusal to award an additional competitive franchise" at the local level under Section 621(a)(1), we do not have sufficient information to make such determinations with respect to franchising decisions where a state is involved, either by issuing franchises at the state level or enacting laws governing specific aspects of the franchising process. We therefore expressly limit our findings and regulations in this Order to actions or inactions at the local level where a state has not specifically circumscribed the LFA's authority. In light of the differences between the scope of franchises issued at the state level and those issued at the local level, we do not address the reasonableness of demands made by state level franchising authorities, such as Hawaii,which may need to be evaluated by different criteria than those applied to the demands of local franchising authorities. Additionally, what constitutes an unreasonable period of time for a state level franchising authority to take to review an application may differ from what constitutes an unreasonable period of time at the local level. Moreover,as discussed infra, many states have enacted comprehensive franchise reform laws designed to facilitate competitive entry. Some of these laws allow competitive entrants to obtain statewide franchises while others establish a comprehensive set of statewide parameters that cabin the discretion of LFAs. Compare TEx.UTIL. CODE ANN. §§ 66.001-66.017 with VA. CODE ANN. §§ 15.2-2108.19 et seq. In light of the fact that many of these laws have only been in effect for a short period of'time,and we do not have an adequate record from those relatively few states that have had statewide franchising for a longer period of time to draw general conclusions with respect to the operation of the franchising process where there is state involvement,we lack a sufficient record to evaluate whether and how such state laws may lead to unreasonable refusals to award additional competitive franchises. As a result, our Order today only addresses decisions made by county-or municipal-level franchising authorities. See U.S. Cellular Corp. v.FCC,254 F.3d 78, 86 (D.C. Cir. 2001) ("agencies need not address all problems in one fell swoop") (citations and internal quotation marks omitted);Personal Watercraft Industry Assoc. v.Dept. of Commerce,48 F.3d 540,544(D.C.Cir. 1995)("An agency does not have to'make progress on every front before it can make progress on any front.')(quoting United States v.Edge Broadcasting Co.,509 U.S.418,434(1993));National Association of Broadcasters v.FCC, 740 F.2d 1190, 1207(D.C.Cir. 1984)("[A]gencies,while entitled to less deference than Congress,nonetheless need not deal in one fell swoop with the entire breadth of a novel development;instead,`reform may take place one step at a time, addressing itself to the phase of the problem which seems most acute to the [regulatory] mind."') (citations and internal quotation marks omitted, alteration in original). Moreover, it does not address any aspect of an LFA's decision-making to the extent that such aspect is specifically addressed by state law. For example, the state of Massachusetts provides LFAs with 12 months from the date of their decision to begin the licensing process to approve or deny a franchise application. 207 Mass. Code Regs. 3.02(2006). These laws are not addressed by this decision. Consequently, unless otherwise stated, references herein to "the franchising process" or "franchising" refer solely to processes controlled by county-or municipal-level franchising authorities,including but not limited to the ultimate decision to award a franchise. 3 References throughout this Order to"video programming"or"video services"are intended to mean cable services. 2 4 Federal Communications Commission FCC 06-180 2. New competitors are entering markets for the delivery of services historically offered by monopolists: traditional phone companies are primed to enter the cable market, while traditional cable companies are competing in the telephony market. Ultimately,both types of companies are projected to offer customers a "triple play" of voice, high-speed Internet access, and video services over their respective networks. We believe this competition for delivery of bundled services will benefit consumers by driving down prices and improving the quality of service offerings. We are concerned, however,that traditional phone companies seeking to enter the video market face unreasonable regulatory obstacles, to the detriment of competition generally and cable subscribers in particular. 3. The Communications Act sets forth the basic rules concerning what franchising authorities may and may not do in evaluating applications for competitive franchises. Despite the parameters established by the Communications Act, however, operation of the franchising process has proven far more complex and time consuming than it should be, particularly with respect to facilities- based telecommunications and broadband providers that already have access to rights-of-way. New entrants have demonstrated that they are willing and able to upgrade their networks to provide video services,but the current operation of the franchising process at the local level unreasonably delays and,in some cases, derails these efforts due to LFAs' unreasonable demands on competitive applicants. These delays discourage investment in the fiber-based infrastructure necessary for the provision of advanced broadband services,because franchise applicants do not have the promise of revenues from video services. to offset the costs of such deployment. Thus, the current operation of the franchising process often not only contravenes the statutory imperative to foster competition in the multichannel video programming distribution ("MVPD") market, but also defeats the congressional goal of encouraging broadband deployment. 4. In light of the problems with the current operation of the franchising process,we believe that it is now appropriate for the Commission to exercise its authority and take steps to prevent LFAs from unreasonably refusing to award competitive franchises. We have broad rulemaking authority to implement the provisions of the Communications Act,including Title VI generally and Section 621(a)(1) in particular. In addition, Section 706 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 directs the Commission to encourage broadband deployment by removing barriers to infrastructure investment,and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit has held that the Commission may fashion its rules to fulfill the goals of Section 706.4 5. To eliminate the unreasonable barriers to entry into the cable market, and to encourage investment in broadband facilities,we: (1)fmd that an LFA's failure to issue a decision on a competitive application within the time frames specified herein constitutes an unreasonable refusal to award a competitive franchise within the meaning of Section 621(a)(1); (2) fmd that an LFA's refusal to grant a competitive franchise because of an applicant's unwillingness to agree to unreasonable build-out mandates constitutes an unreasonable refusal to award a competitive franchise within the meaning of Section 621(a)(1); (3) fmd that unless certain specified costs, fees, and other compensation required by LFAs are counted toward the statutory 5 percent cap on franchise fees,demanding them could result in an unreasonable refusal to award a competitive franchise; (4)find that it would be an unreasonable refusal to award a competitive franchise if the LFA denied an application based upon a new entrant's refusal to undertake certain obligations relating to public, educational, and government ("PEG") and institutional networks ("I-Nets") and (5) find that it is unreasonable under Section 621(a)(1) for an LFA to refuse to grant a franchise based on issues related to non-cable services or facilities. Furthermore, we preempt local laws, regulations, and requirements, including level-playing-field provisions, to the extent they permit LFAs to impose greater restrictions on market entry than the rules adopted herein. We also adopt 4 See USTA v.FCC,359 F.3d 554,579-80(D.C.Cir.2004). 3 Federal Communications Commission FCC 06-180 a Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking ("FNPRM") seeking comment on how our findings in this Order should affect existing franchisees. In addition, the FNPRM asks for comment on local consumer protection and customer service standards as applied to new entrants. II. BACKGROUND 6. Section 621. Any new entrant seeking to offer "cable service"5 as a "cable operators6 becomes subject to the requirements of Title VI. Section 621 of Title VI sets forth general cable franchise requirements. Subsection(b)(1)of Section 621 prohibits a cable operator from providing cable service in a particular area without first obtaining a cable franchise,' and subsection (a)(1) grants to franchising authorities the power to award such franchises.s 7. The initial purpose of Section 621(a)(1),which was added to the Communications Act by the Cable Communications Policy Act of 1984(the"1984 Cable Act"),9 was to delineate the role of LFAs in the franchising process.10 As originally enacted, Section 621(a)(1) simply stated that"[a] franchising authority may award, in accordance with the provisions of this title, 1 or more franchises within its jurisdiction.sll A few years later, however, the Commission prepared a report to Congress on the cable industry pursuant to the requirements of the 1984 Cable Act.12 In that Report,the Commission concluded 5 Section 602(6) of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. §522(6) (defining "cable service" as "(A)the one-way transmission to subscribers of (i)video programming, or (ii)other programming service, and (B)subscriber interaction, if any, which is required for the selection or use of such video programming or other programming service"). 6 Section 602(5)of the Communications Act,47 U.S.C. § 522(5)(defining"cable operator"as"any person or group of persons(A)who provides cable service over a cable system and directly or through one or more affiliates owns a significant interest in a cable system,or(B)who otherwise controls or is responsible for,through any arrangement, the management and operation of such a cable system"). '47 U.S.C. §541(b)(1)("Except to the extent provided in paragraph(2)and subsection(f),a cable operator may not provide cable service without a franchise."). 8 47 U.S.C. §541(a)(1)(stating that"[a]franchising authority may award,in accordance with the provisions of this title, 1 or more franchises within its jurisdiction"). A"franchising authority"is defined to mean"any governmental entity empowered by Federal,State,or local law to grant a franchise." Section 602(10)of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. §522(10). As noted above,references herein to"local franchising authorities"or"LFAs"mean only the county or municipal governmental entities empowered to grant franchises. 9 Cable Communications Policy Act of 1984,Pub.L No.98-549,98 Stat.2779. 1°See, e.g.,H.R.REP.No. 98-934, at 19(1984)("[The 1984 Cable Act] establishes a national policy that clarifies the current system of local, state and federal regulation of cable television. This policy continues reliance on the local franchising process as the primary means of cable television regulation, while defining and limiting the authority that a franchising authority may exercise through the franchise process. ... [This legislation]will preserve the critical role of municipal governments in the franchise process, while providing appropriate deregulation in certain respects to the provision of cable service.");id at 24("It is the Committee's intent that the franchise process take place at the local level where city officials have the best understanding of local communications needs and can require cable operators to tailor the cable system to meet those needs. However, if that process is to further the purposes of this legislation, the provisions of these franchises, and the authority of the municipal governments to enforce these provisions, must be based on certain important uniform federal standards that are not continually altered by Federal,state and local regulation."). 11 Cable Communications Policy Act of 1984,Pub.L.No.98-549,98 Stat.2779, §621 (1984). 12 See generally Competition, Rate Deregulation and the Commission's Policies Relating to the Provision of Cable Television Service,5 FCC Rcd 4962(1990)("Report"). 4 Federal Communications Commission FCC 06-180 that in order"[t]o encourage more robust competition in the local video marketplace,the Congress should ... forbid local franchising authorities from unreasonably denying a franchise to potential competitors who are ready and able to provide service."13 8. In response,14 Congress revised Section 621(a)(1) through the Cable Television Consumer Protection and Competition Act of 1992 (the "1992 Cable Act")15 to read as follows: "A franchising authority may award, in accordance with the provisions of this title, 1 or more franchises within its jurisdiction; except that a franchising authority may not grant an exclusive franchise and may not unreasonably refuse to award an additional competitive franchise.s16 In the Conference Report on the legislation,Congress found that competition in the cable industry was sorely lacking: For a variety of reasons,including local franchising requirements and the extraordinary expense of constructing more than one cable television system to serve a particular geographic area, most cable television subscribers have no opportunity to select between competing cable systems. Without the presence of another multichannel video programming distributor,a cable system faces no local competition. The result is undue market power for the cable operator as compared to that of consumers and video programmers.' To address this problem, Congress abridged local,government authority over the franchising process to promote greater cable competition: Based on the evidence in the record taken as a whole,it is clear that there are benefits from competition between two cable systems. Thus, the Committee believes that local franchising authorities should be encouraged to award second franchises. Accordingly, [the 1992 Cable Act] as reported, prohibits local franchising authorities from unreasonably refusing to grant second franchises.'$ 13 Id.at 4974; see also id.at 5012("This Commission is convinced that the most effective method of promoting the interests of viewers or consumers is through the free play of competitive market forces."). The Report also recommended that Congress "prohibit franchising rules whose intent or effect is to create unreasonable barriers to the entry of potential competing multichannel video providers,""limit local franchising requirements to appropriate governmental interests (e.g., public health and safety, repair and good condition of public rights-of-way, and the posting of an appropriate construction bond),"and"permit competitors to enter a market pursuant to an initial,time- limited suspension of any`universal[build-out]' obligation." Id. 14 See H.R.REP.No. 102-628,at 47(1992) ("The Commission recommended that Congress, in order to encourage more robust competition in the local video marketplace, prevent local franchising authorities from unreasonably denying a franchise to potential competitors who are ready and able to provide service."). The Commission has previously recognized that "Congress incorporated the Commission's recommendations in the 1992 Cable Act by amending §621(a)(1) of the Communications Act." Implementation of Section 19 of the Cable Television Consumer Protection and Competition Act of 1992 (Annual Assessment of the Status of Competition in the Market for the Delivery of Video Programming),9 FCC Rcd 7442,7469(1994). 15 Cable Television Consumer Protection and Competition Act of 1992,Pub.L.No. 102-385, 106 Stat. 1460. 16 47 U.S.C.§541(a)(1)(emphasis added). "H.R.CoNF.REP.No. 102-862,at 1231 (1992). 18 S.REP.No. 102-92,at 47(1991). 5 Federal Communications Commission FCC 06-180 As revised, Section 621(a)(1) establishes a clear, federal-level limitation on the authority of LFAs in the franchising process in order to "promote the availability to the public of a diversity of views and information through cable television and other video distribution media,"and to"rely on the marketplace, to the maximum extent feasible, to achieve that availability.s19 Congress further recognized that increased competition in the video programming industry would curb excessive rate increases and enhance customer service, two areas in particular which Congress found had deteriorated because of the monopoly power of cable operators brought about,at least in part,by the local franchising process.20 9. In 1992, Congress also revised Section 621(a)(1) to provide that"[a]ny applicant whose application for a second franchise has been denied by a final decision of the franchising authority may appeal such final decision pursuant to the provisions of section 635.s21 Section 635, in turn, states that "[a]ny cable operator adversely affected by any fmal determination made by a franchising authority under section 621(a)(1) ... may commence an action within 120 days after receiving notice of such determination" in federal court or a state court of general jurisdiction.22 Congress did not, however, provide an explicit judicial remedy for other forms of unreasonable refusals to award competitive franchises, such as an LFA's refusal to act on a pending franchise application within a reasonable time period. 10. The Local Franchising NPRM. Notwithstanding the limitation imposed on LFAs by Section 621(a)(1), prior to commencement of this proceeding, the Commission had seen indications that the current operation of the franchising process still serves as an unreasonable barrier to entry23 for potential new cable entrants into the MVPD market.24 In November 2005, the Commission issued a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking ("Local Franchising NPRM") to determine whether LFAs are unreasonably refusing to award competitive franchises and thereby impeding achievement of the statute's goals of increasing competition in the delivery of video programming and accelerating broadband deployment. 11. The Commission sought comment on the current environment in which new cable entrants attempt to obtain competitive cable franchises. For example,the Commission requested input on 19 Id 20 S.REP.No. 102-92,at 9(quoting members of the cable industry who acknowledged that"because the franchise limits the customers to a single provider in the market, other `customer-oriented' intangibles relating to the expectation of future patronage do not exist for a cable system. There is a goodwill in a monopoly. Customers return,not because of any sense of satisfaction with the monopolist,but rather because they have no other choices"); see also id at 3-9, 13-14,20-21. 21 47 U.S.C. §541(a)(1). 22 47 U.S.C.§555(a). 23 See Implementation of Section 621(a)(1) of the Cable Communications Policy Act of 1984 as amended by the Cable Television Consumer Protection and Competition Act of 1992, 20 FCC Red 18581, 18584 (2005) ("Local Franchising NPRM")(citing comments of Alcatel,BellSouth,Broadcast Service Providers Assoc.,and Consumers for Cable Choice,filed in MB Docket No.05-255). 24 We refer herein to "new entrants," "new cable entrants," and "new cable competitors" interchangeably. Specifically, we intend these terms to describe entities that opt to offer "cable service" over a "cable system" utilizing public rights-of-way, and thus are uefined under the Communications Act as"cable operator[s]"that must obtain a franchise. Although we recognize that there are numerous other ways to enter the MVPD market (e.g., direct broadcast satellite ("DBS"), wireless cable, private cable), our actions in this proceeding relate to our authority under Section 621(a)(1)of the Communications Act,and thus are limited to competitive entrants seeking to obtain cable franchises. • 6 II' Federal Communications Commission FCC 06-180 • the number of: (a) LFAs in the United States; (b)competitive franchise applications filed to date;' and (c) ongoing franchise negotiations.26 To determine whether the current operation of the franchising process discourages competition and broadband deployment, the Commission also sought information regarding,among other things: • how much time, on average, elapses between the date a franchise application is filed and the date an LFA acts on the application,and during that period,how much time is spent in active negotiations;27 • whether to establish a maximum time frame for an LFA to act on an application for a competitive franchise;28 • whether"level-playing-field"mandates, which impose on new entrants terms and conditions identical to those in the incumbent cable operator's franchise,constitute unreasonable bathers to entry;29 • whether build-out requirements (i.e., requirements that a franchisee deploy cable service to parts or all of the franchise area within a specified period of time) are creating unreasonable bathers to competitive entry;36 • specific examples of any monetary or in-kind LFA demands unrelated to cable services that could be adversely affecting new entrants'ability to obtain franchises;31 and • whether current procedures or requirements are appropriate for any cable operator, including incumbent cable operators.32 12. In the Local Franchising NPRM, we tentatively concluded that Section 621(a)(1) empowers the Commission to adopt rules to ensure that the franchising process does not unduly interfere with the ability of potential competitors to provide video programming to consumers 33 Accordingly, the Commission sought comment on how it could best remedy any problems with the current franchising process.34 25 Local Franchising NPRM,20 FCC Rcd at 18588. 26 Id. 27 Id. 28Id at 18591. 29Id.at 18588. 31 Id.at 18592. 31 Id. See also Comments of Verizon, MB Docket No.05-255 at 12 (filed Sept. 19,2005)(arguing that"[m]any local franchising authorities unfortunately view the franchising process as an opportunity to garner from a potential new video entrant concessions that are in no way related to video services or to the rationales for requiring franchises"). See Appendix A for a list of all commenters and reply commenters. 32 Local Franchising NPRM,20 FCC Rcd at 18592. 33 Id.at 18590. • 34Id at 18581. 7 Federal Communications Commission FCC 06-180 13. The Commission also asked whether Section 706 provides a basis for the Commission to address barriers faced by would-be entrants to the video market.35 Section 706 directs the Commission to encourage broadband deployment by utilizing"measures that promote competition ... or other regulating methods that remove barriers to infrastructure investment.s36 Competitive entrants in the video market are, in large part, deploying new fiber-based facilities that allow companies to offer the "triple play" of voice, data, and video services. New entrants' video offerings thus directly affect their roll-out of new broadband services. Revenues from cable services are, in fact, a driver for broadband deployment. In light of that relationship, the Commission sought comment on whether it could take remedial action pursuant to Section 706.37 14. The Franchising Process. The record in this proceeding demonstrates that the franchising process differs significantly from locality to locality. In most states, franchising is conducted at the local level, affording counties and municipalities broad discretion in deciding whether to grant a franchise.38 Some counties and municipalities have cable ordinances that govern the structure of negotiations, while others may proceed on an applicant-by-applicant basis.39 Where franchising negotiations are focused at the local level, some LFAs create formal or informal consortia to pool their resources and expedite competitive entry.40 15. To provide video services over a geographic area that encompasses more than one LFA,a prospective entrant must become familiar with all applicable regulations. This is a time-consuming and expensive process that has a chilling effect on competitors 41 Verizon estimates, for example,that it will need 2,500-3,000 franchises in order to provide video services throughout its service area.4 AT&T states 35 Id at 18590. 36 Section 706 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996,47 U.S.C.§ 157 nt. 37 See USTA v. FCC, 359 F.3d 554, 580, 583 (D.C. Cir. 2004). See also USTelecom Comments at 15; TIA Comments at 16-17. 38 See, e.g.,MD.ANN.CODE art.23A§2(b)(13);OR.CONST.ART.I, § 21 (2005);COLD.REV.STAT.ANN. §30-35- 201 (West 2005). We also note that several states have adopted statutes governing the franchising process. For example, some states require public hearings or special elections. See League of Minnesota Cities ("LMC") Comments at 6-8, South Slope Comments at 6. Other states have laws limiting the range of issues that can be negotiated in a franchise. See Cablevision Comments at 12, LMC Comments at 15. As we discuss below, certain states have adopted new franchising laws that allow providers to apply for franchises through state franchising authorities("SFAs"),and we note that lawmakers in those states adopted these new franchising laws to address the needs of the current marketplace. Furthermore,certain states have traditionally considered franchise applications at the state level. See, e.g.,HAW. REV. STAT. § 440G-4(2006),CONN.GEN. STAT.ANN. § 16-331 (West 2006), VT. STAT.ANN.tit.30,§502(2006). The record indicates that state level franchising may provide a practical solution to the problems that facilities-based entrants face when seeking to provide competitive services on a broader basis than county or municipal boundaries and seek to provide service in a significant number of franchise areas. See, e.g., AT&T Reply at 21,37,NTCA Comments at 10. 39 See, e.g., Mobile, Ala. Comments at 2 (discussing its Master Cable Services Regulatory Ordinance that was created to ensure all potential entrants were treated in a uniform manner);Ontario,Cal.Comments at 5-6(discussing draft master ordinance that will ensure a"fair and equitable application process"for all new entrants). 4o See, e.g.,MO-NATOA Comments at 8("some localities work together to franchise and manage rights-of-way"); MHRC Comments at 1 (MHRC is a consolidated regulatory authority for six Oregon localities). 41 See, e.g.,Verizon Comments at 27,Att.A,para. 10,59-75;BellSouth Comments at 2, 11; Letter from Jeffrey S. Laming, Associate General Counsel, USTelecom, to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, Federal Communications Commission at 17-18(July 28,2006)("USTelecom Ex Parte"). 42 Verizon Comments at 27,Att.A,para. 10. 8 Federal Communications Commission FCC 06-180 that its Project Lightspeed deployment is projected to cover a geographic area that would encompass as many as 2,000 local franchise areas.43 BellSouth estimates that there are approximately 1,500 LFAs within its service area.44 Qwest's in-region territory covers a potential 5,389 LFAs.45 While other companies are also considering competitive entry,46 these estimates amply demonstrate the regulatory burden faced by competitors that seek to enter the market on a wide scale,a burden that is amplified when individual LFAs unreasonably refuse to grant competitive franchises. 16. A few states and municipalities recently have recognized the need for reform and have established expedited franchising processes for new entrants. Although these processes also vary greatly and thus are of limited help to new cable providers seeking to quickly enter the marketplace on a regional basis,they do provide more uniformity in the franchising process on an intrastate basis. These state level reforms appear to offer promise in assisting new entrants to more quickly begin offering consumers a competitive choice among cable providers. In 2005, the Texas legislature designated the Texas Public Utility Commission ("PUC") as the franchising authority for state-issued franchises, and required the PUC to issue a franchise within 17 business days after receipt of a completed application from an eligible applicant.47 In 2006, Indiana, Kansas, South Carolina, New Jersey, North Carolina, and California also passed legislation to streamline the franchising process by providing for expedited, state level grants of franchises 48 Virginia, by contrast, did not establish statewide franchises but mandated uniform time frames for negotiations,public hearings,and ultimate franchise approval at the local level. In particular,a "certificated provider of telecommunications service"with existing authority to use public rights-of-way is authorized to provide video service within 75 days of filing a request to negotiate with each individual LFA.49 Similarly,Michigan recently enacted legislation that streamlines the franchise application process, establishes a 30-day timeframe within which an LFA must make a decision, and eliminates build-out requirements.so 17. In some states, however, franchise reform efforts launched in recent months have failed. For example, in Florida, bills that would have allowed competitive providers to enter the market with a permit from the Office of the Secretary of State,and contained no build-out or service delivery schedules, died in committee.51 In Louisiana, the Governor vetoed a bill that would have created a state franchise 43 AT&T Comments at 17. 44 BellSouth Comments at 11. 45 Qwest Comments at 14. 46 See BSPA Comments at 1-2; Cavalier Telephone Comments at 2; South Slope Comments at 2; Cincinnati Bell Comments at 1; Hawaiian Telcom Comments at 1; Minnesota Telecom Alliance Comments at 2. In addition to video services,many of these new entrants also intend to provide broadband services. See, e.g.,Verizon Comments at i;BSPA Comments at 1;Cavalier Telephone Comments at 2. 47 TEX.UTIL.CODE ANN. §§ 66.001,66.003. Holders of these franchises are required to pay franchise fees,comply with customer service standards,and provide the capacity for PEG access channels that a municipality has activated under the incumbent cable operator's franchise agreement. Id at §§ 66.005, 66.006, 66.008, 66.009, 66.014. Franchisees are not required to comply with any build-out requirements, but they are prohibited from denying service to any area based on the income level of that area. Id.at§66.007. 48 IND. CODE§ 8-1-34-16 (2006); 2006 Kan. Sess. Laws 93 (codified at K . STAT.ANN. § 17-1902); S.C. CODE ANN. § 58-12-310 et seq. (2006);Assemb.,No. 804, 212th Leg. (N.J.2006); 2006 N.C. Sessions Laws 151 (to be codified 1/1/2007 at N.C.GEN STAT.ANN.§66-351 (West 2006);CAL.PUB.UTIL.CODE§401,et seq.;. 49 VA.CODE ANN.§ 15.2-2108.1:1 et seq. 5°2006 Mich.Pub.Acts 480. 51 S 1984,2006 Sess.(Fla.2006),.HB 1199,2006 Sess.(Fla.2006). 9 Federal Communications Commission FCC 06-180 structure, provided for automatic grant of an application 45 days after filing, and contained no build-out requirements.52 In Maine, a bill that would have replaced municipal franchises with state franchises was withdrawn.53 Finally, a Missouri bill that would have given the Public Service Commission the authority to grant franchises and would have prohibited local franchising died in committee.54 III. DISCUSSION 18. Based on the voluminous record in this proceeding, which includes comments filed by new entrants, incumbent cable operators, LFAs, consumer groups, and others, we conclude that the current operation of the franchising process can constitute an unreasonable barrier to entry for potential cable competitors, and thus justifies Commission action. We find that we have authority under Section 621(a)(1)to address this problem by establishing limits on LFAs' ability to delay, condition,or otherwise "unreasonably refuse to award" competitive franchises. We find that we also have the authority to consider the goals of Section 706 in addressing this problem under Section 621(a)(1). We believe that, absent Commission action, deployment of competitive video services by new cable entrants will continue to be unreasonably delayed or, at worst, derailed. Accordingly, we adopt incremental measures directed to LFA-controlled franchising processes, as described in detail below. We anticipate that the rules and guidance we adopt today will facilitate and expedite entry of new cable competitors into the market for the delivery of multichannel video programming and thus encourage broadband deployment. A. The Current Operation of the Franchising Process Unreasonably Interferes With Competitive Entry 19. Most communities in the United States lack cable competition,which would reduce cable rates and increase innovation and quality of service.55 Although LFAs adduced evidence that they have granted some competitive franchises,5 and competitors acknowledge that they have obtained some franchises,57 the record includes only a few hundred examples of competitive franchises, many of which were obtained after months of unnecessary delay. In the vast majority of communities,cable competition simply does not exist. 52 HB 699,2006 Reg.Sess.(La.2006). 53 LR 2800,2006 Leg.,2d.Reg.Sess.(Me.2005). 54 SB 816,2006 Sess.(Mo.2006). 55 See Local Franchising NPRM,20 FCC Rcd at 18588. 56 For example, in Michigan, a number of LFAs have granted competitive franchises to local telecommunications companies. See Ada Township, et al., Comments at 18-26. Vermont has granted franchises to competitive operators in Burlington,Newport,Berlin,Duxbury,Stowe,and Moretown.VPSB Comments at 5. Mt.Hood Cable Regulatory Commission ("MHRC"), a consolidated regulatory authority for six Oregon localities, has negotiated franchises with cable overbuilders, although those companies ultimately were unable to deploy service. MHRC Comments at 20-21. Similarly, the City of Los Angeles has granted two competitive franchises,but each of the competitors went out of business shortly after negotiating the franchise. City of Los Angeles Comments at 15;see also San Diego County,Cal.Comments at 4. Miami-Dade has granted 11 franchises to six providers,and currently is considering the application of another potential entrant. Miami-Dade Comments at 1-2. New Jersey has granted five competitive franchises, but only two ultimately provided service to customers. NJBPU Comments at 3. See also, e.g., AT&T Reply Comments at 11-13; Chicago, Ill. Comments at 2-3; City of Charlotte and Mecklenburg County,N.C.Comments at 12-13;Henderson,Nev.Comments at 5. 57 For example, Verizon has obtained franchises covering approximately 200 franchise areas. See http://newscenter.verizon.com/press-releases/verizon/2006/verizon-to-bring-westem.html. 10 Federal Communications Commission FCC 06-180 20. The dearth of competition is due,at least in part,to the franchising process.58 The record demonstrates that the current operation of the franchising process unreasonably prevents or, at a minimum, unduly delays potential cable competitors from entering the MVPD market.59 Numerous commenters have adduced evidence that the current operation of the franchising process constitutes an unreasonable barrier to entry. Regulatory restrictions and conditions on entry shield incumbents from competition and are associated with various economic inefficiencies, such as reduced innovation and distorted consumer choices.60 We recognize that some LFAs have made reasonable efforts to facilitate competitive entry into the video programming market. We also recognize that recent state level reforms have the potential to streamline the process to a noteworthy degree. We find, though, that the current operation of the local franchising process often is a roadblock to achievement of the statutory goals of enhancing cable competition and broadband deployment. 21. Commenters have identified six factors that stand in the way of competitive entry. They are: (1) unreasonable delays by LFAs in acting on franchise applications; (2) unreasonable build-out requirements imposed by LFAs; (3) LFA demands unrelated to the franchising process; (4) confusion concerning the meaning and scope of franchise fee obligations; (5)unreasonable LFA demands for PEG channel capacity and construction of I-Nets; and (6) level-playing-field requirements set by LFAs. We address each factor below. 22. LFA Delays in Acting on Franchise Applications. The record demonstrates that unreasonable delays in the franchising process have obstructed and, in some cases, completely derailed attempts to deploy competitive video services. Many new entrants have been subjected to lengthy,costly, drawn-out negotiations that, in many cases, are still ongoing. The FTTH Council cited a report by an investment firm that, on average, the franchising process, as it currently operates, delays entry by 8-16 months.61 The record generally supports that estimate. For example, Verizon had 113 franchise negotiations underway as of the end of March 2005. By the end of March 2006, LFAs had granted only 10 of those franchises. In other words,more than 90%of the negotiations were not completed within one year.62 Verizon noted that delays are often caused by mandatory waiting periods.63 BellSouth explained that negotiations took an average of 10 months for each df its 20 cable franchise agreements,64 and that in one case,the negotiations took nearly three years 65 AT&T claims that anti-competitive conditions, such as level-playing-field constraints and LFA.demands regarding build-out, not only delay entry but can prevent it altogether.66 BellSouth notes that absent such demands (in Georgia, for example), the 58 Qwest Reply at 13-14;USTelecom Ex Parte at 17-18. 59 Verizon Comments at 31-34;AT&T Reply at 22-23;BellSouth Comments at 10;Cavalier Telephone Comments at 1. See also Mercatus Center Comments at 39-43. 6°See, e.g., DOJ Ex Parte at 3 61 FTTH Council Comments at 26. 62 Verizon Reply Comments at 35. These figures do not include Verizon's franchise applications in Texas,which now authorizes statewide franchises. See supra para. 16. 63 Verizon Comments at 31-32. 64 BellSouth Comments at 2. 65 BellSouth Comments at 11. BellSouth's franchise in Cobb County,Ga.took approximately 32 months to obtain; its franchises in Davie, Fla. and Orange County,Fla. took 29 and 28 months, respectively. BellSouth Comments Decl.of Thompson T.Rawls,II,Exh.A. 66 AT&T Reply at 6. 11 Federal Communications Commission FCC 06-180 company's applications were granted quickly.67 Most of Ameritech's franchise negotiations likewise took a number of years 68 New entrants other than the large incumbent local exchange carriers("LECs")69 also have experienced delays in the franchising process. NTCA provided an example of a small, competitive ]PTV provider that is in ongoing negotiations that began more than one year ago.70 23. These delays are particularly unreasonable when, as is often the case, the applicant already has access to rights-of-way. One of the primary justifications for cable franchising is the LFA's need to regulate and receive compensation for the use of public rights-of-way.71 However, when considering a franchise application from an entity that already has rights-of-way access, such as an incumbent LEC, an LFA need not and should not devote substantial attention to issues of rights-of-way management.72 Moreover, in obtaining a certificate for public convenience and necessity from a state, a facilities-based provider generally has demonstrated its legal, technical, and financial fitness to be a provider of telecommunications services. Thus, an LFA need not spend a significant amount of time considering the fitness of such applicants to access public rights-of-way. 24. Delays in acting on franchise applications are especially onerous because franchise applications are rarely denied outright,73 which would enable applicants to seek judicial review under Section 635.74 Rather, negotiations are often drawn out over an extended period of time.75 As a result, 67 BellSouth Reply at 7. 68 AT&T Reply at 24. 69 The term "local exchange carrier" means any person that is engaged in the provision of telephone exchange service or exchange access. 47 U.S.C.§ 153(26). For the purposes of Section 251 of the Communications Act,"the term `incumbent local exchange carrier' means, with respect to an area, the local exchange carrier that(A)on the date of enactment of the Telecommunications Act of 1996,provided telephone exchange service in such area; and (B)(i)on such date of enactment,was deemed to be a member of the exchange carrier association...;or(B)(ii)is a person or entity that,on or after such date of enactment,became a successor or assign of a member[of the exchange carrier association]." 47 U.S.C. §251(h)(1). A competitive LEC is any LEC other than an incumbent LEC. A LEC will be treated as an ILEC if "(A) such carrier occupies a position in the market for telephone exchange service within an area that is comparable to the position occupied by a carrier described in paragraph[251(h)](1); (B)such carrier has substantially replaced an incumbent local exchange carrier described in paragraph[251(h)](1); and(C) such treatment is consistent with the public interest, convenience, and necessity and the purposes of this section." 47 U.S.C. §251(h)(2). 70 NTCA Comments at 4, 10. 71 We note that certain franchising authorities may have existing authority to regulate LECs through state and local rights-of-way statutes and ordinances. 72 Recognizing this distinction, some states have enacted or proposed streamlined franchising procedures specifically tailored to entities with existing access to public rights-of-way. See, e.g.,VIRGINIA CODE ANN. § 15.2- 2108.1:1 et seq.); HF-2647, 2006 Sess. (Iowa 2006) (this proposed legislation would grant franchises to all telephone providers authorized to use the right-of-way without any application or negotiation requirement). See also South Slope Comments at 11 (duplicative local franchising requirements imposed on a competitor with existing authority to occupy the rights-of-way are unjustified and constitute an unreasonable barrier to competitive video entry). 73 See Northwest Suburbs Cable Communications Commission Comments at 5-6 (rare instance of competitive franchise denial). 74 See 47 U.S.C. §§541(a)(1),555(a). 75 See Verizon Comments at 30-34; Verizon Reply Comments at 2, 34-37; AT&T Reply Comments at 24;NTCA Comments at 4, 10. 12 Federal Communications Commission FCC 06-180 the record shows that numerous new entrants have accepted franchise terms they considered unreasonable in order to avoid further delay.76 Others have filed lawsuits seeking a court order compelling the LFA to act, which entails additional delay, legal uncertainty, and great expense.77 Alternatively, some prospective entrants have walked away from unduly prolonged negotiations.78 Moreover, delays provide the incumbent cable operator the opportunity to launch targeted marketing campaigns before the competitor's rollout,thus undermining a competitor's prospects for success.79 25. Despite this evidence, incumbent cable operators and LFAs nevertheless assert that new entrants can obtain and are obtaining franchises in a timely fashion,80 and that delays are largely due to unreasonable behavior on the part of franchise applicants, not LFAs.81 For example, Minnesota LFAs claim that they can grant a franchise in as little as eight weeks.82 The record, however, shows that expeditious grants of competitive franchises are atypical. Most LFAs lack any temporal limits for 76 See, e.g., USTelecom Ex Parte at 20(Grand Rapids,Minnesota insisted that Paul Bunyan Telephone Cooperative provide fiber connections to every municipal building in the City, including a water treatment plant); Qwest Ex Parte at 7 (initially agreed to mandatory build-out provisions in certain situations); BellSouth Comments at 15-16 (in Dekalb County, Georgia, BellSouth makes PEG payments and I-Net support payments that drive total fees significantly above 5 percent of gross revenue). 77 For example, in Maryland, Verizon filed suit against Montgomery County, seeking to invalidate some of the County's franchise rules, and requesting that the County be required to negotiate a franchise agreement, after the parties unsuccessfully attempted to negotiate a franchise beginning in May 2005. See Complaint, Verizon Maryland, Inc. v. Montgomery County, Md., No. 06-01663-MJG (N.D. Md. June 29, 2006). The court denied • Verizon's Motion for Preliminary Injunction in August, and ordered the parties to mediation. See Verizon Maryland,Inc.v.Montgomery County,Md.,Order,No.06-01663-MJG(N.D.Md.August 8,2006). Since then,the parties have negotiated a franchise agreement and the County held a public hearing on the draft franchise agreement. See Press Release, Montgomery County, Md., County Negotiates Cable Franchise Agreement with Verizon; Agreement Resolves Litigation, Provides Increased Competition for Cable Service (Sept. 13, 2006) available at htto://www.montgomervcountvmd.gov/apps/News/press/PR details.asp?PrID=2582. The County Council granted the negotiated franchise on November 28,2006. Neil Adler,Montgomery officials approve Verizon cable franchise, WASHINGTON BUSINESS JOURNAL, Nov. 28, 2006, available at http://washington.bizjournals.com/ washington/stories/2006/11/27/dai1y23.html. Qwest's experience with the City of Colorado Springs, Colorado is a particularly onerous example. See Letter from Melissa E.Newman,Vice President,Federal Regulatory,Qwest,to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, Federal Communications Commission (June 13, 2006), Letter from Kenneth L. Fellman, Counsel to Colorado Springs, Colorado, to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, Federal Communications Commission(July 26,2006). The city charter in Colorado Springs requires that a franchise agreement be approved by voters rather than a franchising authority. Despite the fact that the Communications Act and federal case law deem this approach unlawful, the Colorado Springs City Counsel would not grant a franchise absent a vote, and invited Qwest to file a"friendly lawsuit"(presumably at Qwest's expense)to invalidate that provision of the city charter. 47 U.S.C. §§ 522(10), 541, Qwest Broadband Services, Inc. v. City of Boulder, 151 F.Supp.2d 1236(D. Colo. 2001), Letter from Melissa E. Newman, Vice President, Federal Regulatory, Qwest, to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary,Federal Communications Commission at 2(June 13,2006). 78 See Qwest Comments at 9. 79 See, e.g.,South Slope Comments at 7. 80 Cablevision Reply at 5; Orange County Comments at 5; Palm Beach County Comments at 3. See Comcast Comments at 8-9. 81 Comcast Comments at 16; Cablevision Reply at 2. The incumbent cable operators accuse Verizon of making unreasonable demands through its model franchise. Verizon asserts that it submits a model franchise to begin negotiations because uniformity is necessary for its nationwide service deployment. Verizon Reply at 40. Verizon states that it is willing to negotiate and tailor the model franchise to each locality's needs. Id 82 LMC Comments at 18. 13 v Federal Communications Commission FCC 06-180 consideration of franchise applications, and of those that have such limits, many set forth lengthy time frames. In localities without a time limit or with an unreasonable time limit, the delays caused by the current operation of the franchising process present a significant barrier to entry.83 For example,the cities of Chicago and Indianapolis acknowledged that, as currently operated, their franchising processes take one to three years, respectively.84 Miami-Dade's cable ordinance permits the county to make a fmal decision on a cable franchise up to eight months after receiving a completed application, and the process may take longer if an applicant submits an incomplete application or amends its application. 85 26. Incumbent cable operators and LFAs state that new entrants could gain rapid entry if the new entrants simply agreed to the same terms applied to incumbent cable franchisees.86 However,this is not a reasonable expectation generally, given that the circumstances surrounding competitive entry are considerably different than those in existence at the time incumbent cable operators obtained their franchises. Incumbent cable operators originally negotiated franchise agreements as a means of acquiring or maintaining a monopoly position.87 In most instances, imposing the incumbent cable operator's terms and conditions on a new entrant would make entry prohibitively costly because the entrant cannot assume that it will quickly—or ever—amass the same number or percentage of subscribers that the incumbent cable operator captured 88 The record demonstrates that requiring entry on the same terms as incumbent cable operators may thwart entry entirely or may threaten new entrants' chances of success once in the market. 27. Incumbent cable operators also suggest that delay is attributable to competitors that are not really serious about entering the market, as demonstrated by their failure to file the thousands of franchise applications required for broad competitive entry.89 We reject this explanation as inconsistent with both the record as well as common sense. Given the complexity and time-consuming nature of the current franchising process, it is patently unreasonable to expect any competitive entrant to file several thousand applications and negotiate several thousand franchising processes at once. Moreover, the incumbent LECs have made their plans to enter the video services market abundantly clear, and the evidence in the record demonstates their seriousness about doing so. For instance, they are investing billions of dollars to upgrade their networks to enable the provision of video services, expenditures that 83 We recognize that some franchising authorities move quickly,as a matter of law or policy. The record indicates that some LFAs have stated that they welcome competition to the incumbent cable operator, and actively facilitate such competition. See, e.g.,Manatee County,Fla. Comments at 4,Ada Township,et al. Comments at 16-27. For example,a consolidated franchising authority in Oregon negotiated and approved competitive franchises within 90 days. See Mt.Hood Cable Regulatory Commission Comments at 20. An advisory committee in Minnesota granted two competitive franchises in six months, after a statutorily imposed eight-week notice and hearing period. See Southwest Suburban Cable Commission Comments at 5, 7. While we laud the prompt disposition of franchise applications in these particular areas,the record shows that these examples are atypical. 84 See Chicago Comments at 4;Indianapolis Comments at 8. 85 Miami-Dade Comments at 3. 86 See, e.g.,ANC Reply at 5-6. Commenters assert that Verizon's model agreement prevents LFAs from exercising control over rights-of-way, does not require Verizon to repair damage to municipal property due to construction, does not require service to all residents,and contains an"opt-out"provision that allows Verizon to abandon an area it does not find profitable. ANC Reply at 8-10. 87 Verizon Reply at 38-40. ss Verizon Comments at 53. 89 Cablevision Comments at 3. 14 Federal Communications Commission FCC 06-180 would make little sense if they were not planning to enter the video market.9° Finally, the record also demonstrates that the obstacles posed by the current operation of the franchising process rocess are so great that some prospective entrants have shied away from the franchise process altogether.9 28. We also reject the argument by incumbent cable operators that delays in the franchising process are immaterial because competitive applicants are not ready to enter the market and frequently delay initiating service once they secure a franchise.92 We find that lack of competition in the video market is not attributable to inertia on the part of competitors. Given the fmancial risk,uncertainty, and delay new entrants face when they apply for a competitive franchise, it is not surprising that they wait until they get franchise approval before taking all steps necessary to provide service.93 The sooner a franchise is granted,the sooner an applicant can begin completing those steps. Consequently, shortening the franchising process will accelerate market entry. Moreover, the record shows that streamlining the franchising process can expedite market entry. For example, less than 30 days after Texas authorized statewide franchises, Verizon filed an application for a franchise with respect to 21 Texas communities and was able to launch services in most of those communities within 45 days.94 29. Incumbent cable operators offer evidence from their experience in the renewal and transfer processes as support for their contention that the vast majority of LFAs operate in a reasonable and timely manner.95 We fmd that incumbent cable operators' purported success in the franchising process is not a useful comparison in this case. Today's large MSOs obtained their current franchises by either renewing their preexisting agreements or by merging with and purchasing other incumbent cable franchisees with preexisting agreements. For two key reasons,their experiences in franchise transfers and renewals are not equivalent to those of new entrants seeking to obtain new franchises.96 First, in the transfer or renewal context,delays in LFA consideration do not result in a bar to market entry. Second, in the transfer or renewal context, the LFA has a vested interest in preserving continuity of service for subscribers,and will act accordingly. 30. We also reject the claims by incumbent cable operators that the experiences of Ameritech, RCN, and other overbuilders97 demonstrate that new entrants can and do obtain competitive 9° See AT&T Comments at 14; Verizon Comments at 27. In addition to negotiating with LFAs, competitors also have lobbied for broad franchising reform. To be sure,when prospective entrants anticipate franchise reform may occur at the state level,there is evidence in the record they often have not sought franchises at the local level.See Fairfax County,Va.Comments at 4. Such tactics,however,do not indicate that prospective entrants are not serious about entering the market but rather represent a strategic judgment as to the best method of accomplishing that goal. 91 Qwest Comments at 9. 92 NCTA Comments at 11;Comcast Reply at 16;Cablevision Reply at 9;City of Murrieta,Ca.Comments at 2. 93 See Verizon Reply Comments at 37. 94 Verizon Reply Comments at 37-38. See also NTCA Comments at 10-11 (citing Texas PUC testimony at February Commission Meeting held in Keller,Texas,which revealed that 15 companies have filed applications to serve 153 discrete communities in Texas since adoption of the new statewide franchising scheme). 95 Comcast Comments at 17. For example,Comcast reports that when it acquired AT&T Broadband, it received timely approval from more than 1,800 LFAs within eight months. The company also states that it was well along in the process of receiving approvals from more than 1,500 LFAs for the Adelphia transaction. 96 AT&T Reply at 22. 97 The term "overbuild" describes the situation in which a second cable operator enters a local market in direct competition with an incumbent cable operator. In these markets,the second operator,or'overbuilder,"lays wires in the same area as the incumbent, `overbuilding"the incumbent's plant,thereby giving consumers a choice between cable service providers. See Implementation of Section 3 of the Cable Television Consumer Protection and (continued...) 15 Federal Communications Commission FCC 06-180 franchises in a timely manner.98 Charter claims that it secured franchises and upgraded its systems in a highly competitive market and that the incumbent LECs possess sufficient resources to do the same.99 BellSouth notes,however,that Charter does not indicate a single instance in which it obtained a franchise through an initial negotiation, rather than a transfer.10° Comcast argues that it faces competition from cable overbuilders in several markets.101 The record is scant and inconsistent, however, with respect to overbuilder experiences in obtaining franchises, and thus does not provide reliable evidence. BellSouth also claims that,despite RCN's claims that the franchising process has worked in other proceedings,RCN previously has painted a less positive picture of the process and has called it a high barrier to entry.102 Given these facts, we do not believe that the experiences cited by incumbent cable operators shed any significant light on the current operation of the franchising process with respect to competitive entrants. 31. Impact of Build-Out Requirements. The record shows that build-out issues are one of the most contentious between LFAs and prospective new entrants, and that build-out requirements can greatly hinder the deployment of new video and broadband services. New and potential entrants commented extensively on the adverse impact of build-out requirements on their deployment plans.'o3 Large incumbent LECs,104 small and mid-sized incumbent LECs,'05 competitive LECs106 and others view build-out requirements as the most significant obstacle to their plans to deploy competitive video and broadband services. Similarly, consumer groups and the U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division, (Continued from previous page) Competition Act of 1992, Statistical Report on Average Prices for Basic Service, Cable Programming Services, and Equipment,20 FCC Red 2718,2719 n.6(2005). 98 Cablevision Reply at 6. Comcast states that the overbuilder industry as a whole has more than 16 million households under active franchise and two million households under franchise in anticipation of future network build-outs. Comcast Comments at 5-6(citing Broadband Service Providers Association Comments,MB Docket No. 05-255,at 7(filed Sept. 19,2005)). 99 Charter Comments at 4. Specifically, Charter states that it entered the cable market in earnest in the late 1990s and has spent the last five years investing billions of dollars to upgrade its cable systems and deploy advanced broadband services in more than 4,000 communities. Charter Comments at 2. During Charter's peak period of growth,it secured over 2,000 franchise transfers with LFAs and invested several billion dollars to upgrade systems, all while subject to significant competition from DBS. Charter Comments at 5. 10o BellSouth Reply at 11. 1°1 Comcast Comments at 4-5. 102 BellSouth Reply at 13(citing RCN's petition to deny the AT&T/Comcast merger application). 103 See, e.g., Qwest Comments at 2; Cincinnati Bell Comments at 10-11; South Slope Comments at 7-9; NTCA Comments at 6-7; Cavalier Telephone Comments at 5; BSPA Comments at 6. See also Letter from Lawrence Spiwak,President,Phoenix Ctr. for Advanced Legal and Econ.Pub.Policy Studies,to Marlene Dortch, Secretary, Federal Communications Commission, at Att., Phoenix Center Policy Paper Number 22: The Consumer Welfare Cost of Cable "Build-out"Rules,at 3("build-out requirements are,on average,counterproductive and serve to slow down deployment of communications networks")(March 13,2006)("Phoenix Center Build-Out Paper"). 104 Qwest Comments at 2. 105 Cincinnati Bell Comments at 10-11; South Slope Comments at 7-9;NTCA Comments at 6-7(because the risk is great,the service provided by the new entrants must be guided by sound business principles; forcing a new entrant to build out an entire area before such action is fmancially justified is tantamount to forcing that entrant out of the video business);USTelecom Ex Parte at 8-11. 106 Cavalier Telephone Comments at 5; BSPA Comments at 6 (a number of competitive franchises have been renegotiated or converted to OVS because the operator could not comply with unreasonable and uneconomic build- out requirements). 16 Federal Communications Commission FCC 06-180 urge the Commission to address this aspect of the current franchising process in order to speed competitive entry.107 32. The record demonstrates that build-out requirements can substantially reduce competitive entry.108 Numerous commenters urge the Commission to prohibit LFAs from imposing any build-out requirements, and particularly universal build-out requirements.109 They argue that imposition of such mandates, rather than resulting in the increased service throughout the franchise area that LFAs desire, will cause potential new entrants to simply refrain from entering the market at all.110 They argue that even build-out provisions that do not require deployment throughout an entire franchise area may prevent a prospective new entrant from offering service.l 11 33. The record contains numerous examples of build-out requirements at the local level that resulted in delayed entry, no entry, or failed entry. A consortium of California communities demanded that Verizon build out to every household in each community before Verizon would be allowed to offer service to any community,even though large parts of the communities fell outside of Verizon's telephone service area.112 Furthermore, Qwest has withdrawn franchise applications in eight communities due to build-out requirements.113 In each case, Qwest determined that entering into a franchise agreement that mandates universal build-out would not be economically feasible.'14 1°7 See MMTC Comments at 13-24; Consumers for Cable Choice Comments at 8; DOJ Ex Parte at 12-13, 15 (stating that build-out requirements lead to abandonment of entry,less efficient competition,or higher prices). 108 See, e.g., USTelecom Comments at 24 (citing example of Shenandoah Telecommunications, which cannot provide service to an entire county, and thus cannot provide service at all). See also Phoenix Center Build-Out Paper at 1,3;DOJ Ex Parte at 12-13, 15. 109 See, e.g.,Alcatel Comments at 10-11;AT&T Comments at 44;BellSouth Reply at 6;NTCA Comments at 6. "°See, e.g.,AT&T Comments at 44;Qwest Comments at 2;Ad Hoc Telecom Manufacturer Coalition Comments at 5;DOJ Ex Parte at 12-13, 15. 111 Not all new entrants to the video market with existing telecommunications facilities are engaging in the upgrades to which Verizon and AT&T have committed. Cavalier Telephone, for example, is delivering IPTV over copper lines. Such delivery is limited,however,by ADSL-2 technology. Cavalier Telephone argues that it is unreasonable to require that it become capable of providing service to all households in a franchise area, which would require Cavalier Telephone to dig up rights-of-way and install duplicative facilities,which it has specifically sought to avoid doing by virtue of relying on the unbundled local loop. Cavalier Telephone Comments at 5. Similarly,Guadalupe Valley Telephone Cooperative (GVTC) could not deploy service in the face of differing build-out requirements across jurisdictions. See AT&T Reply at 37. Once Texas's new statewide franchising law went into effect, however,deployment became economically feasible for GVTC. See id. See also Phoenix Center Build-out Paper at 1, 3, 4 (build-out rules can significantly increase the costs of a new video entrant, and are actually counter- productive, serving primarily to deter new video entry and slow down deployment of communications networks); Phoenix Center Redlining Paper at 3 (even when build-out requirements are applied to new entrants altruistically, the requirements can be self-defeating and often erect insurmountable barriers to entry for new firms); BSPA at 4 (When a new network operator is forced to comply with a build-out that is equal to the existing incumbent cable footprint,it is forced to a build on a timeframe and in geographic areas where the cost to build and customer density will likely produce an economic loss for both network operators.), DOJ Ex Parte at 12-13, 15. 112 Verizon Comments at 41-42. Before the new statewide legislation, a Texas community had made the same request. 113 See Qwest Comments at 9. 114 Id.at10. • 17 a Federal Communications Commission FCC 06-180 • 34. In many instances, level-playing-field provisions in local laws or franchise agreements compel LFAs to impose on competitors the same build-out requirements that apply to the incumbent cable operator.15 Cable operators use threatened or actual litigation against LFAs to enforce level- playing-field requirements and have successfully delayed entry or driven would-be competitors out of town.'16 Even in the absence of level-playing-field requirements,incumbent cable operators demand that LFAs impose comparable build-out requirements on competitors to increase the financial burden and risk for the new entrant."' 35. Build-out requirements can deter market entry because a new entrant generally must take customers from the incumbent cable operator, and thus must focus its efforts in areas where the take-rate will be sufficiently high to make economic sense. Because the second provider realistically cannot count on acquiring a share of the market similar to the incumbent's share, the second entrant cannot justify a large initial deployment.18 Rather, a new entrant must begin offering service within a smaller area to determine whether it can reasonably ensure a return on its investment before expanding.119 For example, Verizon has expressed significant concerns about deploying service in areas heavily populated with MDUs already under exclusive contract with another MVPD.120 Due to the risk associated with entering the video market, forcing new entrants to agree up front to build out an entire franchise area too quickly may be tantamount to forcing them out of—or precluding their entry into—the business.121 36. In many cases, build-out requirements also adversely affect consumer welfare. DOJ noted that imposing uneconomical build-out requirements results in less efficient competition and the potential for higher prices.122 Non-profit research organizations the Mercatus Center and the Phoenix Center argue that build-out requirements reduce consumer welfare.123 Each conclude that build-out 115 See, e.g., GMTC Comments at 15; Philadelphia Reply at 2; FTTH Council at 33-34; US Telecom at 30-31; TCCFUI Comments at 11, 15. 116 BSPA Comments at 5-6; BellSouth Comments at 44; Verizon Comments at 33-34 (noting that some LFAs are requesting indemnification from competitive applicants). For example, Insight Communications filed suit against the City of Louisville and Knology. Although the LFA and Knology ultimately won,the delay resulted in Knology declining to enter that market. BSPA Comments at 5-6. 117 See AT&T Comments at 51. 118 Qwest Comments at 8. 119 FTTH Council Comments at 33-34. '20 Verizon Reply at 70-71. 121 NTCA Comments at 7. See also DOJ Ex Parte at 12-13, 15; FTTH Council Comments at 29 (competitive entrants face a riskier investment than incumbents faced when they entered;moreover,incumbent firms have market power in the video market, their customers have little choice, and their costs can be spread over a large base, whereas new entrants do not have this same advantage). Although it is sometimes possible to renegotiate a build-out requirement if the new entrant cannot meet it, in many cases the LFA imposes substantial penalties for failure to meet a build-out requirement. See Anne Arundel County et al. Comments at 4, FTTH Council Comments at 34 (citing Grande Communications franchise agreement establishing penalty of$2,000 per day);Letter from Melissa E. Newman, Vice President-Federal Regulatory, Qwest, to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, Federal Communications Commission,(Apr.26,2006),Attachment at 7 ("Qwest Ex Parte"). '221d at 13. 123 Mercatus Center Comments at 39-41; Phoenix Center Build-Out Paper at 1; Letter from Stephen Pociask, President, American Consumer Institute, to Marlene Dortch, Secretary, Federal Communications Commission •(March 3,2006). 18 Federal Communications Commission FCC 06-180 requirements imposed on competitive cable entrants only benefit an incumbent cable operator.124 The Mercatus Center, citing data from the FCC and GAO indicating that customers with a choice of cable providers enjoy lower rates, argues that, to the extent that build-out requirements deter entry, they result in fewer customers having a choice of providers and a resulting reduction in rates.125 The Phoenix Center study contends that build-out requirements deter entry and conflict with federal, state, and local government goals of rapid broadband deployment.126 Another research organization, the American Consumer Institute (ACI), concluded that build-out requirements are inefficient: if a cable competitor initially serves only one neighborhood in a community, and a few consumers in this neighborhood benefit from the competition, total welfare in the community improves because no consumer was made worse and some consumers (those who can subscribe to the competitive service) were made better.127 In comparison,requirements that deter competitive entry may make some consumers(those who would have been able to subscribe to the competitive service) worse off.128 In many instances, placing build-out conditions on competitive entrants harms consumers and competition because it increases the cost of cable service.129 Qwest commented that, in those communities it has not entered due to build-out requirements, consumers have been deprived of the likely benefit of lower prices as the result of competition from a second cable provider.130 This claim is supported by the Commission's 2005 annual cable price survey, in which the Commission observed that average monthly cable rates varied markedly depending on the presence — and type — of MVPD competition in the local market. The greatest difference occurred where there was wireline overbuild competition, where average monthly cable rates were 20.6 percent lower than the average for markets deemed noncompetitive.131 37. For these reasons,we disagree with LFAs and incumbent cable operators who argue that unlimited local flexibility to impose build-out requirements, including universal build-out of a franchise area, is essential to promote competition in the delivery of video programming and ensure a choice in 124 See id. 125 Mercatus Center Comments at 41. The Mercatus Center bases this assertion on the evidence that cable rate regulation does not affect cable rates significantly, which suggests that cable providers are not subsidizing less- profitable areas with the returns from more-profitable areas. Id. 126 Phoenix Center Build-Out Paper at 1. 127 ACI Comments at 7. 128 AT&T Comments at 48 (citing Thomas Hazlett & George Ford, The Fallacy of Regulatory Symmetry: An Economic Analysis of the "Level Playing Field"in Cable TV Franchising Statutes,3 BUSINESS AND POLITICS issue 1,at 25-26(2001)). 129 AT&T Comments at 48 (citing Thomas Hazlett & George Ford, The Fallacy of Regulatory Symmetry: An Economic Analysis of the "Level Playing Field"in Cable TV Franchising Statutes,3 BUSINESS AND POLITICS issue 1,at 25-26(2001)). 130 Qwest Comments at 10. 131 Implementation of Section 3 of the Cable Television Consumer Protection and Competition Act of 1992: Statistical Report on Average Rates for Basic Service, Cable Programming Service, and Equipment, MM Docket. No.92-266,FCC 06-179,para. 12(rel.Dec.27,2006)("2005 Cable Price Survey"). See also Annual Assessment of the Status of Competition in the Market for the Delivery of Video Programming,20 FCC Rcd 2755,2772-73(2005) ("2005 Video Competition Report"). 19 Federal Communications Commission FCC 06-180 providers for every household.132 In many cases,build-out requirements may have precisely the opposite effects—they deter competition and deny consumers a choice. 38. Although incumbent LECs already have telecommunications facilities deployed over large areas, build-out requirements may nonetheless be a formidable barrier to entry for them for two reasons. First,incumbent LECs must upgrade their existing plant to enable the provision of video service, which often costs billions of dollars. Second, as the Commission stated in the Local Franchising NPRM, the boundaries of the areas served by facilities-based providers of telephone and/or broadband services frequently do not coincide with the boundaries of the areas under the jurisdiction of the relevant LFAs.'33 In some cases,a potential new entrant's service area comprises only a portion of the area under the LFA's jurisdiction.134 When LECs are required to build out where they have no existing plant, the business case for market entry is significantly weakened because their deployment costs are substantially increased. 135 In other cases, a potential new entrant's facilities may already cover most or all of the franchise area,but certain economic realities prevent or deter the provider from upgrading certain"wire center service areas" within its overall service area.136 For example, some wire center service areas may encompass a disproportionate level of business locations or multi-dwelling units ("MDUs") with MVPD exclusive contracts.137 New entrants argue that the imposition of build-out requirements in either circumstance creates a disincentive for them to enter the marketplace.'38 132 State of Hawaii Reply Comments at 4-5; Ada Township, et al Comments at 8-9; Manatee County, Fla. Comments at 19; Burnsville/Eagan Reply Comments at 19-20; New Jersey Board of Public Utilities Comments at 11-12. 133 Local Franchising NPRM, 20 FCC Rcd at para.618595. '34 See NTCA Comments at 15; South Slope Comments at 8-9 (mandatory build-out of entire franchise areas unreasonably impedes competitive entry where entrants' proposed service area is not located entirely within an LFA-defined local franchise area). 135 See, e.g.,FTTH Council Comments at 33-34; South Slope Comments at 8-9;NTCA Comments at 15;BellSouth Reply at 25. BellSouth has a franchise to serve unincorporated Cherokee County, Ga.,but the geographic area of this franchise is much larger than the boundaries of BellSouth's wire center. Id. BellSouth faces a similar issue in Orange County, Fla. Id. See also Linda Haugsted,Franchise War in Texas, MULTICHANNEL NEWS, May 2, 2005 (noting that, although Verizon had negotiated successfully a cable franchise with the City of Keller,Texas, "it will not build out all of Keller: It only has telephone plant in 80% of the community. SBC serves the rest of the locality."). NTCA states that theoretically the incumbent LEC could extend its facilities,but to do so within another provider's incumbent LEC territory would require an incumbent LEC to make a financially significant business decision,solely for purposes of providing video programming. See NTCA Comments at 15. 136 See Letter from Leora Hochstein, Executive Director, Federal Regulatory, Verizon, to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary,FCC,MB Docket No.05-311 at 3(filed May 3,2006).In this Order we use"wire center service area"to mean the geographic area served by a wire center as defined in Part 51 of the Commission's rules, except wire centers that have no line-side functionality, such as switching units that exclusively interconnect trunks. See 47 C.F.R. § 51.5. See also Unbundled Access to Network Elements: Review of the Section 251 Unbundling Obligations of Incumbent Local Exchange Carriers, 20 FCC Rcd 2533, 2586 (2005), para. 87 n.251 ("Triennial Review Remand Order") ("By 'wire center,' we mean any incumbent LEC switching office that terminates and aggregates loop facilities"). The Commission's rules define "wire center"to mean"the location of an incumbent LEC local switching facility containing one or more central offices as defined in Part 36 [of the Commission's rules]. The wire center boundaries define the area in which all customers served by a given wire center are located." 47 C.F.R. §51.5. The term"wire center"is often used interchangeably with the term"central office." Technically, the wire center is the location where a LEC terminates subscriber local loops, along with the facilities necessary to maintain them. 137 New entrants also point out that some wire center service areas are low in population density (measured by homes per cable plant mile). The record suggests, however,that LFAs generally have not required franchisees to (continued...) 20 Federal Communications Commission FCC 06-180 39. Incumbent cable operators assert that new entrants' claims are exaggerated, and that, in most cases,LEC facilities are coterminous with municipal boundaries.139 The evidence submitted by new entrants, however, convincingly shows that inconsistencies between the geographic boundaries of municipalities and the network footprints of telephone companies are commonplace.140 The cable industry has adduced no contrary evidence. The fact that few LFAs argued that non-coterminous boundaries are a problem141 is not sufficient to contradict the incumbent LECs' evidence.'42 40. Based on the record as a whole, we fmd that build-out requirements imposed by LFAs can constitute unreasonable barriers to entry for competitive applicants. Indeed,the record indicates that because potential competitive entrants to the cable market may not be able to economically justify build- out of an entire local franchising area immediately,143 these requirements can have the effect of granting de facto exclusive franchises,in direct contravention of Section 621(a)(1)'s prohibition of exclusive cable franchises.144 41. Besides thwarting potential new entrants' deployment of video services and depriving consumers of reduced prices and increased choice,145 build-out mandates imposed by LFAs also may directly contravene the goals of Section 706 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, which requires the Commission to "remov[e] barriers to infrastructure investment" to encourage the deployment of broadband services "on a reasonable and timely basis."146 We agree with AT&T that Section 706, in (Continued from previous page) provide service in low-density areas. See, e.g., Madison, WI Comments at 4(limiting build-out to areas with 40 dwelling units per cable mile);Renton, WA Comments at 3(limiting build-out to 35 dwelling units per mile);West Palm Beach, Fla. Comments at 11 (limiting build-out to areas with 20 homes per mile). Nevertheless, density is likely to be of greater concern to a new entrant than to an incumbent cable operator,because the new entrant has to lure customers from the incumbent cable operator,and therefore cannot count on serving as many of the customers in a cable plant mile. 138 BSPA Comments at 5(when the footprint of an existing system does not match the territory of an LFA,build-out requirements restrict the growth of competition that could be created by incremental expansion of existing networks into adjacent territories because the operator must have the financial means to build out the entire adjacent franchise area before commencing any build-out);NTCA Comments at 15(requiring small,rural incumbent LECs to deploy service beyond their existing telephone service areas would prohibit some carriers from offering video services to any community,thereby preventing competition). See also DOJ Ex Parte at 12-13,15. 139 See Cablevision Reply at 16-17;Charter Reply at 8. '4°See BSPA Comments at 5;South Slope Comments at 8-9;NTCA Comments at 15. 141 Comcast Reply at 21 (citing comments of NATOA and Torrance,Cal.). 142 Compare Tele Atlas Wire Center Premium v10.1 (April 2006) Maps for Bergen County, NJ and Los Angeles, Ca. and surrounding areas with The BRIDGE Data Group CableBounds Maps for Bergen County, NJ and Los Angeles, Ca. and surrounding areas (filed by the Media Bureau), available at http://gullfoss2.fcc.gov/prod/ecfs/retrieve.cgi?native_orj,df=pdf&id_document=6518618170, http://gullfoss2.fcc.gov/prod/ecfs/retrieve.cgi?native_or_pdf=pdf&id_document=6518618171. 143 See FTTH Council Comments at 32;NTCA Comments at 7;Qwest Comments at 2,8;Verizon Comments at 39- 40. 144 47 U.S.C. §544(a)(1). 14s See Annual Assessment of the Status of Competition in the Market for the Delivery of Video Programming,MB Docket No. 05-255, Twelfth Annual Report, FCC 06-11, at ¶ 41 (rel. Mar. 3, 2006) (noting that overbuild competition,when present,often leads to lower cable rates and higher quality service). 146 Section 706 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996,47 U.S.C.§ 157 nt. 21 Federal Communications Commission FCC 06-180 conjunction with Section 621(a)(1),requires us to prevent LFAs from adversely affecting the deployment of broadband services through cable regulation.147 42. We do not find persuasive incumbent cable operators' claims that build-out should necessarily be required for new entrants into the video market because of certain obligations faced by cable operators in their deployment of voice services. To the extent cable operators believe they face undue regulatory obstacles to providing voice services,they should make that point in other proceedings, not here. In any event, commenters generally agree that the record indicates that the investment that a competitive cable provider must make to deploy video in a particular geographic area far outweighs the cost of the additional facilities that a cable operator must install to deploy voice service.148 43. LFA Demands Unrelated to the Provision of Video Services. Many commenters recounted franchise negotiation experiences in which LFAs made unreasonable demands unrelated to the provision of video services. Verizon, for example, described several communities that made unreasonable requests, such as the purchase of street lights, wiring for all houses of worship, the installation of cell phone towers, cell phone subsidies for town employees, library parking at Verizon's facilities, connection of 220 traffic signals with fiber optics, and provision of free wireless broadband service in an area in which Verizon's subsidiary does not offer such service.149 In Maryland, some localities conditioned a franchise upon Verizon's agreement to make its data services subject to local customer service regulation.150 AT&T provided examples of impediments that Ameritech New Media faced when it entered the market, including a request for a new recreation center and poo1.151 FTTH 147 AT&T Comments at 45. See also infra para.63. 148 See NTCA Comments at 7;Verizon Reply at 54-55;American Consumer Institute Comments at 7;Review of the Section 251 Unbundling Obligations of Incumbent Local Exchange Carriers, 18 FCC Rcd 16978, 17142-17143 (2003) ("Triennial Review Order"); See also High Tech Broadband Coalition Comments at 4-5 (fiber-to-the-home deployment increased 5300 percent since the Triennial Review Order,due in large part to the elimination of barriers to entry in that Order). 149 Verizon Comments at 57 &Attachment A at 16-17. The Wall Street Journal reported"[Tampa, Florida] City officials presented [Verizon] with a $13 million wish list, including money for an emergency communications network, digital editing equipment and video cameras to film a math-tutoring program for kids." Another community presented Verizon with "requests for seed money for wildflowers and a video hookup for Christmas celebrations."Dionne Searcey,As Verizon Enters Cable Business, it Faces Local Static,WALL ST.J.,Oct.28,2005, at Al. But see Verizon Comments at 65,filed February 13,2006(stating that"one franchising authority in Florida demanded that Verizon meet the incumbent cable operator's cumulative payments for PEG,which would exceed$6 million over 15 years of Verizon's proposed franchise term. When Verizon rejected this demand,the LFA doubled its request, asking for a fee in excess of$13 million that it said would be used for both PEG support and the construction of a redundant institutional network."); Verizon Revised Comments, filed March 6, 2006 at 65 (amending the second sentence of their comments above,in response to a request from the City of Tampa,to state that "[w]hen Verizon rejected this demand and asked for an explanation, the LFA provided a summary `needs assessment' in excess of$13 million for both PEG support."); Tampa Reply at 3-4 (noting that Verizon's errata "clarified that the City of Tampa has not demanded Verizon provide$13.5 million dollars as a condition of granting a cable television franchise,"and calling the Wall Street Journal article assertions an"urban legend");John Dunbar, FCC's Cable TV Ruling Criticized, ASSOCIATED PRESS,Jan.29,2007(stating that"[The Tampa City Attorney]said Tampa gave Verizon a$13 million `needs assessment'that was required by law in order to obtain contributions for equipment for public access and government channels"and also quoting the City Attorney saying that"it is possible the `needs assessment' included video cameras to film shows such as the math class,but that there was never 'a specific quid pro quo.'Nor was anything like that mentioned in the franchise agreement."). 15°Verizon Comments at 75. 151 AT&T Comments at 24. 22 Federal Communications Commission FCC 06-180 Council highlighted Grande Communications' experience in San Antonio, which required that Grande Communications make an up-front,$1 million franchise fee payment and fund a$50,000 scholarship with additional annual contributions of$7,200.152 The record demonstrates that LFA demands unrelated to cable service typically are not counted toward the statutory 5 percent cap on franchise fees, but rather imposed on franchisees in addition to assessed franchise fees.153 Based on this record evidence, we are convinced that LFA requests for unreasonable concessions are not isolated,and that these requests impose undue burdens upon potential cable providers. 44. Assessment of Franchise Fees. The record establishes that unreasonable demands over franchise fee issues also contribute to delay in franchise negotiations at the local level and hinder competitive entry.' Fee issues include not only which franchise-related costs imposed on providers should be included within the 5 percent statutory franchise fee cap established in Section 622(b),155 but also the proper calculation of franchise fees(i.e.,the revenue base from which the 5 percent is calculated). In Virginia,municipalities have requested large"acceptance fees"upon grant of a-franchise,in addition to franchise fees.156 Other LFAs have requested consultant and attorneys' fees.'57 Several Pennsylvania localities have requested franchise fees based on cable and non-cable revenues.158 Some commenters assert that an obligation to provide anything of value, including PEG costs, should apply toward the franchise fee obligation.'59 45. The parties indicate that the lack of clarity with respect to assessment of franchise fees impedes deployment of new video programming facilities and services for three reasons. First, some LFAs make unreasonable demands regarding franchise fees as a condition of awarding a competitive franchise. . Second, new entrants cannot reasonably determine the costs of entry in any particular community. Accordingly, they may delay or refrain from entering a market because the cost of entry is unclear and market viability cannot be projected.160 Third, a new entrant must negotiate these terms prior to obtaining a franchise, which can take a considerable amount of time. Thus, unreasonable demands by some LFAs effectively creates an unreasonable barrier to entry. 46. PEG and I-Net Requirements. Negotiations over PEG and I-Nets also contribute to delays in the franchising process. In response to the Local Franchising NPRM, we received numerous comments asking for clarification of what requirements LFAs reasonably may impose on franchisees to 152 FTTH Council Comments at 38. 153 BSPA Comments at 8. BSPA argues that under the current franchising process, LFAs are able to bargain for capital payments to use on infrastructure needs when LFAs should use the capital to benefit consumers. BSPA. claims that LFAs use the capital to build and maintain I-Nets, city broadcasting facilities, and traffic light control systems. Id. 154 See, e.g.,AT&T Comments at 64-67;BellSouth Comments at 38-40;Cavalier Telephone Comments at 7;FTTH Council Comments at 38-40. But see NATOA Reply at 27-35. 155 47 U.S.C.§542(b). 156 Verizon Comments at 59. 157 Id.at 59-60. '58 Id.at 63. • 159 AT&T Comments at 65-67;BellSouth Comments at 39. 16°AT&T Reply at 31-32. 23 Federal Communications Commission FCC 06-180 support PEG and I-Nets.16' We also received comments suggesting that some LFAs are making unreasonable demands regarding PEG and I-Net support as a condition of awarding competitive franchises.162 LFAs have demanded funding for PEG programming and facilities that exceeds their needs, and will not provide an accounting of where the money goes.163 For example, one municipality in Florida requested $6 million for PEG facilities, and a Massachusetts community requested 10 PEG channels, when the incumbent cable operator only provides two.164 Several commenters argued that it is unreasonable for an LFA to request a number of PEG channels from a new entrant that is greater than the number of channels that the community is using at the time the new entrant submits its franchise application.165 The record indicates that LFAs also have made what commenters view as unreasonable institutional network requests, such as free cell phones for employees, fiber optic service for traffic signals,and redundant fiber networks for public buildings.'66 47. Level-Playing-Field Provisions. The record demonstrates that, in considering franchise applications, some LFAs are constrained by so-called "level-playing-field" provisions in local laws or incumbent cable operator franchise agreements.167 Such provisions typically impose upon new entrants terms and conditions that are neither "more favorable" nor "less burdensome" than those to which existing franchisees are subject.168 Some LFAs impose level-playing-field requirements on new entrants even without a statutory, regulatory, or contractual obligation to do so.169 Minnesota's process allows incumbent cable operators to be active in a competitor's negotiation,and incumbent cable operators have challenged franchise grants when those incumbent cable operators believed that the LFA did not follow correct procedure.170 According to BellSouth, the length of time for approval of its franchises was tied directly to level-playing-field constraints; absent such demands (in Georgia,for example), the company's applications were granted quickly.17' NATOA contends, however, that although level-playing-field 161 See, e.g.,AT&T Comments at 67-70;BellSouth Comments at 39; Consumers for Cable Choice Comments at 8; FTTH Council Comments at 36-37,66-67;Verizon Comments at 65-75. But see NATOA Reply at 30-42. 162 FTTH Council Comments at 36;Verizon Comments at 65-66. 163 Verizon Comments at 65. 164 Id.at 65-66. 165 Consumers for Cable Choice Comments at 8;Verizon Comments at 71. 166 Verizon Comments at 73. 167 See, e.g., Orange County, Fla. Comments at 3; Northwest Suburbs Cable Communications Commission Comments at 3;Winston-Salem,N.C.Comments at 5;Albuquerque,N.M. Comments at 3;Tulsa,Okla.Comments at 2-4;Enumclaw,Wash.Comments at 2;Madison,Wis.Comments at 5-6. 168 See Local Franchising NPRM,20 FCC Rcd at 18588.At least 10 states impose level-playing-field requirements upon LFAs, and those laws vary significantly in the subject matters they encompass. For example, compare Minnesota's requirement that a competitive entrant face similar build-out, franchise fee, and PEG requirements to Illinois's requirement that the competitive franchise be no more favorable with respect to the territorial extent of the franchise,system design,technical performance standards,construction schedules,bonds,standards for construction and installation of facilities,service to subscribers,PEG channels and programming,production assistance,liability and indemnification and franchise fees. MINN. STAT.ANN. § 238.08 (West 2006),55 ILL.COMP. STAT.ANN. 5/5- 1095(e)(4)(West 2006),see also ALA.CODE§ 11-27-2(2005),CONN.GEN.STAT. § 16-331(g)(2006),FLA.STAT. § 166.046(3)(2006),N.H.REV.STAT.ANN.§ 53-C:3-b(2005),OKLA.STAT.ANN.tit. 11,§22-107.1(B)(West 2006). S.D.CODIFIED LAWS§9-35-27(2005),TENN.CODE.ANN.§7-59-203(2005). '69 See GMTC et al.Comments at 15;Pasadena,Ca.Comments at 10-11;Philadelphia,Pa.Comments at 7. See also AT&T Reply at 14. 17°LMC Comments at 12-15. 24 Federal Communications Commission FCC 06-180 • provisions sometimes can complicate the franchising process,they do not present unreasonable barriers to entry.172 NATOA and LFAs argue that level-playing-field provisions serve important policy goals, such as ensuring a competitive environment and providing for an equitable distribution of services and obligations among all operators.13 48. The record demonstrates that local level-playing-field mandates can impose unreasonable and unnecessary requirements on competitive applicants.174 As noted above, level-playing-field provisions enable incumbent cable operators to delay or prevent new entry by threatening to challenge any franchise that an LFA grants.175 Comcast asserts that MSOs are well within their rights to insist that their legal and contractual rights are honored in the grant of a subsequent franchise.176 The record demonstrates, however, that local level-playing-field requirements may require LFAs to impose obligations on new entrants that directly contravene Section 621(a)(1)'s prohibition on unreasonable refusals to award a competitive franchise.177 In most cases, incumbent cable operators entered into their franchise agreements in exchange for a monopoly over the provision of cable service.178 Build-out requirements and other terms and conditions that may have been sensible under those circumstances can be unreasonable when applied to competitive entrants. NATOA's argument that level-playing-field requirements always serve to ensure a competitive environment and provide for an equitable distribution of services and obligations ignores that incumbent and competitive operators are not on the same footing. LFAs do not afford competitive providers the monopoly power and privileges that incumbents received when they agreed to their franchises, something that investors recognize.179 49. Moreover,competitive operators should not bear the consequences of an incumbent cable operator's choice to agree to any unreasonable franchise terms that an LFA may demand. And while the record is mixed as to whether level-playing-field mandates "assure that cable systems are responsive to the needs and interests of the local community,s180 the more compelling evidence indicates that they do not because they prevent competition. Local level-playing-field provisions impose costs and risks (Continued from previous page) 171 BellSouth Reply at 7. 172 NATOA Reply at 43. 173 See, e.g.,NATOA Reply at 44;Bumsville/Eagan Comments at 44;City of Philadelphia Reply at 2. 174 See, e.g.,South Slope Comments at 7-8(build-out);Verizon Comments at 60-61,71(PEG requirements);AT&T Comments at 67(redundant facilities). See also FTTH Council Comments at 29-30(quoting Hazlett&Ford study concluding that the result of level-playing-field laws"is that incumbents and[LFAs]can force entrants to incur sunk costs considerably in excess of what free market conditions would imply"). We note that,as described below,we do not address — and therefore do not preempt— state laws governing the franchising process including state level- playing-field mandates. 175 See supra para.34;see also DOJ Ex Parte at 15-16. 176 Comcast Reply at 17-18 (citing Comcast's involvement in Verizon's Howard County, Maryland, franchise approval process). 177 Mercatus Center at 39-40;Phoenix Center Competition Paper at 7. 178 Id. 179 See BSPA Comments 4;USTelecom Comments at 51-53;Mercatus Comments at 39-40. 180 47 U.S.C. §521(2);Id. 25 a Federal Communications Commission FCC 06-180 sufficient to undermine the business plan for profitable entry in a given community,thereby undercutting the possibility of competition.'$' 50. Benefits of Cable Competition. We further agree with new entrants that reform of the operation of the franchise process is necessary and appropriate to achieve increased video competition and broadband deployment.182 The record demonstrates that new cable competition reduces rates far more than competition from DBS. Specifically, the presence of a second cable operator in a market results in rates approximately 15 percent lower than in areas without competition—about$5 per month.'83 The magnitude of the rate decreases caused by wireline cable competition is corroborated by the rates charged in Keller, Texas, where the price for Verizon's"Everything"package is 13 percent below that of the incumbent cable operator, and in Pinellas County, Florida, where Knology is the overbuilder and the incumbent cable operator's rates are $10-15 lower than in neighboring areas where it faces no competition.'84 51. We also conclude that broadband deployment and video entry are"inextricably linked"185 and that,because the current operation of the franchising process often presents an unreasonable bather to entry for the provision of video services, it necessarily hampers deployment of broadband services.186 The record demonstrates that broadband deployment is not profitable without the ability to compete with the bundled services that cable companies provide.187 As the Phoenix Center explains, "the more potential revenues that the network can generate in a household, the more likely it is the network will be 181 Mercatus Comments at 46. 182 Verizon Reply at 5-8. See also DOJ Ex Parte at 1,3. 183 FTTH Council Comments at 13. See also U.S.General Accountability Office,Subscriber Rates and Competition in the Cable Television Industry,GAO-04-262T(Mar. 2004)("[S]ubscribers in areas with a wire-based competitor had monthly cable rates about $5 lower, on average, than subscribers in similar areas without a wire-based competitor. Our interviews with cable operators also revealed that these companies generally lower rates and/or improve customer service where a wire-based competitor is present.");U.S.General Accounting Office,GAO-04-8, Issues Related to Competition and Subscriber Rates in the Cable Television Industry, Report to the Chairman, Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation, U.S. Senate(2003)("2003 GAO Report")at 3 (noting that cable rates are about 15 percent lower in markets where wireline competition is present),and at 10(estimating that with an average monthly cable rate of approximately $34 that year, subscribers in areas with a wire-based competitor had monthly cable rates about$5 lower,on average,than subscribers in areas without such a competitor); U.S. General Accounting Office,GAO-03-130,Issues in Providing Cable and Satellite Television Services,Report to the Subcommittee on Antitrust, Competition, and Business and Consumer Rights, Committee on the Judiciary, U.S. Senate (2002) ("2002 GAO Report") at 9 (noting that in franchise areas with a second cable provider, cable prices are approximately 17 percent lower than in comparable areas without a second cable provider). See also Annual Assessment of the Status of Competition in the Market for the Delivery of Video Programming,MB Docket No. 05-255, Twelfth Annual Report, FCC 06-11, at para. 41 (rel. Mar. 3, 2006) and 2005 Cable Price Survey at paras. 2, 14 (noting that cable prices are 17 percent lower and decrease substantially when wireline cable competition is present). 184 FTTH Council Comments at 15-16,including chart and declaration. 185 AT&T Comments at 12. See also BSPA Comments at 7; Freedomworks Comments at 15; Mercatus Center Comments at 34-35. 186 Technology and Democracy Project Comments at 4. 187 AT&T Comments at 12.The Government Accountability Office reached this same conclusion in its review of the video service market.See Issues in Providing Cable and Satellite Television Services,GAO 03-130 at 2(2002). 26 Federal Communications Commission FCC 06-180 built to that household."188 DOJ's comments underscore that additional video competition will likely speed deployment of advanced broadband services to consumers.189 Thus, although LFAs only oversee the provision of wireline-based video services,their regulatory actions can directly affect the provision of voice and data services, not just cable.190 We find reasonable AT&T's assertion that carriers will not invest billions of dollars in network upgrades unless they are confident that LFAs will grant permission to offer video services quickly and without unreasonable difficulty.19' 52. In sum, the current operation of the franchising process deters entry and thereby denies consumers choices.192 Delays in the franchising process also hamper accelerated broadband deployment and investment in broadband facilities in direct contravention of the goals of Section 706,193 the President's competitive broadband objectives,194 and our established broadband goals.'95 In addition, the economic effects of franchising delays can trickle down to manufacturing companies, which in some cases have lost business because potential new entrants would not purchase equipment without certainties that they could deploy their services.196 We discuss below our authority to address these problems. B. The Commission Has Authority to Adopt Rules to Implement Section 621(a)(1) 53. In the Local Franchising NPRM, the Commission tentatively concluded that it has the authority to adopt rules implementing Title VI of the Act,197 including Section 621(a)(1).'98 The Commission sought comment on whether it has the authority to adopt rules or whether it is limited to providing guidance.199 Based on the record and governing legal principles, we affirm this tentative conclusion and find that the Commission has the authority to adopt rules to implement Title VI and,more specifically, Section 621(a)(1). 54. Congress delegated to the Commission the task of administering the Communications Act. As the Supreme Court has explained, the Commission serves "as the `single Government agency' with `unified jurisdiction' and `regulatory power over all forms of electrical communication, whether by 188 Letter from Lawrence Spiwak, President, Phoenix Ctr. for Advanced Legal and Econ. Pub. Policy Studies, to Marlene Dortch, Secretary, Federal Communications Commission, at Att., Phoenix Center Policy Paper Number 23: The Impact of Video Service Regulation on the Construction of Broadband Networks to Low-Income Households,pg 23(March 13,2006)("Phoenix Center Redlining Pape'). 189 DOJ Ex Parte at 3-4. '90 FTTH Council Comments at 4. 19'AT&T Comments at 15. 192 DOJ Ex Parte at 7-8. 193 Section 706 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996,47 U.S.C.§ 157 nt. 194 See The White House, A New Generation of American Innovation, 11-12 (April 2004), available at http://www.whitehouse.gov/infocus/technology/economic j,olicy200404/innovation.pdf. 195 See Federal Communications Commission,Strategic Plan 2006-2011 at 3(2005). 196 AT&T Reply at 9; Alcatel Comments at 1; Letter from Danielle Jafari, Director and Legal Counsel of Government Affairs, Telecommunications Industry Association, to Marlene Dortch, Secretary, Federal Communications Commission(March 9,2006). 197 Local Franchising NPRM,20 FCC Rcd at 18589. 198 47 U.S.C.§541(a)(1). '99 Local Franchising NPRM,20 FCC Rcd at 18589. 27, Federal Communications Commission FCC 06-180 • telephone, telegraph, cable, or radio."i20D To that end, "[t]he Act grants the Commission broad responsibility to forge a rapid and efficient communications system, and broad authority to implement that responsibility."2 ' Section 201(b)authorizes the Commission to"prescribe such rules and regulations as may be necessary in the public interest to carry out the provisions of this Act.s202 "[T]he grant in § 201(b) means what it says: The FCC has rulemaking authority to carry out the `provisions of this Act."'203 This grant of authority therefore necessarily includes Title VI of the Communications Act in general, and Section 621(a)(1) in particular. Other provisions in the Act reinforce the Commission's general rulemaking authority. Section 303(r), for example, states that "the Commission from time to time, as public convenience, interest, or necessity requires shall ... make such rules and regulations and prescribe such restrictions and conditions,not inconsistent with law, as may be necessary to carry out the provisions of this Act....s204 Section 4(i)states that the Commission"may perform any and all acts,make such rules and regulations, and issue such orders, not inconsistent with this Act, as may be necessary in the execution of its functions."2o5 55. Section 2 of the Communications Act grants the Commission explicit jurisdiction over "cable services.s206 Moreover, as we explained in the Local Franchising NPRM, Congress specifically charged the Commission with the administration of the Cable Act,including Section 621.207 In addition, federal courts have consistently upheld the Commission's authority in this area.208 56. Although several commenters disagreed with our tentative conclusion, none has persuaded us that the Commission lacks the authority to adopt rules to implement Section 621(a)(1). Incumbent cable operators and franchise authorities argue that the judicial review provisions in Sections 621(a)(1)and 635209 indicate that Congress gave the courts exclusive jurisdiction to interpret and enforce zoo United States v.Southwestern Cable Co.,392 U.S. 157, 167-68(1968)(quotation omitted). 2D1 United Telegraph Workers, AFL-CIO v. FCC, 436 F.2d 920, 923 (D.C. Cir. 1970) (citations and quotations omitted). 202 47 U.S.C. § 201(b) ("The Commission may prescribe such rules and regulations as may be necessary in the public interest to carry out the provisions of this Act."). 203 AT&T Corp. v.Iowa Utilities Board,525 U.S.366,378(1999). 204 See also 47 U.S.C.§ 151 (the Commission"shall execute and enforce the provisions of this Act"). 205 47 U.S.C. § 154(i). . 2°6 47 U.S.C. § 152 ("The provisions of this Act shall apply with respect to cable service, to all persons engaged within the United States in providing such service, and to the facilities of cable operators which relate to such service,as provided in title VI."). 207 Local Franchising NPRM,20 FCC Rcd at 18589. 208 See City of Chicago v.FCC, 199 F.3d 424(7th Cir. 1999)(finding that the FCC is charged by Congress with the administration of the Cable Act, including Section 621). See also City of New York v. FCC,486 U.S. 57, 70 n.6 (1988) (explaining that Section 303 gives the FCC rulemaking power with respect to the Cable Act);Nat'l Cable Television Ass'n v.FCC,33 F.3d 66,70(D.C. Cir. 1994)(upholding Commission finding that certain services are not subject to the franchise requirement in Section 621(b)(1)); United Video v.FCC,890 F.2d 1173, 1183(D.C.Cir. 1989) (denying petitions,to review the Commission's syndicated exclusivity rules);ACLU v. FCC, 823 F.2d 1554 (D.C.Cir. 1987)(upholding the Commission's interpretive rules regarding Section 621(a)(3)). 209 47 U.S.C. § 541(a)(1) ("[a]ny applicant whose application for a second franchise has been denied by a final decision of the franchising authority may appeal such final decision pursuant to the provisions of section 635 for failure to comply with this subsection"). Section 635 sets forth the specific procedures for such judicial proceedings. 47 U.S.C.§555. 28 Federal Communications Commission FCC 06-180 Section 621(a)(1), including authority to decide what constitutes an unreasonable refusal to award a competitive cable franchise.210 We find, however,that this argument reads far too much into the judicial review provisions. The mere existence of a judicial review provision in the Communications Act does not, by itself, strip the Commission of its otherwise undeniable rulemaking authority.211 As a general matter, the fact that Congress provides a mechanism for judicial review to remedy a violation of a statutory provision does not deprive an agency of the authority to issue rules interpreting that statutory provision. Here, nothing in the statutory language or the legislative history suggests that by providing a judicial remedy, Congress intended to divest the Commission of the authority to adopt and enforce rules implementing Section 621.212 In light of the Commission's broad rulemaking authority under Section 201 and other provisions in the Act, the absence of a specific grant of rulemaking authority in Section 621 is "not peculiar.i213 Other provisions in the Act demonstrate that when Congress intended to grant exclusive jurisdiction,it said so in the legislation.214 Here,however,neither Section 621(a)(1)nor Section 635 includes an exclusivity provision,and we decline to read one into either provision. 57. In addition, we note that the judicial review provisions at issue here on their face apply • only to a fmal decision by the franchising authority.215 They do not provide for review of unreasonable refusals to award an additional franchise by withholding a final decision or insisting on unreasonable terms that an applicant properly refuses to accept. Nor do the judicial review provisions say anything about the broader range of practices governed by Section 621216 21°See NCTA Reply,at 11-13(given the courts have concurrent jurisdiction to review many provisions of Title VI, Section 635(a)only has meaning if it is read to grant exclusive jurisdiction to the courts);Comcast Comments at 27- 28(Congress provided no role for the Commission in the franchising process);Comcast Reply at 27-28(621(a)(1)'s "unreasonably refuse" language and court review are inextricably linked and thus enforcement authority over the franchising approval process lies with the courts);NATOA Comments at 7-8(same). 211 See ACLU v. Texas,823 F.2d 1554, 1574(D.C.Cir 1987)(recognizing that despite a reference to"court action" in Section 622(d), in the absence of more explicit guidance from Congress, the Commission has concurrent jurisdiction to take enforcement action with respect to franchise fee disputes). 212 See BellSouth Reply at 35;USTelecom Reply at 14-16. 213 AT&T v.Iowa Utilities Board, 525 U.S.366,385(1999). In Iowa Utilities Board,the Supreme Court reviewed Commission rules implementing provisions of the Telecommunications Act of 1996. In particular,states challenged Commission rules implementing Section 252(c)(2),which provides,"a State commission shall...establish any rates for interconnection, services, or network elements." 47 U.S.C. §252(c)(2). Although this and other provisions in the 1996 Act entrusted the states with certain tasks, the Supreme Court held that "these assignments ... do not logically preclude the Commission's issuance of rules to guide the state-commission judgments." Iowa Utilities Board,525 U.S.at 385. The same reasoning applies to the judicial review provisions in Sections 621(a)(1)and 635. 214 See, e.g.,47 U.S.C. § 255(f)("The Commission shall have exclusive jurisdiction with respect to any complaint under this section."). We do not find persuasive commenters'argument that the only way to give Section 635(a)any meaning is to construe it as giving courts exclusive jurisdiction with regard to the three Title VI provisions enumerated in Section 635(a), i.e., Sections 621(a)(1),625, and 626. See NATOA Comments at 9. None of the cases cited by commenters support this proposition. Rather, they suggest that in the absence of an exclusivity provision in the statute, the Commission and courts share jurisdiction. See, e.g., NATOA Comments at 9 (citing ACLU v.FCC, 823 F.2d 1554, 1573-75(D.C.Cir. 1987)). 215 47 U.S.C. § 541(a)(1) ("Any applicant whose application for a second franchise has been denied by a final decision of the franchising authority may appeal such final decision pursuant to the provisions of section 635 for failure to comply with this subsection") (emphasis added); 47 U.S.C. §555(a) ("Any cable operator adversely affected by any final determination made by a franchising authority under section 621(a)(1)" may commence an action in federal district court or State court)(emphasis added). 216 See USTelecom Reply at 14. 29 Federal Communications Commission FCC 06-180 58. We also reject the argument by some incumbent cable operators and franchise authorities that Section 621(a)(1) is unambiguous and contains no gaps in the statutory language that would give the Commission authority to regulate the franchising process.217 We strongly disagree. Congress did not define the term `unreasonably refuse," and it is far from self-explanatory. The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit has held that the term `unreasonable" is among the "ambiguous statutory terms" in the Communications Act, and that the "court owes substantial deference to the interpretation the Commission accords them.s218 We therefore find that Section 621(a)(1)'s requirement that an LFA "may not unreasonably refuse to award an additional competitive franchise" creates ambiguity that the Commission has the authority to resolve.219 The possibility that a court, in reviewing a particular matter, may determine whether an LFA"unreasonably"denied a second franchise does not displace the Commission's authority to adopt rules generally interpreting what constitutes an "unreasonable refusal"under Section 621(a)(1).22° 59. Some incumbent cable operators and franchise authorities argue that Section 621(a)(1) imposes no general duty of reasonableness on the LFA in connection with procedures for awarding a competitive franchise.'' According to these commenters,the`unreasonably refuse to award"language in the first sentence in Section 621(a)(1)must be read in conjunction with the second sentence,which relates to the denial of a competitive franchise application.! Based on this, commenters claim that "unreasonably refuse to award"means"unreasonably deny"and,thus, Section 621(a)(1)is not applicable before a fmal decision is rendered.223 We disagree. By concluding that the language `unreasonably refuse to award" means the same thing as "unreasonably deny," commenters violate the long-settled principle of statutory construction that each word in a statutory scheme must be given meaning.224 We find that the better reading of the phrase "unreasonably refuse to award" is that Congress intended to cover LFA conduct beyond ultimate denials by final decision, such as situations where an LFA has unreasonably refused to award an additional franchise by withholding a final decision or by insisting on unreasonable terms that an applicant refuses to accept.225 While the judicial review provisions in Sections 21�See Comcast Reply at 27. 218 Capital Network System, Inc. v. FCC, 28 F.3d 201,204(D.C.Cir. 1994)("Because`just,' `unjust,' `reasonable,' and `unreasonable' are ambiguous statutory terms, this court owes substantial deference to the interpretation the Commission accords them."). 219 47 U.S.C. §541(a)(1)(emphasis added). n° See NCTA v. Brand X Internet Services, 545 U.S. 967, --, 125 S. Ct. 2688, 2700-02 (2005) (where statute is ambiguous,and implementing agency's construction is reasonable,Chevron requires federal court to accept agency's construction of statute,even if agency's reading differs from prior judicial construction). 221 See NCTA Comments at 28-29;Comcast Reply at 31. 222 See NCTA Comments at 29;Comcast Reply at 32. 223 See NATOA Comments at 30-31;NCTA Comments at 28-29; Burnsville/Eagan Comments at 31-32; Comcast Reply at 32-33. 224 See Bailey v. United States, 516 U.S. 137, 143-45 (1995)("We assume that Congress used two terms because it intended each term to have a particular,nonsuperfluous meaning."). 225 See,e.g., Tribune Co.v.FCC, 133 F.3d 61,66(D.C.Cir. 1998)(imposing an"intolerable"condition on the grant of a license application may be deemed a de facto denial of that license for purposes of the appeal provisions under§ 402(b)of the Act, citing Mobile Communications Corp. of America v.FCC, 77 F.3d 1399 (D.C. Cir. 1996)). See also DOJ Ex Parte at 7(stating that unnecessary delays,demands for goods and services unrelated to the provision of cable services, and imposition of build-out requirements are tantamount to a "refusal" to award an additional competitive franchise). 30 Federal Communications Commission FCC 06-180 621(a)(1) and 635 refer to a "final decision" or "final determination,"226 the Commission's rulemaking authority under Section 621 is not constrained in the same manner. Instead, the Commission has the authority to address what constitutes an unreasonable refusal to award a franchise, and as stated above, a local franchising authority may unreasonably refuse to award a franchise through other routes than issuing a fmal decision or determination denying a franchise application. For all of these reasons, we conclude that the Commission may exercise its statutory authority to establish federal standards identifying those LFA-imposed terms and conditions that would violate Section 621(a)(1)of the Communications Act.227 60. Incumbent cable operators and local franchise authorities also maintain that the legislative history of Section 621(a)(1) demonstrates that Congress reserved to LFAs the authority to determine what constitutes "reasonable" grounds for franchise denials, with oversight by the courts, and left no authority under Section 621(a)(1) for the Commission to issue rules or guidelines governing the franchise approval process.228 Commenters point to the Conference Committee Report on the 1992. Amendments,229 which adopted the Senate version of Section 621,230 rather than the House version,which "contained five examples of circumstances under which it is reasonable for a franchising authority to deny a franchise."23I We find commenters' reliance on the legislative history to be misplaced. While the House may have initially considered adopting a categorical approach for determining what would constitute a `reasonable denial," Congress ultimately decided to forgo that approach and prohibit franchising authorities from unreasonably refusing to award an additional competitive franchise.232 To be sure, commenters are correct to point out that Congress chose not to define in the Act the meaning of the phrase "unreasonably refuse to award." However, commenters' assertion that Congress therefore intended for this gap in the statute to be filled in by only LFAs and courts lacks any basis in law or logic. Rather, we believe that it is far more reasonable to assume, consistent with settled principles of administrative law, that Congress intended that the Commission, which is charged by Congress with the administration of Title VI,233 to have the authority to do so. There is nothing in the statute or the 226 47 U.S.C. §§541(a),555. See also Puget Sound Energy,Inc. v. U.S.. 310 F.3d 613,624-25 (9th Cir.2002)(for purposes of determining when power administration's rate determination becomes a"fmal action" under statutory judicial review provision,court will turn for guidance to general doctrine of finality in administrative law,which"is concerned with whether the initial decision-maker has arrived at a definitive position on the issue that inflicts an actual,concrete injury"). 227 See Qwest Reply at 10-11. 228 See NCTA Comments at 22-23;Florida Municipalities Comments at 9-10. 229 H.R.REP.No. 102-862,at 77-78(1992)(Conf.Rep.),as reprinted in 1992 U.S.C.C.A.N. 1231, 1259-1260. 230 S.REP.No. 102-92,at 185(1991)(explaining that"[i]t shall not be considered unreasonable for purposes of this provision for local franchising authorities to deny the application of a potential competitor if it is technically infeasible. However,the Committee does not intend technical infeasibility to be the only justification for denying an additional franchise"). 231 H.R. REP. No. 102-862, at 77-78 (1992) (Conf. Rep.), as reprinted in 1992 U.S.C.C.A.N. 1231, 1259-1260 (listing five examples of reasonable denials identified in the House amendment to include:(1)technical infeasibility; (2) failure of the applicant to assure that it will provide adequate public, educational, and governmental access channel capacity, facilities, or financial support; (3) failure of the applicant to assure that it will provide service throughout the entire franchise area within a reasonable period of time;(4)the award would interfere with the ability of the franchising authority to deny renewal of a franchise; and(5) failure to demonstrate financial, technical, or legal qualifications to provide cable service."); F..R. REP.No. 102-628,at 90(1992).See NCTA Comments at 22; Florida Municipalities Comments at 9-10. 232 H.R.REP.No. 102-862,at 77-78(1992)(Conf.Rep.),as reprinted in 1992 U.S.C.C.A.N. 1231, 1259-1260. 233 See City of Chicago v.FCC, 199 F.3d at 428. See also AT&T Corp. v.Iowa Utilities Board, 525 U.S.at 377-380. 31 Federal Communications Commission FCC 06-180 legislative history to suggest that Congress intended to displace the Commission's explicit authority to interpret and enforce provisions in Title VI, including Section 621(a)(1). 61. The pro-competitive rules and guidance we adopt in this Order are consistent with Congressional intent. Section 601 states that Title VI is designed to "promote competition in cable conununications."234 In a report to Congress prepared pursuant to the 1984 Cable Act, the Commission concluded that in order "[t]o encourage more robust competition in the local video marketplace, the Congress should ... forbid local franchising authorities from unreasonably denying a franchise to potential competitors who are ready and able to provide service.s?35 In response, Congress revised Section 621(a)(1) to prohibit a franchising authority from unreasonably refusing to award an additional competitive franchise.236 The regulations set forth herein give force to that restriction and vindicate the national policy goal of promoting competition in the video marketplace. 62. Our authority to adopt rules implementing Section 621(a)(1) is further supported by Section 706 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, which directs the Commission to encourage broadband deployment by utilizing "measures that promote competition ... or other regulating methods that remove bathers to infrastructure investment.s737 The D.C.Circuit has found that the Commission has the authority to consider the goals of Section 706 when formulating regulations under the Act.238 The record here indicates that a provider's ability to offer video service and to deploy broadband networks are linked intrinsically,and the federal goals of enhanced cable competition and rapid broadband deployment are interrelated.239 Thus,if the franchising process were allowed to slow competition in the video service market, that would decrease broadband infrastructure investment, which would not only affect video but other broadband services as wel1.24° As the DOJ points out, potential gains from competition, such as 234 47 U.S.C. §521(6). 235 See Competition,Rate Deregulation and the Commission's Policies Relating to the Provision of Cable Television Service, 5 FCC Rcd 4962,4974(1990). 236 47 U.S.C.§541(a)(1). See also H.R.REP.No. 102-628,at 47(1992)(noting the Commission's recommendation that, in order to encourage competition, Congress should prevent LFAs from unreasonably denying a franchise to potential competitors);Implementation of Section 19 of the Cable Television Consumer Protection and Competition Act of 1992 Annual Assessment of the Status of Competition in the Market for the Delivery of Video Programming,9 FCC Rcd 7442, 7469 (1994) (recognizing that "Congress incorporated the Commission's recommendation in the 1992 Cable Act by amending§621(a)(1)of the Communications Act..."). The legislative history explained that the purpose of this abridgement of local government authority was to promote greater cable competition. S.REP.No. 102-92, at 47 (1991) (the prohibition on local franchising authorities from unreasonably refusing to grant second franchises is based on evidence in the record that there are benefits from competition between two cable systems and the Committee's belief that LFAs should be encouraged to award second franchises). 237 Section 706 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996,47 U.S.C.§ 157 nt. 238 See USTA v. FCC, 359 F.3d 554, 580, 583 (D.C. Cir. 2004); see also USTelecom Comments at 15; TIA Comments at 16. 239 See Alcatel Comments at 5-6;USTelecom Comments at 6(broadband growth is tied to bundled services;firm's perceived need to compete for "triple play" customers is the driving force for broadband investment); AT&T Comments at 39-40 (the local franchising process discourages broadband infrastructure investment that supports video along with other broadband services). 24° See Ad Hoc Telcom Manufacturer Coalition Comments at 1-3 (the franchising process threatens to slow down incumbent LECs'capital expenditures,thereby slowing competition in the video service market and reducing output throughout the high-tech manufacturing industry); AT&T Reply at 31-32 (the lack of clear regulatory guidance is chilling investment because new entrants cannot gauge the cost of entry);BellSouth Comments at 20-22(the current franchising process impedes the deployment of BellSouth's broadband network). 32 Federal Communications Commission FCC 06-180 expedited broadband deployment, are more likely to be realized without imposed restrictions or conditions on entry in the franchising process.241 63. We reject the argument by incumbent cable operators and LFAs that any rules adopted under Section 621(a)(1) could adversely affect the franchising process.242 In particular, LFAs contend that cable service requirements must vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction because cable franchises need to be"tailored to the needs and interests of the local community."243 The Communications Act preserves a role for local jurisdictions in the franchise process. We do not believe that the rules we adopt today will hamper the franchising process. While local franchising authorities and potential new entrants have opposing viewpoints about the reasonableness of certain terms,2' we received comments from both groups that agree that Commission guidance concerning factors that are"reasonable"will help to expedite the franchising process.245 Therefore,we anticipate that our implementation of Section 621(a)(1)will aid new entrants, incumbent cable operators, and LFAs in understanding the bounds of local authority in considering competitive franchise applications. 64. In sum, we conclude that we have clear authority to interpret and implement the Cable Act, including the ambiguous phrase"unreasonably refuse to award" in Section 621(a)(1), to further the congressional imperatives to promote competition and broadband deployment. As discussed above, this authority is reinforced by Section 4(i) of the Communications Act, which gives us broad power to perform acts necessary to execute our functions, and the mandate in Section 706 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 that we encourage broadband deployment through measures that promote competition.246 We adopt the rules and regulations in this Order pursuant to that authority. We fmd that Section 621(a)(1) prohibits not only an LFA's ultimate unreasonable denial of a competitive franchise application, but also LFA procedures and conduct that have the effect of unreasonably interfering with the ability of a would-be competitor to obtain a competitive franchise, whether by (1)creating unreasonable delays in the process, or(2)imposing unreasonable regulatory roadblocks, such that they effectively constitute an "unreasonable refusal to award an additional competitive franchise" within the meaning of Section 621(a)(1).247 C. Steps to Ensure that the Local Franchising Process Does Not Unreasonably Interfere with Competitive Cable Entry and Rapid Broadband Deployment 65. Commenters in this proceeding identified several specific issues regarding problems with the current operation of the franchising process. These include: (1) failure by LFAs to grant or deny franchises within reasonable time frames; (2) LFA requirements that a facilities-based new entrant build out its cable facilities beyond a reasonable service area; (3) certain LFA-mandated costs, fees, and other compensation and whether they must be counted toward the statutory 5 percent cap on franchise fees; (4) 241 DOJ Ex Parte at 4. 242 See, e.g.,Anne Arundel County et al. Comments at 15 (federal regulation would not allow each locality to tailor franchise terms to its specific needs);NCTA Comments at 23 (universal rules and standards cannot be tailored well enough to define what is reasonable;reasonableness must be reviewed on a case-by-case basis). 243 NATOA Comments at 27(quoting Section 601(2)of the Communications Act,47 U.S.C. §521(2)). 244 See, e.g., NATOA Reply at 43; Verizon Comments at 76-77 (disagreeing about the reasonableness of level playing fields). 245 See Manatee County Comments at 15;Verizon Reply at 35. 246 47 U.S.C.§ 154(i),Section 706 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996,47 U.S.C. § 157 nt. 247 Id 33 Federal Communications Commission FCC 06-180 new entrants' obligations to provide support mandated by LFAs for PEG and I-Nets; and (5) facilities- based new entrants' obligations to comply with local consumer protection and customer service standards when the same facilities are used to provide other regulated services,such as telephony. We discuss each measure below. 1. Maximum Time Frame for Franchise Negotiations 66. As explained above,'" the record demonstrates that, although the average time that elapses between application and grant of a franchise varies from locality to locality,unreasonable delays in the franchising process are commonplace and have hindered, and in some cases thwarted entirely, attempts to deploy competitive video services. The record is replete with examples of unreasonable delays in the franchising process,249 which can indefinitely delay competitive entry and leave an applicant without recourse in violation of Section 621(a)(1)'s prohibition on unreasonable refusals to award a competitive franchise.25° 67. We fmd that unreasonable delays in the franchising process deprive consumers of competitive video services, hamper accelerated broadband deployment, and can result in unreasonable refusals to award competitive franchises. Thus, it is necessary to establish reasonable time limits for LFAs to render a decision on a competitive applicant's franchise application.251 We define below the boundaries of a reasonable time period in which an LFA must render a decision, and we establish a remedy for applicants that do not receive a decision within the applicable time frame. We establish a maximum time frame of 90 days for entities with existing authority to access public rights-of-way, and six months for entities that do not have authority to access public rights-of-way. The deadline will be calculated from the date that the applicant files an application or other writing that includes the information described below. Failure of an LFA to act within the allotted time constitutes an unreasonable refusal to award the franchise under Section 621(a)(1), and the LFA at that time is deemed to have granted the entity's application on an interim basis, pursuant to which the applicant may begin providing service. Thereafter, the LFA and applicant may continue to negotiate the terms of the franchise,consistent with the guidance and rulings in this Order. a. Time Limit 68. The record shows that the franchising process in some localities can drag on for years. We are concerned that without a defined time limit, the extended delays will continue, depriving consumers of cable competition and applicants of franchises. We thus consider the appropriate length of time that should be afforded LFAs in reaching a fmal decision on a competitive franchise application. Commenters suggest a wide range of time frames that may be reasonable for an LFA's consideration of a competitive franchise application. TIA proposes that we adopt the time limit used in the Texas franchising legislation, which would allow a new entrant to obtain a franchise within 17 days of submitting an application.252 Other commenters propose time limits ranging from 30 days to six 248 See supra pass. 14-17,22. 249 See Local Franchising NPRM, 20 FCC Red at 18590(quoting 47 U.S.C.§541(a)(1)),FTTH Council Comments at 27,South Slope Comments at 13,Verizon Reply at 34-35. 25°See supra paras.22-30. 251 47 U.S.C.§§541(a)(1),555. 252 See TIA Comments at 8, 18. 34 Federal Communications Commission FCC 06-180 months.253 While NATOA in its comments opposes any time limit,254 in February 2006 a NATOA representative told the Commission that the six-month time limit that California law imposes is reasonable.255 Some commenters have suggested that a franchise applicant that holds an existing authorization to access rights-of-way (e.g., a LEC) should be subject to a shorter time frame than other applicants. These commenters reason that deployment of video services requires an upgrade to existing facilities in the rights-of-way rather than construction of new facilities,and such applicants generally have demonstrated their fitness as a provider of communications services.256 69. In certain states, an SFA is responsible for all franchising decisions (e.g., Hawaii, Connecticut, Vermont, Texas, Indiana, Kansas, South Carolina, and beginning January 1, 2007, California and North Carolina), and the majority of these states have established time frames within which those SFAs must make franchising decisions.257 We are mindful,however, that states in which an LFA is the franchising authority, the LFA may be a small municipal entity with extremely limited resources. 258 Thus, it may not always be feasible for an LFA to carry out legitimate local policy objectives permitted by the Act and appropriate state or local law within an extremely short time frame. We therefore seek to establish a time limit that balances the reasonable needs of the LFA with the needs of the public for greater video service competition and broadband deployment. As set out in detail below, we believe that it is appropriate to provide rules to guide LFAs that retain ultimate decision-making power over franchise decisions. 70. As a preliminary matter, we fmd that a franchise applicant that holds an existing authorization to access rights-of-way should be subject to a shorter time frame for review than other applicants. First, one of the primary justifications for cable franchising is the locality's need to regulate and receive compensation for the use of public rights-of-way.259 In considering an application for a cable franchise by an entity that already has rights-of-way access,however,an LFA need not devote substantial attention to issues of rights-of-way management.260 Second, in obtaining a certificate for public 253 See AT&T Comments at 77, Cavalier Telephone Comments at 4 (suggesting a 30-day time limit); BellSouth Comments at 36, NTCA Comments at 9, OPASTCO Reply at 4 (suggesting a 90-day time limit); Consumers for Cable Choice Comments at 9,Verizon Comments at 38,FTTH Council Comments at 60,State of Hawaii Reply at 3 (suggesting a 120-day time limit);Alliance for Public Technology Comments at 3(suggesting a 180-day time limit); Qwest Comments at 26-27. 254 NATOA Comments at 36-37,NATOA Reply at 21-23. 255 Transcript of FCC Agenda Meeting and Panel Discussion at 38(Feb. 10,2006). 256 See Local Franchising NPRM,20 FCC Rcd at 18591. 257 See HAW.REV.STAT. §440G-(2006);CoNN.GEN.STAT.ANN. § 16-331 (West 2006);VT.STAT.ANN.tit.30,§ 502(2006); TEx.UTIL.CODE ANN. § 66.003 (West 2006); IND.CODE § 8-1-34-16(2006); 2006 KAN.SESS.LAWS Ch.93 (West 2006); S.C.CODE ANN. § 58-12-05 (2006);N.C.GEN STAT.ANN. §66-351;CAL.Pus.UTIL.CODE§ 401,et seq. We note that our Order does not affect these franchising decisions. 258 We note that a number of other states in addition to Texas have adopted or are considering statewide franchising in order to speed competitive entry. See, e.g., IND.CODE§ 8-1-34-16 (2006); VA.CODE ANN. § 15.2-2108.1:1 et seq. (2006); SB-816,2006 Sess. (Mo. 2006). Nothing in our discussion here is intended to preempt the actions of any states. The time limit we adopt herein is a ceiling beyond which LFA delay in processing a franchise application becomes unreasonable. To the extent that states and/or municipalities wish to adopt shorter time limits, they remain free to do so. 259 NATOA Comments at 38-39;Ada Township Comments at 11-14;TCCFUI Reply Comments at 18. 26°Recognizing this distinction,some states have created streamlined franchising procedures specifically tailored to entities with existing access to public rights-of-way. See, e.g., VIRGINIA CODE ANN. § 15.2-2108.1:1 et seq.);HF- 2647,2006 Sess.(Iowa 2006)(this proposed legislation would grant franchises to all telephone providers authorized (continued...) 35 Federal Communications Commission FCC 06-180 convenience and necessity from a state, a facilities-based provider generally has demonstrated its legal, technical, and financial fitness to be a provider of telecommunications services. Thus, an LFA need not spend a significant amount of time considering the fitness of such applicants to access public rights-of- way. NATOA and its members concede that the authority to occupy the right-of-way has an effect on the review of the financial,technical,and legal merits of the application,and eases right-of-way management burdens.` We thus find that a time limit is particularly appropriate for an applicant that already possesses authority to deploy telecommunications infrastructure in the public rights-of-way.262 We further agree with AT&T that entities with existing authority to access rights-of-way should be entitled to an expedited process, and that lengthy consideration of franchise applications made by such entities would be unreasonable.263 Specifically, we find that 90 days provides LFAs ample time to review and negotiate a franchise agreement with applicants that have access to rights-of-way.2 71. Based on our examination of the record,we believe that a time limit of 90 days for those applicants that have access to rights-of-way strikes the appropriate balance between the goals of facilitating competitive entry into the video marketplace and ensuring that franchising authorities have sufficient time to fulfill their responsibilities. In this vein, we note that 90 days is a considerably longer time frame than that suggested by some commenters,such as TIA.265 Additionally,we recognize that the Communications Act gives an LFA 120 days to make a final decision on a cable operator's request to modify a franchise.266 We believe that the record supports an even shorter time here because the costs associated with delay are much greater with respect to entry. When an incumbent cable franchisee requests a modification, consumers are not deprived of service while an LFA deliberates. Here, delay by an individual LFA deprives consumers of the benefits of cable competition.267 An LFA should be able to (Continued from previous page) to use the right-of-way without any application or negotiation requirement). See also South Slope Comments at 11 (duplicative local franchising requirements imposed on a competitor with existing authority to occupy the rights-of- way are unjustified and constitute an unreasonable barrier to competitive video entry). 261 See NATOA Comments at 38-39. Although NATOA contends that an applicant's authority to occupy the rights- of-way would not affect the length of the negotiations regarding PEG requirements,franchise fees,or build-out,we clarify the law concerning those issues below to minimize further disputes and delays. 262 Ad Hoc Telecom Manufacturers Comments at 6. 263 AT&T argues that an entity authorized to occupy a right-of-way should simply complete a short-form application and agree to general cable franchise requirements such as franchise fees and PEG capacity,and that the right-of-way holder should receive a franchise within one month of filing the short-form application. See AT&T Comments at 74. 264 See BellSouth Comments at 36; Ada Township, et al. Comments at 23; LMC Comments at 18; Hawaiian Telecom Comments at 7-8(recommending a time frame of 90 days from the filing of the application). Several state legislators agree that an applicant's existing authority to occupy the right-of-way lightens the administrative load, and enacted or proposed similar measures to streamline the franchising process for entities that hold the authority. See VIRGINIA CODE ANN. § 15.2-2108.21;HF-2647,2006 Sess. (Iowa 2006)(this proposed legislation would grant franchises to all telephone providers authorized to use the right-of-way without any application or negotiation requirement). We assume generally that state and local regulators are sufficiently empowered to deal with any public safety or aesthetic issues that may arise by virtue of deployment of new video-related equipment by applicants already authorized to use the rights-of way. 265 See TIA Comments at 8-9(a time frame of 17 business days,as set forth in the Texas statute,"provides ample time to negotiate an agreement reflecting the requirements of Section 621"); AT&T Comments at 75, 78-79. See also supra paras. 17,27. 266 See 47 U.S.C.§545. 262 Verizon Comments at 36-37. 36 • Federal Communications Commission FCC 06-180 negotiate a franchise with a familiar applicant that is already authorized to occupy the right-of-way in less than 120 days. The list of legitimate issues to be negotiated is short,268 and we narrow those issues considerably in this Order. We therefore impose a deadline of 90 days for an LFA to reach a final decision on a competitive franchise application submitted by those applicants authorized to occupy rights- of-way within the franchise area. 72. For other applicants, we believe that six months affords a reasonable amount of time to negotiate with an entity that is not already authorized to occupy the right-of-way, as an LFA will need to evaluate the entity's legal, financial, and technical capabilities in addition to generally considering the applicant's fitness to be a communications provider over the rights-of-way: Commenters have presented substantial evidence that six months provides LFAs sufficient time to review an applicant's proposal, negotiate acceptable terms,and award or deny a competitive franchise.269 We are persuaded by the record that a six-month period will allow sufficient time for review. Given that LFAs must act on modification applications within the 120-day limit set by the Communications Act, we believe affording an additional two months — i.e., a six-month review period—will provide LFAs ample time to conduct negotiations with an entity new to the franchise area. 73. Failure of an LFA to act within these time frames is unreasonable and constitutes a refusal to award a competitive franchise. Consistent with other time limits that the Communications Act and our rules impose,270 a franchising authority and a competitive applicant may extend these limits if both parties agree to an extension of time. We further note that an LFA may engage in franchise review activities that are not prohibited by the Communications Act or our rules, such as multiple levels of review or holding a public hearing,271 provided that a final decision is made within the time period established under this Order. b. Commencement of the Time Period for Negotiations 74. The record demonstrates that there is no universally accepted event that "starts the clock"for purposes of calculating the length of franchise negotiations between LFAs and new entrants.272 Accordingly, we find it necessary to delineate the point at which such calculation should begin. Few commenters offer specific suggestions on what event should open the time period for franchise negotiations. Qwest contends that the period for negotiations should commence once an applicant files an application.273 On the other hand, Verizon argues that the clock must start before an applicant files a formal application because significant negotiations often take place before a formal filing.274 Specifically, 268 Verizon Reply Comments at 43 n.69. 269 See Cablevision Comments at 10-12; GMTC Comments at 3, 6-8; State of Hawaii Reply at 3;Mt.Hood Cable Regulatory Commission Comments at 20; NJBPU Comments at 5; Southwest Suburban Cable Commission Comments at 7. See also Fairfax County,Va.Comments at 4-7(formal negotiations began April 1,2005,franchise granted Oct. 1,2005). 27°See, e.g.,47 U.S.C. §537,47 C.F.R. §76.502(c). 271 See Southwest Suburban Cable Commission Comments at 7. 272 See supra paras. 14-17. 273 See Qwest Reply at 2(establish a requirement that an LFA"must act on a franchise application within six months of filing"). 274 See Verizon Reply at 37; Letter from Leora Hochstein, Executive Director, Federal Regulatory, Verizon, to Marlene Dortch,Secretary,Federal Communications Commission at 1 (April 21,2006). 37 Federal Communications Commission FCC 06-180 the company advocates starting the clock when the applicant initiates negotiations with the LFA,275 which could be documented informally between the applicant and the LFA or with a formal Commission filing for evidentiary purposes. 75. We will calculate the deadline from the date that the applicant first files certain requisite information in writing with the LFA. This filing must meet any applicable state or local requirements, including any state or local laws that specify the contents of a franchise application and payment of a reasonable application fee in jurisdictions where such fee is required.276 This application,whether formal or informal, must at a minimum contain: (1) the applicant's name; (2) the names of the applicant's officers and directors; (3) the applicant's business address; (4) the name and contact information of the applicant's contact; (5) a description of the geographic area that the applicant proposes to serve; (6) the applicant's proposed PEG channel capacity and capital support; (7)the requested term of the agreement; (8)whether the applicant holds an existing authorization to access the community's public rights-of-way; and (9) the amount of the franchise fee the applicant agrees to pay(consistent with the Communications Act and the standards set forth herein). Any requirement the LFA imposes on the applicant to negotiate or engage in any regulatory or administrative processes before the applicant files the requisite information is per se unreasonable and preempted by this Order. Such a requirement would.delay competitive entry by undermining the efficacy of the time limits adopted in this Order and would not serve any legitimate purpose. At their discretion, applicants may choose to engage in informal negotiations before filing an application. These informal negotiations do not apply to the deadline, however; we will calculate the deadline from the date that the applicant first files its application with an LFA. For purposes of any disputes that may arise,the applicant will have the burden of proving that it filed the requisite information or,where required,the application with the LFA,by producing either a receipt-stamped copy of the filing or a certified mail return receipt indicating receipt of the required documentation. We believe that adoption of a time limit with a specific starting point will ensure that the franchising process will not be unduly delayed by pre-filing requirements, will increase applicants' incentive to begin negotiating in earnest at an earlier stage of the process, and will encourage both LFAs and applicants to reach agreement within the specified time frame. We note that an LFA may toll the running of the 90-day or six-month time period if it has requested information from the franchise applicant and is waiting for such information. Once the information is received by the LFA,the time period would automatically begin to run again. c. Remedy for Failure to Negotiate a Franchise Within the Time Limit 76. Finally, we consider what remedy or remedies may be appropriate in the event that an LFA and franchise applicant are unable to reach agreement within the 90-day or six-month time frame. Section 635 of the Communications Act provides a specific remedy for an applicant who believes that an LFA unreasonably denied its application containing the requisite information within the applicable time frame. Here,we establish a remedy in the event an LFA does not grant or deny a franchise application by the deadline. In selecting this remedy, we seek to provide a meaningful incentive for local franchising authorities to abide by the deadlines contained in this Order while at the same time maintaining LFAs' authority to manage rights-of-way,collect franchise fees,and address other legitimate franchise concerns. 77. In the event that an LFA fails to grant or deny an application by the deadline set by the Commission, Verizon urges the Commission to temporarily authorize the applicant to provide video 275 1d 276 See infra paras.99-104. 38 Federal Communications Commission FCC 06-180 service.2' In general,we agree with this proposed remedy. In order to encourage franchising authorities to reach a final decision on a competitive application within the applicable time frame set forth in this Order, a failure to abide by the Commission's deadline must bring with it meaningful consequences. Additionally, we do not believe that a sufficient remedy for an LFA's inaction on an application is the creation of a remedial process, such as arbitration, that will result in even further delay. We also decline to agree to NATOA's suggestion that an applicant should be awarded a franchise identical to that held by the incumbent cable operator. This suggestion is impractical for the same reasons that we fmd local level- playing-field requirements are preempted.27' Therefore, if an LFA has not made a final decision within the time limits we adopt in this Order, the LFA will be deemed to have granted the applicant an interim franchise based on the terms proposed in the application. This interim franchise will remain in effect only until the LFA takes final action on the application. We believe this approach is preferable to having the Commission itself provide interim franchises to applicants because a "deemed grant" will begin the process of developing a working relationship between the competitive applicant and the franchising authority,which will be helpful in the event that a negotiated franchise is ultimately approved. 78. The Commission has authority to deem a franchise application "granted" on an interim basis. As noted above, the Commission has broad authority to adopt rules to implement Title VI and, specifically, Section 621(a)(1) of the Communications Act 279 As the Supreme Court has explained, the Commission serves"as the `single Government agency' with `unified jurisdiction' and`regulatory power over all forms of electrical communication, whether by telephone, telegraph, cable,or radio.si280 Section 201(b) authorizes the Commission to "prescribe such rules and regulations as may be necessary in the public interest to carry out the provisions of this Act.s281 "[The grant in § 201(b) means what it says: The FCC has rulemaking authority to carry out the `provisions of this Act.",282 Section 2 of the Communications Act grants the Commission explicit jurisdiction over "cable services."283 Moreover, Congress specifically charged the Commission with the administration of the Cable Act, including Section 621,and federal courts have consistently upheld the Commission's authority in this area.284 79. The Commission has previously granted franchise applicants temporary authority to operate in local areas. In the early 1970s, the Commission required every cable operator to obtain a federal certificate of compliance from the Commission before it could "commence operations."285 In effect,the Commission acted as a co-franchising authority—requiring both an FCC certificate and a local franchise (granted pursuant to detailed Commission guidance and oversight) prior to the provision of 277 See Letter from Leora Hochstein,Executive Director,Federal Regulatory,Verizon,to Marlene Dortch,Secretary, Federal Communications Commission at 1 (May 3,2006). 278See infra para. 138. If new entrants were required to adopt the same franchises as incumbents, the new entrants would be forced to accept terms that violate Section 621(a)(1)'s prohibition on unreasonable refusals to grant franchises. See Mercatus Center at 39-40;Phoenix Center Competition Paper at 7. 279 See supra Section III.B. 28° United States v.Southwestern Cable Co., 392 U.S. 157, 167-68(1968)(citations omitted). 281 47 U.S.C.§201(b).See also 47 U.S.C. §§ 151, 154(i),303(r). 282 AT&T Corp. v.Iowa Utilites Board, 525 U.S.366,378(1999). 283 47 U.S.C.§ 152. 284 See supra note 208. 285 Amendment of Part 74,Subpart K, of the Commission's Rules and Regulations Relative to Community Antenna Television Systems,36 F.C.C.2d 143,11178(1972). 39 Federal Communications Commission FCC 06-180 services.286 As the Commission noted, "[a]lthough we have determined that local authorities ought to have the widest scope in franchising cable operators, the final responsibility is ours.s287 And the Commission granted interim franchises for cable services in areas where there was no other franchising authority.288 80. We note that the deemed grant approach is consistent with other federal regulations designed to address inaction on the part of a State decision maker.289 In addition, this approach does not raise any special legal concerns about impinging on state or local authority. The Act plainly gives federal courts authority to review decisions made pursuant to Section 621(a)(1).290 As the Supreme Court observed in Iowa Utilities Board, "This is, at bottom, a debate not about whether the States will be allowed to do their own thing, but about whether it will be the FCC or the federal courts that draw the lines to which they must hew. To be sure,the FCC's lines can be even more restrictive than those drawn by the courts—but it is hard to spark a passionate `States'rights' debate over that detail."29' 81. We anticipate that a deemed grant will be the exception rather than the rule because LFAs will generally comply with the Commission's rules and either accept or reject applications within the applicable time frame. However, in the rare instance that a local franchising authority unreasonably delays acting on an application and a deemed grant therefore occurs,we encourage the parties to continue to negotiate and attempt to reach a franchise agreement following expiration of the formal time limit. Each party will have a strong incentive to negotiate sincerely: LFAs will want to ensure that their constituents continue to receive the benefits of competition and cable providers will want to protect the investments they have made in deploying their systems. If the LFA ultimately acts to deny the franchise after the deadline, the applicant may appeal such denial pursuant to Section 635(a) of the Communications Act. If, on the other hand, the LFA ultimately grants the franchise, the applicant's operations will continue pursuant to the negotiated franchise,rather than the interim franchise. 2. Build-Out 82. As discussed above, build-out requirements in many cases may constitute unreasonable barriers to entry into the MVPD market for facilities-based competitors.292 Accordingly, we limit LFAs' ability to impose certain build-out requirements pursuant to Section 621(a)(1). 286 The Commission ended the certificate requirement and ceded additional authority to state and local governments in the late 1970s,but only for pragmatic reasons. See,e.g., Report and Order, 66 F.C.C.2d 380,¶¶33, 37 (1977); Memorandum Opinion and Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 71 F.C.C.2d 569, ¶ 7 (1979) (withdrawing aspects of Commission franchising participation, but only "as long as the actions taken at the local level will not undermine important and overriding federal interests"). 287 Teleprompter Cable Sys.,52 F.C.C.2d 1263,¶9(1975)(emphasis added). 288 See,e.g.,Cable Television Reconsideration Order,36 F.C.C.2d 326,¶116(1972);Sun Valley Cable Communications (Sun City, Arizona), 39 F.C.C.2d 105 (1973); Mahoning Valley Cablevision, Inc. (Liberty Township, Ohio),39 F.C.C.2d 939(1973). 289 See, e.g.,40 C.F.R. 141.716(a)(watershed control plans that are submitted to a state and not acted upon by the regulatory deadline are "considered approved" until the state subsequently withdraws such approval.); 42 C.F.R. 438.56(e)(2)(an application to disenroll from a Medicaid managed care plan shall be"considered approved"if not acted on by a state agency within the regulatory deadline). See also 47 U.S.C. § 160(c) (petition for forbearance "deemed granted"if Commission fails to deny within the regulatory deadline). 29°See 47 U.S.C.§555. 291 AT&T Corp. v.Iowa Utils.Bd.,525 U.S.366,378 n.6(1999). 292 See Section III.A.,supra, at paras.31-42. 40 Federal Communications Commission FCC 06-180 a. Authority 83. Proponents of build-out requirements do not offer any persuasive legal argument that the Commission lacks authority to address this significant problem and conclude that certain build-out requirements for competitive entrants are unreasonable. Nothing in the Communications Act requires competitive franchise applicants to agree to build-out their networks in any particular fashion. Nevertheless, incumbent cable operators and LFAs contend that it is both lawful and appropriate, in all circumstances, to impose the same build-out requirements on competitive applicants that apply to incumbents.293 We reject these arguments and fmd that Section 621(a)(1)prohibits LFAs from refusing to award a new franchise on the ground that the applicant will not agree to unreasonable build-out requirements. 84. The only provision in the Communications Act that even alludes to build-out is Section 621(a)(4)(A), which provides that"a franchising authority . . . shall allow the applicant's cable system a reasonable period of time to become capable of providing cable service to all households in the franchise area„294 Far from a grant of authority, however, Section 621(a)(4)(A) is actually a limitation on LFAs' authority. In circumstances when it is reasonable for LFAs to require cable operators to build out their networks in accordance with a specific plan, LFAs must give franchisees a reasonable period of time to comply with those requirements. However, Section 621(a)(4)(A) does not address the central question here: whether it may be unreasonable for LFAs to impose certain build-out requirements on competitive cable applicants. To answer that question, Section 621(a)(4)(A)must be read in conjunction with Section 621(a)(1)'s prohibition on unreasonable refusals to award competitive franchises,and in light of the Act's twin goals of promoting competition and broadband deployment.295 85. Our interpretation of Section 621(a)(4)(A) is consistent with relevant jurisprudence and the legislative history. The D.C. Circuit has squarely rejected the notion that Section 621(a)(4)(A) authorizes LFAs to impose universal build-out requirements on all cable providers. The court has held that Section 621(a)(4)(A) does not require that cable operators extend service"throughout the franchise area," but instead is a limit on franchising authorities that seek to impose such obligations 296 That decision comports with the legislative history, which indicates that Congress explicitly rejected an approach that would have imposed affinnative build-out obligations on all cable providers. The House version of the bill provided that an LFA's "refusal to award a franchise shall not be unreasonable if, for example, such refusal is on the ground . . . of inadequate assurance that the cable operator will,within a reasonable period of time, provide universal service throughout the entire franchise area under the 293 See, e.g.,Comcast Reply Comments at 34;NCTA Reply Comments at 25-26;NATOA Reply Comments at 24; Southeast Michigan Municipalities Reply Comments at 44-45. 294 47 U.S.C. §541(a)(4)(A). 295 Americable Intern.,Inc. v.Dep't of Navy, 129 F.3d 1271, 1274-75(D.C.Cir. 1997). 296 Id. See also Americable Intern., Inc. v. U.S. Dept. of Navy, 931 F. Supp. 1, 2-3 (D.D.C. 1996) ("Americable argues first that the Cable Act establishes a`requirement' that a franchise`provide universal service throughout the franchise area.' Its authority for that position is 47 U.S.C. §541(a)(4)(A),which requires that a franchising authority (here the Navy) allow an applicant's system 'a reasonable period of time to become capable of providing cable service to all households in the franchise area. . . .' That language contains no requirement of universal service, of course. Americable's strained argument is at odds with the purpose of the Cable Act, which is to promote competition, and of the amendment in question, which protects the interests of new franchise applicants and not incumbents like Americable"). 41 Federal Communications Commission FCC 06-180 jurisdiction of the franchising authority."297 By declining to adopt this language, Congress made clear that it did not intend to impose uniform build-out requirements on all franchise applicants.298 86. LFAs and incumbent cable operators also rely on Section 621(a)(3) to support compulsory build-out. That Section provides: "In awarding a franchise or franchises, a franchising authority shall assure that access to cable service is not denied to any group of potential residential cable subscribers because of the income of the residents of the local area in which such group resides."299 We therefore address below some commenters' concerns that limitations on build-out requirements will contravene or render ineffective the statutory prohibition against discrimination on the basis of income ("redlining")300 But for present purposes, it has already been established that Section 621(a)(3) does not mandate universal build-out. As the Commission previously has stated,"the intent of[Section 621(a)(3)] was to prevent the exclusion of cable service based on income" and"this section does not mandate that the franchising authority require the complete wiring of the franchise area in those circumstances where such an exclusion is not based on the income status of the residents of the unwired area."301 The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit(the``D.C. Circuit")has upheld this interpretation in the face of an argument that universal build-out was required by Section 621(a)(3): The statute on its face prohibits discrimination on the basis of income; it manifestly does not require universal [build-out]. . . . [The provision requires] "wiring of all areas of the franchise" to prevent redlining. However, if no redlining is in evidence, it is likewise clear that wiring within the franchise area can be limited.30 b. Discussion 87. Given the current state of the MVPD marketplace,we fmd that an LFA's refusal to award a competitive franchise because the applicant will not agree to specified build-out requirements can be unreasonable. Market conditions today are far different from when incumbent cable operators obtained their franchises. Incumbent cable providers were frequently awarded community-wide monopolies 303 In that context, a requirement that the provider build out facilities to the entire community was eminently sensible. The essential bargain was that the cable operator would provide service to an entire community in exchange for its status as the only franchisee from whom customers in the community could purchase 297 H.R.REP.No. 102-628,at 9(1992). 298 See Doe v. Chao,540 U.S. 614, 622-23 (2004)(finding relevance in the fact that Congress had cut out the very language in the bill that would have achieved the result claimant urged). 299 47 U.S.C. §541(a)(3). 300 See, e.g., Comcast Reply at 2 (arguing that incumbent LECs are seeking Commission action on build-out requirements in order to pursue their"high-value"customers while bypassing"low-value"ones). 301 Implementing the Provisions of the Cable Communications Policy Act of 1984, Report and Order, MM Docket No. 84-1296, 58 Rad. Reg. 2d (P & F) 1, 62-63 (1985). BSPA Comments at 6 ("The most significant factors affecting where a wireline network will be built relate to cost of construction and the density of the population that will be served. These factors have a much more significant impact on the network expansion plans than the specific customer profile in a geographic area"). 302 ACLU v. FCC, 823 F.2d 1554, 1580 (D.C. Cir. 1987) (emphasis in original). See also Consumers for Cable Choice Comments at 8;DOJ Ex Parte at 4. 303 See H.R.REP.No. 102-862,at 77-78 (1992)(Conf. Rep.),as reprinted in 1992 U.S.C.C.A.N. 1231, 1259-1260; Mercatus Center Comments at 39-40;Phoenix Center Competition Paper at 7. 42 Federal Communications Commission FCC 06-180 service. Thus,a financial burden was placed upon the monopoly provider in exchange for the undeniable benefit of being able to operate without competition.304 88. By contrast,new cable entrants must compete with entrenched cable operators and other video service providers. A competing cable provider that seeks to offer service in a particular community cannot reasonably expect to capture more than a fraction of the total market."' Build-out requirements thus impose significant financial risks on competitive applicants,who must incur substantial construction costs to deploy facilities within the franchise area in exchange for the opportunity to capture a relatively small percentage of the market.306 In many instances, build-out requirements make entry so expensive that the prospective competitive provider withdraws its application and simply declines to serve any portion of the community.30' Given the entry-deterring effect of build-out conditions, our construction of Section 621(a)(1)best serves the Act's purposes of promoting competition and broadband deployment.308 89. Accordingly, we find that it is unlawful for LFAs to refuse to grant a competitive franchise on the basis of unreasonable build-out mandates. For example, absent other factors, it would seem unreasonable to require a new competitive entrant to serve everyone in a franchise area before it has begun providing service to anyone. It also would seem unreasonable to require facilities-based entrants, such as incumbent LECs, to build out beyond the footprint of their existing facilities before they have even begun providing cable service.309 It also would seem unreasonable, absent other factors, to require more of a new entrant than an incumbent cable operator by, for instance, requiring the new entrant to build out its facilities in a shorter period of time than that originally afforded to the incumbent cable operator;or requiring the new entrant to build out and provide service to areas of lower density than those that the incumbent cable operator is required to build out to and serve.310 We note, however, it would seem reasonable for an LFA in establishing build-out requirements to consider the new entrant's market penetration. It would also seem reasonable for an LFA to consider benchmarks requiring the new entrant to increase its build-out after a reasonable period of time had passed after initiating service and taking into account its market success. 90. Some other practices that seem unreasonable include: requiring the new entrant to build out and provide service to buildings or developments to which the new entrant cannot obtain access on reasonable terms; requiring the new entrant to build out to certain areas or customers that the entrant cannot reach using standard technical solutions; and requiring the new entrant to build out and provide service to areas where it cannot obtain reasonable access to and use of the public rights of way. Subjecting a competitive applicant to more stringent build-out requirements than the LFA placed on the incumbent cable operator is unreasonable in light of the greater economic challenges facing competitive applicants explained above. Moreover, build-out requirements may significantly deter entry and thus 304 See FTTH Council Comments at 32-33;BellSouth Comments at 34. 305 See, e.g., AT&T Comments at 50;FTTH Council Comments at 29-30. 306 See FTTH Council Comments at 32-35;DOJ Ex Parte at 12-15(May 10,2006);AT&T Reply Comments at 34- 36;BellSouth Comments at 34-35;Verizon Comments at 39-40. 307 See FTTH Council Comments at 35; BellSouth Comments at 17-19, 35; USTA Comments at 22-25; Verizon Comments at 40-42. 308 AT&T Comments at 62-64;BellSouth Comments at 32-33;Qwest Comments at 21-22;USTA Comments at 27; Verizon Comments at 44-46. 309 See supra paras.38-40. 310 As we understand these franchising agreements are public documents,we find it reasonable to require the new entrant to produce the incumbent's current agreement. 43 Federal Communications Commission FCC 06-180 forestall competition by placing substantial demands on competitive entrants. 91. In sum,we find,based on the record as a whole,that build-out requirements imposed by LFAs can operate as unreasonable barriers to competitive entry. The Commission has broad authority under Section 621(a)(1) to determine whether particular LFA conditions on entry are unreasonable. Exercising that authority, we find that Section 621(a)(1) prohibits LFAs from refusing to award a competitive franchise because the applicant will not agree to unreasonable build-out requirements. c. Redlining 92. The Communications Act forbids access to cable service from being denied to any group of potential residential cable subscribers because of neighborhood income. The statute is thus clear that no provider of cable services may deploy services with the intent to redline and "that access to cable service [may not be] denied to any group of potential residential cable subscribers because of the income of the residents of the local area in which such group resides.s31 Nothing in our action today is intended to limit LFAs' authority to appropriately enforce Section 621(a)(3) and to ensure that their constituents are protected against discrimination. This includes an LFA's authority to deny a franchise that would run afoul of Section 621(a)(3). 93. MMTC suggests that the Commission develop anti-redlining"best practices,"specifically defining who is responsible for overseeing redlining issues, what constitutes redlining, and developing substantial relief for those affected by redlining.312 MMTC suggests that an LFA could afford a new entrant means of obtaining pre-clearance of its build-out plans,establishing a rebuttable presumption that the new entrant will not redline (for example, proposing to replicate a successful anti-redlining program employed in another franchise area).313 Alternatively, an LFA could allow a new entrant to choose among regulatory options,any of which would be sufficient to allow for build-out to commence while the granular details of anti-redlining reporting are fmalized.314 We note these suggestions but do not require them. 3. Franchise Fees 94. In response to questions in the Local Franchising NPRM concerning existing practices that may impede cable entry,315 various parties discussed unreasonable demands relating to franchise fees. Commenters have also indicated that unreasonable demands concerning fees or other consideration by some LFAs have created an unreasonable barrier to entry.316 Such matters include not only the universe 31' 47 U.S.C. §541. 312 MMTC Comments at 22,MMTC Reply at 15. MMTC urges that The State Regulators Council of the Advisory Committee on Diversity for Communication in the Digital Age should be the oversight committee for redlining issues. MMTC Comments at 24. 313 MMTC Reply at 11. 314 MMTC Reply at 11 (providing examples of "rapid buildout plan," "equal service verification plan," and "combined plan"). 315 Local Franchising NPRM, 20 FCC Rcd at 18588. 316 See, e.g.,AT&T Reply at Attachment C at 5 ("Lynbrook,N.Y.has asked Verizon to provide cameras to film a holiday visit from Santa Claus.Deputy Mayor Thomas Miccio said, 'They know if they don't get this process done they're going to be in big, big trouble, so we feel we're in a very good position.") (citing Dionne Searcey, As Verizon Enters Cable Business, it Faces Local Static, WALL ST.J., Oct. 28, 2005, at Al), Verizon Comments at Attachment A at 14 ("Two LFAs in California required application fees of$25,000 and $20,000, respectively. (continued...) 44 Federal Communications Commission FCC 06-180 of franchise-related costs imposed on providers that should or should not be included within the 5 percent statutory franchise fee cap established in Section 622(b),317 but also the calculation of franchise fees (i.e., the revenue base from which the 5 percent is calculated). Accordingly, we will exercise our authority under Section 621(a)(1) to address the unreasonable demands made by some LFAs. In particular, any refusal to award an additional competitive franchise because of an applicant's refusal to accede to demands that are deemed impermissible below shall be considered to be unreasonable. The Commission's jurisdiction over franchise fee policy is well established.318 The general law with respect to franchise fees should be relatively well known, but we believe it may be helpful to restate the basic propositions here in effort to avoid misunderstandings that can lead to delay in the franchising process as well as unreasonable refusals to award competitive franchises. To the extent that our determinations are relevant to incumbent cable operators as well, we would expect that discrepancies would be addressed at the next franchise renewal negotiation period, as noted in the FNPRM infra, which tentatively concludes that the findings in this Order should apply to cable operators that have existing franchise agreements as they negotiate renewal of those agreements with LFAs.319 95. We address below four significant issues relating to franchise fee payments. First, we consider the franchise fee revenue base. Second,we examine the limitations on charges incidental to the awarding or enforcing of a franchise. Third, we discuss the proper classification of in-kind payments unrelated to the provision of cable service. Finally,we consider whether contributions in support of PEG services and equipment should be considered within the franchise fee calculation. 96. The fundamental franchise fee limitation is set forth in Section 622(b), which states that "franchise fees paid by a cable operator with respect to any cable system shall not exceed 5 percent of such cable operator's gross revenues derived in such period from the operation of the cable system to provide cable services.s320 Section 622(g)(1)broadly defines the term"franchise fee"to include"any tax, fee, or assessment of any kind imposed by a franchising authority or other governmental entity on a cable operator or cable subscriber, or both, solely because of their status as such.s321 Section 622(g)(2)(c), however,excludes from the term"franchise fee"any"capital costs which are required by the franchise to be incurred by the cable operator for public, educational, or governmental access facilities."' And Section 622(g)(2)(D) excludes from the term (and therefore from the 5 percent cap) "requirements or charges incidental to the awarding or enforcing of the franchise, including payments for bonds, security funds, letters of credit, insurance, indemnification, penalties, or liquidated damages."' It has been established that certain types of"in-kind" obligations, in addition to monetary payments, may be subject (Continued from previous page) Another community in that state has requested an upfront application fee of$30,000 plus an agreement to pay additional expenses(i.e., attorneys fees)of up to an additional$20,000."). 317 47 U.S.C.§542(b). 318 See ACLU v. FCC, 823 F.2d 1554, 1574 (D.C. Cir. 1987)("[I]t is clear. . . that the ultimate responsibility for ensuring a'national policy'with respect to franchise fees lies with the federal agency responsible for administering the Communications Act.")(emphasis in original). 319 See infra para. 140. 320 47 U.S.C. § 542(b) (emphasis added). FTTH Council supports an alternative cap based on the actual costs of managing the use of public rights-of-way, but we need not address that argument because we do not have the discretion to adopt a different limit than that set b;'Congress. 321 47 U.S.C. §542(g)(1). 322 47 U.S.C. § 542(g)(2)(C). 323 47 U.S.C. § 542(g)(2)(D). 45 Federal Communications Commission FCC 06-180 to the cap. The legislative history of the 1984 Cable Act, which adopted the franchise fee limit, specifically provides that "lump sum grants not related to PEG access for municipal programs such as libraries,recreation departments, detention centers or other payments not related to PEG access would be subject to the 5 percent limitation."324 97. Definition of the 5 percent fee cap revenue base. As a preliminary matter,we address the request of several parties to clarify which revenue-generating services should be included in the gross fee figure from which the 5 percent calculation is drawn.325 The record indicates that in the franchise application process, disputes that arise as to the propriety of particular fees can be a significant cause of delay in the process and that some franchising authorities are making unreasonable demands in this area 326 This issue is of particular concern where a prospective new entrant for the provision of cable services is a facilities-based incumbent or competitive provider of telecommunications and/or broadband services. A number of controversies regarding which revenues are properly subject to application of the franchise fee were resolved before the Supreme Court's decision in NCTA v. Brand X,327 which settled issues concerning the proper regulatory classification of cable modem-based Internet access service. Nevertheless, in some quarters, there has been considerable uncertainty over the application of franchise fees to Internet access service revenues and other non-cable revenues. Thus,we believe it may assist the franchise process and prevent unreasonable refusals to award competitive franchises to reiterate certain conclusions that have been reached with respect to the franchise fee base. 98. We clarify that a cable operator is not required to pay franchise fees on revenues from non-cable services.328 Section 622(b) provides that the "franchise fees paid by a cable operator with respect to any cable system shall not exceed 5 percent of such cable operator's gross revenues derived in such period from the operation of the cable system to provide cable services.s329 The term"cable service" is explicitly defined in Section 602(6) to mean (i) "the one-way transmission to subscribers of video programming or other programming service,"and(ii)"subscriber interaction,if any,which is required for the selection or use of such video programming or other programming service."330 The Commission determined in the Cable Modem Declaratory Ruling that a franchise authority may not assess franchise fees on non-cable services,such as cable modem service,stating that"revenue from cable modem service would not be included in the calculation of gross revenues from which the franchise fee ceiling is determined."331 Although this decision related specifically to Internet access service revenues, the same 324 H.R.REP.No.98-934,at 65(1984),as reprinted in 1984 U.S.C.C.A.N.4655,4702. 325 Verizon Comments at 63-64;BellSouth Comments at 41-43. 326 See supra paras.43-45. 327 125 S.Ct.2688(2005). See infra note 331. 328 Advertising revenue and home shopping commissions have been included in an operator's gross revenues for franchise fee calculation purposes. See Texas Coalition of Cities for Utility Issues v. FCC,354 F.3d 802,806(5th Cir.2003)("A cable operator's gross revenue includes revenue from subscriptions and revenue from other sources- e.g., advertising and commissions from home shopping networks."); City of Pasadena, California The City of Nashville, Tennessee and The City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, 16 FCC Rcd. 18192, 2001 WL 1167612, par. 15 (2001)("There is no dispute among the parties to this proceeding,or in relevant precedent,that advertising revenue and home shopping commissions can be considered part of an operator's gross revenues for franchise fee calculation purposes."). 329 47 U.S.C. §542(b)(emphasis added). 330 47 U.S.C.§522(6). 331 In re Inquiry Concerning High Speed Access to the Internet Over Cable and Other Facilities, 17 FCC Rcd 4798, 4851 (2002)("Cable Modem Declaratory Ruling"),rev'd,Brand X Internet Services v.FCC,345 F.3d 1120(9`h Cir. (continued...) 46 Federal Communications Commission FCC 06-180 would be true for other "non-cable" service revenues.332 Thus, Internet access services, including broadband data services,and any other non-cable services are not subject to"cable services"fees. 99. Charges incidental to the awarding or enforcing of a franchise. Section 622(g)(2)(D) excludes from the term"franchise fee""requirements or charges incidental to the awarding or enforcing of the franchise, including payments for bonds, security funds, letters of credit, insurance, damages."'indemnification, penalties, or liquidated damages." Such"incidental"requirements or charges may be assessed by a franchising authority without counting toward the 5 percent cap. A number of parties assert, and seek Commission clarification,that certain types of payments being requested in the franchise process are not incidental fees under Section 622(g)(2)(D) but instead must either be prohibited or counted toward the cap.33a Furthermore,a number of parties report that disputes over such issues as well as unreasonable demands being made by some franchising authorities in this regard may be leading to delays in the franchising process as well as unreasonable refusals to award competitive franchises. We therefore determine that non-incidental franchise-related costs required by LFAs must count toward the 5 percent franchise fee cap and provide guidance as to what constitutes such non-incidental franchise- related costs. Under the Act, these costs combined with other franchise fees cannot exceed 5 percent of gross revenues for cable service. 100. BellSouth urges us to prohibit franchising authorities from assessing fees that the authorities claim are"incidental"if those fees are not specifically allowed under Section 622 of the Cable Act.335 BellSouth asserts that LFAs often seek fees beyond the 5 percent franchise fee allowed by the statutory provision. The company therefore asks us to clarify that any costs that an LFA requires a cable provider to pay beyond the exceptions listed in Section 622—including generally applicable taxes, PEG capital costs,and"incidental charges"—count toward the 5 percent cap 336 OPASTCO asserts that higher fees discourage investment and often will need to be passed on to consumers.337 Verizon also requests that we clarify that fees that exceed the cap are unreasonable.338 101. AT&T argues that we should find unreasonable any fees or contribution requirements that are not credited toward the franchise fee obligation.339 AT&T also asserts that any financial obligation to the franchising authority that a provider undertakes, such as application or acceptance fees (Continued from previous page) 2003), rev'd,NCTA v. Brand X, 545 U.S. 967 (2005). The Commission issued a notice of proposed rulemaking ("Cable Modem NPRM') concurrently with the Cable Modem Declaratory Ruling. Certain questions from the Cable Modem NPRM that are relevant, but not directly related, to this discussion remain pending before the Commission. Cable Modem Declaratory Ruling at 4839-4854. 332 See NATOA Reply at 29(agreeing that non-cable services are not subject to franchise fees). 333 47 U.S.C. §542(g)(2)(D). 334 AT&T Comments at 65-67;BellSouth Comments at 7,38-39. 335 BellSouth Comments at 7. 336 BellSouth Comments at 38-39. 337 OPASTCO Reply at 5. 338 Verizon Reply at 59. 339 AT&T Comments at 64. 47 Federal Communications Commission FCC 06-180 that exceed the reasonable cost of processing an application, free or discounted service to an LFA, and LFA attorney or consultant fees,should apply toward the franchise fee obligation.'" 102. Conversely, NATOA asserts that costs such as those enumerated above by AT&T fall within Section 622(g)(2)(D)'s definition of charges "incidental" to granting the franchise.341 NATOA contends that the word "incidental" does not refer to the amount of the charge, but rather the fact that a charge is"naturally appertaining"to the grant of a franchise. Thus,NATOA argues, these costs are not part of the franchise fee and therefore do not count toward the cap 342 103. There is nothing in the text of the statute or the legislative history to suggest that Congress intended the list of exceptions in Section 622(g)(2)(D) to include the myriad additional expenses that some LFAs argue are"incidental."343 Given that the lack of clarity on this issue may hinder competitive deployment and lead to unreasonable refusals to award competitive franchises under Section 621,we seek to provide guidance as to what is"incidental"for a new competitive application.344 We find that the term "incidental" in Section 622(g)(2)(D) should be limited to the list of incidentals in the statutory provision, as well as other minor expenses, as described below. We fmd instructive a series of federal court decisions relating to this subsection of Section 622. These courts have indicated that (i) there are significant limits on what payments qualify as"incidental"and may be requested outside of the 5 percent fee limitation; and(ii)processing fees, consultant fees, and attorney fees are not necessarily to be regarded as "incidental" to,the awarding of a franchise.345 In Robin Cable Systems v. City of Sierra Vista, for example,the United States District Court for the District of Arizona held that"processing costs" of up to $30,000 required as part of the award of a franchise were not excluded under subsection (g)(2)(D)because they were not"incidental,"but rather"substantial"and therefore"inconsistent with the Cable Act.s346 Additionally,in Time Warner Entertainment v.Briggs, the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts decided that attorney fees and consultant fees fall within the definition of franchise fees, as defined in Section 622. Because the municipality in that case was already collecting 5 percent of the operator's gross revenues, the Court determined that a franchise provision requiring the cable operator to pay such fees above and beyond its 5 percent gross revenues was preempted and therefore unenforceable.347 Finally, in Birmingham Cable Comm. v. City of Birmingham, the United States District for the Northern District of Alabama stated that "it would be an aberrant construction of Sao AT&T Comments at 65-67. 341 NATOA Reply at 34-35. 342 NATOA Reply at 35(citing Random House Dictionary of the English Language at 720). 343 See infra paras. 105-108. 3"NATOA argues that the Commission is powerless to rewrite the meaning of the statute. NATOA Reply at 35. Yet, Section 622(i)states"[a]ny Federal agency may not regulate the amount of the franchise fees paid by a cable operator,or regulate the use of funds derived from such fees,except as provided in this section." Therefore,we are within our Congressionally mandated authority to provide clarifying guidance regarding the meaning of this provision. 345 See Robin Cable Systems v. City of Sierra Vista, 842 F.Stipp.380(D.Ariz. 1993); Time Warner Entertainment Co. v. Briggs, 1993 WL 23710(D. Mass.Jan. 14, 1993);Birmingham Cable Comm. v. City of Birmingham, 1989 WL 253850(N.D.Ala. 1989). 346 Robin Cable at 381. 347 Time Warner at 23710*6. 48 • Federal Communications Commission FCC 06-180 the phrase `incidental to the awarding ... of the franchise,' in this context, to conclude that the phrase embraces consultant fees incurred solely by the City."3as 104. We fmd these decisions instructive and emphasize that LFAs must count such non- incidental franchise-related costs toward the cap. We agree with these judicial decisions that non- incidental costs include the items discussed above, such as,attorney fees and consultant fees, but may include other items, as well. Examples of other items include application or processing fees that exceed the reasonable cost of processing the application, acceptance fees, free or discounted services provided to an LFA,any requirement to lease or purchase equipment from an LFA at prices higher than market value, and in-kind payments as discussed below. Accordingly, if LFAs continue'to request the provision of such in-kind services and the reimbursement of franchise-related costs, the value of such costs and services should count towards the provider's franchise fee payments.349 For future guidance, LFAs and video service providers may look to judicial cases to determine other costs that should be considered "incidental." 105. In-kind payments unrelated to provision of cable service. The record indicates that in the context of some franchise negotiations,LFAs have demanded from new entrants payments or in-kind contributions that are unrelated to the provision of cable services. While many parties argue that franchising authority requirements unrelated to the provision of cable services are unreasonable,35o few parties provided specific details surrounding the in-kind payment demands of LFAs.351 As discussed further below, most parties generally discussed examples of concessions, but were unwilling to provide details of specific instances,including the identity of the LFA requesting the unrelated services.352 Even without specific details concerning the LFAs involved,however,the record adequately supports a fording that LFA requests unrelated to the provision of cable services have a negative impact on the entry of new cable competitors in terms of timing and costs and may lead to unreasonable refusals to award competitive franchises. Accordingly,we clarify that any requests made by LFAs that are unrelated to the provision of cable services by a new competitive entrant are subject to the statutory 5 percent franchise fee cap. 106. The Broadband Service Providers Association states that an example of a municipal capital requirement can include traffic light control systems.353 FTTH Council states that non-video requirements raise the cost of entry for new entrants and should be prohibited.354 As an example, FTTH 348 Birmingham at 253850. 349 To the extent that an LFA requires franchise fee payments of less than 5 percent an offset may not be necessary. Such LFAs are able to request the reimbursement or provision of such costs up to the 5 percent statutory threshold. 35°Alcatel Comments at 10;FTTH Council Comments at 36;OPASTCO Reply at 4;USTelecom Comments at 48; BPSA Comments at 8;NTCA Comments at 13;South Slope Comments at 15. See also DOJ Ex Parte at 11. 351 Some LFAs argue that commenters'allegations about inappropriate fees fail to identify the LFAs in question. As a consequence, they contend, we should not rely on such unsubstantiated claims unless the particular LFAs in question are given a chance to respond. Communications Support Group Reply at 7;Anne Arundel County Reply at 5. We need not resolve particular disputes between parties,however,in order to address this issue. Our clarification that all LFA requests not related to cable services must be counted toward the 5 percent cap is a matter of statutory construction,and all commenters have had ample opportunity to address this issue. 352 Broadband Service Providers Association Comments at 8;AT&T Comments at 26;Verizon Comments at 57-58. Parties have indicated that they were unwilling to identify specific instances of unreasonable requests,since in many cases these parties are still trying to negotiate franchise agreements with the communities at issue. 353 Broadband Service Providers Association Comments at 8. 354 FTTH Council Comments at 66. 49 Federal Communications Commission FCC 06-180 Council asserts that in San Antonio, Grande Communications was required to prepay $1 million in franchise fees(which took the company five years to draw down)and to fund a$50,000 scholarship,with an additional $7,200 to be contributed each year. They assert that new entrants agree to these requirements because they have no alternative.355 The National Telecommunications Cooperative Association("NTCA") also asserts that its members have complained that LFAs require them to accept franchise terms unrelated to the provision of video service.356 NTCA states that any incumbent cable operator that already abides by such a requirement has made the concession in exchange for an exclusive franchise, but that new entrants, in contrast,must fight for every subscriber and will not survive if forced into expensive non-video related projects.357 107. AT&T refers to a press article stating that Verizon has faced myriad requests unrelated to the provision of cable service. These include: a$13 million"wish list"in Tampa, Florida; a request for video hookup for a Christmas celebration and money for wildflower seeds in New York;and a request for fiber on traffic lights to monitor traffic in Virginia.358 Verizon provides little additional information about these examples, but argues that any requests must be considered franchise-related costs subject to the 5 percent franchise fee cap,as discussed above.359 108. We clarify that any requests made by LFAs unrelated to the provision of cable services by a new competitive entrant are subject to the statutory 5 percent franchise fee cap, as discussed above. Municipal projects unrelated to the provision of cable service do not fall within any of the exempted categories in Section 622(g)(2) of the Act and thus should be considered a"franchise fee"under Section 622(g)(1). The legislative history of the 1984 Cable Act supports this fmding,providing that"lump sum grants not related to PEG access for municipal programs such as libraries, recreation departments, detention centers or other payments not related to PEG access would be subject to the 5 percent limitation."360 Accordingly, any such requests for municipal projects will count towards the 5 percent cap. 109. Contributions in support of PEG services and equipment.As further discussed in the Section below, we also consider the question of the proper treatment of LFA-mandated contributions in support of PEG services and equipment. The record reflects that disputes regarding such contributions are impeding video deployment and may be leading to unreasonable refusals to award competitive franchises.361 Section 622(g)(2)(C) excludes from the term "franchise fee" any"capital costs which are required by the franchise to be incurred by the cable operator for public, educational, or governmental access facilities."362 Accordingly, payments of this type, if collected only for the cost of building PEG facilities, are not subject to the 5 percent limit. Capital costs refer to those costs incurred in or associated 3"Id.at 38. 356 NTCA Comments at 4. 357 NTCA Comments at 13. 358 AT&T Comments at 26(citing Dionne Searcey,As Verizon Enters Cable Business, it Faces Local Static,WALL ST.J.,Oct.28,2005,at Al). See also City of Tampa Reply Comments at 5. 359 Verizon Comments at 54. See also USTelecom Comments at 48. 360 H.R.REP.No.98-934,at 65(1984),as reprinted in 1984 U.S.C.C.A.N.4655,4702. 361 See, e.g., FTTH Council Comments at 36(noting how Knology declined to enter the Louisville market after the Louisville LFA requested a PEG grant of$266,000 at the time of franchise grant,with$1.9 million total due over the 15-year term). 362 47 U.S.C.§542(g)(2)(C). 50 Federal Communications Commission FCC 06-180 with the construction of PEG access facilities.363 These costs are distinct from payments in support of the use of PEG access facilities. PEG support payments may include, but are not limited to, salaries and training. Payments made in support of PEG access facilities are considered franchise fees and are subject to the 5 percent cap364 While Section 622(g)(2)(B) excluded from the term franchise fee any such payments made in support of PEG facilities, it only applies to any franchise in effect on the date of enactment.365 Thus, for any franchise granted after 1984, this exemption from franchise fees no longer applies. 4. PEG/Institutional Networks 110. In the Local Franchising NPRM,we tentatively concluded that it is not unreasonable for an LFA, in awarding a franchise, to "require adequate assurance that the cable operator will provide adequate public, educational and governmental access channel capacity, facilities,or fmancial support"366 because this promotes important statutory and public policy goals367 However, pursuant to Section 621(a)(1), we conclude that LFAs may not make unreasonable demands of competitive applicants for PEG and I-Net368 and that conditioning the award of a competitive franchise on applicants agreeing to such unreasonable demands constitutes an unreasonable refusal to award a franchise. This finding is limited to competitive applicants under Section 621(a)(1). Yet, as this issue is also germane to existing franchisees, we ask for further comment on the applicability of this and other findings in the Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking attached hereto. The FNPRM tentatively concludes that the findings in this Order should apply to cable operators that have existing franchise agreements as they negotiate renewal of those agreements with LFAs. 111. As an initial matter,we conclude that we have the authority to address issues relating to PEG and I-Net support.369 Some commenters argue that Congress explicitly granted the responsibility for PEG and I-Net regulation to state and local governments.370 For example, NATOA contends that we cannot limit the in-kind or monetary support that LFAs.may request for PEG access, because Sections 624(a) and (b) allow an LFA to establish requirements "related to the establishment and operation of a cable system," including facilities and equipment.37' In response, Verizon claims that PEG requirements should extend only to channel capacity, and that LFAs can obtain other contributions only to the extent 363 See H.R.REP.No.98-934,at 19(1984),as reprinted in 1984 U.S.C.C.A.N.4655,4656. 364 See Cable TV Fund 14-A v. City of Naperville, 1997 WL 433628(N.D.Ill. 1997)at 13;City of Bowie,Maryland, 14 FCC Rcd.7675(Cable Service Bureau, 1999);as clarified 14 FCC Rcd 9596(Cable Services Bureau, 1999). 369 47 U.S.C.§542(g)(2)(B). 366 47 U.S.C. §541(a)(4)(B). 367 Local Franchising NPRM,20 FCC Rcd at 18590. 368 An I-Net is defined as "a communication network which is constructed or operated by the cable operator and which is generally available only to subscribers who are not residential customers."47 U.S.C. §531(f). 369 See infra Section III.B.2. 370 NATOA Comments at 35; NATOA Reply at 30-31; Hawaii Reply at 2-3; Mercatus Comments at 35; Certain Florida Municipalities Comments at 17-18;Anne Arundel et al Comments at 35;City of New York Comments at 3- 4. 371 NATOA Reply at 30(quoting 47 U.S.C. §544(b)). 51 Federal Communications Commission FCC 06-180 that they are agreed to voluntarily by the cable operator.372 Verizon also asserts that the record confirms that LFAs often demand PEG support that exceeds statutory limits.373 112. Section 611(a)of the Communications Act operates as a restriction on the authority of the franchising authority to establish channel capacity requirements for PEG. This Section provides that"[a] franchising authority may establish requirements in a franchise with respect to the designation or use of channel capacity for public, educational, or governmental use only to the extent provided in this section."374 Section 611(b)allows a franchising authority to require that"channel capacity be designated for public, educational or governmental use," but the extent of such channel capacity is not defined.375 Section 621(a)(4)(b)provides that a franchising authority may require"adequate assurance"that the cable operator will provide "adequate" PEG access channel capacity, facilities, or financial support.s376 Because the statute does not define the term"adequate,"we have the authority to interpret what Congress meant by "adequate PEG access channel capacity, facilities, and fmancial support," and to prohibit excessive LFA demands in this area, if necessary. We note that the legislative history does not define "adequate," nor does it provide any guidance as to what Congress meant by the term.377 We therefore conclude that"adequate"should be given its plain meaning: the term does not mean significant but rather "satisfactory or sufficient.s378 As discussed above,we have also accepted the tentative conclusion of the Local Franchising NPRM that Section 621(a)(1) prohibits not only the ultimate refusal to award a competitive franchise, but also the establishment of procedures and other requirements that have the effect of unreasonably interfering with the ability of a would-be competitor to obtain a competitive franchise. Given this conclusion and our authority to interpret the term"adequate" in Section 621(a)(4), we will provide guidance as to what constitutes"adequate"PEG support under that provision as subject to the constraints of the"reasonableness"requirement in Section 621(a)(1). 113. AT&T asserts that we should shorten the period for franchise negotiations by adopting standard terms for PEG channels.379 We reject this suggestion and clarify that LFAs are free to establish their own requirements for PEG to the extent discussed herein,provided that the non-capital costs of such requirements are offset from the cable operator's franchise fee payments. This is consistent with the Act and the historic management of PEG requirements by LFAs.38° 114. Consumers for Cable Choice and Verizon argue that it is unreasonable for an LFA to request a number of PEG channels from a new entrant that is greater than the number of channels that the community is using at the time the new entrant submits its franchise application.381 We find that it is 372 Verizon Reply at 60-61. 373 Verizon Reply at 60(citing NATOA Comments). 374 47 U.S.C. §531(a). 375 47 U.S.C.§531(b). 376 47 U.S.C. §541(a)(4)(B). 377 See See H.R.REP.No. 102-862,at 78(1992)(Conf.Rep.),as reprinted in 1992 U.S.C.C.A.N. 1231, 1260. 378 American Heritage Dictionary,Second College Edition(1991). 379 AT&T Reply at 15. 38o See 47 U.S.C.§541(a)(4)(B);Time Warner Cable of New York City v. City of New York,943 F.Supp. 1357, 1367 (S.D.N.Y 1996),aff'd sub nom. Time Warner Cable of New York City v. Bloomberg, L.P., 118 F.3d 917(2nd Cir. 1997). 38i Consumers for Cable Choice Comments at 8;Verizon Comments at 71. 52 Federal Communications Commission FCC 06-180 unreasonable for an LFA to impose on a new entrant more burdensome PEG carriage obligations than it has imposed upon the incumbent cable operator. 115. Some commenters also asked whether certain requirements regarding construction or fmancial support of PEG facilities and I-Nets are unreasonable under Section 621(a)(1). Several parties indicate that, as a general matter,PEG contributions should be limited to what is"reasonable"to support "adequate"facilities.382 We agree that PEG support required by an LFA in exchange for granting a new entrant a franchise should be both adequate and reasonable, as discussed above. In addressing each of these concerns below,we seek to strike the necessary balance between the two statutory terms. 116. Ad Hoc Telecom Manufacturers argue that it is unreasonable to require the payment of ongoing costs to operate PEG channels,because a requirement is unrelated to right-of-way management, the fundamental policy rationale for an LFA's franchising authority.383 In response, Cablevision asserts that exempting incumbent LECs from PEG support requirements would undermine the key localism features of franchise requirements, and could undermine the ability of incumbent cable operators to provide robust community access384 We disagree with Ad Hoc Telecom Manufacturers that it is per se unreasonable for LFAs to require the payment of ongoing costs to support PEG. Such a ruling would be contrary to Section 621(a)(4)(B) and public policy. We note, however, that any ongoing LFA-required PEG support costs are subject to the franchise fee cap,as discussed above. 117. FTTH Council, Verizon, and AT&T ask us to affirm that PEG or I-Net requirements imposed on a new entrant that are wholly duplicative of existing requirements imposed on the incumbent cable operator are per se unreasonable.385 AT&T and Verizon argue that Section 621(a)(4)(B) requires adequate facilities, not duplicative facilities.386 FTTH Council contends that if LFAs can require duplicative facilities, they can burden new entrants with inefficient obligations without increasing the benefit to the public.387 FTTH Council thus suggests that LFAs be precluded from imposing completely duplicative requirements,and that we require new entrants to contribute a pro rata share of the incumbent cable operator's PEG obligations. For example, if an incumbent cable operator funds a PEG studio, the new entrant should be required to contribute a pro rata share of the ongoing financial obligation for such studio,based on the new entrant's number of subscribers.388 118. In addition to advocating a pro rata contribution rule, FTTH Council requests that we require incumbents to permit new entrants to connect with the incumbent's pre-existing PEG channel feeds.389 FTTH Council proposes that the incumbent cable operator and new entrant decide how to accomplish this connection, with LFA involvement if necessary, and that the costs of the connection should be deducted from the new entrant's PEG-related fmancial obligations to the LFA390 Others agree that PEG interconnection is necessary to maximize the value of local access channels when more than one 382 BellSouth Comments at 8;Verizon Comments at 71. 383 Ad Hoc Telecom Manufacturer Coalition Comments at 4. 384 Cablevision Reply at 29-30. 385 FTTH Council Comments at 66;Verizon Comments at 71;AT&T Comments at 67. 386 AT&T Comments at 67-68;Verizon Reply at 61. 387 FTTH Council Comments at 67. 388 Id 389 Id 390 Id 53 Federal Communications Commission FCC 06-180 video provider operates in a community.391 New entrants seek a pro rata contribution rule based on practical constraints as well. AT&T asserts that, although incumbent cable operators can provide space for PEG in local headend buildings, LEC new entrants' facilities are not designed to accommodate those needs. Thus, if duplicative facilities are demanded, new entrants would have to build or rent facilities solely for this purpose, which AT&T contends would be unreasonable under the statute.392 NATOA counters that AT&T's complaint regarding space mischaracterizes PEG studio requirements that exist in some franchises.393 Specifically, NATOA claims that LFAs generally are not concerned with a PEG studio's location, and that PEG studios are usually located near cable headends simply because those locations reduce the cable operators' costs 394 119. We agree with AT&T, FTTH Council, Verizon, and others that completely duplicative PEG and I-Net requirements imposed by LFAs would be unreasonable.395 Such duplication generally would be inefficient and would provide minimal additional benefits to the public,unless it was required to address an LFA's particular concern regarding redundancy needed for, for example, public safety. We clarify that an I-Net requirement is not duplicative if it would provide additional capability or functionality, beyond that provided by existing I-Net facilities. We note,however, that we would expect an LFA to consider whether a competitive franchisee can provide such additional functionality by providing financial support or actual equipment to supplement existing I-Net facilities, rather than by constructing new I-Net facilities. Finally,we fmd that it is unreasonable for an LFA to refuse to award a competitive franchise unless the applicant agrees to pay the face value of an I-Net that will not be constructed. Payment for I-Nets that ultimately are not constructed are unreasonable as they do not serve their intended purpose. 120. While we prefer that LFAs and new entrants negotiate reasonable PEG obligations, we find that under Section 621 it is unreasonable for an LFA to require a new entrant to provide PEG support that is in excess of the incumbent cable operator's obligations. We also agree that a pro rata cost sharing approach is one reasonable means of meeting the statutory requirement of the provision of adequate PEG facilities. To the extent that a new entrant agrees to share pro rata costs with the incumbent cable operator,such an arrangement is per se reasonable.396 39' Communications Support Group,Inc.Reply at 12. 392 AT&T Comments at 70. 393 NATOA Reply at 41-42. 394 NATOA Reply at 42. 395 If a new entrant, for technical, financial, or other reasons, is unable to interconnect with the incumbent cable operator's facilities,it would not be unreasonable for an LFA to require the new entrant to assume the responsibility of providing comparable facilities,subject to the limitations discussed herein. 396 To determine a new entrant's per se reasonable PEG support payment, the new entrant should determine the incumbent cable operator's per subscriber payment at the time the competitive applicant applies for a franchise or submits its informational filing,and then calculate the proportionate fee based on its subscriber base. A new entrant may agree to provide PEG support over and above the incumbent cable operator's existing obligations, but such support is at the entrant's discretion. If the new entrant agrees to share the pro rata costs with the incumbent cable operator,the PEG programming provider,be it the incumbent cable operator,the LFA,or a third-party programmer, must allow the new entrant to interconnect with the existing PEG feeds. The costs of such interconnection should be borne by the new entrant. We note that we previously have required cost-sharing and interconnection for PEG channels and facilities in another context. Section 75.1505(d)of the Commission's rules requires that if an LFA and OVS operator cannot reach an agreement on the OVS operator's PEG obligations,the operator is required to match the incumbent cable operator's PEG obligations and the incumbent cable operator is required to permit the OVS (continued...) 54 Federal Communications Commission FCC 06-180 5. Regulation of Mixed-Use Networks 121. We clarify that LFAs' jurisdiction applies only to the provision of cable services over cable systems. To the extent a cable operator provides non-cable services and/or operates facilities that do not qualify as a cable system, it is unreasonable for an LFA to refuse to award a franchise based on issues related to such services or facilities. For example,we find it unreasonable for an LFA to refuse to grant a cable franchise to an applicant for resisting an LFA's demands for regulatory control over non- cable services or facilities.397 Similarly, an LFA has no authority to insist on an entity obtaining a separate cable franchise in order to upgrade non-cable facilities. For example, assuming an entity(e.g.,a LEC)already possesses authority to access the public rights-of-way,an LFA may not require the LEC to obtain a franchise solely for the purpose of'upgrading its network.398 So long as there is a non-cable purpose associated with the network upgrade, the LEC is not required to obtain a franchise until and unless it proposes to offer cable services. For example, if a LEC deploys fiber optic cable that can be used for cable and non-cable services, this deployment alone does not trigger the obligation to obtain a cable franchise. The same is true for boxes housing infrastructure to be used for cable and non-cable services. 122. We further clarify that an LFA may not use its video franchising authority to attempt to regulate a LEC's entire network beyond the provision of cable services. We agree with Verizon that the "entirety of a telecommunications/data network is not automatically converted to a `cable system' once subscribers start receiving video programming."399 For instance, we find that the provision of video services pursuant to a cable franchise does not provide a basis for customer service regulation by local law or franchise agreement of a cable operator's entire network, or any services beyond cable services 400 Local regulations that attempt to regulate any non-cable services offered by video providers are preempted because such regulation is beyond the scope of local franchising authority and is inconsistent with the definition of "cable system" in Section 602(7)(C)401 This provision explicitly states that a common carrier facility subject to Title II is considered a cable system"to the extent such facility is used in the transmission of video programming. . . .s402 As discussed above,revenues from non-cable services are not included in the base for calculation of franchise fees. 123. In response to requests that we address LFA authority to regulate"interactive on-demand services,s403 we note that Section 602(7)(C) excludes from the definition of"cable system"a facility of a common carrier that is used solely to provide interactive on-demand services.404 "Interactive on-demand services" are defined as "service[s]providing video programming to subscribers over switched networks on an on-demand, point-to-point basis, but does not include services providing video programming (Continued from previous page) operator to connect with the existing PEG feeds, with such costs borne by the OVS operator. 47 C.F.R. § 76.1505(d). 397 Verizon Comments at 75. 398 See Verizon Comments at 21. See also South Slope Comments at 11;NCTA Comments at 12. 399 Verizon Comments at 83. • 400 Verizon Comments at 75. 401 47 U.S.C.§522(7)(C). See also Verizon Comments at 82-87. 402 47 U.S.C. §522(7)(C). 403 See BellSouth at 42;NATOA Reply at 27-28. 404 47 U.S.C.§522(7)(C). 55 Federal Communications Commission FCC 06-180 prescheduled by the programming provider."405 We do not address at this time what particular services may fall within the definition. 124. We note that this discussion does not address the regulatory classification of any particular video services being offered. We do not address in this Order whether video services provided over Internet Protocol are or are not"cable services."' D. Preemption of Local Laws,Regulations and Requirements 125. Having established rules and guidance to implement Section 621(a)(1), we turn now to the question of local laws that may be inconsistent with our decision today. Because the rules we adopt represent a reasonable interpretation of relevant provisions in Title VI as well as a reasonable accommodation of the various policy interests that Congress entrusted to the Commission, they have preemptive effect pursuant to Section 636(c). Alternatively, local laws are impliedly preempted to the extent that they conflict with this Order or stand as an obstacle to the accomplishment and execution of the full purposes and objectives of Congress.407 126. At that outset of this discussion, it is important to reiterate that we do not preempt state law or state level franchising decisions in this Order.408 Instead,we preempt only local laws,regulations, practices, and requirements to the extent that: (1) provisions in those laws, regulations, practices, and agreements conflict with the rules or guidance adopted in this Order; and (2) such provisions are not specifically authorized by state law. As noted above,409 we conclude that the record before us does not provide sufficient information to make determinations with respect to franchising decisions where a state .is involved, issuing franchises at the state level or enacting laws governing specific aspects of the franchising process. We expressly limit our fmdings and regulations in this Order to actions or inactions at the local level where a state has not circumscribed the LFA's authority. For example, in light of differences between the scope of franchises issued at the state level and those issued at the local level, it may be necessary to use different criteria for determining what may be unreasonable with respect to the key franchising issues addressed herein. We also recognize that many states only recently have enacted comprehensive franchise reform laws designed to facilitate competitive entry. In light of these facts, we lack a sufficient record to evaluate whether and how such state laws may lead to unreasonable refusals to award additional competitive franchises. 127. Section 636(c) of the Communications Act provides that "any provision of law of any State, political subdivision, or agency thereof, or franchising authority, or any provision of any franchise granted by such authority, which is inconsistent with this Act shall be deemed to be preempted and superseded.s410 In the Local Franchising NPRM,the Commission tentatively concluded that,pursuant to the authority granted under Sections 621 and 636(c),and under the Supremacy Clause,411 the Commission 405 47 U.S.C. §522(12). 4°6 See IP-Enabled Services, 19 FCC Rcd 4863 (2004); Petition of SBC Communications Inc. for a Declaratory Ruling, WC Docket No. 04-36 (filed Feb. 5, 2004); Letter from James C. Smith, Senior Vice President, SBC Services Inc.,to Marlene H.Dortch,Secretary,Federal Communications Commission,WC Docket No.04-36(filed Sept. 14,2005). 4°7 Florida Lime and Avocado Growers v.Paul,373 U.S. 132, 142-43(1963). 408 See supra no'e 2. 4091d. 410 47 U.S.C. §556(c). 41 U.S.Const.,Art.VI,c1.2. 56 Federal Communications Commission FCC 06-180 may deem to be preempted any state or local law that stands as an obstacle to the accomplishment and execution of the full purposes and objectives of Title VI.412 For example, we may deem preempted any local law that causes an unreasonable refusal to award a competitive franchise in violation of Section 621(a)(1).413 Accordingly, the Commission sought comment on whether it would be appropriate to preempt state and local legislation to the extent we find that it serves as an unreasonable barrier to the grant of competitive franchises. 128. The doctrine of federal preemption arises from the Supremacy Clause, which provides that federal law is the "supreme Law of the Land.'414 Preemption analysis requires a statute-specific inquiry. There are various avenues by which state law may be superseded by federal law. We focus on the two which are most relevant here. First, preemption can occur where Congress expressly preempts state law.415 When a federal statute contains an express preemption provision, the preemption analysis consists of identifying the scope of the subject matter expressly preempted and determining if a state's law falls within its scope.416 Second, preemption can be implied and can occur where federal law conflicts with state law.417 Courts have found implied"conflict preemption"where compliance with both state and federal law is impossible or where state law "stands as an obstacle to the accomplishment and execution of the full purposes and objectives of Congress."41s 129. Applying these principles to this proceeding, we find that local franchising laws, regulations, and agreements are preempted to the extent they conflict with the rules we adopt in this Order. Section 636(c) expressly preempts state and local laws that are inconsistent with the Communications Act.419 This provision precludes states and localities from acting in a manner inconsistent with the Commission's interpretations of Title VI so long as those interpretations are valid.426 It is the Commission's job, in the first instance, to determine the scope of the subject matter expressly preempted by Section 636.421 As noted elsewhere, we adopt the rules in this Order pursuant to our interpretation of Section 621(a)(1)and other relevant Title VI provisions in light of the twin congressional goals of promoting competition in the multichannel video marketplace and promoting broadband deployment.422 These rules represent a reasonable interpretation of relevant provisions in Title VI as well as a reasonable accommodation of the various policy interests that Congress entrusted to the Commission. They therefore have preemptive effect pursuant to Section 636(c). 412 Local Franchising NPRM,20 FCC Rcd at 18589. 413 Id 414 U.S.Const.Art.VI,cl.2. See also Hillsborough County,Florida v.Automated Med Labs.,Inc.,471 U.S.707, 712-13(1985). 415 Cipollone v.Liggett Group,Inc.,505 U.S.504,517(1992). 4161d.at 517. 417 Florida Lime and Avocado Growers,373 U.S.at 142-43. 418 Id. 419 47 U.S.C. §556(c). 420 See, e.g., Liberty Cablevision of Puerto Rico, Inc. v. Municipality of Caguas, 417 F.3d 216 (1st Cir. 2005) (finding municipal ordinances that imposed franchise fees on cable operators were preempted under Section 636(c) where inconsistent with Section 622 of the Communications Act). 421 See Cipollone,505 U.S.at 517; Capital Cities Cable,467 U.S.691,699(1984). 422 See supra paras.2-4,61-64. 57 Federal Communications Commission FCC 06-180 • 130. Alternatively, we find that such local laws, regulations, and agreements are impliedly preempted to the extent that they conflict with this Order or stand as an obstacle to the accomplishment and execution of the full purposes and objectives of Congress423 Among the stated purposes of Title VI is to (1) "establish a national policy concerning cable communications," (2)"establish franchise procedures and standards which encourage the growth and development of cable systems and which assure that cable systems are responsive to the needs and interests of the local community," and (3) "promote competition in cable communications and minimize unnecessary regulation that would impose an undue economic burden on cable systems.s424 The legislative history to both the 1984 and 1992 Cable Acts identifies a national policy of encouraging competition in the multichannel video marketplace and recognizes the national implications that the local franchising process can have on that policy.425 The national policy of promoting a competitive multichannel video marketplace has been repeatedly reemphasized by Congress, the Commission, and the courts.426 The record here shows that the current operation of the franchising process at the local level conflicts with this national multichannel video policy by imposing substantial delays on competitive entry and requiring unduly burdensome conditions that deter entry.427 And to the extent that local requirements result in LFAs unreasonably refusing to award competitive franchises,such mandates frustrate the policy goals underlying Title VI. The rules we adopt today, e.g., limits on the time period for LFA action on competitive franchise applications,428 limits on LFA's ability to impose build-out requirements,429 and limits on LFA collection of franchise fees,43° 423 Florida Lime and Avocado Growers,373 U.S.at 142-43. 424 47 U.S.C.§521 (1),(2)&(6). 425 See H.R.REP.No. 98-934,at 19(1984),as reprinted in 1984 U.S.C.C.A.N.4655,4656; S.REP.No. 97-518,at 14(1982)("free and open competition in the marketplace"and the"elimination and prevention of artificial barriers to entry"are essential to the growth and development of the cable industry);H.R.REP.No. 102-862,at 77-78(1992) (Conf.Rep.),as reprinted in 1992 U.S.C.C.A.N. 1231, 1259-60. 426 See, e.g., 47 U.S.C. § 521(6) (stating that one of the purposes of Title VI is "to promote competition in cable communications");FCC v.Beach Communications,Inc., 508 U.S.307,309(1993)(recognizing"[o]ne objective of the Cable Act was to set out `franchise procedures and standards which encourage the growth and development of cable systems and which assure that cable systems are responsive to the needs and interests of the local community.'(citing 47 U.S.C. §521(2))). 427 See, e.g., AT&T Reply at 6-7 ("today's standardless franchising process, and the anticompetitive substantive conditions demanded of new entrants by many LFAs ... not only delay entry, but often prevent it altogether"); AT&T Comments at 43 (listing several conditions commonly imposed in the local franchising process that raise the cost of entry, deter broadband investment, and deny consumers the benefits of competition and choice); Verizon Comments at iv-vi(the franchising process is often marked by inordinate delay and is often used by many LFAs"as an opportunity to demand all manner of additional concessions,mostly unrelated to the provision of video services or the underlying purposes of franchise requirements, from the would-be competitor"); TIA Comments at 7-15 (many LFAs unreasonably delay the grant of competitive franchises and demand excessive concessions from potential entrants);USTA Comments at 19-20("The single biggest obstacle to widespread competition in the video service market is the requirement that a provider obtain an individually negotiated local franchise in each area where it intends to provide service"); FTTH Council Comments at 59-60 ("the franchising process as implemented by numerous LFAs across the country continues to suffer from numerous flaws that frustrate the twin Congressional objectives of promoting cable competition and fostering deployment of advanced services to all Americans"); Alcatel Comments at 19("[t]he regulatory obstacle of thousands of local video franchises potentially wielding their authority to adopt unreasonable requirements will invariably impede deployment by competitors and negatively impact investment in advanced technologies and services"). 428 See supra Section III.C.1. 429 See supra Section III.C.2. 43°See supra Section III.C.3. 58 • Federal Communications Commission FCC 06-180 are designed to ensure efficiency and fairness in the local franchising process and to provide certainty to prospective marketplace participants. This, in turn, will allow us to effectuate Congress' twin goals of promoting cable competition and minimizing unnecessary and unduly burdensome regulation on cable systems. Thus, not only are Section 636(c)'s requirements for preemption satisfied, but preemption in these circumstances is proper pursuant to the Commission's judicially recognized ability, when acting pursuant to its delegated authority, to preempt local regulations that conflict with or stand as an obstacle to the accomplishment of federal objectives.4 1 • 131. We reject the claim by incumbent cable operators and franchising authorities that the Commission lacks authority to preempt local requirements because Congress has not explicitly granted the Commission the authority to preempt 432 These commenters suggest that because the Commission seeks to preempt a power traditionally exercised by a state or local government(i.e., local franchising), under the Fifth Circuit's decision in Cit of Dallas,433 the Commission can only preempt where it is given express statutory authority to do so.434 However, this argument ignores the plain language of Section 636(c),which states that"any provision of law of any State,political subdivision, or agency therefore,or franchising authority ... which is inconsistent with this chapter shall be deemed to be preempted and superseded.s435 Moreover, Section 621 expressly limits the authority of franchising authorities by prohibiting exclusive franchises and unreasonable refusals to award additional competitive franchises.436 Congress could not have stated its intent to limit local franchising authority more clearly. These provisions therefore satisfy any express preemption requirement 437 132. Furthermore, as long as the Commission acts within the scope of its delegated authority in adopting rules that implement Title VI, including the prohibition of Section 621(a)(1), its rules have preemptive effect.438 Courts assess whether an agency acted within the scope of its authority "without any presumption one way or the other";there is no presumption against preemption in this context.439 As noted above, Congress charged the Commission with the task of administering the Communications Act, 431 See,e.g.,Louisiana Public Service Commission v.FCC,476 U.S.355,369(1986). 432 See Comcast Comments at 36-37;Comcast Reply at 35-37;Burnsville/Eagan Comments at 35-36. 433 City of Dallas, 165 F.3d at 341. 434 See Comcast Comments at 37;Comcast Reply at 36;Burnsville/Eagan Comments at 35-36. 435 47 U.S.C. §556(c). 436 47 U.S.C. §541(a)(1). 437 See Liberty Cablevision of Puerto Rico v. Municipality of Caguas, 417 F.3d 216, 221 (1st Cir. 2005) (Section 636(c)makes clear that Congress"unmistakably"intended to preempt state and local franchising decisions that are inconsistent with the Act,including Section 621); Qwest Broadband Services, Inc. v. City of Boulder, 151 F. Supp. 2d. 1236, 1243 (D. Colo. 2001)(a franchise provision in the Boulder, Colorado charter was preempted by Section 621(a)(1)because it conflicted directly with that provision's mandate that the"franchising authority"be responsible for granting the franchise). 438 See City of New York v.FCC,486 U.S. 57,64(1988)("statutorily authorized regulations of an agency will pre- empt any state or local law that conflicts with such regulations or frustrates the purposes thereof');Louisiana Public Serv. Comm.,476 U.S. at 369("a federal agency acting within the scope of its congressionally delegated authority may pre-empt state regulation"); Capital Cities Cable, Inc. v. Crisp, 467 U.S. 691, 699 (1984) (when a federal agency promulgates regulations intended to preempt state law, courts uphold preemption as long as the agency's choice"represents a reasonable accommodation of conflicting policies that were committed to the agency's care by the statute");Fidelity Federal Savings&Loan Ass 458 U.S.at 153("Federal regulations have no less pre-emptive effect than federal statutes"). 439 New York v.FERC,535 U.S. 1, 18(2002). 59 Federal Communications Commission FCC 06-180 including Title VI, and the Commission has clear authority to adopt rules implementing provisions such as Section 621.44° Consequently,our rules preempt any contrary local regulations441 133. We also fmd no merit in incumbent cable operators' and local franchising authorities' argument that the scope of the Commission's preemption authority under Section 636(c)is limited by the terms of Section 636(a)of the Act 142 Section 636(a)provides that nothing in Title VI"shall be construed to affect any authority of any State, political subdivision, or agency thereof, or franchising authority, regarding matters of public health,safety,and welfare,to the extent consistent with the express provisions of this title.s443 The very reason for preemption in these circumstances is that many local franchising laws and practices are at odds with the express provisions of Title VI, as interpreted in this Order. Consequently, Section 636(a) presents no obstacle to preemption here. We therefore need not decide whether the state and local laws at issue relate to"matters of public health,safety,and welfare"within the meaning of Section 636(a). 134. We also reject the franchising authorities' argument that any attempt to preempt lawful local government control of public rights-of-way by interfering with local franchising requirements, procedures and processes could constitute an unconstitutional taking under the Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution.444 The "takings" clause of the Fifth Amendment provides: "Nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."445 We conclude that our actions here do not run afoul of the Fifth Amendment for several reasons. To begin with, our actions do not result in a Fifth Amendment taking. Courts have held that municipalities generally do not have a compensable "ownership" interest in public rights-of-way,446 but rather hold the public streets and sidewalks in trust for the public.447 As one court explained, "municipalities generally possess no rights to profit from their streets unless specifically authorized by the state."448 Also, we note that 44°See supra paras.53-64. 441 See Fidelity Federal Savings&Loan Assn. v.De la Cuesta,458 U.S. 141, 153-58(1982); City of New York,486 U.S.at 64. See also AT&T Comments at 41-42. 442 See Comcast Comments at 39(citing 47 U.S.C. § 556(a)). See also Florida Municipalities Comments at 18-19 (the Cable Act provides for limited preemption of local regulatory efforts in certain specific areas,none of which cover competitive franchises). Commenters further point to the legislative history for Section 636(a),which noted that a state may "exercise authority over the whole range of cable activities, such as negotiations with cable operators; consumer protection; construction requirements; rate regulation or deregulation; the assessment of financial qualifications;the provision of technical assistance with respect to cable;and other franchise-related issues —as long as the exercise of that authority is consistent with Title VI." See Comcast Comments at 39-40(citing H.R. REP.No.98-934,at 94(1984),as reprinted in 1984 U.S.C.C.A.N.4655,4731). 443 47 U.S.C.§556(a)(emphasis added). 444 See Texas Coalition of Cities Comments at 29-35;Bumsville/Eagan Comments at 38. Burnsville/Eagan further argues that Fifth Amendment concerns would arise if the Commission were to interfere with the terms under which a competitive franchise is granted,thereby forcing modifications to existing cable franchises,pursuant to state and local level-playing-field requirements,thus depriving LFAs of lawful and reasonable compensation they negotiated with the incumbent cable operators for the use of public rights-of-way. 445 U.S.Const.Amend.V. 446 See Liberty Cablevision,417 F.3d at 222. 447 See New Jersey Payphone Ass'n,Inc. v. Town of West New York 130 F.Supp.2d 631,638(D.N.J.2001);see also Liberty Cablevision, 417 F.3d at 222 (recognizing that it is "'a mistake to suppose ... [that] the city is constitutionally and necessarily entitled to compensation"'for use of the city streets). 448 See Liberty Cablevision,417 F.3d at 222. 60 • Federal Communications Commission FCC 06-180 telecommunications carriers that seek to offer video service already have an independent right under state law to occupy rights-of-way.449 States have granted franchises to telecommunications carriers, pursuant to which the carriers lawfully occupy public rights-of-way for the purpose of providing telecommunications service 45o Because all municipal power is derived from the state,451 courts have held that"a state can take public rights-of-way without compensating the municipality within which they are located."452 Given the municipality is not entitled to compensation when its interest in the streets are taken pursuant to state law, it is difficult to see how the transmission of additional video signals along those same lines results in any physical occupation of public rights-of-way beyond that already permitted by the states.453 135. Moreover, even if there was a taking, Congress provided for"just compensation"to the local franchising authorities.454 Section 622(h)(2) of the Act provides that a local franchising authority may recover a franchise fee of up to 5 percent of a cable operator's annual gross revenue.455 Congress enacted the cable franchise fee as the consideration given in exchange for the right to use the public ways.456 The implementing regulations we adopt today do not eviscerate the ability of local authorities to impose a franchise fee. Rather, our actions here simply ensure that the local franchising authority does not impose an excessive fee or other unreasonable costs in violation of the express statutory provisions and policy goals encompassed in Title VI.457 136. Finally,LFAs maintain that the Commission's preemption of local governmental powers offends the Tenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.458 The Tenth Amendment provides that "[t]he powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."459 In support of their position, commenters argue 449 See Verizon Reply at 25. 4"See Verizon Reply at 25;South Slope Comments at 10-11;NCTA Comments at 12. 451 See St.Louis v. Western Union Telegraph Co., 149 U.S.465,467(1893);Liberty Cablevision,417 F.3d at 221. 452 See Ciry&County of Denver, 18 P.3d 748,761 (Colo.2001). 453 See Verizon Reply at 25-26. See also C/R TY, Inc. v. Shannondale, Inc., 27 F.3d 104, 109 (4th Cir. 1994) (reasoning that the transmission of cable television signals"would not impose an additional burden on [a]servient estate"on which telephone poles,power lines,and telephone wires had previously been installed). 454 See U.S. v.Riverside Bayview Homes, 474 U.S. 121,128(1985)(the Fifth Amendment does not prohibit takings, only uncompensated ones). Because we find that the statute provides just compensation, we need not address whether the takings clause of the Fifth Amendment encompasses the property interests of state and local governments in the same way that it applies to the property interests of private persons. 455 47 U.S.C.§542(h)(2). 456 In passing the 1984 Cable Act,Congress recognized local government's entitlement to"assess the cable operator a fee for the operator's use of public ways,"and established"the authority of a city to collect a franchise fee of up to 5 percent of an operator's annual gross revenues." H.R. REP. No. 98-934, at 26 (1984), as reprinted in 1984 U.S.C.C.A.N.4655,4663. 457 For the reasons stated above,we need not reach the issue of whether a"taking"has occurred with respect to a competitive applicant providing cable service over the same network it uses to provide telephone service,for which it is already authorized by the local government to use the public rights-of-way. 458 See Michigan Municipal League Comments at 24("[a]ny action by the Commission to mandate the granting of a franchise directly or by means of state actions in favor of any party over the objection of the local franchising authority offends the Tenth Amendment of the U.S.Constitution");Anne Arundel County Comments at 50(same). 459 U.S.Const.Amend.X. 61 Federal Communications Commission FCC 06-180 that the Commission is improperly attempting to override local government's duty to "maximize the value of local property for the greater good" by imposing a federal regulatory scheme onto the states and/or local governments 4b0 Contrary to the local franchising authorities' claim, however, they have failed to demonstrate any violation of the Tenth Amendment 461 "If a power is delegated to Congress in the Constitution, the Tenth Amendment expressly disclaims any reservation of that power to the States."462 Thus, when Congress acts within the scope of its authority under the Commerce Clause, no Tenth Amendment issue arises.463 Regulation of cable services is well within Congress' authority under the Commerce Clause 464 Thus, because our authority in this area derives from a proper exercise of congressional power, the Tenth Amendment poses no obstacle to our preemption of state and local franchise law or practices:165 Likewise, there is no merit to LFA commenters' suggestion that Commission regulation of the franchising process would constitute an improper "commandeering" of state governmental power.4G6 The Supreme Court has recognized that"where Congress has the authority to regulate private activity under the Commerce Clause," Congress has the "power to offer States the choice of regulating that activity according to federal standards or having state law preempted by federal regulation.s467 And here,we are simply requiring local franchising authorities to exercise their regulatory authority according to federal standards, or else local requirements will be preempted. For all of these reasons,our actions today do not offend the Tenth Amendment. 137. We do not purport to identify every local requirement that this Order preempts. Rather, in accordance with Section 636(c), we merely find that local laws, regulations and, agreements are preempted to the extent they conflict with this Order and the rules adopted herein. For example, local laws would be preempted if they: (1) authorize a local franchising authority to take longer than 90 days to act on a competitive franchise application concerning entities with existing authority to access public rights-of-way, and six months concerning entities that do not have authority to access public rights-of- way;468 (2) allow an LFA to impose unreasonable build-out requirements on competitive franchise applicants;469 or(3)authorize or require a local franchising authority to collect franchise fees in excess of the fees authorized by law.47° 138. One specific example of the type of local laws that this Order preempts are so-called "level-playing-field" requirements that have been adopted by a number of local authorities.471 We fmd 460 See Michigan Municipal League Comments at 25;Anne Arundel County Comments at 51. 461 See Verizon Reply at 27-29. 462 See New York v. U.S., 505 U.S. 144, 156(1992). 463 See id.at 157-58. 464 See Crisp,467 U.S.at 700-701 (holding that cable services are interstate services). 465 See Qwest Broadband Services, Inc. v. City of Boulder, 151 F.Supp.2d 1236, 1245 ("the inquiries under the Commerce Clause and the Tenth Amendment are mirror images,and a holding that a Congressional enactment does not violate the Commerce Clause is dispositive of a Tenth Amendment challenge)(citing United States v.Baer, 235 F.3d 561,563 n.6(10th Cir.2000). See also Verizon Reply at 28. 466 See Michigan Municipal League Comments at 25;Anne Arundel County Comments at 51. 467 See New York v. U.S., 505 U.S.at 167. 468 See supra at Se^tion III.C.1. 469 See supra at Section III.C.2. 470 See supra at Section III.C.3. 471 See, e.g., GMTC Comments at 15. 62 . Federal Communications Commission FCC 06-180 • that these mandates unreasonably impede competitive entry into the multichannel video marketplace by requiring LFAs to grant franchises to competitors on substantially the same terms imposed on the incumbent cable operators 472 As an initial matter,just because an incumbent cable operator may agree to franchise terms that are inconsistent with provisions in Title VI, LFAs may not require new entrants to agree to such unlawful terms pursuant to level-playing-field mandates because any such requirement would conflict with Title VI. Moreover, the record demonstrates that aside from this specific scenario, level-playing-field mandates imposed at the local level deter competition in a more fundamental manner. The record indicates that in today's market, new entrants face "steep economic challenges" in an "industry characterized by large fixed and sunk costs," without the resulting benefits incumbent cable operators enjoyed for years as monopolists in the video services marketplace.473 According to commenters, "a competitive video provider who enters the market today is in a fundamentally different situation"from that of the incumbent cable operator: "[w]hen incumbents installed their systems,they had a captive market,"whereas new entrants"have to 'win' every customer from the incumbent"and thus do not have "anywhere near the number of subscribers over which to spread the costs.s474 Commenters explain that "unlike the incumbents who were able to pay for any of the concessions that they grant an LFA out of the supra-competitive revenue from their on-going operations,""new entrants have no assured market position.' 75 Based on the record before us, we thus find that an LFAs refusal to award an additional competitive franchise unless the competitive applicant meets substantially all the terms and 472 See FTTH Council Comments at 28-31 ("there is substantial evidence that level playing field requirements have harmed new entrants or simply scared off applicants in the first place");Verizon Comments at 76-80(level-playing- field provisions are"protectionist requirements"for the benefit of the incumbent cable operator and are often cited as a basis for imposing all manner of additional costs and obligations, many of which are unreasonable and/or unlawful, on a would-be new entrant into the market); USTA Reply at 23-26, 32-34 (level-playing-field laws intrinsically limit the ability of LFAs to award franchises); see also, GAO Report, Wire Based Competition Benefited Consumers in Selected Markets (Feb. 2004), GAO-04-241 Report at 21 (noting that one local official indicated that the level-playing-field law in his state was a factor in an interested competitive cable company's retracting a cable application); BSPA Comments at 4-5 (level-playing-field statutes are a superficial appeal to fairness that masks the real intent to protect the incumbent's market position,and such requirements delay or limit the growth of competition by negatively impacting the availability or use of capital);Letter from Lawrence Spiwak, President,Phoenix Ctr. For Advanced Legal and Econ.Pub.Policy Studies, to Marlene Dortch,Secretary,Federal Communications Commission at Attachment, Phoenix Center Policy Paper Number 21: Competition After Unbundling: Entry, Industry Structure and Convergence, 37 ("presence of a `first mover' advantage means that requiring a new entrant to bear an entry cost simply because the incumbent cable operator has already borne it will have the effect of deterring entry substantially, even if such costs did not deter the incumbent cable operator from offering service")(March 13,2006)("Phoenix Center Competition Paper");DOJ Ex Parte at 16. But see Comcast Comments at 40(maintaining that state level-playing-field statutes are a legitimate and well-established exercise of state and local regulatory authority and are not inconsistent with the Communications Act);NATOA Reply at 43-44 (maintaining that there is little or no evidence to suggest that state level-playing-field laws have had anywhere near the draconian effect on the granting of competitive franchises as the telephone industry alleges). 473 See USTA Reply at 24. See also, Verizon Reply at 65 ("In exchange for the costs they incurred to enter the market, the incumbent cable operators generally received exclusive franchises and enjoyed all of the benefits of being monopoly providers for years, often decades."); Mercatus Comments at 40 ("while a second cable operator will have to make the same unrecoverable investment previously made by the incumbent,it will not have the benefit of a monopoly over which to amortize it");FTTH Council Comments at 3("New entrants are highly unlikely to ever obtain and enjoy the fruits of market power. Consequently,the burdens of the pre-existing franchising process from the perspective of these new entrants are not offset by the benefits that the monopolists enjoyed."). 474 See FTTH Council Comments at 30(quoting Andy Sarwal Declaration,para.7);Verizon Comments at 77(new entrants"[face]ubiquitous competition from strong and entrenched competitors,which in turn leads to lower market share and lower profit margins"). 475 See Verizon Reply at 65. See also USTA Reply at 24. • 63 Federal Communications Commission FCC 06-180 conditions imposed on the incumbent cable operator may be unreasonable, and inconsistent with the "unreasonable refusal" prohibition of Section.621(a)(1). Accordingly, to the extent a locally-mandated level-playing-field requirement is inconsistent with the rules, guidance, and fmdings adopted in this Order, such requirement is deemed preempted.476 IV. FURTHER NOTICE OF PROPOSED RULEMAKING 139. As discussed above, this proceeding is limited to competitive applicants under Section 621(a)(1)47 Yet, some of the decisions in this Order also appear germane to existing franchisees. We asked in the Local Franchising NPRM whether current procedures and requirements were appropriate for any cable operator, including existing operators 478 NCTA argues that if the Commission establishes franchising relief for new entrants, we should do the same for incumbent cable operators because imposing similar franchising requirements on new entrants and incumbent cable operators promotes competition.479 Somewhat analogously,the BSPA argues that any new franchise regulatory relief should extend to all current competitive operators and new entrants equally; otherwise, the inequities would effectively penalize existing competitive franchisees simply because they were the first to risk competition with the incumbent cable operator.48° The record does not indicate any opposition by new entrants to the idea that any relief afforded them also be afforded to incumbent cable operators481 Some incumbent cable operators discussed the potential impact of Commission action under Section 621 on incumbent cable operators. For example, Charter argues that granting competitive cable providers entry free from local franchise requirements would affect Charter's ability to satisfy its existing obligations; funds that Charter might use to respond to competition by investing in new facilities and services would instead be tied up in franchise obligations not imposed on Charter's competitors,which would undermine the company's investment and render its franchise obligations commercially impracticable482 AT&T 476 We also find troubling the record evidence that suggests incumbent cable operators use "level-playing-field" requirements to frustrate negotiations between LFAs and competitive providers, causing delay and preventing competitive entry. See, e.g., Letter from John Goodman, Broadband Service Providers Association, to Marlene Dortch, Secretary, Federal Communications Commission (March 3, 2006) (explaining that the incumbent cable operator used level-playing-field requirements to bring litigation against the LFA which delayed the negotiation process and made entry so expensive that it no longer became feasible for the new entrant);Texas Coalition of Cities Comments at 13 ("Most delays in competitive franchise negotiations result from the incumbent cable provider's demands that competitive providers' franchises contain virtually identical terms."); Verizon Reply at 65-66 ("incumbents' over-eagerness to support these anticompetitive requirements further evidences the need for the Commission to remove this roadblock to competition"). 477 See supra paras. 1, 113. 478 Local Franchising NPRM,20 FCC Rcd at 18588. 479 NCTA Comments at 13 (quoting Appropriate Framework for Broadband Access to the Internet Over Wireline Facilities, 20 FCC Rcd 14853, 14855-56, 14864-65(2005)"[T]reating like services alike promotes competition"by allowing the market to determine the better operator rather than providing one operator "artificial regulatory advantages"). See also Cox Reply at 2-4. 4"BSPA Comments at 2-3. 481See, e.g.,BSPA Cot unents at 2-3(any new regulatory relief in franchising should apply to all current competitive operators and potential new entrants). But see FTTH Council Comments at 24(new entrants are not treated more favorably than incumbents when they are burdened with the same requirements as incumbents but do not have the same market power). 482 Charter Comments at 3-4. 64 Federal Communications Commission FCC 06-180 argues that competition will not harm incumbent cable operators: cable has handled the competition that DBS presents, and analysts predict that the new wave of competition will not put them out of business 483 140. We tentatively conclude that the findings in this Order should apply to cable operators that have existing franchise agreements as they negotiate renewal of those agreements with LFAs. We note that Section 611(a) states "A franchising authority may establish requirements in a franchise with respect to the designation or use of channel capacity for public, educational, or governmental use" and Section 622(a) provides "any cable operator may be required under the terms of any franchise to pay a franchise fee." These statutory provisions do not distinguish between incumbents and new entrants or franchises issued to incumbents versus franchises issued to new entrants. We seek comment on our tentative conclusion. We also seek comment on our authority to implement this finding. We also seek comment on what effect, if any,the fmdings in this Order have on most favored nation clauses that may be included in existing franchises. The Commission will conclude this iulemaking and release an order no later than six months after release of this Order. 141. In the Local Franchising NPRM, we also sought comment on whether customer service requirements should vary greatly from jurisdiction to jurisdiction.484 In response, AT&T urges us to adopt rules to prevent LFAs from imposing various data collection and related requirements in exchange for a franchise.485 AT&T claims that LFAs have imposed obligations that franchisees collect,track, and report customer service performance data for individual franchise areas486 AT&T states that it operates its call centers and systems on a region-wide basis, and that it is not currently possible or economically feasible for AT&T to comply with the various local customer service requirements on a franchise by franchise basis.487 AT&T also asks us to affirm that LFAs may not, absent the franchise applicant's consent,impose any local service quality standards that go beyond the requirements of duly enacted laws and ordinances.488 Verizon indicates that some localities have conditioned the grant of a franchise upon the submission of Verizon's data services to local customer service regulation.489 • 142. NATOA opposes AT&T's request for relief from local customer service standards, and argues that the Act and the Commission's rules explicitly provide for local customer service regulation.490 Specifically, NATOA asserts that Section 632(d)(2) of the Cable Act allows for the establishment and enforcement of local customer service laws that go beyond the federal standards.491 Other parties assert that customer service regulation is necessary to ensure that consumers have regulatory relief.492 483 AT&T Reply at 5. 484 Local Franchising NPRM,20 FCC Rcd at 18588. 485 AT&T Comments at 72-73. 486 Id. 487 Id. As discussed in Section III.C.2 above, AT&T's existing call center regions do not mirror local franchise areas. One region can encompass multiple franchise areas, and impose a multitude of regulations upon a new entrant. 488 AT&T Comments at 73. 489 Verizon Comments at 75. 49°NATOA Reply at 4041. See also New York City Comments at 3(citing 47 U.S.C.§552). 491 47 U.S.C.§552(d)(2). Accord 47 C.F.R.§76.309(b)(4). 492 See, e.g., Alliance for Public Technology Comments at 2-3;American Association of People with Disabilities at 2;Cavalier Comments at 6. 65 Federal Communications Commission FCC 06-180 143. Section 632(d)(2)states that: [n]othing in this Section shall be construed to preclude a franchising authority and a cable operator from agreeing to customer service requirements that exceed the standards established by the Commission . . . . Nothing in this Title shall be construed to prevent the establishment and enforcement of any municipal law or regulation, or any State law, concerning customer service that imposes customer service requirements that exceed the standards set by the Commission under this section, or that addresses matters not addressed by the standards set by the Commission under this section.493 Given this explicit statutory language, we tentatively conclude that we cannot preempt state or local customer service laws that exceed the Commission's standards, nor can we prevent LFAs and cable operators from agreeing to more stringent standards. We seek comment on this tentative conclusion. V. PROCEDURAL MATTERS 144. Ex Parte Rules. This is a permit-but-disclose notice and comment rulemaking proceeding. Ex Parte presentations are permitted, except during the Sunshine Agenda period, provided that they are disclosed as provided in the Commission's rules. See generally 47 C.F.R. §§ 1.1202, 1.1203,and 1.1206(a). 145. Comment Information. Pursuant to sections 1.415 and 1.419 of the Commission's rules, 47 CFR §§ 1.415, 1.419, interested parties may file comments on or before 30 days after this Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking is published in the Federal Register, and reply comments on or before 45 days of publication. Comments may be filed using: (1) the Commission's Electronic Comment Filing System (ECFS), (2) the Federal Government's eRulemaking Portal, or (3) by filing paper copies. See Electronic Filing of Documents in Rulemaking Proceedings, 63 FR 24121 (1998). ■ Electronic Filers: Comments may be filed electronically using the Internet by accessing the ECFS: http://www.fcc.gov/cgb/ecfs/ or the Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.Qov. Filers should follow the instructions provided on the website for submitting comments. ■ For ECFS filers, if multiple docket or rulemaking numbers appear in the caption of this proceeding, filers must transmit one electronic copy of the comments for each docket or rulemaking number referenced in the caption. In completing the transmittal screen,filers should include their full name, U.S. Postal Service mailing address, and the applicable docket or rulemaking number. Parties may also submit an electronic comment by Internet e-mail. To get filing instructions, filers should send an e-mail to ecfs(cUfcc.gov, and include the following words in the body of the message,"get form." A sample form and directions will be sent in response. ■ Paper Filers: Parties who choose to file by paper must file an original and four copies of each filing. If more than one docket or rulemaking number appears in the caption of this proceeding, filers must submit two additional copies for each additional docket or rulemaking number. Filings can be sent by hand or messenger delivery,by commercial overnight courier, or by first- class or overnight U.S. Postal Service mail (although we continue to experience delays in 493 47 U.S.C. §552(d)(2). Accord 47 C.F.R.§76.309(b)(4). 66 Federal Communications Commission FCC 06-180 receiving U.S.Postal Service mail). All filings must be addressed to the Commission's Secretary, Office of the Secretary,Federal Communications Commission. • The Commission's contractor will receive hand-delivered or messenger-delivered paper filings for the Commission's Secretary at 236 Massachusetts Avenue, NE., Suite 110, Washington,DC 20002. The filing hours at this location are 8:00 a.m.to 7:00 p.m. All hand deliveries must be held together with rubber bands or fasteners. Any envelopes must be disposed of before entering the building. • Commercial overnight mail (other than U.S. Postal Service Express Mail and Priority Mail)must be sent to 9300 East Hampton Drive,Capitol Heights,MD 20743. • U.S.Postal Service first-class,Express,and Priority mail should be addressed to 445 12th Street, SW,Washington DC 20554. People with Disabilities: To request materials in accessible formats for people with disabilities (braille, large print, electronic files, audio format), send an e-mail to fcc504(aifcc.gov or call the Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau at 202-418-0530(voice),202-418-0432(tty). 146. Initial Paperwork Reduction Act Analysis. This Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking does not contain proposed information collection(s) subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), Public Law 104-13. In addition, therefore,it does not contain any new or modified"information collection burden for small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees," pursuant to the Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002,Public Law 107-198,see 44 U.S.C.3506(c)(4). 147. Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis. As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act,494 the Commission has prepared an Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis(IRFA)of the possible significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities of the proposals addressed in this Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking. The IRFA is set forth in Appendix C. Written public comments are requested on the IRFA. These comments must be filed in accordance with the same filing deadlines for comments on the Second Further Notice,and they should have a separate and distinct heading designating them as responses to the IRFA. 148. Paperwork Reduction Act Analysis. This document contains new information collection requirements subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), Public Law 104-13. It will be submitted to the Office of Management and Budget(OMB)for review under Section 3507(d)of the PRA. OMB, the general public, and other Federal agencies are invited to comment on the new information collection requirements contained in this proceeding. In addition, we note that pursuant to the Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, Public Law 107-198, see 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(4), we will seek specific comment on how the Commission might "further reduce the information collection burden for small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees." 149. In this present document, we have assessed the effects of the application filing requirements used to calculate the time frame in which a local franchising authority shall make a decision, and find that those requirements will benefit companies with fewer than 25 employees by providing such companies with specific application requirements of a reasonable length. We anticipate this specificity will streamline this process for companies with fewer than 25 employees,and that these requirements will not burden those companies. 494 See 5 U.S.C.§603. 67 Federal Communications Commission FCC 06-180 150. Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act,495 the Commission has prepared a Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis ("FRFA") relating to this Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking. The FRFA is set forth in Appendix D. 151. Congressional Review Act. The Commission will send a copy of this Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in a report to be sent to Congress and the Government Accountability Office pursuant to the Congressional Review Act,see 5 U.S.C. § 801(a)(1)(A). 152. Additional Information. For additional information on this proceeding, please contact Holly Saurer, Media Bureau at (202) 418-2120, or Brendan Murray, Policy Division, Media Bureau at (202)418-2120. VI. ORDERING CLAUSES 153. IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to the authority contained in Sections 1, 2, 4(i), 303, 303r, 403 and 405 of the Communications Act of 1934,47 U.S.0 §§ 151, 152, 154(i), 303, 303(r), 403 , this Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking IS ADOPTED. 154. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that pursuant to the authority contained in Sections Sections 1, 2,4(i), 303, 303a, 303b,and 307 of the Communications Act of 1934,47 U.S.0 §§ 151, 152, 154(i), 303, 303a, 303b, and 307, the Commission's rules ARE HEREBY AMENDED as set forth in Appendix B. It is our intention in adopting these rule changes that, if any provision of the rules is held invalid by any court of competent jurisdiction, the remaining provisions shall remain in effect to the fullest extent permitted by law. 155. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the rules contained herein SHALL BE EFFECTIVE 30 days after publication of the Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in the Federal Register, except for the rules that contain information collection requirements subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act, which shall become effective immediately upon announcement in the Federal Register of OMB approval. 156. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Commission's Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau, Reference Information Center, SHALL SEND a copy of this Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking,including the Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis,to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration. 157. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that thc Commission SHALL SEND a copy of this Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in a report to be sent to Congress and the General Accounting Office pursuant to the Congressional Review Act,see 5 U.S.C. § 801(a)(1)(A). FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Marlene H.Dortch Secretary 495 See 5.U.S.C.§604. 68 Federal Communications Commission FCC 06-180 APPENDIX A List of Commenters and Reply Commenters 1. Abilene,TX 2. Access Channel 5,NY 3. Access Fort Wayne,IN 4. Access Sacramento,CA 5. Ad Hoc Telecom Manufacturer Coalition 6. Ada Township,et al. 7. Advance/Newhouse Communications 8. AEI-Brookings Joint Center for Regulatory Studies 9. Alamance County,NC 10. Albuquerque,NM 11. Alcatel 12. Alhambra,CA 13. Alliance for Public Technology 14. Alpina,MI • 15. American Association of Business Persons with Disabilities 16. American Association of People with Disabilities 17. American Cable Association 18. American Consumer Institute 19. American Corn Growers Association 20. American Homeowners Grassroots Alliance 21. Anaheim,CA 22. Angels Camp,CA 23. Anne Arundel County,Carroll County,Charles County,Howard County and Montgomery County 24. Apex,NC 25. Apple Valley,MN 26. Appleton,WI 27. Archdale,NC 28. Arlington Independent Media,VA 29. Asheboro,NC 30. Ashland,KY 31. Ashokie,NC 32. Association of Independent Programming Networks 33. AT&T Inc. 34. Atascadero,CA 35. Bailey,NC 36. Banning,CA 37. Barrington,IL 38. Bellefonte,PA 39. Bellflower,CA 40. BellSouth 41. Benson,NC 42. Berks Community TV,PA 43. Beverly Hills,CA 44. Biddeford,ME 45. Billerica Access TV,MA 46. Billerica,MA 47. Birmingham Area Cable Board,MI 69 Federal Communications Commission FCC 06-180 48. Blue Lake,CA 49. Bonita Springs,FL 50. Boston Community Access and Programming Foundation(BCAPF) 51. Boston,MA 52. Bowie,MD 53. Branford Commun.TV,CT 54. Brea,CA 55. Brisbane,CA 56. Broadband Service Providers Association 57. Brunswick,ME 58. Bucks County Consortium of Communities,PA 59. Burlington,NC 60. Burnsville/Eagan Telecommunications Commission; The City of Minneapolis, MN; The North Metro Telecommunications Commission; The North Suburban Communications Commission; and The South Washington County Telecommunications Commission("City of Minneapolis") 61. Cable Access St.Paul,MN 62. Cable Advisory Council of South Central CT 63. Cablevision Systems Corporation 64. Cadillac,MI 65. Calabash,NC 66. California Alliance for Consumer Protection 67. California Fanners Union 68. California Small Business Association 69. California Small Business Roundtable 70. Cambridge Public Access Corp,MA 71. Cambridge,MA 72. Campbell County Cable Board,KY -73. Cape Coral,FL 74. Capital Community TV,OR 75. Carlsbad,CA 76. Carrboro,NC 77. Cary,NC 78. Castalia,NC 79. Caswell County,NC 80. Cavalier Telephone,LLC/Cavalier IP TV,LLC 81. Cedar Rapids,Iowa 82. Center for Digital Democracy 83. Central St. Croix Valley Joint Cable Comm,MN 84. Certain Florida Municipalities 85. Champaign,IL 86. Champaign-Urbana Cable TV and Telecomm Commission,IL 87. Chapel Hill,NC 88. Charlotte,NC 89. Charter Communications,Inc. 90. Chicago Access Corp,IL 91. Chicago,IL 92. Cincinnati Bell,Inc. 93. Cincinnati,OH 94. Citizen's Community TV,CO 95. City and County of San Francisco,CA 96. City of Los Angeles 70 Federal Communications Commission FCC 06-180 97. City of Philadelphia 98. City of St.Louis,Missouri 99. City of Ventura,California 100. Clackamas County,OR 101. Clark County,NV 102. Clay County,FL 103. Clayton,NC 104. Clinton Township,MI 105. Clovis,CA 106. College Twp,PA 107. Comcast Corporation 108. Communications Support Group,Inc. 109. Community Access`TV,IL 110. Community Programming Board of Forest Park et al,OH 111. Concord,CA 112. Concord,NC 113. Consumer Coalition of California 114. Consumer Electronics Association 115. Consumers First 116. Consumers for Cable Choice 117. Coral Springs,Florida 118. Coralville,IA 119. Coronado,CA 120. Cox Communications,Inc. 121. Cypress,CA 122. Daly City,CA 123. Dare County,NC 124. Darlington,SC 125. Davis,CA 126. Del Mar,CA 127. Delray Beach,FL 128. Democratic Processes Center 129. Discovery Institute's Technology&Democracy Project 130. Dortches,NC 131. Dublin,CA 132. Durham,NC 133. Eden,NC 134. El Cerrito,CA 135. Elk Grove,IL 136. Elon,NC* 137. Enumclaw,WA 138. Escondido,CA 139. Esopus,NY 140. Evanston,IL 141. Fairfax Cable Access,VA 142. Fairfax County,Virginia 143. Fairfax,CA 144. Faith,NC 145. Fall River Community TV,MA 146. Fargo,ND 147. Farmington,MN 71 Federal Communications Commission FCC 06-180 148. Ferguson,PA 149. Ferndale, CA 150. Fiber-to-the-Home Council 151. Floral Park,NY 152. Florence,Kentucky 153. Florence,KY 154. Fort Worth,TX 155. Fortuna,CA 156. Foster City,CA 157. Foxboro Cable Access,MA 158. Franldin Lakes,NJ 159. Franklin,KY 160. Free Enterprise Fund 161. Free Press(Reply) 162. Free Press,Consumers Union,Consumer Federation of America • 163. Freedomworks 164. Ft.Lauderdale,FL 165. Gainesville,FL 166. Garland,TX 167. Gamer,NC 168. Geneva,IL 169. Georgia Municipal Association(GMA) 170. Gibsonville,NC 171. Gilroy, CA 172. Glenview,IL 173. Graham,NC 174. Grand Rapids,MI 175. Granite Quarry,NC 176. Great Neck/North Shore Cable Comm'n,NY 177. Greater Metro Telecommunications Consortium,et al. (GMTC) 178. Green Spring,K 179. Greensboro,NC* 180. Greenville,NC 181. Guilford County,NC 182. Harnett County,NC 183. Harris Township,PA 184. Haw River,NC 185. Hawaii Consumers 186. Hawaii Telcom Communications,Inc. 187. Henderson County,NC 188. Henderson,NV 189. Hialeah,FL 190. Hibbing Public Access TV,MN 191. High Point,NC 192. High Tech Broadband Coalition 193. Highlands,l\`C 194. Hillsborough,NC 195. Holly Springs,NC 196. Huntsville,AL 197. Imperial Beach,CA 198. Independent Multi-Family Communications Council 72 • Federal Communications Commission FCC 06-180 199. Indianapolis,IN 200. Institute for Policy Innovation 201. Intergovernmental Cable Comm Auth,MI 202. Iowa City,IA 203. Irvine,CA 204. Irwindale,CA 205. Itasca Comm TV,MN 206. Jackson,CA 207. Jamestown,NC 208. Jefferson County League of Cities Cable Comm'n,Kentucky 209. Jenkins,KY 210. Jersey Access Group,NJ 211. Kansas City,Missouri 212. Kernersville,NC 213. Killeen,TX 214. King County,WA 215. Kitty Hawk,NC 216. Knightdale,NC 217. La Puente,CA 218. Lake Forest,CA 219. Lake Lurie,NC 220. Lake Mills,WI 221. Lake Minnetonka Communications Comm,MN 222. Lake Worth,FL 223. Lakewood,CA 224. Las Vegas,NV 225. LaVeme,CA 226. League of Minnesota Cities(LMC) 227. League of United Latin American Citizens of the Northeast Region+ 228. Leavenworth,KS 229. Lee County,FL 230. Leibowitz&Associates,P.A. 231. Lenexa,KS 232. Lewisville,NC 233. Lexington,NC 234. Lincoln,CA 235. Lincoln,NE 236. Long Beach,CA 237. Longmont,CO 238. Loomis,CA 239. Los Angeles Cable Television Access Corp.,CA 240. Los Banos,CA 241. Lynwood,CA 242. Madison Hts,MI 243. Madison,NC 244. Madison,WI 245. Malverne,NY 246. Manatee County,Florida 247. Manhattan Community Access Corp.,NY 248. Marin Telecomm Agency,CA 249. Martha's Vineyard Comm TV,MA 73 Federal Communications Commission FCC 06-180 250. Maxton,NC 251. Mayodan,NC 252. Mayville,NY 253. Maywood,CA 254. Mecklenburg County,NC 255. Medford,OR 256. Medford,OR 257. Media Action Marin,CA 258. Media Bridges Cincinnati,OH 259. Mercatus Center 260. Metheun Comm TV,MA 261. Metropolitan Area Comm Comm'n,OR 262. Metropolitan Educational Access Corp,TN 263. Miami Valley Comm Council,OH 264. Miami-Dade County,Florida 265. Michigan Municipal League 266. Microsoft Corporation 267. Middlesex,NC 268. Midland,TX 269. Milpitas,CA 270. Minnesota Telecomm Alliance 271. Minority Media and Telecommunications Council,et al. 272. Missouri Chapter - National Association of Telecommunications Officers and Advisors (MO- NATOA) 273. Mobile,AL 274. Momeyer,NC 275. Monrovia,CA 276. Monterey Park,CA 277. Montrose,CO 278. Morrisville,NC 279. Mount Morris,MI 280. Mt.Hood Cable Regulatory Commission(MHCRC) 281. Murfeesboro,TN 282. Murfreesboro,NC 283. Murrieta,CA 284. National Association of Broadcasters 285. National Black Chamber of Commerce 286. National Cable&Telecommunications Association 287. National Caucus and Center on Black Aged 288. National Grange 289. National Hispanic Council on Aging 290. National Taxpayers Union 291. National Telecommunications Cooperative Association 292. NATOA,NLC,,NACO,USCM,ACM,and ACD 293. Naval Media Center,US 294. New Jersey Boa-d of Public Utilities(NJBPU) 295. New Jersey Division of the Ratepayer Advocate 296. New York City 297. New York State Conference of Mayors(NYCOM) 298. Newton Comm Access Cntr,MA 299. Norfolk,VA 74 • Federal Communications Commission FCC 06-180 300. North Kansas City,MO 301. North Liberty,IA 302. North Richland Hills,TX 303. Northbrook,IL 304. Northern Berkshire Comm TV Corp,MA 305. Northern Dakota County Cable Comm Comm'm 306. Northwest Suburbs Cable Commun Comm'n,MN 307. Norwalk,CA 308. Oceanside Comm TV,CA 309. Onslow Cnty,NC • 310. Ontario,CA 311. Orange County,FL 312. Organization for the Promotion and Advancement of Small Telecommunications Companies 313. Orion Neighborhood TV,MI 314. Oxford,NC 315. Pacific Research Institute 316. Pac-West Telecomm,Inc. 317. Palmetto,FL 318. Palo Alto,CA(on behalf of Joint Powers) 319. Pasadena,CA 320. Patton,PA 321. Peachtree City,GA 322. Pennsville, NJ 323. Perris,CA 324. Philadelphia,PA 325. Pike County,Kentucky 326. Pike County,KY •327. Pikeville,Kentucky 328. Pikeville,KY 329. Pinetops,NC 330. Pittsboro,NC 331. Plainfield,MI 332. Pleasant Garden,NC 333. Pleasant Hill,CA 334. Plymouth,MA 335. Pocatello,ID 336. Post Falls,ID 337. Poway, CA 338. Prince George's Community TV,Inc. 339. Prince George's County,MD 340. Princeton Community TV,NJ 341. Public Cable Television Authority 342. Public Utility Commission of Texas 343. Public,Educational and Government Access Oversight Comm of Metro Nashville 344. Queen Anne's County,MD 345. Quote Unquote,NM 346. Qwest Communications International Inc. 347. Ramsey/Washington Counties Suburban Cable Commun. Comm'n,MN 348. Rancho Cordova,CA 349. Rancho Santa Margarita, CA 350. Randolph County,NC 75 Federal Communications Commission FCC 06-180 351. RCN Telecom Services,Inc. 352. Red Oak,NC 353. Redding,CA 354. Reidsville,NC 355. Renton,WA 356. Richmond,KY 357. River Bend,NC 358. Rockingham County,NC 359. Rockwell,NC 360. Rolling Hills Estates,CA 361. Rowan County,NC 362. Sacramento Metro Cable TV Commission,CA 363. Saint Charles,MO 364. Salem,OR 365. Salt Lake City,UT 366. San Diego,CA 367. San Dimas,CA 368. San Jose,CA 369. San Juan Capistrano,CA 370. San Marcos,CA 371. San Mateo County Telecomm Auth, CA 372. Sanford,NC 373. Santa Clara,CA 374. Santa Clarita,CA 375. Santa Cruz County Community TV 376. Santa Rosa,CA 377. Santee,CA 378. Saratoga Springs,NY 379. Scotts Valley,CA 380. Seattle,WA 381. Sebastopol,CA 382. Self-Advocacy Association of New York State,Inc. 383. Shaler,PA 384. Sierra Madre,CA 385. Signal Hill,CA 386. Siler City,NC 387. Simi Valley,CA 388. Sjoberg's,Inc. 389. Skokie,IL 390. Smithfield,NC 391. Solana Beach,CA 392. South Orange Village,NJ 393. South Portland,ME 394. South San Francisco,CA 395. South Slope Cooperative Telephone Company 396. Southeast Michigan Municipalities 397. Southwest Suburban Cable Commission(SWSCC) 398. Spring Hope,NC 399. Springfield,MO 400. St. Charles,IL 401. St.Paul,MN* 76 • Federal Communications Commission FCC 06-180 402. St.Petersburg,FL 403. Standish,ME 404. State College Bourough,PA 405. State of Hawaii 406. Statesville,NC 407. Sun Prairie Cable Access TV,WI 408. Sunapee,NH* 409. Sunnyvale,CA 410. Susanville, CA 411. Tabor City,NC 412. Tampa, FL 413. Taylor,MI 414. Telco Retirees Association,Inc. 415. Telecommunications Industry Association 416. Temecula,CA 417. Texas Coalition of Cities for Utility Issues(TCCFUI) 418. Texas Municipal League and the Texas City Attorneys Association 419. The Progress&Freedom Foundation 420. Time Warner Cable 421. Tobaccoville,NC 422. Toppenish,WA 423. Torrance,CA 424. Truckee,CA 425. Tulsa,OK 426. Tuolumne, CA 427. Ukiah,CA 428. United States Internet Industry Association 429. United States Telecom Association 430. United States-Mexico Chamber of Commerce 431. URTV Asheville,NC 432. Valley Voters Organized Toward Empowerment 433. Vancouver Educational Telecommunications Consortium(VETC) 434. Vass,NC 435. Verizon 436. Vermont Public Service Board(VPSB) 437. Video Access Alliance 438. Villages of Larchmont&Mamaroneck,NY 439. Virginia Cable Telecommunications Association(VCTA) 440. Vista,CA 441. Wake Forest,NC 442. Walnut Creek,CA 443. Walnut Creek,California 444. Warrenville,IL 445. Washington State Grange 446. Wayland,MA 447. Wendell,NC 448. West Allis,WI 449. West Palm Beach,FL 450. Westport,WI 451. Wheaton,IL 452. Whitakers,NC 77 Federal Communications Commission FCC 06-180 453. White Plains Cable Access TV,NY 454. White,SD 455. Whittier,CA 456. Wilbraham,MA 457. Wilson,NC 458. Winchester,KY&KY Regional Cable Comm. 459. Windham Community TV,NH 460. Winston-Salem,NC 461. Wisconsin Association of Public,Educational and Government Access Channels(WAPC) 462. Women Impacting Public Policy 463. Worchester,MA 464. World Institute on Disability 465. Yanceyville,NC 466. Yuma,AZ 467. Zebulon,NC 468. Zeeland,MI 78 • Federal Communications Commission FCC 06-180 APPENDIX B Rule Changes Part 76 of Title 47 of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended as follows: Part 76—MULTICHANNEL VIDEO AND CABLE TELEVISION SERVICE 1. Revise Subpart C title to read as follows: Subpart C—Cable Franchise Applications 2. Insert into new Subpart C the following: §76.41 Franchise Application Process (a)Definition. Competitive Franchise Applicant. For the purpose of this section,an applicant for a cable franchise in an area currently served by another cable operator or cable operators in accordance with 47 U.S.C. § 541(a)(1). (b) A competitive franchise applicant must include the following information in writing in its franchise application,in addition to any information required by applicable state and local laws: (1)the applicant's name; (2)the names of the applicant's officers and directors; (3)the business address of the applicant; (4)the name and contact information of a designated contact for the applicant; (5)a description of the geographic area that the applicant proposes to serve; (6)the PEG channel capacity and capital support proposed by the applicant; (7)the term of the agreement proposed by the applicant; (8)whether the applicant holds an existing authorization to access the public rights-of-way in the subject franchise service area as described under subsection(b)(5); (9)the amount of the franchise fee the applicant offers to pay;and (10)any additional information required by applicable state or local laws. (c) A franchising authority may not require a competitive franchise applicant to negotiate or engage in any regulatory or administrative processes prior to the filing of the application. (d)When a competitive franchise applicant files a franchise application with a franchising authority and the applicant has existing authority to access public rights-of-way in the geographic area that the applicant proposes to serve,the franchising"authority must grant or deny the application within 90 days of the date the application is received by the franchising authority. If a competitive franchise applicant does not have existing authority to access public rights-of-way in the geographic area that the applicant proposes to serve, the franchising authority must grant or deny the application within 180 days of the date the application is received by the franchising authority. A franchising authority and a competitive franchise applicant may agree in writing to extend the 90-day or 180-day deadline,whichever is applicable. 79 Federal Communications Commission FCC 06-180 e) If a franchising authority does not grant or deny an application within the time limit specified in subsection (d), the competitive franchise applicant will be authorized to offer service pursuant to an interim franchise in accordance with the terms of the application submitted under subsection(b). f) If after expiration of the time limit specified in subsection (d) a franchising authority denies an application, the competitive franchise applicant must discontinue operating under the interim franchise specified in subsection (e) unless the franchising authority provides consent for the interim franchise to continue for a limited period of time, such as during the period when judicial review of the franchising authority's decision is pending. The competitive franchise applicant may seek judicial review of the denial under 47 U.S.C. § 555. g)If after expiration of the time limit specified in subsection(d)a franchising authority and a competitive franchise applicant agree on the terms of a franchise, upon the effective date of that franchise, that franchise will govern and the interim franchise will expire. 80 • Federal Communications Commission FCC 06-180 APPENDIX C Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 1. As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, as amended (the "RFA"),' the Commission has prepared this Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis("IRFA")of the possible significant economic impact of the policies and rules proposed in the Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking ("Further Notice") on a substantial number of small entities.2 Written public comments are requested on this IRFA. Comments must be identified as responses to the IRFA and must be filed by the deadlines for comments on the Further Notice provided in paragraph 145 of the item. -The Commission will send a copy of the Further Notice, including this IRFA, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration("SBA").3 In addition,the Further Notice and IRFA(or summaries.thereof)will be published in the Federal Register.' A. Need for,and Objectives of,the Proposed Rules 2. The Further Notice continues a process to implement Section 621(a)(1) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, in order to further the interrelated goals of enhanced cable competition and accelerated broadband deployment as discussed in the Report and Order ("Order"). Specifically,the Further Notice solicits comment on whether the Commission should apply the rules and guidelines adopted in the Order to cable operators that have existing franchise agreements, and if so, whether the Commission has authority to do so. The Further Notice also seeks comment on whether the Commission can preempt state or local customer service laws that exceed Commission standards. B. Legal Basis 3. The Further Notice tentatively concludes that the Commission has authority to apply the fmdings in the Order to cable operators with existing franchise agreements. In that regard, the Further Notice fmds that neither Section 611(a) nor Section 622(a) distinguishes between incumbents and new entrants or franchises issued to incumbents and franchises issued to new entrants? C. Description and Estimate of the Number of Small Entities to Which the Proposed Rules Will Apply 4. The RFA directs agencies to provide a description of, and where feasible, an estimate of the number of small entities that may be affected by the proposed rules, if adopted.6 The RFA generally defines the term "small entity" as having the same meaning as the terms "small business," "small organization," and "small governmental jurisdiction."' In addition, the term "small business has the ' The RFA,see 5 U.S.C. §§601 —612,has been amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996("SBREFA"),Pub.L.No. 104-121,Title II, 110 Stat.857(1996). 2 See 5 U.S.C. §603. Although we are conducting an IRFA at this stage in the process, it is foreseeable that ultimately we will certify this action pursuant to the RFA,5 U.S.C. §605(b),because we anticipate at this time that any rules adopted pursuant to this Notice will have no significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. 3 See 5 U.S.C.§603(a). 4 See 5 U.S.C. §603(a). 5 See 47 U.S.C.§§531(a),542(a). 6 5 U.S.C.§603(b)(3). '5 U.S.C.§601(6). 81 Federal Communications Commission FCC 06-180 same meaning as the term "small business concern" under the Small Business Act.8 A "small business concern" is one which: (1) is independently owned and operated; (2)is not dominant in its field of operation; and (3)satisfies any additional criteria established by the Small Business Administration ("SBA").9 5. Small Businesses. Nationwide, there are a total of approximately 22.4 million small businesses, according to SBA data.10 6. Small Organizations. Nationwide, there are approximately 1.6 million small organizations." 7. The Commission has determined that the group of small entities possibly directly affected by the proposed rules herein, if adopted, consists of small governmental entities. A description of these entities is provided below. In addition the Commission voluntarily provides descriptions of a number of entities that may be merely indirectly affected by any rules that result from the Further Notice. Small Governmental Jurisdictions 8. The term"small governmental jurisdiction" is defined as "governments of cities, towns, townships, villages, school districts, or special districts, with a population of less than fifty thousand.s12 As of 1997, there were approximately 87,453 governmental jurisdictions in the United States.13 This number includes 39,044 county governments, municipalities, and townships, of which 37,546 (approximately 96.2 percent)have populations of fewer than 50,000,and of which 1,498 have populations of 50,000 or more. Thus, we estimate the number of small governmental jurisdictions overall to be 84,098 or fewer. Miscellaneous Entities 9. The entities described in this section are affected merely indirectly by our current action, and therefore are not formally a part of this RFA analysis. We have included them, however,to broaden the record in this proceeding and to alert them to our tentative conclusions. Cable Operators 10. The "Cable and Other Program Distribution" census category includes cable systems operators, closed circuit television services, direct broadcast satellite services, multipoint distribution systems, satellite master antenna systems, and subscription television services. The SBA has developed small business size standard for this census category,which includes all such companies generating$13.0 million or less in revenue annually.14 According to Census Bureau data for 1997, there were a total of 8 5 U.S.C. §601(3) (incorporating by reference the definition of"small-business concern" in the Small Business Act, 15 U.S.C. §632). Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. §601(3),the statutory definition of a small business applies"unless an agency,after consultation with the Office of Advocacy of the Small Business Administration and after opportunity for public comment, establishes one or more definitions of such term which are appropriate to the activities of the agency and publishes such definition(s)in the Federal Register." 9 15 U.S.C. §632. I°See SBA,Programs and Services,SBA Pamphlet No.CO-0028,at page 40(July 2002). " Independent Sector,The New Nonprofit Almanac&Desk Reference(2002). 12 5 U.S.C. §601(5). 13 U.S. Census Bureau, Statistical Abstract of the United States: 2000, Section 9,pages 299-300, Tables 490 and 492. 14 13 C.F.R. § 121.201,North American Industry Classification System(NAICS)517510. 82 Federal Communications Commission FCC 06-180 1,311 firms in this category, total, that had operated for the entire year.15 Of this total, 1,180 firms had annual receipts of under $10 million and an additional 52 firms had receipts of$10 million or more but less than $25 million. Consequently, the Commission estimates that the majority of providers in this service category are small businesses that may be affected by the rules and policies adopted herein. 11. Cable System Operators(Rate Regulation Standard). The Commission has developed its own small-business-size standard for cable system operators, for purposes of rate regulation. Under the Commission's rules,a"small cable company"is one serving fewer than 400,000 subscribers nationwide.16 The most recent estimates indicate that there were 1,439 cable operators who qualified as small cable system operators at the end of 1995.17 Since then, some of those companies may have grown to serve over 400,000 subscribers, and others may have been involved in transactions that caused them to be combined with other cable operators. Consequently, the Commission estimates that there are now fewer than 1,439 small entity cable system operators that may be affected by the rules and policies adopted herein. 12. Cable System Operators (Telecom Act Standard). The Communications Act of 1934, as amended, also contains a size standard for small cable system operators, which is "a cable operator that, directly or through an affiliate, serves in the aggregate fewer than 1 percent of all subscribers in the United States and is not affiliated with any entity or entities whose gross annual revenues in the aggregate exceed $250,000,000.s18 The Commission has determined that there are 67,700,000 subscribers in the United States.19 Therefore, an operator serving fewer than 677,000 subscribers shall be deemed a small operator, if its annual revenues,when combined with the total annual revenues of all its affiliates, do not exceed $250 million in the aggregate.20 Based on available data, the Commission estimates that the number of cable operators serving 677,000 subscribers or fewer,totals 1,450.21 The Commission neither requests nor collects information on whether cable system operators are affiliated with entities whose gross annual revenues exceed $250 million,22 and therefore is unable, at this time, to estimate more accurately the number of cable system operators that would qualify as small cable operators under the size standard contained in the Communications Act of 1934. 13. Open Video Services. Open Video Service ("OVS") systems provide subscription services.23 As noted above, the SBA has created a small business size standard for Cable and Other 15 U.S. Census Bureau, 1997 Economic Census, Subject Series: Information, "Establishment and Firm Size (Including Legal Form of Organization),"Table 4,NAICS code 513220(issued October 2000). 16 47 C.F.R. §76.901(e). The Commission developed this definition based on its determination that a small cable system operator is one with annual revenues of$100 million or less. See Implementation of Sections of the 1992 Cable Act: Rate Regulation, Sixth Report and Order and Eleventh Order on Reconsideration, 10 FCC Rcd 7393 (1995). 17 Paul Kagan Associates,Inc.,Cable TV Investor,February 29, 1996(based on figures for December 30, 1995). '$47 U.S.C.§543(m)(2). 19 See FCC Announces New Subscriber Count for the Definition of Small Cable Operator,Public Notice DA 01-158 (2001). 20 47 C.F.R.§76.901(f). 21 See FCC Announces New Subscriber Count for the Definition of Small Cable Operators,Public Notice,DA 01- 0158(2001). 22 The Commission does receive such information on a case-by-case basis if a cable operator appeals a local franchise authority's finding that the operator does not qualify as a small cable operator pursuant to §76.901(f) of the Commission's rules. See 47 C.F.R.§76.909(b). 23 See 47 U.S.C. §573. 83 Federal Communications Commission FCC 06-180 Program Distribution.24 This standard provides that a small entity is one with $13.0 million or less in annual receipts. The Commission has certified approximately 25 OVS operators to serve 75 areas, and some of these are currently providing service.25 Affiliates of Residential Communications Network, Inc. (RCN) received approval to operate OVS systems in New York City, Boston, Washington, D.C., and other areas. RCN has sufficient revenues to assure that they do not qualify as a small business entity. Little fmancial information is available for the other entities that are authorized to provide OVS and are not yet operational. Given that some entities authorized to provide OVS service have not yet begun to generate revenues, the Commission concludes that up to 24 OVS operators (those remaining) might qualify as small businesses that may be affected by the rules and policies adopted herein. D. Description of Projected Reporting, Recordkeeping and Other Compliance Requirements 14. We anticipate that any rules that result from this action would have at most a de minimis impact on small governmental jurisdictions (e.g., one-time proceedings to amend existing procedures regarding the method of granting competitive franchises). Local franchising authorities ("LFAs") today must review and decide upon competitive cable franchise applications, and will continue to perform that role upon the conclusion of this proceeding;any rules that might be adopted pursuant to this Notice likely would require at most only modifications to that process. E. Steps Taken to Minimize Significant Economic Impact on Small Entities and Significant Alternatives Considered 15. The RFA requires an agency to describe any significant, specifically small business, alternatives that it has considered in reaching its proposed approach, which may include the following four alternatives (among others): "(1)the establishment of differing compliance or reporting requirements or timetables that take into account the resources available to small entities; (2)the clarification,consolidation, or simplification of compliance and reporting requirements under the rule for such small entities; (3)the use of performance rather than design standards; and (4)an exemption from •coverage of the rule,or any part thereof,for such small entities."' 16. As discussed in the Further Notice, Sections 611(a) and 622(a) do not distinguish between new entrants and cable operators with existing franchises.27 As discussed in the Order, the Commission has the authority to implement the mandate of Section 621(a)(1)to ensure that LFAs do not unreasonably refuse to award competitive franchises to new entrants, and adopts rules designed to ensure that the local franchising process does not create unreasonable barriers to competitive entry for new entrants. Such rules consist of specific guidelines (e.g., maximum timeframes for considering a competitive franchise application) and general principles regarding franchise fees designed to provide LFAs with the guidance necessary to conform their behavior to the directive of Section 621(a)(1). As noted above, applying these rules regarding the franchising process to cable operators with existing franchises likely would have at most a de minimis impact on small governmental jurisdictions. Even if that were not the case, however, we believe that the interest of fairness to those cable operators would outweigh any impact on small entities. The alternative (i.e., continuing to allow LFAs to follow procedures that are unreasonable) would be unacceptable, as it would be inconsistent with the Communications Act. We seek comment on the impact that such rules might have on small entities, and on what effect alternative rules would have on those entities. We also invite comment on ways in which 24 13 C.F.R.§ 121.201,NAICS code 517510. 25 See http://www.fcc.gov/mb/ovs/csovscer.html (visited December 19, 2006), http://www.fcc.gov/mb/ovs/ csovsarc.html(visited December 19,2006). 26 5 U.S.C.§§603(c)(1)-(4). 27 47 U.S.C. §§531(a),542(a). 84 Federal Communications Commission FCC 06-180 the Commission might implement the tentative conclusions while at the same time imposing lesser burdens on small entities. F. Federal Rules that May Duplicate,Overlap,or Conflict with the Proposed Rules 17. None. 85 Federal Communications Commission FCC 06-180 • APPENDIX D Final Regulatory Flexibility Act Analysis 1. As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980,as amended("RFA")' an Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis("IRFA")was incorporated in the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking ("NPRM")to this proceeding.' The Commission sought written public comment on the proposals in the NPRM,including comment on the IRFA. The Commission received one comment on the IRFA. This present Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis("FRFA")conforms to the RFA.3 A. Need for, and Objectives of,the Report and Order - 2. This Report and Order ("Order") adopts rules and provides guidance to implement Section 621 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended(the"Communications Act").4 Section 621 of the Communications Act prohibits franchising authorities from unreasonably refusing to award competitive franchises for the provision of cable services.' The Commission has found that the current franchising process constitutes an unreasonable barrier to entry for competitive entrants that impedes enhanced cable competition and accelerated broadband deployment. The Commission also has determined that it has authority to address this problem. To eliminate the unreasonable barriers to entry into the cable market, and to encourage investment in broadband facilities, in this Order the Commission (1)adopts maximum time frames within which local franchising authorities("LFAs")must grant or deny franchise applications (90 days for new entrants with existing access to rights-of-way and six months for those who do not); (2) prohibits LFAs from imposing unreasonable build-out requirements on new entrants; (3) identifies certain costs, fees, and other compensation which, if required by LFAs, must be counted toward the statutory 5 percent cap on franchise fees; (4) interprets new entrants' obligations to provide support for PEG channels and facilities and institutional networks("I-Nets");and(5)clarifies that LFA authority is limited to regulation of cable services, not mixed-use services. The Commission also preempts local laws, regulations, and franchise agreement requirements, including level-playing-field provisions, to the extent they impose greater restrictions on market entry for competitive entrants than what the Order allows. The rule and guidelines are adopted in order to further the interrelated goals of enhanced cable competition and accelerated broadband deployment. For the specific language of the rule adopted,see Appendix B. B. Summary of Significant Issues Raised by Public Comments in Response to the IRFA 3. Only one commenter, Sjoberg's,Inc. submitted a comment that specifically responded to the IRFA. Sjoberg's, Inc. contends that small cable operators are directly affected by the adoption of rules that treat competitive cable entrants more favorably than incumbents. Sjoberg's Inc. argues that small cable operators are not in a position to compete with large potential competitors. These arguments were considered and rejected as discussed below. 4. We disagree with Sjoberg's Inc. assertion that our rules will treat competitive cable entrants more favorably than incumbents. While the actions we take in the Order will serve to increase ' See 5 U.S.C. § 603. The RFA,see 5 U.S.C. § 601 et. seq.,has been amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996("SBREFA"),Pub.L.No. 104-121,Title II, 110 Stat.847(1996). The SBREFA was enacted as Title II of the Contract With America Advancement Act of 1996("CWAAA"). 2 Implementation of Section 621(a)(1) of the Cable Communications Policy Act of 1984 as amended by the Cable Television Consumer Protection and Competition Act of 1992,20 FCC Rcd 18581 (2005)("NPRM"). 3 See 5 U.S.C. §604. 4 47 U.S.C. §541(a)(1). 5 Id. 86 • Federal Communications Commission FCC 06-180 competition in the multichannel video programming ("MVPD")market, we do not believe that the rules we adopt in the Order will put any incumbent provider at a competitive disadvantage. In fact,we believe that incumbent cable operators are at a competitive advantage in the MVPD market; incumbent cable operators have the competitive advantage of an existing customer base and significant brand recognition in their existing markets. Furthermore,we ask in the Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking whether the findings adopted in the Order should apply to existing cable operators and tentatively conclude that they should. C. Description and Estimate of the Number of Small Entities to Which the Proposed Rules Will Apply Entities Directly Affected By Proposed Rules 5. The RFA directs the Commission to provide a description of and, where feasible, an estimate of the number of small entities that will be affected by the rules adopted herein.' The RFA generally defines the term "small entity" as having the same meaning as the terms "small business," "small organization," and "small government jurisdiction."' In addition, the term "small business" has the same meaning as the term"small business concern"under the Small Business Act.8 A small business concern is one which: (1) is independently owned and operated; (2) is not dominant in its field of operation; and (3) satisfies any additional criteria established by the Small Business Administration (SBA).9 • 6. The rules adopted by this Order will streamline the local franchising process by adopting rules that provide guidance as to what constitutes an unreasonable refusal to grant a cable franchise. The Commission has determined that the group of small entities directly affected by the rules adopted herein consists of small governmental entities(which, in some cases,may be represented in the local franchising process by not-for-profit enterprises). Therefore, in this FRFA, we consider the impact of the rules on small governmental entities. A description of such small entities, as well as an estimate of the number of such small entities,is provided below. 7. Small governmental jurisdictions. Small governmental jurisdictions are"governments of cities, towns, townships,villages, school districts, or special districts, with a population of less than fifty thousand.s10 As of 1997, there were approximately 87,453 governmental jurisdictions in the United States." This number includes 39,044 county governments, municipalities, and townships, of which 37,546 (approximately 96.2 percent) have populations of fewer than 50,000, and of which 1,498 have populations of 50,000 or more. Thus,we estimate the number of small governmental jurisdictions overall to be 84,098 or fewer. 6 5 U.S.C.§603(b)(3). 'Id. §601(6). 8 Id. § 601(3)(incorporating by reference the definition of"small business concern"in 15 U.S.C. § 632). Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 601(3),the statutory definition of a small business applies"unless an agency,after consultation with the Office of Advocacy of the Small Business Administration and after opportunity for public comment,establishes one or more definitions of such term which are appropriate to the activities of the agency and publishes such definition(s)in the Federal Register." 5 U.S.C.§601(3). 9 15 U.S.C. § 632. Application of the statutory criteria of dominance in its field of operation and independence are sometimes difficult to apply in the context of broadcast television. Accordingly, the Commission's statistical account of television stations may be over-inclusive. 10 5 U.S.C. §601(5). 11 U.S. Census Bureau, Statistical Abstract of the United States: 2000, Section 9, pages 299-300, Tables 490 and 492. 87 Federal Communications Commission FCC 06-180 Miscellaneous Entities 8. The entities described in this section are affected merely indirectly by our current action, and therefore are not formally a part of this RFA analysis. We have included them, however, to broaden the record in this proceeding and to alert them to our conclusions. Cable Operators 9. The "Cable and Other Program Distribution" census category includes cable systems operators, closed circuit television services, direct broadcast satellite services, multipoint distribution systems, satellite master antenna systems, and subscription television services. The SBA has developed small business size standard for this census category,which includes all such companies generating$13.0 million or less in revenue annually.12 According to Census Bureau data for 1997, there were a total of 1,311 firms in this category, total, that had operated for the entire year.° Of this total, 1,180 firms had annual receipts of under$10 million and an additional 52 firms had receipts of$10 million or more but less than $25 million. Consequently, the Commission estimates that the majority of providers in this service category are small businesses that may be affected by the rules and policies adopted herein. 10. Cable System Operators (Rate Regulation Standard). The Commission has developed its own small-business-size standard for cable system operators, for purposes of rate regulation. Under the Commission's rules,a"small cable company"is one serving fewer than 400,000 subscribers nationwide.'4 The most recent estimates indicate that there were 1,439 cable operators who qualified as small cable system operators at the end of 1995.15 Since then, some of those companies may have grown to serve over 400,000 subscribers, and others may have been involved in transactions that caused them to be combined with other cable operators. Consequently, the Commission estimates that there are now fewer than 1,439 small entity cable system operators that may be affected by the rules and policies adopted herein. 11. Cable System Operators (Telecom Act Standard). The Communications Act of 1934, as amended, also contains a size standard for small cable system operators, which is "a cable operator that, directly or through an affiliate, serves in the aggregate fewer than 1 percent of all subscribers in the United States and is not affiliated with any entity or entities whose gross annual revenues in the aggregate exceed $250,000,000.s16 The Commission has determined that there are 67,700,000 subscribers in the United States.'' Therefore, an operator serving fewer than 677,000 subscribers shall be deemed a small operator,if its annual revenues,when combined with the total annual revenues of all its affiliates, do not exceed $250 million in the aggregate.'$ Based on available data, the Commission estimates that the 12 13•C.F.R. § 121.201,North American Industry Classification System(NAICS)code 517510. 13 U.S. Census Bureau, 1997 Economic Census, Subject Series: Information, "Establishment and Firm Size (Including Legal Form of Organization),"Table 4,NAICS code 513220(issued October 2000). 14 47 C.F.R. § 76.901(e). The Commission developed this definition based on its determination that a small cable system operator is one with annual revenues of$100 million or less. See Implementation of Sections of the 1992 Cable Act: Rate Regulation, Sixth Report and Order and Eleventh Order on Reconsideration, 10 FCC Rcd 7393 (1995). 15 Paul Kagan Associates,Inc.,Cable TV Investor,February 29, 1996(based on figures for December 30, 1995). 16 47 U.S.C. §543(m)(2). 17 See FCC Announces New Subscriber Count for the Definition of Small Cable Operator,Public Notice DA 01-158 (2001). 18 47 C.F.R.§76.901(f). 88 Federal Communications Commission FCC 06-180 number of cable operators serving 677,000 subscribers or fewer,totals 1,450.19 The Commission neither requests nor collects information on whether cable system operators are affiliated with entities whose gross annual revenues exceed $250 million,20 and therefore is unable, at this time, to estimate more accurately the number of cable system operators that would qualify as small cable operators under the size standard contained in the Communications Act of 1934. 12. Open Video Services. Open Video Service ("OVS") systems provide subscription services.21 As noted above, the SBA has created a small business size standard for Cable and Other Program Distribution.22 This standard provides that a small entity is one with $13.0 million or less in annual receipts. The Commission has certified approximately 25 OVS operators to serve 75 areas, and some of these are currently providing service.23 Affiliates of Residential Communications Network, Inc. (RCN) received approval to operate OVS systems in New York City, Boston, Washington, D.C., and other areas. RCN has sufficient revenues to assure that they do not qualify as a small business entity. Little financial information is available for the other entities that are authorized to provide OVS and are not yet operational. Given that some entities authorized to provide OVS service have not yet begun to generate revenues, the Commission concludes that up to 24 OVS operators (those remaining) might qualify as small businesses that may be affected by the rules and policies adopted herein. Telecommunications Service Entities 13. As noted above, a "small business" under the RFA is one that, inter alia, meets the pertinent small business size standard(e.g., a telephone communications business having 1,500 or fewer employees), and"is not dominant in its field of operation."24 The SBA's Office of Advocacy contends that, for RFA purposes, small incumbent local exchange carriers are not dominant in their field of operation because any such dominance is not "national" in scope.25 We have therefore included small incumbent local exchange carriers in this RFA analysis,although we emphasize that this RFA action has no effect on Commission analyses and determinations in other,non-RFA contexts. 14. Incumbent Local Exchange Carriers(`LECs').Neither the Commission nor the SBA has developed a small business size standard specifically for incumbent local exchange services. The appropriate size standard under SBA rules is for the category Wired Telecommunications Carriers.Under that size standard, such a business is small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees.26 According to 19 See FCC Announces New Subscriber Count for the Definition of Small Cable Operators,Public Notice,DA 01- 0158(2001). 20 The Commission does receive such information on a case-by-case basis if a cable operator appeals a local franchise authority's finding that the operator does not qualify as a small cable operator pursuant to § 76.901(f) of the Commission's rules.See 47 C.F.R.§76.909(b). 21 See 47 U.S.C.§573. 22 13 C.F.R. § 121.201,NAICS code 517510. 23 See http://www.fcc.gov/mb/ovs/csovscer.html(visited December 19,2006), http://www.fcc.gov/mb/ovs/csovsarc.html(visited December 19,2006). 24 15 U.S.C.§632. 25 Letter from Jere W.Glover,Chief Counsel for Advocacy,SBA,to William E.Kennard,Chairman,FCC(May 27, 1999). The Small Business Act contains a definition of"small-business concern,"which the RFA incorporates into its own definition of"small business."See 15 U.S.C. §632(a)(Small Business Act);5 U.S.C. §601(3)(RFA).SBA regulations interpret "small business concern" to include the concept of dominance on a national basis. See 13 C.F.R. § 121.102(b). 26 13 C.F.R. § 121.201,NAICS code 517110(changed from 513310 in Oct.2002). 89 Federal Communications Commission FCC 06-180 Commission data,27 1,303 carriers have reported that they are engaged in the provision of incumbent local exchange services. Of these 1,303 carriers, an estimated 1,020 have 1,500 or fewer employees and 283 have more than 1,500 employees. Consequently, the Commission estimates that most providers of incumbent local exchange service are small businesses that may be affected by our action. In addition, limited preliminary census data for 2002 indicate that the total number of wired communications carriers increased approximately 34 percent from 1997 to 2002.28 15. Competitive Local Exchange Carriers, Competitive Access Providers (CAPs), "Shared- Tenant Service Providers,"and "Other Local Service Providers." Neither the Commission nor the SBA has developed a small business size standard specifically for these service providers. The appropriate size standard under SBA rules is for the category Wired Telecommunications Carriers. Under that size standard, such a business is small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees.29 According to Commission data,3° 769 carriers have reported that they are engaged in the provision of either competitive access provider services or competitive local exchange carrier services. Of these 769 carriers, an estimated 676 have 1,500 or fewer employees and 93 have more than 1,500 employees. In addition, 12 carriers have reported that they are "Shared-Tenant Service Providers," and all 12 are estimated to have 1,500 or fewer employees. In addition, 39 carriers have reported that they are "Other Local Service Providers." Of the 39, an estimated 38 have 1,500 or fewer employees and one has more than 1,500 employees. Consequently, the Commission estimates that most providers of competitive local exchange service, competitive access providers, "Shared-Tenant Service Providers," and "Other Local Service Providers" are small entities that may be affected by our action.In addition,limited preliminary census data for 2002 indicate that the total number of wired communications carriers increased approximately 34 percent from 1997 to 2002.31 D. Description of Projected Reporting, Record Keeping and other Compliance Requirements 16. The rule and guidance adopted in the Order will require de minimus additional reporting, record keeping, and other compliance requirements. The most significant change requires potential franchisees to file an application to mark the beginning of the franchise negotiation process. This filing requires minimal information, and we estimate that the average burden on applicants to complete this application is one hour. The franchising authority will review this application in the normal course of its franchising-procedures. The rule will not require any additional special skills beyond any already needed in the cable franchising context. E. Steps Taken to Minimize Significant Impact on Small Entities, and Significant Alternatives Considered 17. The RFA requires an agency to describe any significant alternatives that it has considered 27 FCC,Wireline Competition Bureau,Industry Analysis and Technology Division, "Trends in Telephone Service" at Table 5.3, page 5-5 (June 2005) ("Trends in Telephone Service"). This source uses data that are current as of October 1,2004. 28 See U.S.Census Bureau,2002 Economic Census,Industry Series:"Information,"Table 2,Comparative Statistics for the United States (1997 NAICS Basis): 2002 and 1997, NAICS code 513310 (issued Nov. 2004). The preliminary data indicate that the total number of"establishments"increased from 20,815 to 27,891.In this context, the number of establishments is a less helpful indicator of small business prevalence than is the number of"firms," because the latter number takes into account the concept of common ownership or control.The more helpful 2002 census data on firms,including employment and receipts numbers,will be issued in late 2005. 29 13 C.F.R. § 121.201,NAICS code 517110. 30"Trends in Telephone Service"at Table 5.3. 31 See supra note 28. 90 Federal Communications Commission FCC 06-180 in reaching its proposed approach,which may include the following four alternatives(among others): (1) the establishment of differing compliance or reporting requirements or timetables that take into account the resources available to small entities; (2) the clarification, consolidation, or simplification of compliance or reporting requirements under the rule for small entities; (3)the use of performance,rather than design, standards; and (4) an exemption from coverage of the rule, or any part thereof, for small entities.' 18. In the NPRM, the Commission sought comment on the impact that rules interpreting Section 621(a)(1) might have on small entities, and on what effect alternative rules would have on those entities. The Commission also invited comment on ways in which the Commission might implement Section 621(a)(1) while at the same time impose lesser burdens on small entities. The Commission tentatively concluded that any rules likely would have at most a de minimis impact on small governmental jurisdictions,and that the interrelated, high-priority federal communications policy goals of enhanced cable competition and accelerated broadband deployment necessitated the establishment of specific guidelines for LFAs with respect to the process by which they grant competitive cable franchises. We agree with those tentative conclusions,and we believe that the rules adopted in the Order will not impose a significant impact on any small entity. 19. In the Order, we provide that LFAs should reasonably review franchise applications within 90 days for entities existing authority to access rights-of way, and within six months for entities that do not have such authority. This will result in decreasing the regulatory burdens on cable operators. We declined to adopt shorter deadlines that commenters proposed (e.g., 17 days, one month) in order to provide small entities more flexibility in scheduling their franchise negotiation sessions. In the Order,we also provide guidance on whether an LFA may reasonably refuse to award a competitive franchise based on certain franchise requirements, such as build-out requirements and franchise fees. As an alternative, we considered providing no guidance on any franchising terms. We conclude that the guidance we provide minimizes any adverse impact on small entities because it clarifies the terms within which parties must negotiate,and should prevent small entities from facing costly litigation over those terms. F. Report to Congress 20. The Commission will send a copy of the Order, including this FRFA, in a report to be sent to Congress pursuant to the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996.33 In addition, the Commission will send a copy of the Order, including the FRFA, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration. A copy of the Order and FRFA(or summaries thereof) will also be published in the Federal Register.34 32 5 U.S.C.§603(c)(1)-(c)(4) 33 See 5 U.S.C.§801(a)(1)(A). 34 See id. §604(b). 91 Federal Communications Commission FCC 06-180 STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN KEVIN J.MARTIN Re: Implementation of Section 621(a)(1)of the Cable Communications Policy Act of 1984 as amended by the Cable Television Consumer Protection and Competition Act of 1992 (MB Docket No. 05-311) Greater competition in the market for the delivery for multichannel video programming is a primary and long-standing goal of federal communications policy. In passing the 1992 Cable Act, Congress recognized that competition between multiple cable systems would be beneficial, would help lower cable rates, and specifically encouraged local franchising authorities to award competitive franchises. Section 621 of the statute reads,"A franchising authority may not grant an exclusive franchise and may not unreasonably refuse to award an additional competitive franchise." Telephone companies are investing billions of dollars to upgrade their networks to provide video. As new providers began actively seeking entry into video markets, we began to hear that some local authorities were making the process of getting franchises unreasonably difficult, despite clear statutory language. The record collected by the Commission in this proceeding cited instances where LFAs sat on applications for more than a year or required extraordinary in kind contributions such as the building of public swimming pools and recreation centers. Such unreasonable requirements are especially troubling because competition is desperately needed in the video market. As we just found, from 1995 to 2005, cable rates have risen 93%. In 1995 cable cost $22.37 per month. Last year, cable cost $43.04 per month. Today's Communications Daily reports that prices for expanded basic are now about $50 per month. The trend in pricing of cable services is of particular importance to consumers. Since 1996 the prices of every other communications service have declined while cable rates have risen year after year after year. This item appropriately removes such regulatory bathers by giving meaning to the words Congress wrote in section 621 of the Cable Act. Specifically, the Commission fmds that an LFA is unreasonably refusing to grant a competitive franchise when it does not act on an application within a reasonable time period, imposes taxes on non-cable services such as broadband,requires a new entrant to provide unrelated services or imposes unreasonable build-out requirements. The widespread deployment of broadband remains my top priority as Chairman and a major Commission objective. During my tenure as Chairman, the Commission has worked hard to create a regulatory environment.that promotes broadband deployment. We have removed legacy regulations, like tariffs and price controls, that discourage carriers from investing in their broadband networks, and we worked to create a regulatory level playing-field among broadband platforms.And we have begun to see some success as a result of the Commission's policies. High-speed connections to the Internet have grown over 400%since I became Commissioner in July 200. The ability to deploy broadband networks rapidly however, is intrinsically linked to the ability to offer video to consumers. As the Commission stated in the Notice in this proceeding: "The construction of modern telecommunications facilities requires substantial capital investment and such networks, once completed, are capable of providing not only voice and data, but video as well. As a consequence, the ability to offer video offers the promise of an additional revenue stream from which deployment costs can be recovered." Similarly, in a 2005 Policy Paper, the Phoenix Center found that video is "is now the key driver for new fiber deployment in the residential market." The Phoenix Center went on to say that: "If a new 92 Federal Communications Commission FCC 06-180 entrant cannot readily provide consumers multichannel video over an advanced network, then the prospects for success will be diminished substantially due to a reduction in the entrant's potential revenues. Quite simply,the ability to sell video services over these fiber networks may be a crucial factor in getting those fiber networks deployed." By enhancing the ability of new entrants to provide video services then we are advancing our goal of universal affordable broadband access for Americans,as well as our goal of increased video competition. I am also committed to seeing that consumers are able to realize the benefits of competition in the forms of better services and lower prices. In recent years however, consumers have had limited choice among video services providers and ever increasing prices for those services. But as was just demonstrated in our annual price survey, cable competition can impact cable bills. Again, it found that only in areas where there was competition from a second cable operator did average price for cable service decrease. I am pleased that the steps taken by the Commission today will expressly further this type of competition and help ensure that lower prices are available to as many Americans as possible as quickly as possible. Addressing build-out requirements was particularly difficult. This item seeks to strike a balance between encouraging as widespread deployment of broadband as possible while not deterring entry altogether. I believed it would have been appropriate to provide examples of build-out requirements that would be reasonable in addition to illustrating those that could not be.' For example,I would have been willing to find that it would seem reasonable for an LFA to require that,beginning five years after the effective date of a new entrant's franchise and every 3 years thereafter, if in the portion of the franchise area where the new entrant has chosen to offer cable service at least 15 percent of the households subscribe to such service,the new entrant increase by 20 percent the households in the franchise area to which the new entrant offers cable service by the beginning of the next 3-year interval,until the new entrant is capable of providing cable service to all households in the franchise area. 93 Federal Communications Commission FCC 06-180 DISSENTING STATEMENT OF COMMISSIONER MICHAEL J.COPPS Re: Implementation of Section 621(a)(1)of the Cable Communications Policy Act of 1984 as amended by the Cable Television Consumer Protection and Competition Act of 1992(MB Docket No. 05-311) I think that all of my colleagues and I can agree on the central importance of encouraging video competition. It is abundantly clear that cable rates are rising faster than inflation and that wireline cable competition can be helpful in bringing those rates down. Consumers deserve rules that will bring such competition to their doorsteps because consumers are not being well-served by the lack of competition today. I think my colleagues and I can also agree on the central importance of broadband deployment. As I have often pointed out,our nation is falling behind in the international broadband race. Encouraging new entrants into the video market could at least assist in the challenge of building out broadband infrastructure, although it doesn't represent anything near the totality of what a real broadband strategy would look like. But agreeing on the many benefits of video competition is hardly the same thing as coming up with rules that will actually encourage honest-to-goodness competition within the framework of the statutes that Congress has given us. The item before us today doesn't get us there and I cannot support it as written. In recent days we had discussions attempting to craft an item with which I would feel more comfortable. Chairman Martin engaged in those discussions in good faith and I thank him for that. My goal was to encourage an item that preserves a local authority's statutory right to seek specific and far- 'reaching build-out requirements, protects each community's ability to negotiate for PEG and I-NET facilities, and maintains truly meaningful local ability to deal with the huge companies that are coming into our cities and towns to build important infrastructure. Throughout the consideration of this item and even as we discussed ways to improve it in recent days, I have been troubled at the lack of a granular record that would demonstrate that the present franchising system is irretrievably broken and that traditional federal-state-local relationships have to be so thoroughly upended. If we are going to preempt and upend the balances inherent in long-standing federal-state-local jurisdictional authorities, we should have a record clearly demonstrating that those local authorities are not up to the task of handling this infrastructure build-out and that competition can be introduced only by preempting and upsetting these long-standing principles of federalism. My colleagues may recall that when we launched the NPRM on this item, I made it very clear how important the compilation of a compelling granular record would be in my consideration of this proceeding. I do not believe that either today's item or the record behind it makes such a showing. The various examples of "unreasonable"franchise requirements that the item enumerates are not closely or carefully supported by the record and often fail to rise beyond isolated episodes or anecdotal evidence. Many people questioned,and continue to question,the Commission's legal authority to do what it is doing today. It is clear that those questions remain and that the Commission has been asked by those with oversight powers to more conclusively demonstrate our authority to undertake the actions we initiate today. I believe it is the better course of wisdom in so far-reaching a proceeding, in light of the concern being expressed by those with oversight responsibilities of this Commission,to thoroughly answer those questions, to lay out the basis of our claimed legal authority, and to explain what legal risks this action entails before taking action. Under the circumstances,proceeding on such a controversial decision today 94 Federal Communications Commission FCC 06-180 does not put an end to this issue. It only invites more delay,more confusion,and more possibility of legal challenge. As we face the challenge of providing ubiquitous high-speed broadband to all our citizens, we need the certainty of a national strategy to get the job done. Right now this nation is hobbled because it has no such strategy, no plan for the infrastructure build-out our people need to be productive and competitive citizens of the world. The United States is ranked number twenty-one in the International Telecommunications Union's Digital Opportunity Index. It is difficult to take much comfort from being twenty-first in the Twenty-first century. The kind of broadband strategy I am talking about demands a level of consensus and national buy-in by the many diverse interests and entities that would be responsible for implementing it. While I have never equated franchise reform as anything remotely equivalent to a national broadband strategy,I do believe a properly-crafted and legally-certain franchising reform could facilitate some level of broadband build-out. That is what I attempted to work toward here. But if our decision is only going to increase concern, increase the questions and increase the risk, then I think we should pause, take a deep breath, answer the questions and reach out for more consensus. I don't say unanimity,of course,but at least a level of comfort that builds an environment wherein the next few years can see the job actually getting done rather than spent in contentious debate or court challenge because our reasoning was deemed inadequate. So I thank my colleagues, and especially the Chairman, for the discussions we have had— discussions that were both in good faith and substantive-but in light of the concerns I have just discussed, I cannot support this afternoon's outcome. Unlike so many other proceedings coming before the Commission, I was nowhere near certain as I came to work this morning how the vote on this item would go. I actually thought that perhaps we would take the short time needed, answer the questions that had been posed,and then reassess where we were as to proceeding with an item. That was my preference. Instead it appears a majority will proceed to approve an item that, as drafted right now, is without important enhancements I have been advocating and without sufficient buy-in from the world beyond the FCC to assure its effectiveness. I must therefore respectfully dissent. 95 Federal Communications Commission FCC 06-180 DISSENTING STATEMENT OF COMMISSIONER JONATHAN S.ADELSTEIN Re: Implementation of Section 621(a)(1)of the Cable Communications Policy Act of 1984 as amended by the Cable Television Consumer Protection and Competition Act of 1992 (MB Docket No. 05-311) The policy goals of this Order, to promote competitive video offerings and broadband deployment, are laudable. But while I support these goals, today's item goes out on a limb in asserting federal authority to preempt local governments, and then saws off the limb with a highly dubious legal scheme. It substitutes our judgment as to what is reasonable—or unreasonable—for that of local officials —all in violation of the franchising framework established in the Communications Act. Today's Order is certain to offend many in Congress, who worked long and hard on this important issue, only to have a Commission decision rushed through with little consultation. The result will be heavy oversight after-the-fact, and a likely rejection by the courts. It will solve nothing, create much confusion, and provide little certainty or progress on our shared goal of promoting real video competition and universal broadband deployment. This outcome is disappointing because I believe we must do everything we can to encourage competitive video offerings. As I was driving to work this morning, I saw a line of Verizon trucks installing FiOS in my neighborhood. I must admit,I am very excited about this new service, and plan to subscribe. FiOS is now available because our local county officials approved a franchise for Verizon. If they had not, I imagine many of my neighbors would have complained loudly. Maybe that is why Verizon has repeatedly told Wall Street investors, "[e]ven in those states where we don't have the whole state,places like Pennsylvania,we have become very successful now in getting franchising. So we don't see that as an issue going forward."' I am pleased with their efforts and their success, and want to encourage their continued investment. As I said in the underlying Notice of Proposed Rule Making,"Congress clearly sought to promote competitive cable offerings and to facilitate the approval of competitive cable franchises in the Cable Act of 1992."2 I agree the Commission should do what it can within the current legal framework to facilitate increased video competition because it benefits American consumers, promotes U.S. deployment of broadband networks and services,and enhances the free exchange of ideas in our democratic society. Notwithstanding these worthy goals,I,unfortunately, cannot support this Order because the FCC is a regulatory agency, not a legislative body. In my years working on Capitol Hill, I learned enough to know that today's Order is legislation disguised as regulation. The courts will likely reverse such action because the Commission cannot act when it "does not really define specific statutory terms, but rather takes off from those terms and devises a comprehensive regulatory regimen.... This extensive quasi- legislative effort to implement the statute does not strike [me] as merely a construction of statutory phrases.s3 'Final Transcript, Thomson StreetEvents,VZ-Verizon at UBS 34th Annual Global Media Conference,Dec.6,2006, at page 7,available at,http://investor.verizon.com/news/20061206/20061206_transcript.pdf. 2 Statement of Commissioner Jonathan S. Adelstein, Implementation of Section 621(a)(1) of the Cable Communications Policy Act of 1984,as amended by the Cable Television Consumer Protection and Competition Act of 1992, MB Docket No. 05-311, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, FCC 05-180 (rel. Nov. 18, 2005) ("Local Franchising NPRM"). 3 Kelley v. E.P.A., 15 F.3d 1100, 1108 (DC. Cir. 1994). While the Commission contends that "[d]espite the parameters established by the Communications Act, ... operation of the franchising process has proven far more (continued...) 96 Federal Communications Commission FCC 06-180 • Today's Order is disappointing because while there is bipartisan agreement that the current video franchising framework should be refined to better reflect marketplace realities, technological advancement, and consumer demands, the decision skips the fine-tuning and performs an extreme makeover. The majority accomplishes today what the elected representatives of the American people have tried to do through the legislative process. In doing so, the Commission not only disregards current law and exceeds its authority,but it also usurps congressional prerogatives and ignores the plain meaning of Title VI, the cannons of statutory construction, and the judicial remedy Congress already provided for unreasonable refusals. In crafting a broadly aggressive and legally tenuous solution,the majority attempts the legal equivalent of triple axels and quadruple toe loops that would only impress an Olympic judge who is willing to overlook slips,stumbles,and falls. We might keep in mind former President Ronald Reagan's views on federalism and the role of local governments. In his first State of the Union Address,President Reagan exhorted Americans to give power back to local governments: Together,after 50 years of taking power away from the hands of the people in their states and local communities we have started returning power and resources to them. ... Some will also say our states and local communities are not up to the challenge of a new and creative partnership. Well, that might have been true 20 years ago. ... It's no longer true today. This Administration has faith in state and local governments and the constitutional balance envisioned by the Founding Fathers.' More recently, President George W. Bush echoed this trust in local government, asserting that "government closest to the people is more responsive and accountable.s' While the Commission has long viewed the cable franchising process as "a deliberately structured dualism,s6 today's decision is a clear rebuke of this storied relationship with local government. Congressional action in 1984, 1992, and 1996 re-affirmed further that it is Congress' intent that "the franchise process take[s] place at the local level where city officials have the best understanding of local communities' needs and can require cable operators to tailor the cable system to meet those needs."' This is clearly set forth in the purposes of Title 6, wherein Congress made clear that Title 6 would establish the proper local, state and federal roles.8 Congress established a framework whereby state and local authorities, within certain federal limits, are primarily responsible for the administration of the franchising process. That process is inherently local and fact-specific. Indeed, a one-size-fits-all (Continued from previous page) complex and time consuming than it should be,"(Order,¶3),the proper inquiry is whether the franchising process is operating as Congress intended. Today's Order ignores this important question. In so doing, the Commission disregards the parameters established in the Cable Act and imposes its view of how the franchising process should be. 4 President Ronald Reagan,State of the Union Address,January 26, 1982,available at, http://www.reagan.utexas.edu/archives/speeches/1982/12682c.htm. 5 George W.Bush,"What the Congress Can Do For America,"WALL ST.J.,January 3,2007,at A13. 6 Cable Television Report and Order, 36 F.C.C.2d 143,207¶177,recon.,36 F.C.C.2d 326(1972). 'H.R.Rep.No.934,98th Congress,2d Sess.at 24. 8 47 U.S.C. §521 (3). 97 Federal Communications Commission FCC 06-180 approach is antithetical to clear congressional intent that cable systems be "responsive to needs and interests of local community.s' To be sure, the franchising process is not perfect and, by definition, negotiations may result in some delay. But Congress, after much deliberation, created this process to achieve certain stated policy objectives, which are clearly set out in the Act. 10 Regardless of how commenters now feel about this carefully calibrated and negotiated balance, Congress delegated authority to state and local governments to make certain decisions and to determine the merit of granting cable franchises in their respective communities. It then set forth a judicial remedy if a party is aggrieved by a denial of franchising." While Congress has the power to revisit this scheme, and has strongly considered doing so, until then this Commission must adhere to the law as written. Yet today,the Commission is federalizing the franchising process,taking it upon itself to decide, in every local dispute, what is "unreasonable," without actually looking at specific, local examples to determine the real situation.'Z Instead of acknowledging the vast dispute in the record as to whether there are actually any unreasonable refusals being made today, the majority simply accepts in every case that the phone companies are right and the local governments are wrong, all without bothering to examine the facts behind these competing claims,or conduct any independent fact-finding. This is breathtaking in its disrespect of our local and state government partners and in its utter disregard for agency action based on a sound record. Today's Order also displays a fundamental misunderstanding about the commitment of franchising authorities to bring competition to their citizens. By law, a franchise under Title 6 confers a right of access to people's property.13 Unlike members of this Commission,many state and local officials are elected and directly accountable to their citizens. Our knee-jerk embrace of everything interested companies say while discounting local elected officials on a matter grounded in local property rights certainly does not inspire a great deal of confidence in the Commission's ability on the federal level to arbitrate every local dispute in the country and fairly decide who is unreasonable and who is not. Even if the Commission had such power, there is no mechanism outlined in this Order to establish how that process would work. Consequently, the end result will likely be litigation, confusion, abuse of the process, and a certain amount of chaos. It is sadly ironic that this agency, which has been recently in violation of one of its own 90 day statutory deadlines,is telling localities to do as I say,not as I do.14 9 47 U.S.C. § 521(2). 1°One of the principal purposes of Title VI is to"establish franchise procedures and standards which encourage the growth and development of cable systems and which assure that cable systems are responsive to the needs and interests of the local community."47 U.S.C. §521(2). 11 47 U.S.C. §555. 12 See Letter from David L. Smith,City Attorney,City of Tampa,to Kevin Martin,Chairman,FCC,dated January 5, 2007 (stating "[h]ow disappointing it was to learn that ... the FCC would embrace as truth an allegation in a rulemaking that has such far-reaching implications to so many,without doing any follow-up with the jurisdiction named to confirm it accuracy."). 13 See 47 U.S.C.§541 (a)(2). 14 See, e.g.,In the Matter of Comcast Corporation's Request for Waiver of 47 C.F.R. § 76.120(a)(1), CSR-7017-Z, CS Docket No 97-80,DA-06-2543,CS Docket No 97-80,filed 4/19/06(waiver proceeding placed on public notice 5/17/06 and decided 1/10/2007, well past the statutory "shot clock"); 47 U.S.C. § 549(c) ("the Commission shall grant any such waiver request within 90 days of any application filed under this subsection."). 98 Federal Communications Commission FCC 06-180 Over the past two years, Congress held nearly two dozen hearings on franchising, and sought to amend the Cable Act in an effort to reform the current franchising process and"strike the right balance between national standards and local oversight.i15 Yet,the Commission has finalized in the dark of night what Congress was unable to resolve in two years of intensive public deliberations. In contrast to the Senate where I used to work, one might call the FCC the world's least deliberative body. And the final product shows it. Congress would not have expended effort on a major piece of legislation had its members believed it was not necessary to grant the Commission explicit authority to do what the majority now contends the Commission can do under existing law. The House bill proposed a national cable franchising regime, while the Senate bill proposed an expedited competitive franchise process which would have required local authorities to issue franchises pursuant to a standard application drafted by the Commission. Today's Order turns federalism on its head by putting the Commission in the role of sole arbiter of what is a "reasonable" or "unreasonable" LFA practice and short-circuiting the franchising process if an arbitrary shot clock has expired. While Congress worked to change federal law to create a role for the Commission in the franchising process,there was and continues to be considerable state and local activity to reform the local franchising process. To date, nearly half of all states have adopted state-wide franchise reform or mandatory state franchise terms, or have engaged in a democratic process to enact meaningful franchise reform legislation.16 Hundreds of other localities have approved new franchises, and many more are in the works. When we launched this proceeding, the central question was "whether the local franchising process truly is a hindrance to the deployment of alternative video networks, as some new entrants assert[ed]."" Indeed, the Local Franchising NPRM explicitly solicited "empirical data" and "concrete examples"regarding problems in the franchising process that FCC could resolve. In response,the record •evidence provides scant, dated, isolated, and unverified examples that fall far short of demonstrating a systematic failure of state and local governments to negotiate in good faith and in a reasonable fashion. According to the Telecommunications Industry Association, "some recent examples of overly- burdensome, and ... `unreasonable,' extraneous obligationss18 included: (1) Merton Group's two year negotiations with Hanover, New Hampshire, which concluded in December, 2004; (2) Knology's negotiations with Louisville, Kentucky in early 2000; (3) Knology's franchise negotiations with the greater Nashville,Tennessee area in March 2000;and(4)Grande Communication's negotiations with San Antonio and Corpus Christi, Texas in 2002. Additionally, Fiber-To-The-Home Council cites the efforts of Guadalupe Valley Telephone Cooperative to seek a franchise in the City of Bulverde, Texas in 2004. The Order itself relies on unconfirmed allegations by Verizon and AT&T about unreasonable demands and negotiations being drawn out over an extended period of time; and complaints by U.S. Telecom 15 H.R.REP.No. 109-470,at 3(2006). • 16 While the Order purportedly refrains from explicitly preempting "statewide franchising decisions" and only addresses "decisions made by [instrumentalities of the state, such as] county — or municipal level franchising authorities," this dubious distinction has a questionable legal basis. Under Title 6, LFAs derive their power by virtue of state law,so such distinctions are not for the FCC to make. Moreover,the Commission's contention that it does not have sufficient information in the record to consider the effect of franchising by states(some of which have had laws in place for a decade),but has sufficient record evidence to preempt 33,000 LFAs,is facially preposterous. 17 Adelstein Statement,Local Franchising NPRM 18 Letter from Grant Seiffert, to Jonathan S. Adelstein, Commissioner, FCC, MB Docket No. 05-311 (dated December 11,2006). 99 Federal Communications Commission FCC 06-180 Association, Qwest, and Bell South about new.entrants accepting franchise terms that they considered unreasonable in order to avoid further delay in obtaining the franchise, or, in one case, filing a"friendly lawsuit." These examples, based on my review of the record evidence, represent the extent to which competitive video providers argue that LFAs are delaying in acting on franchise applications. However, considering the current franchising process has been in place nearly 15 years and there are over 30,000 LFAs, I find these sporadic examples, individually and collectively, wholly insufficient to justify the Commission's quasi-legislative attempt to federalize the local franchising process. These sparse allegations and anecdotal evidence do not rise to a level that warrants today's drastic, substantive measures. The Commission's blind acceptance of a few alleged instances as illustrative of a much broader problem is a poor and unfortunate reflection of the disregard for proper agency process. The Commission neither attempted to conduct any independent fact-fmding or due diligence, nor verify the allegations made by parties who have a vested interest in the outcome of this proceeding." Even more shocking,the Commission and the commenters fail to cite to a single actual,present day problem pending with any specific LFA.20 Notwithstanding the scant record evidence to justify agency preemption and the creation of a national, unified franchising process in contravention of federal law, the Commission conjures its authority to reinterpret and, in certain respects, rewrite section 621 and Title VI of the Communications Act, on just two words in section 621(a)(1)21—`unreasonably refuse." The Commission ignores the verb that follows: "to award." A plain reading section 621(a)(1) does not provide a wholesale"unreasonable" test for all LFA action. Rather,the statutory language focuses on the act of awarding a franchise. While I agree that the Commission has authority to interpret and implement the Communications Act, including Title VI,22 the Commission does not have authority to ignore the plain meaning, structure and legislative history of section 621,and judicial precedent.23 19 Local Franchising NPRM, ¶1 ("potential competitors seeking to enter the multichannel video programming distributor("MVPD") marketplace have alleged that in many areas the current operation of the local franchising process serves as a barrier to entry. Accordingly,this Notice is designed to solicit comment on implementation of Section 621(a)(1)'s directive that LFAs not unreasonably refuse to award competitive franchises.") 20 During the Commission's Agenda Meeting in Keller,Texas,on February 10,2006,one Verizon official identified Montgomery County, Maryland, as an obstinate LFA that was insisting upon unreasonable illegal demand and delaying negotiations. Since that meeting, Verizon has in fact obtained a franchise in Montgomery County. See Press Release,Montgomery Country,Md.,County Negotiates Cable Franchise Agreement with Verizon;Agreement Resolves Litigation, Provides Increased Competition for Cable Service (Sept. 13, 2006) (available at http://www.montgomerycountymd.gov/apps/News/press/PR details.asp?PrID=2582). In fact, this Order blatantly ignores public statements that significantly undermine representations some proponents of this decision have made to the Commission. For example,AT&T has publicly stated that Project Lightspeed will be available to 90%of its "high-value" customers, but to less than 5% of its "low value" neighborhoods, but today the Commission undermines a locality's ability to ensure all residents are served. Leslie Cauley, Cable, Phone Companies Duke it out for Customers, USA Today, May 22, 2005, available at: http://www.usatoday.com/money/media/2005-05-22- telco-tv-cover-usat x.htm?csp=34 (last viewed 12/20/06). As Verizon's CEO of one major new entrant recently noted,"Any place it's come to a vote,we win." Dionne Searcey,As Verizon Enters Cable Business,It Faces Local Static Telecom Giant Gets Demands As It Negotiates TV Deals, Wall St. J., Oct. 28,2005, at Al. Yet in today's Order,the Commission somehow determines that there is widespread bad faith only on the part of the LFAs,not the new entrants,in order to justify this sweeping federal preemption. 21 47 U.S.C.§541(a)(1). 22 Admittedly, however, read together, sections 621(a)(1) and 635(a), clearly vest the courts, not the FCC, with exclusive jurisdiction over the determination of what constitutes "unreasonably refuse." In light of the fact that these two provisions were amended simultaneously in 1992, this is the only rational interpretation. As NATOA pointed out in its Comments,"[i]t is ludicrous to suggest that Congress,having provided that only"final"decisions (continued...) 100 Federal Communications Commission FCC 06-180 • While the Commission purports to limit its action today to interpreting`unreasonably refuse,"the Order stretches.section 621 well beyond the meaning that the statute can bear and, consequentially, changes the franchising process in fundamental ways. There are certain salient features of today's Order that raise serious legal and policy implications, requiring careful scrutiny. Most notably, the Order: (1) imposes a 90-day shot clock on LFAs to render a decision on the franchise application of a competitive applicant with existing rights-of-way; (2) deems a competitive entrant's franchise application granted after 90-days; (3) prohibits the denial of a competitive entrant's application based upon the entrant's refusal to comply with any build-out obligations; (4) prohibits the denial of a competitive entrant's application based upon the entrant's refusal to build and support PEG and I-net; and(5) authorizes a new entrant to refrain from obtaining a franchise when it is upgrading"mixed use"facilities that will be used for the delivery of video content. The Order fmds that franchising negotiations that extend beyond the time frames created today by the Commission amount to an unreasonable refusal to award a competitive franchise within the meaning of 621(a)(1). This fmding ignores the plain reading of the first sentence of section 621(a)(1), which provides that a franchising authority "may not unreasonably refuse to award an additional competitive franchise."24 On its face, Section 621(a)(1) does not impose a time limitation on an•LFA's authority to consider, award, or deny a competitive franchise. The second and final sentence of section 621(a)(1)provides judicial relief, with no Commission involvement contemplated, when the competitive franchise has been"denied by a final decision of the franchising authority.s25 There is no ambiguity here: Congress simply did not impose a time limit on franchise negotiations, as it did on other parts of Title VI (see discussion infra). Hence, whether you read the first sentence alone or in context of the entire statutory provision or title, its plain and unambiguous meaning is contrary to the Commission's interpretation. Section 621(a)(1) provides an expressed limitation on the nature, not the timing, of the refusal to award a competitive franchise.26 (Continued from previous page) of the"denial"of a franchise application may be appealed,somehow intended,sub silentio,to have its own language gutted by allowing parties to bypass the last sentence of§ 621(a)(1)entirely and go directly to the FCC." NATOA Comments at•28. 23 The Senate Report of the 1992 Cable Act concluded that,"[b]ased on the evidence in the record taken as a whole, it is clear that there are benefits from competition between two cable systems. Thus, the Committee believes that local franchising authorities should be encouraged[not required] to award second franchises. Accordingly, [the 1992 Cable Act,] as reported, prohibits local franchising authorities from unreasonably refusing to grant second franchises."S.Rep.No. 102-92,at 47(1991)(emphasis supplied). Thus,an LFA's decision to not grant a franchise need only not be unreasonable. As one federal district court observed: The House version contained a specific list of"reasonable"grounds for denial. H. R. Conf.Rep. No. 102-862, at 168-69 (1992). The Senate version, on the other hand, listed "technically infeasible" and left other reasonable grounds undefined. By choosing not to adopt a federally mandated list of reasonable grounds for denial in favor of an open-ended defmition, Congress intended to leave states with the power to determine the bases for granting or denying franchises, with the only caveat being that a denial must be "reasonable." Knology, Inc. v.Insight Communications Co., L.P.,2001 WL 1750839 at*2(W.D.Ky. March 20,2001)(citation omitted)(emphasis supplied). 24 47 U.S.C. §541(a)(1)(emphasis added). 25 Id.(emphasis added). 26 Congressional intent to qualify the nature of an LFA's refusal, not the timing of the refusal, is clear when you consider another provision of Section 621(a). Section 621(a)(4)(A)provides that"franchising authority shall allow (continued...) 101 Federal Communications Commission FCC 06-180 Even if I were able to move beyond this Order's facially defective reading of 621(a)(1), the Commission's selection of 90 days as the only reasonable time frame for an LFA to consider the franchise application of a competitive provider that already has rights-of-way access before it is "deemed granted" is demonstrably inconsistent with the overall framework of Title VI,unsupported by the record evidence, and quite arbitrary. The franchising framework established in Title VI does not support the Commission's decision to select 90 days as the deadline for a default grant—another Commission creation—to become effective.27 Throughout Part III (Franchising and Regulation) of Title VI, when Congress specifically decided to impose a deadline for LFAs to consider sales of cable systems,modification of franchise obligations, and renewals of existing franchises, in all three instances,Congress chose 120 days.28 In other sections of the Act,the prevalent time frame Congress imposed on LFAs and the Commission is 180 days.29 Today,the Commission, without authority, cannot take the place of Congress and impose a tighter time frame than Congress ever contemplated to impose on LFAs in the franchising process. This is well beyond Commission "line-drawing" authority, which requires the Commission to operate within the established framework of the authorizing legislation. While a 90-day deadline arguably could be considered "reasonable," that is not the statutory standard the Commission is purporting to use as the basis of its authority. We can only define "unreasonable" refusal, 30 which could be "foot-dragging" or"stonewalling" that amounts to a defacto denial of a franchise application. This is not the same as establishing an arbitrary, inflexible 90-day time frame, which overlooks the fact that 120 or 180 days may be reasonable under certain circumstances. While the Commission has line-drawing authority in some cases, the position taken in the Order is untenable on its face, given that Congress set a 120-day deadline for franchise transfers,which tend to be simpler than awarding new franchises, unless one is willing to assert that Congress itself was unreasonable. The aggressive schedule set here, while understandable and even desirable from a policy perspective, is evidence of the legislative nature of the Order. (Continued from previous page) the applicant's cable system a reasonable period of time to become capable of providing cable service to all households in the franchise area." In that case, Congress explicitly qualified timing,not the scope of buildout. As demonstrated in the Order, the Commission's attempt to super-inflate the meaning of"unreasonably refuse" in 621(a)(1), and diminish the significance of"unreasonable period of time" in section 621(a)(4)(A) is transparently inconsistent and blatantly self-serving. 27 The Order imposes a time limit of 90 days on LFAs to decide franchise applications from entities that already have access to public rights-of-way and a time limit of six months for applicants that are not already authorized to occupy the rights-of-way. Such a distinction does not exist in Title 6, notwithstanding the fact that Congress specifically contemplated phone companies—entities that already have access to public rights-of-way—obtaining franchises to provide video service. 28 47 U.S.C. § 537(providing LFAs 120 days to act upon request for approval of sale or transfer on cable systems); 47 U.S.C.§545(providing LFAs 120 days to modify franchise obligations);and 47 U.S.C. §546(providing LFAs a "4-month period" to "renew the franchise or, issue a preliminary assessment that the franchise should not be renewed"). 29 See, e.g., 47 U.S.C. § 543 (authorizing the Commission to "ensure that the rates for the basic service tier are reasonable"and requiring the Commission to develop regulations in 180 days). 30 47 U.S.C. § 541(a)(1). Today's Order specifically adopts rules that prohibit franchising authorities from "unreasonably refusing"to award competitive franchises. Order at if 1. 102 C . Federal Communications Commission FCC 06-180 To make matters worse,the Commission-created 90-day shot clock seems to function more like a waiting period, during which time the new entrant has little incentive to engage in meaningful negotiations. An objective review of the evidence shows that there is sufficient blame on both sides of the negotiation table. Sometimes, there are good reasons for delay; and at other times, one side might stall to gain leverage." While the majority is certainly aware of these tactics, they fail to even mention the need for LFAs and new entrants to abide by, or so much as to have,reciprocal good faith negotiation obligations. The majority also has ignored the apparent need to develop a complaint or grievance mechanism for the parties to ensure compliance. Perhaps Congress might consider imposing on the Commission a binding deadline to resolve complaints, which would inject an incentive for both sides to negotiate,meaningfully and in good faith.32 Without anything other than the asserted authority to interpret "unreasonably refuse," the Commission creates a regulatory reprimand for an LFA's failure to render a final decision within the Commission-created time limits. The consequences of the failure to reach agreement within 90 days is that the•LFA will be deemed to have granted the competitive entrant an interim franchise based on the terms proposed in the entrant's franchise application. In practicality,this will confer rights-of-way access over local property. In selecting this remedy, the Commission purportedly "seeks to provide a meaningful incentive for local franchising authority to abide by the deadlines contained in the Order."" While the policy goal is understandable and arguably consistent with congressional intent to encourage the award of competitive cable franchises, we do not have legal authority to establish punitive,one-sided consequences,in order to create an"incentive." Moreover,the Commission ignores that by establishing a default grant of franchise applications effectively confers local property rights unilaterally and without regard for inherent local police powers and public health,safety and welfare. The Commission cites no credible authority that empowers it to deem a new entrant's franchise application granted by the LFA and thus confer local property rights.34 When construing a statute, principles of construction caution against any interpretation that may contravene existing law or U.S. Constitution. In this case, I am wary of a federal agency,which purports not to preempt any state-based 31 As the July 11,2006, filing of the Greater Metro Telecommunications Consortium,the Rainer Communications Commission and the City of Tacoma, Washington explained: "[I]t is an oversimplification to believe that competitive entry into video programming can be facilitated by requiring a local government to act on a franchise application within a specific period of time. What the Commission may consider a delay is often a reasonable time for consideration,and indeed,the internal bureaucracies within many large companies often times dwarf the internal processes within local government,so that any rule the Commission might deem appropriate to apply regarding time to respond,must also be imposed upon the other party to negotiations." 32 The Commission purposefully stops short of creating reciprocal good faith obligations because that would authorize the parties to file a complaint with the Commission when negotiations fall apart. Such a complaint process would effectively serve as an enforcement mechanism,which would only increase this Order's litigation exposure as quasi-legislative document. Nevertheless,today's Order cannot be reasonably viewed as mere guidance to LFAs or a clarification of the term"unreasonably refuse"in section 621(a)(1). .There is a real,punitive consequence if the LFA does not follow the Commission's dictates — a "deemed granted" franchise, which incurably alters the dynamics of franchise negotiations. 33 Order at¶76. 34 The Commission's reliance on ancillary authority it exercised in the early 1970s, well before congressional enactments in 1984, 1992 and 1996,is unavailing. In fact,such reliance reveals the Commission's need to make too large a reach to justify it actions. See Letter from James L.Casserly,Counsel for Comcast Corporation,to Marlene Dortch,Federal Communications Commission,MB Docket No.05-311 (filed December 13,2006). 103 Federal Communications Commission FCC 06-180 franchising law,but yet is prepared to step into the shoes of an LFA—an instrumentality of the state—to grant a franchise application with all the attendant rights-of-way privileges.35 The Commission rejected an approach that would have deemed an application"denied"once the shot clock expired without LFA action. This approach, I maintain, would have expedited the judicial review that was Congress' chosen remedy,and is infinitely more consistent with the letter and spirit of the Communications Act, Title VI, and specifically sections 621(a)(1) and 635. Nowhere in the Act is the Commission granted the authority to force localities to grant franchises. Simply put, the Commission's "deemed granted" approach in the Order is not a justifiable choice to fill the perceived gap left open by Congress when it did not provide a specific remedy against LFA action that is short of an outright denial of a franchise application. While it is generally proper for the Commission to exercise its "predictive judgment,"that is only when the Commission has the requisite authority to act within a certain area and it stays within its authority. Neither exists in this case. In terms of build-out, the Commission seems to make a deliberate effort to overlook the plain meaning of the statute and to substitute its policy judgment for that of Congress. The Commission concludes that it is unlawful for LFAs to refuse to grant a competitive franchise on the basis of an applicants' refusal to agree to any build-out obligations. The Commission's analysis in this regard is anemic and facially inadequate. Section 621(a)(4)(A) provides that "[i]n awarding a franchise the franchising authority shall allow the applicant's cable system a reasonable period of time to become capable of providing cable service to all households in the franchise area." Absent express statutory authority, the Commission cannot declare it unreasonable for LFAs to require build-out to all households in the franchise area over a reasonable period of time. The Commission's argument in this regard is particularly spurious in light of the stated objective of this Order to promote broadband deployment and our common goal of promoting affordable broadband to all Americans. In the end, this is less about fiber to the home and more about fiber to the McMansion. The Commission is correct on one point,that section 621(a)(4)(A)is actually a limitation on LFA authority. However, consistent with plain reading of the provision and its legislative history, Section 621(a)(4)(A)surely is not a grant of authority to the Commission and does not impose a limitation on the scope of a competitive provider's build-out obligations. Indeed,section 621(a)(4)(A)explicitly limits the "period of time" to build-out, but an LFA is unrestrained to impose full, partial, or no build-out obligations on all cable service providers. As long as an LFA gives a competitive provider"a reasonable period of time to become capable of providing cable service to all households in the franchise area," section 621(a)(4)(A)essentially shields build-out requirement from constituting an"unreasonable refusal" to grant a competitive franchise. While this policy could be changed by Congress to facilitate competitive entry,that is not the current state of the law. An LFA cannot be prohibited from requiring build-out to all households in the franchise area if an LFA allows "a reasonable period of time" to do so. The Commission has not been ordained with a legislative"blue pencil"to rewrite law. Congress specifically directed LFAs — not the FCC — to allow a reasonable period of time for build-out. As much as the Commission would like it be its role, Congress gave the role to LFAs, and it is Congress' purview to modify that explicit delegation of authority. 35 See generally, Charter Communications v. County of Santa Cruz, 304 F.3d 927 (9th Cir. 2002) (holding that deference is accorded to legislative action of local government),especially in light of fact that the Commission does not have clear congressionally delegated authority in this case; and local regulations, in this case, are likely explicitly sanctioned by the Cable Act and consistent with the express provisions of the Act,see 47 U.S.C.§556(a). 104 Federal Communications Commission FCC 06-180 Assuredly, Section 621(a)(4)(A) does not impose `universal" or `uniform" build-out requirements on franchise applicants. This may be a reflection of congressional intent to focus on the needs of the locality.36 However, it does not prohibit LFAs from requiring build-out obligations as a condition of franchise approval,so long as the competitive applicant is given a reasonable period of time. The rapid deployment of broadband has been a goal of mine since I joined this Commission. Wireline competition in the video market,particularly, is critical as a means to constrain prices,which in itself is a worthy goal after year upon year of price hikes. It is also critical to the future of our democracy that Americans have access to as many forms of video content as possible so they can make up their own minds about the issues of the day and not remain subject to a limited number of gatekeepers who decide what deserves airing based on their own financial or ideological interests. But, in order for the Commission to promote these goals effectively,we must operate within our legal authority. • Perhaps the majority has failed to consider the real life consequences of today's Order. For instance, in New York City, competitive entrants could file the Commission-mandated informational filing that proposes to serve only Broadway, Madison, or Park Avenue. Under today's Order, the New York City franchising authority would be forbidden from denying the competitive franchise based solely on the fact that the new entrant refuses to certain build-out requirements. The LFA is placed in the difficult position of either denying outright the franchise and absorb the costs and fees for the ensuing litigation,or agree to a franchise that is not responsive to needs and interests of local community. How can the majority declare build-out to be an impediment to entry when one of the major incumbent phone companies,AT&T,claims that it does not need a franchise to operate its video service, and the other,Verizon,has agreed to different,but favorable,build-out obligations with various states and localities? Under the federalist scheme of the Act,different jurisdictions can choose models that best suit their specific needs. For example,in New Jersey,the state-wide franchise reform law correlates build-out principally to population density, while build-out obligations in Virginia principally track the entrant's existing wireline facilities. And in New York City, Verizon and the LFA were actively negotiating universal build-out over a period of a few years. The broad pen with which the majority writes today's Order does not stop with build-out. The Order also uses the Commission's alleged authority under Section 621(a)(1) to determine that any LFA refusal to award a competitive franchise because of a new entrant's refusal to support PEG or I-Net is per se unreasonable. Although the Order purports to provide clarification with respect to which franchise fees are permissible under the Act, it muddles the regime and leaves communities and new entrants with conflicting views about funding PEG and I-Net. Indeed, Congress provided explicit direction on what constitutes or does not constitute a franchise fee,with a remedy to the courts for aggrieved parties. Today's Order should make clear that, while any requests made by an LFA unrelated to the provision of cable service and unrelated to PEG or I-NET are subject to the statutory five percent franchise fee cap, these are not the type of costs excluded from the term "franchise fee" by section 622(g)(2)(C). That provision excludes from the term"franchise fee" any"capital costs that are required by the franchise to be incurred by the cable operator for public, educational, or governmental access facilities." The legislative history of the 1984 Cable Act clearly indicates that"any franchise requirement for the provision of services,facilities or equipment is not included as a`fee.'"37 36 See 47 U.S.C. § 521 (2)(stating that the one of the central purposes of Title 6 is to"assure that cable systems are responsive to the needs and interests of the local community.") See also 47 U.S.C. § 521(3)(stating that another central purpose of Title 6 is to establish clear federal,state and local roles). 37 The legislative history of 1984 Cable Act provides"in general, [section 622(g)(2)(C)] defines as a franchise fee only monetary payments made by the cable operator, and does not include as a`fee' any franchise requirement for (continued...) 105 Federal Communications Commission FCC 06-180 PEG facilities and access provide an important resource to thousands of communities across this country. Equally important,redundancy or even duplicative I-Net provides invaluable homeland security and public health, safety and welfare functions in towns, cities, and municipalities across America. It is my hope that today's decision does not undermine these and other important community media resource needs. While my objections to today's Order are numerous and substantial, that should not overlook the real need I believe there is for franchise reform. Indeed, there is bipartisan support for reform in Congress, and most LFAs throughout this country are committed to bring video competition to their jurisdictions. My fundamental concern with this Order is that it is based on such paper-thin jurisdiction, but it is truly broad in scope. It ignores the plain reading of the section 621, usurps congressional prerogative and pre-empts LFAs in certain important respects that directly contradict the Act. The sum total here is an arrogant case of federal power riding roughshod over local governments. It turns federalism on its head. While I can support certain efforts to streamline the process and preclude local authorities from engaging in unreasonable practices,this item blatantly and unnecessarily tempts the federal courts to overturn this clearly excessive exercise of the limited role afforded to us by the law. The likely outcome of being reversed in Federal Court could have pernicious and unintended consequences in limiting our flexibility to exercise our discretion in future worthy endeavors. Accordingly,I dissent. (Continued from previous page) the provision of services, facilities or equipment. As regards PEG access in new franchises, payments for capital costs required by the franchise to be made by the franchise to be made by the cable operator are not defined as fees under this provision." H.R.REP.No.98-934,at 65 reprinted in 1984 U.S.C.C.A.N.4702. 106 • Federal Communications Commission FCC 06-180 STATEMENT OF COMMISSIONER DEBORAH TAYLOR TATE Re: Implementation of Section 621(a)(1) of the Cable Communications Policy Act of 1984 as amended by the Cable Television Consumer Protection and Competition Act of 1992 (MB Docket No. 05-311) Today's item, like most we address as an expert agency, is full of sophisticated technical, legal, and policy arguments. At a high level,however,I view this as a continuation down a path of deregulatory policies designed to encourage new market entry, innovation, and investment. Indeed, "encourag[ing] more robust competition in the video marketplace"by limiting franchising requirements has long been a stated goal of the Commission as well as a driving force behind statutory terms we interpret today. Section 621(a)(1) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the "Act"), states that franchising authorities ("LFAs") may not `unreasonably refuse to award" a competitive franchise to provide cable services. I agree with our conclusion that we have the jurisdictional authority to interpret this section of the Act and adopt rules to implement it. In amending Section 621(a)(1) to include the phrase"unreasonably refuse to award,"Congress explicitly limited the authority of LFAs. However,if an LFA does not make a fmal decision for months on end,or perhaps even years as the record indicates,new entrants are given no recourse. Also, unreasonable demands, similar to long delays, serve as a further barrier to competitive entry. It is nonsensical to contend that, despite the limitation on LFA authority in the Act, LFAs remain the sole arbiters of whether their actions in the franchise approval process are reasonable. Since the section's judicial review provision applies only to final decisions by LFAs, absent Commission action to identify "unreasonable" terms and conditions, franchise applicants would have no avenue for redress. I conclude that our broad and well-recognized authority as the federal agency responsible for administering the Act, including Title VI, permits us to identify such terms and conditions,and I support our exercise of that authority. As with most orders, we explored numerous ways to achieve our goals. I ultimately support today's item, because I believe that, by streamlining timeframes for action and providing practical guidelines for both LFAs and new entrants, the item encourages the development of competition in the video marketplace and speeds the deployment of broadband across the country in a platform-neutral manner. These beneficial policy results should not be underestimated. Our annual reports to Congress on cable prices, including the report we adopt today, consistently show that prices are lower where wireline competition is present. And, of course, broadband deployment enhances our ability to educate our children for the jobs of tomorrow and ensures that the United States remains competitive in this global communications age. Additionally, I am pleased that we recognize— and do not preempt—the actions of those states that have reformed their franchise rules. Their efforts to streamline the process for competitive entry are laudable. Finally, it is critical that as we advance pro-competitive policies, we ensure that our policies do not unreasonably create asymmetry in the marketplace. Accordingly,I am encouraged that we resolve to address open issues regarding existing franchise agreements on an expedited basis. I encourage all interested parties to use. your energies toward assisting us as we seek a way to apply more broadly our conclusions across all companies. 107 Federal Communications Commission FCC 06-180 STATEMENT OF COMMISSIONER ROBERT M.MCDOWELL Re: In the matter of Implementation of Section 621(a)(1)of the Cable Communications Policy Act of 1984 as amended by the Cable Television Consumer Protection and Competition Act of 1992 (MB Docket No. 05-311) I have long advocated the Commission doing all that it can to open new opportunities for entrepreneurs to have the freedom to construct new delivery platforms for innovative new services. More delivery platforms mean more competition. More competition means consumers can choose among more innovative offerings. As consumers become more empowered, prices fall and, as a result, new technologies become more available to help improve the lives of all Americans. In short, creating a de- regulatory environment where competition is given the chance to flourish kicks off a virtuous cycle of hope, investment,growth and opportunity. Today,the Commission is taking a step forward in what I hope will be a noble quest to spur more competition across many delivery platforms and,where appropriate,within delivery platforms. While we already have some competition in the video market, American consumers are demanding even more competition. And that's the goal of our action today: more competition through de-regulation. Perhaps President Ronald Reagan foresaw an issue like this one when he said, "We have a healthy skepticism of government, checking its excesses at the same time we're willing to harness its energy when it helps improve the lives of our citizens." That is precisely what we are doing today: checking any government excesses at the local level to unleash free markets which will help improve the lives of all Americans. This order strikes a careful balance between establishing a de-regulatory national framework to clear unnecessary regulatory underbrush, while also preserving local control over local issues. It guards against localities making unreasonable demands of new entrants,while still allowing those same localities to be able to protect important local interests through meaningful negotiations with aspiring video service providers. Local franchising authorities are still free to deny deficient applications on their own schedule, but we are imposing a"shot clock"to guard against unreasonable delay. After the shot clock runs out,if the locality has not granted or denied the application, an interim or temporary authority will be granted to give the parties more time to reach a consensus. If the LFA feels as though it cannot grant a franchise during this period,they are free to deny the application. And unhappy applicants still have the liberty to go to court,as codified under federal law. Additionally, should communications companies decide to upgrade their existing non-cable services networks, localities may not require them to obtain a franchise. However, this order does not address whether video service providers can avoid local or federal jurisdiction over those video services because those services are carried over differing protocols, such as Internet protocol. That question is explicitly left for another docket. In the same spirit of deference to localities, we are not pre-empting recently enacted state laws that make it easier for new video service providers to enter the market. Those important frameworks will remain intact. Similarly,on the important issue of build-out requirements,we preserve local flexibility to implement important public policy objectives, but we don't allow localities to require new entrants to serve everybody before they serve anybody. Many commenting parties, Members of Congress, and two of my distinguished colleagues, have legitimately raised questions regarding the Commission's authority to implement many of these initiatives. I have raised similar questions. However, as the draft of this item has evolved and, I think, improved, my concerns have been assuaged, for the most part. The Commission has ample general and 108 • Federal Communications Commission FCC 06-180 specific authority to issue these rules under several sections including, but not limited to, sections: 151, 201, 706, 621, 622, and many others. Furthermore, a careful reading of applicable case law shows that the courts have consistently given the Commission broad discretion in this arena. While I understand the concerns of others, after additional study, I feel as though we are now on safe legal ground. But I know that reasonable minds will differ on this point and that appellate lawyers are already on their way to the court house. That is the American way,I suppose. This order is not perfect. If it were, it would say that all of the de-regulatory benefits we are providing to new entrants we are also providing to all video providers,be they incumbent cable providers, over-builders or others. I want to ensure that no governmental entities, including those of us at the FCC, have any thumb on the scale to give a regulatory advantage to any competitor. But the record in this proceeding does not allow us to create a regulatory parity framework just yet. That's why I am pleased that today's order and further notice contain the tentative conclusion that the relief we are granting to new entrants will apply to all video service providers once they renew their franchises. Also, I have consistently maintained during my time here that if shot clocks are good for others then they are good for the FCC itself. Accordingly,I am pleased that the Chairman has agreed to release an order as a result of the further notice no later than six months from the release date of this order, and regardless of the appellate posture of this matter. Resolving these important questions soon will give much-needed regulatory certainty to all market players, spark investment, speed competition on its way, and make America a stronger player in the global economy. By the same token, it is no secret that I would also like to see the Commission act more quickly on petitions filed by any individual or industry group, especially if those petitions may help spur competition in any market, be it video, voice, data, wireless, or countless others. We should never let government inaction create market distortions. I thank my entire staff, especially Cristina Pauze, for their long hours, dedication and insight regarding this order. I also thank the tireless Media Bureau and the General Counsel's office for their tremendous efforts on this important matter. Lastly,I would like to thank Chairman Martin for his strong leadership on this issue. 109 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT The Villages of Larchmont and Mamaroneck, and the Town of Mamaroneck, New York Petitioners, Case No. v. PETITION FOR REVIEW of Order of the Federal United States of America Communications Commission and Federal Communications Commission, Respondents The Villages of Larchmont and Mamaroneck, and the Town of Mamaroneck ("the Larchmont-Mamaroneck Communities"), New York municipal corporations, pursuant to Section 402(a) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 28 U.S.C. § 2344, and Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 15, hereby petition the Court for review of the attached Order of the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC"),In the Matter of Implementation of Section 621(a)(1) of the Cable Communications Policy Act of 1984 as amended by the Cable Television Consumer Protection and Competition Act of 1992, MB Docket No. 05-3.11 (the "Order"), adopting cable franchising rules that impose limitations on local government authority to franchise cable television operators and authorizes cable operators to begin operating in local communities without local government approval, adopted on December 20, 2006, released on March 5, 2007, and published in the Federal Register on March 21, 2007. This Petition for Review has been filed within ten days of the issuance of the Order, and thus is subject to the procedures established under 28 U.S.C. § 2112(a) should other qualified Petitions for Review be filed in different Courts of Appeals. Venue is proper under 28 U.S.C. § 2343 because the the Larchmont- Mamaroneck Communities are located in the state of New York. In the Order, the FCC adopted rules and policies addressing issues concerning the award of competitive franchises by local franchising authorities. The Larchmont-Mamaroneck Communities are local franchising authorities within the meaning of Section 602(10) of the Cable Act of 1984, 47 U.S.C. § 522(10). The Larchmont-Mamaroneck Communities filed comments in the FCC proceeding leading up to the Order on review. - The Larchmont-Mamaroneck Communities seek review of the Order on the grounds that it exceeds the FCC's statutory authority, is arbitrary and capricious, an abuse of discretion, unsupported by substantial evidence, in violation of the United States Constitution, including, without limitation, the Fifth and Tenth 2 Amendments, and is otherwise contrary to law. The Order also violates the public notice requirements of both the Communications Act and the Administrative Procedure Act. The Larchmont-Mamaroneck Communities respectfully request that this Court hold unlawful, vacate, enjoin, and set aside the Order. The Larchmont- Mamaroneck Communities also request that this Court grant such other relief as it may deem appropriate. Respectfully)submitted, Josh Van Eaton William R. Malone Frederick E. Ellrod III Marci L. Frischkorn Miller & Van Eaton, PLLC 1155 Connecticut Ave., NW Suite 1000 Washington, DC 20036 Phone: (202) 785-0600 Fax: (202) 785-1234 Their Attorneys Attachment 6013\0 I\00127478.DOC 3 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT City of Tampa, Florida, Petitioner, v. Case No. United States of America PETITION FOR REVIEW of Order of the Federal and Communications Commission Federal Communications Commission, Respondents The City of Tampa, Florida("City"), a Florida municipal corporation, pursuant to Section 402(a) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 28 U.S.C. § 2344, and Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 15, hereby petitions the Court for review of the attached Order of the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC"),In the Matter oflmplementation of Section 621(a)(1) of the Cable Communications Policy Act of 1984 as amended by the Cable Television Consumer Protection and Competition Act of 1992, MB Docket No. 05-311 (the "Order"), adopting cable franchising rules that impose limitations on local government authority to franchise cable television operators and authorizes cable operators to begin operating in local communities without local government approval, adopted on December 20, 2006, released on March 5, 2007, and published in the Federal Register on March 21, 2007. This Petition for Review has been filed within ten days of the issuance of the Order, and thus is subject to the procedures established under 28 U.S.C. § 2112(a) should other qualified Petitions for Review be filed in different Courts of Appeals. Venue is proper under 28 U.S.C. § 2343 because the City is located in the state of Florida. In the Order, the FCC adopted rules and policies addressing issues concerning the award of competitive franchises by local franchising authorities. The City is a local franchising authority within the meaning of Section 602(10) of the Cable Act of 1984, 47 U.S.C. § 522(10). The City filed comments in the FCC proceeding leading up to the Order on review. The City seeks review of the Order on the grounds that it exceeds the FCC's statutory authority, is arbitrary and capricious, an abuse of discretion, unsupported by substantial evidence, in violation of the United States Constitution, including, without limitation, the Fifth and Tenth Amendments, and is otherwise contrary to law. The Order also violates the public notice requirements of both the Communications Act and the Administrative Procedure Act. 2 The City respectfully requests that this Court hold unlawful, vacate, enjoin, and set aside the Order. The City also requests that this Court grant such other relief as it may deem appropriate. Respectf>i ly submitted, 6/e: Joseph Van Eaton William R. Malone Frederick E. Ellrod III Marci L. Frischkorn Miller & Van Eaton, PLLC 1155 Connecticut Ave., NW Suite 1000 Washington, DC 20036 Phone: (202) 785-0600 Fax: (202) 785-1234 Its Attorneys Attachment 6013\01\001273 60.DOC 3 Federal Communications Commission FCC 06-180 Before the Federal Communications Commission - Washington,D.C.20554 In the Matter of ) Implementation of Section 621(a)(1) of the Cable ) MB Docket No.05-311 Communications Policy Act of 1984 as amended ) by the Cable Television Consumer Protection and ) Competition Act of 1992 ) REPORT AND ORDER AND FURTHER NOTICE OF PROPOSED RULEMAKING Adopted: December 20,2006 Released: March 5,2007 Comment Date: [30 days after date of publication in the Federal Register] Reply Comment Date: [45 days after date of publication in the Federal Register] By the Commission: Chairman Martin,Commissioners Tate and McDowell issuing separate statements; Commissioners Copps and Adelstein dissenting and issuing separate statements. TABLE OF CONTENTS Paragraph I. INTRODUCTION 1 II. BACKGROUND 6 III.DISCUSSION 18 A. The Current Operation of the Franchising Process Unreasonably Interferes With Competitive Entry 19 B. The Commission Has Authority to Adopt Rules Pursuant to Section 621(a)(1) 53, C. Steps to Ensure that the Local Franchising Process Does Not Unreasonably Interfere with Competitive Cable Entry and Rapid Broadband Deployment 65 1. Time Limit for Franchise Negotiations 66 2. Build-Out 82 3. Franchise Fees 94 4. PEG/Institutional Networks 110 5. Regulation of Mixed-Use Networks 121 D. Preemption of Local Laws,Regulations and Requirements 125 IV. FURTHER NOTICE OF PROPOSED RULEMAKING 139 V. PROCEDURAL MATTERS 144 VI. ORDERING CLAUSES 153 APPENDIX A—List of Commenters and Reply Commenters APPENDIX B—Rule Changes APPENDIX C—Initial Regulatory Flexibility Act Analysis APPENDIX D—Final Regulatory Flexibility Act Analysis Federal Communications Commission FCC 06-180 I. INTRODUCTION 1. In this Report and Order("Order"), we adopt rules and provide guidance to implement Section 621(a)(1) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the "Communications Act"), which prohibits franchising authorities from unreasonably refusing to award competitive franchises for the provision of cable services.1 We fmd that the current operation of the local franchising process in many jurisdictions constitutes an unreasonable barrier to entry that impedes the achievement of the interrelated federal goals of enhanced cable competition and accelerated broadband deployment.' We further find that Commission action to address this problem is both authorized and necessary. Accordingly, we adopt measures to address a variety of means by which local franchising authorities, i.e., county- or municipal- level franchising authorities ("LFAs"), are unreasonably refusing to award competitive franchises. We anticipate that the rules and guidance we adopt today will facilitate and expedite entry of new cable competitors into the market for the delivery of video programming,3. and accelerate broadband deployment consistent with our statutory responsibilities. 147 U.S.C. § 541(a)(1). 2 While there is a sufficient record before us to generally determine what constitutes an"unreasonable refusal to award an additional competitive franchise" at the local level under Section 621(a)(1), we do not have sufficient information to make such determinations with respect to franchising decisions where a state is involved, either by issuing franchises at the state level or enacting laws governing specific aspects of the franchising process. We therefore expressly limit our findings and regulations in this Order to actions or inactions at the local level where a state has not specifically circumscribed the LFA's authority. In light of the differences between the scope of franchises issued at the state level and those issued at the local level, we do not address the reasonableness of demands made by state level franchising authorities, such as Hawaii, which may need to be evaluated by different criteria than those applied to the demands of local franchising authorities. Additionally, what constitutes an .unreasonable period of time for a state level franchising authority to take to review an application may differ from what constitutes an unreasonable period of time at the local level. Moreover, as discussed infra, many states have enacted comprehensive franchise reform laws designed to facilitate competitive entry. Some of these laws allow competitive entrants to obtain statewide franchises while others establish a comprehensive set of statewide parameters that cabin the discretion of LFAs. Compare TEX.UTIL. CODE ANN. §§ 66.001-66.017 with VA.CODE ANN. §§ 15.2-2108.19 et seq. In light of the fact that many of these laws have only been in effect for a short period of time, and we do not have an adequate record from those relatively few states that have had statewide franchising for a longer period of time to draw general conclusions with respect to the operation of the franchising process where there is state involvement,we lack a sufficient record to evaluate whether and how such state laws may lead to unreasonable refusals to award additional competitive franchises. As a result, our Order today only addresses decisions made by county-or municipal-level franchising authorities. See U.S. Cellular Corp. v. FCC,254 F.3d 78, 86 (D.C. Cir. 2001) ("agencies need not address all problems in one fell swoop") (citations and internal quotation marks omitted);Personal Watercraft Industry Assoc. v.Dept. of Commerce, 48 F.3d 540,544(D.C.Cir. 1995)("An agency does not have to 'make progress on every front before it can make progress on any front')(quoting United States v.Edge Broadcasting Co.,509 U.S.418,434(1993));National Association of Broadcasters v.FCC, 740 F.2d 1190, 1207(D.C. Cir. 1984)("[A]gencies,while entitled to less deference than Congress,nonetheless need not deal in one fell swoop with the entire breadth of a novel development;instead, `reform may take place one step at a time, • addressing itself to the phase of the problem which seems most acute to the [regulatory] mind.') (citations and internal quotation marks omitted, alteration in original). Moreover, it does not address any aspect of an LFA's decision-making to the extent that such aspect is specifically addressed by state law. For example, the state of Massachusetts provides LFAs with 12 months from the date of their decision to begin the licensing process to approve or deny a franchise application. 207 Mass. Code Regs. 3.02 (2006). These laws are not addressed by this decision. Consequently, unless otherwise stated, references herein to "the franchising process" or "franchising" refer solely to processes controlled by county-or municipal-level franchising authorities,including but not limited to the ultimate decision to award a franchise. 3 References throughout this Order to"video programming"or"video services"are intended to mean cable services. 2 Federal Communications Commission FCC 06-180 2. New competitors are entering markets for the delivery of services historically offered by monopolists: traditional phone companies are primed to enter the cable market, while traditional cable companies are competing in the telephony market. Ultimately, both types of companies are projected to offer customers a "triple play" of voice, high-speed Internet access, and video services over their respective networks. We believe this competition for delivery of bundled services will benefit consumers by driving down prices and improving the quality of service offerings. We are concerned, however, that traditional phone companies seeking to enter the video market face unreasonable regulatory obstacles, to the detriment of competition generally and cable subscribers in particular. 3. The Communications Act sets forth the basic rules concerning what franchising authorities may and may not do in evaluating applications for competitive franchises. Despite the parameters established by the Communications Act, however, operation of the franchising process has proven far more complex and time consuming than it should be, particularly with respect to facilities- based telecommunications and broadband providers that already have access to rights-of-way. New entrants have demonstrated that they are willing and able to upgrade their networks to provide video . services,but the current operation of the franchising process at the local level unreasonably delays and, in some cases, derails these efforts due to LFAs' unreasonable demands on competitive applicants. These delays discourage investment in the fiber-based infrastructure necessary for the provision of advanced broadband services,because franchise applicants do not have the promise of revenues from video services to offset the costs of such deployment. Thus, the current operation of the franchising process often not only contravenes the statutory imperative to foster competition in the multichannel video programming distribution ("MVPD") market; but also defeats the congressional goal of encouraging broadband deployment. 4. In light of the problems with the current operation of the franchising process,we believe that it is now appropriate for the.Commission to exercise its authority and take steps to prevent LFAs from unreasonably refusing to award competitive franchises.' We have broad rulemaking authority to implement the provisions of the Communications Act, including Title VI generally and Section 621(a)(1) in particular. In addition, Section 706 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 directs the Commission to encourage broadband deployment by removing barriers to infrastructure investment, and the U.S.Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit has held that the Commission may fashion its rules to fulfill the goals of Section 706.4 5. To eliminate the unreasonable barriers to entry into the cable market, and to encourage investment in broadband facilities,we: (1)fmd that an LFA's failure to issue a decision on a competitive application within the time frames specified herein constitutes an unreasonable refusal to award a competitive franchise within the meaning of Section 621(a)(1); (2) fmd that an LFA's refusal to grant a competitive franchise because of an applicant's unwillingness to agree to unreasonable build-out mandates constitutes an unreasonable refusal to award a competitive franchise within the meaning of Section 621(a)(1); (3) fmd that unless certain specified costs, fees, and other compensation required by LFAs are counted toward the statutory 5 percent cap on franchise fees, demanding them could result in an unreasonable refusal to award a competitive franchise; (4)find that it would be an unreasonable refusal to award a competitive franchise if the LFA denied an application based upon a new entrant's refusal to undertake certain obligations relating to public, educational, and government ("PEG") and institutional networks ("I-Nets") and(5) find that it is unreasonable under Section 621(a)(1) for an LFA to refuse to grant a franchise based on issues related to non-cable services or facilities. Furthermore, we preempt local laws, regulations, and requirements, including level-playing-field provisions, to the extent they permit LFAs to impose greater restrictions on market entry than the rules adopted herein. We also adopt 4 See USTA v.FCC,359 F.3d 554,579-80(D.C.Cir.2004). 3 Federal Communications Commission FCC 06-180 a Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking ("FNPRM") seeking comment on how our findings in this Order should affect existing franchisees. In addition, the FNPRM asks for comment on local consumer protection and customer service standards as applied to new entrants. II. BACKGROUND 6. Section 621. Any new entrant seeking to offer "cable service"5 as a "cable operator"6 becomes subject to the requirements of Title VI. Section 621 of Title VI sets forth general cable franchise requirements. Subsection(b)(1) of Section 621 prohibits a cable operator from providing cable service in a particular area without first obtaining a cable franchise,' and subsection (a)(1) grants to franchising authorities the power to award such franchises! 7. The initial purpose of Section 621(a)(1),which was added to the Communications Act by the Cable Communications Policy Act of 1984(the"1984 Cable Act"),9 was to delineate the role of LFAs in the franchising process.10 As originally enacted, Section 621(a)(1) simply stated that"[a] franchising authority may award, in accordance with the provisions of this title, 1 or more franchises within its jurisdiction."11 A few years later, however, the Commission prepared a report to Congress on the cable industry pursuant to the requirements of the 1984 Cable Act.'2 In that Report,the Commission concluded 5 Section 602(6) of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. §522(6) (defining "cable service" as "(A)the one-way transmission to subscribers of (i)video programming, or (ii)other programming service, and (B)subscriber interaction, if any, which is required for the selection or use of such video programming or other programming service"). 6 Section 602(5)of the Communications Act,47 U.S.C. §522(5)(defining"cable operator"as"any person or group of persons(A)who provides cable service over a cable system and directly or through one or more affiliates owns a significant interest in a cable system, or(B)who otherwise controls or is responsible for,through any arrangement, the management and operation of such a cable system"). 7 47 U.S.C. § 541(b)(1)("Except to the extent provided in paragraph(2)and subsection(f),a cable operator may not provide cable service without a franchise."). s 47 U.S.C. §541(a)(1)(stating that"[a] franchising authority may award, in accordance with the provisions of this title, 1 or more franchises within its jurisdiction"). A"franchising authority"is defined to mean"any governmental entity empowered by Federal,State,or local law to grant a franchise." Section 602(10)of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. §522(10). As noted above,references herein to"local franchising authorities"or"LFAs"mean only the county or municipal governmental entities empowered to grant franchises. 9 Cable Communications Policy Act of 1984,Pub.L No.98-549,98 Stat.2779. 10 See, e.g., H.R. REP.No. 98-934, at 19 (1984) ("[The 1984 Cable Act] establishes a national policy that clarifies • the current system of local, state and federal regulation of cable television. This policy continues reliance on the local franchising process as the primary means of cable television regulation, while defining and limiting the authority that a franchising authority may exercise through the franchise process. ... [This legislation]will preserve the critical role of municipal governments in the franchise,process, while providing appropriate deregulation in certain respects to the provision of cable service."); id. at 24("It is the Committee's intent that the franchise process take place at the local level where city officials have the best understanding of local communications needs and can require cable operators to tailor the cable system to meet those needs. However, if that process is to further the purposes of this legislation, the provisions of these franchises, and the authority of the municipal governments to enforce these provisions, must be based on certain important uniform federal standards that are not continually altered by Federal,state and local regulation."). 11 Cable Communications Policy Act of 1984,Pub.L.No.98-549,98 Stat.2779,§ 621 (1984). 12 See generally Competition, Rate Deregulation and the Commission's Policies Relating to the Provision of Cable Television Service,5 FCC Red 4962(1990)("Report"). 4 Federal Communications Commission FCC 06-180 that in order"[t]o encourage more robust competition in the local video marketplace,the Congress should ... forbid local franchising authorities from unreasonably denying a franchise to potential competitors who are ready and able to provide service.s13 8. In response,14 Congress revised Section 621(a)(1) through the Cable Television Consumer Protection and Competition Act of 1992 (the "1992 Cable Act")15 to read as follows: "A franchising authority may award, in accordance with the provisions of this title, 1 or more franchises within its jurisdiction; except that a franchising authority may not grant an exclusive franchise and may not unreasonably refuse to award an additional competitive franchise."16 In the Conference Report on the legislation,Congress found that competition in the cable industry was sorely lacking: For a variety of reasons, including local franchising requirements and the extraordinary expense of constructing more than one cable television system to serve a particular geographic area, most cable television subscribers have no opportunity to select between competing cable • systems. Without the presence of another multichannel video programming distributor, a cable system faces no local competition. The result is undue market power for the cable operator as compared to that of consumers and video programmers.17 To-address this problem, Congress abridged local government authority over the franchising process to promote greater cable competition: Based on the evidence in the record taken as a whole, it is clear that there are benefits from competition between two cable systems. Thus, the Committee believes that local franchising authorities should be encouraged to award second franchises. Accordingly, [the 1992 Cable Act] as reported, prohibits local franchising authorities from unreasonably refusing to grant second franchises.18 13 Id.at 4974;see also id. at 5012("This Commission is convinced that the most effective method of promoting the interests of viewers or consumers is through the free play of competitive market forces."). The Report also recommended that Congress"prohibit franchising rules whose intent or effect is to create unreasonable barriers to the entry of potential competing multichannel video providers,""limit local franchising requirements to appropriate governmental interests (e.g., public health and safety, repair and good condition of public rights-of-way, and the posting of an appropriate construction bond),"and"permit competitors to enter a market pursuant to an initial,time- limited suspension of any`universal[build-out]' obligation." Id. 14 See H.R.REP.NO. 102-628, at 47(1992) ("The Commission recommended that Congress, in order to encourage more robust competition in the local video marketplace, prevent local franchising authorities from unreasonably denying a franchise to potential competitors who are ready and able to provide service."). The Commission has previously recognized that"Congress incorporated the Commission's recommendations in the 1992 Cable Act by amending §621(a)(1) of the Communications Act." Implementation of Section 19 of the Cable Television Consumer Protection and Competition Act of 1992 (Annual Assessment of the Status of Competition in the Market for the Delivery of Video Programming),9 FCC Rcd 7442,7469(1994). 15 Cable Television Consumer Protection and Competition Act of 1992,Pub.L.No. 102 385, 106 Stat. 1460. 16 47 U.S.C. §541(a)(1)(emphasis added). 17 H.R.CONF.REP.No. 102-862,at 1231 (1992). 16 S.REP.NO. 102-92,at 47(1991). 5 Federal Communications Commission FCC 06-180 As revised, Section 621(a)(1) establishes a clear, federal-level limitation on the authority of LFAs in the franchising process in order to "promote the availability to the public of a diversity of views and information through cable television and other video distribution media,"and to"rely on the marketplace, to the maximum extent feasible, to achieve that availability."19 Congress further recognized that increased competition in the video programming industry would curb excessive rate increases and enhance customer service, two areas in particular which Congress found had deteriorated because of the monopoly power of cable operators brought about,at least in part,by the local franchising process 2° 9. In 1992, Congress also revised Section 621(a)(1) to provide that"[a]ny applicant whose application for a second franchise has been denied by a final decision of the franchising authority may appeal such final decision pursuant to the provisions of section 635."21 Section 635, in turn, states that "[a]ny cable operator adversely affected by any final determination made by a franchising authority under section 621(a)(1) ... may commence an action within 120 days after receiving notice of such determination" in federal court or a state court of general jurisdiction.22 Congress did not, however, provide an explicit judicial remedy for other forms of unreasonable refusals to award competitive franchises, such as an LFA's refusal to act on a pending franchise application within a reasonable time period. 10. The Local Franchising NPRM. Notwithstanding the limitation imposed on LFAs by Section 621(a)(1), prior to commencement of this proceeding, the Commission had seen indications that the current operation of the franchising process still serves as an unreasonable barrier to entry23 for potential new cable entrants into the MVPD market 24 In November 2005, the Commission issued a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking ("Local Franchising NPRM") to determine whether LFAs are unreasonably refusing to award competitive franchises and thereby impeding achievement of the statute's goals of increasing competition in the delivery of video programming and accelerating broadband deployment. 11. The Commission sought comment on the current environment in which new cable entrants attempt to obtain competitive cable franchises. For example,the Commission requested input on 19Id 20 S.REP.NO. 102-92, at 9 (quoting members of the cable industry who acknowledged that"because the franchise limits the customers to a single provider in the market, other `customer-oriented' intangibles relating to the expectation of future patronage do not exist for a cable system. There is a goodwill in a monopoly. Customers return,not because of any sense of satisfaction with the monopolist,but rather because they have no other choices"); see also id.at 3-9, 13-14,20-21. 2147 U.S.C. § 541(a)(1). 22 47 U.S.C. § 555(a). 23 See Implementation of Section 621(a)(1) of the Cable Communications Policy Act of 1984 as amended by the Cable Television Consumer Protection and Competition Act of 1992, 20 FCC Rcd 1.8581, 18584 (2005) ("Local Franchising NPRM") (citing comments of Alcatel, BellSouth, Broadcast Service Providers Assoc., and Consumers for Cable Choice,filed in MB Docket No.05-255). 24 We refer herein to "new entrants," "new cable entrants," and "new cable competitors" interchangeably. Specifically, we intend these terms to describe entities that opt to offer "cable service" over a "cable system" utilizing public rights-of-way, and thus are defined under the Communications Act as "cable operator[s]"that must obtain a franchise. Although we recognize that there are numerous other ways to enter the MVPD market (e.g., direct broadcast satellite ("DBS"), wireless cable, private cable), our actions in this proceeding relate to our authority under Section 621(a)(1) of the Communications Act, and thus are limited to competitive entrants seeking to obtain cable franchises. 6 Federal Communications Commission FCC 06-180 the number of: (a) LFAs in the United States; (b) competitive franchise applications filed to date;26 and (c) ongoing franchise negotiations.26 To determine whether the current operation of the franchising process discourages competition and broadband deployment, the Commission also sought information regarding,among other things: • how much time, on average, elapses between the date a franchise application is filed and the date an LFA acts on the application, and during that period,how much time is spent in active negotiations;27 • whether to establish a maximum time frame for an LFA to act on an application for a competitive franchise;28 • whether"level-playing-field"mandates, which impose on new entrants terms and conditions identical to those in the incumbent cable operator's franchise,constitute unreasonable barriers to entry;2' • whether build-out requirements (i.e., requirements that a franchisee deploy cable service to parts or all of the franchise area within a specified period of time) are creating unreasonable barriers to competitive entry;3° • specific examples of any monetary or in-kind LFA demands unrelated to cable services that could be adversely affecting new entrants' ability to obtain franchises;31 and • whether current procedures or requirements are appropriate for any cable operator, including incumbent cable operators.32 12. In the Local Franchising NPRM, we tentatively concluded that Section 621(a)(1) empowers the Commission to adopt rules to ensure that the franchising process does not unduly interfere with the ability of potential competitors to provide video programming to consumers.' Accordingly, the Commission sought comment on how it could best remedy any problems with the current franchising process.34 25 Local Franchising NPRM,20 FCC Rcd at 18588. 26 Id. 27 Id 28 Id at 18591. 29Id at 18588. • 30Id at 18592. 31 Id See also Comments of Verizon, MB Docket No. 05-255 at 12 (filed Sept. 19, 2005) (arguing that"[m]any local franchising authorities unfortunately view the franchising process as an opportunity to garner from a potential new video entrant concessions that are in no way related to video services or to the rationales for requiring franchises"). See Appendix A for a list of all commenters and reply commenters. 32 Local Franchising NPRM,20 FCC Rcd at 18592. 33 Id at 18590. 34Id at 18581. 7 Federal Communications Commission FCC 06-180 13. The Commission also asked whether Section 706 provides a basis for the Commission to address barriers faced by would-be entrants to the video market." Section 706 directs the Commission to encourage broadband deployment by utilizing"measures that promote competition ... or other regulating methods that remove barriers to infrastructure investment."36 Competitive entrants in the video market are, in large part, deploying new fiber-based facilities that allow companies to offer the "triple play" of voice, data, and video services. New entrants' video offerings thus directly affect their roll-out of new broadband services. Revenues from cable services are, in fact, a driver for broadband deployment. In light of that relationship, the Commission sought comment on whether it could take remedial action pursuant to Section 706.37 14. The Franchising Process. The record in this proceeding demonstrates that the franchising process differs significantly from locality to locality. In most states,franchising is conducted at the local level, affording counties and municipalities broad discretion in deciding whether to grant a franchise.38 Some counties and municipalities have cable ordinances that govern the structure of negotiations, while others may proceed on an applicant-by-applicant basis.39 Where franchising negotiations are focused at the local level, some LFAs create formal or informal consortia to pool their resources and expedite competitive entry. 40 15. To provide video services over a geographic area that encompasses more than one LFA, a prospective entrant must become familiar with all applicable regulations. This is a time-consuming and expensive process that has a chilling effect on competitors.41 Verizon estimates, for example,that it will need 2,500-3,000 franchises in order to provide video services throughout its service area.42 AT&T states 35Id at 18590. 36 Section 706 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996,47 U.S.C. § 157 nt. 37 See USTA v. FCC, 359 F.3d 554, 580, 583 (D.C. Cir. 2004). See also USTelecom Comments at 15; TIA Comments at 16-17. 38 See, e.g.,MD.ANN.CODE art.23A § 2(b)(13);OR.CONST.ART.I, §21 (2005);COLO.REV. STAT.ANN. § 30-35- 201 (West 2005). We also note that several states have adopted statutes governing the franchising process. For example, some states require public hearings or special elections. See League of Minnesota Cities ("LMC") Comments at 6-8, South Slope Comments at 6. Other states have laws limiting the range of issues that can be negotiated in a franchise. See Cablevision Comments at 12, LMC Comments at 15. As we discuss below, certain states have adopted new franchising laws that allow providers to apply for franchises through state franchising authorities ("SFAs"), and we note that lawmakers in those states adopted these new franchising laws to address the needs of the current marketplace. Furthermore,certain states have traditionally considered franchise applications at the state level. See, e.g., HAW.REV. STAT. § 440G-4(2006), CONN. GEN. STAT.ANN. § 16-331 (West 2006), VT. STAT.ANN.tit.30, §502(2006). The record indicates that state level franchising may provide a practical solution to the problems that facilities-based entrants face when seeking to provide competitive services on a broader basis than county or municipal boundaries and seek to provide service in a significant number of franchise areas. See, e.g., AT&T Reply at 21,37,NTCA Comments at 10. 39 See, e.g., Mobile, Ala. Comments at 2 (discussing its Master Cable Services Regulatory Ordinance that was created to ensure all potential entrants were treated in a uniform manner);Ontario,Cal.Comments at 5-6(discussing draft master ordinance that will ensure a"fair and equitable application process"for all new entrants). 4o See, e.g.,MO-NATOA Comments at 8 ("some localities work together to franchise and manage rights-of-way"); MHRC Comments at 1 (MHRC is a consolidated regulatory authority for six Oregon localities). 41 See, e.g.,Verizon Comments at 27,Att.A,para. 10, 59-75; BellSouth Comments at 2, 11;Letter from Jeffrey S. Lanning, Associate General Counsel, USTelecom, to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, Federal Communications Commission at 17-18(July 28,2006)("USTelecom Ex Parte"). 42 Verizon Comments at 27,Att.A,para. 10. 8 Federal Communications Commission FCC 06-180 r,y that its Project Lightspeed deployment is projected to cover a geographic area that would encompass as many as 2,000 local franchise areas 43 BellSouth estimates that there are approximately 1,500 LFAs within its service area. Qwest's in-region territory covers a potential 5,389 LFAs.45 While other companies are also considering competitive entry,46 these estimates amply demonstrate the regulatory burden faced by competitors that seek to enter the market on a wide scale,a burden that is amplified when individual LFAs unreasonably refuse to grant competitive franchises. 16. A few states and municipalities recently have recognized the need for reform and have established expedited franchising processes for new entrants. Although these processes also vary greatly and thus are of limited help to new cable providers seeking to quickly enter the marketplace on a regional basis,they do provide more uniformity in the franchising process on an intrastate basis. These state level reforms appear to offer promise in assisting new entrants to more quickly begin offering consumers a competitive choice among cable providers. In 2005, the Texas legislature designated the Texas Public Utility Commission ("PUC") as the franchising authority for state-issued franchises, and required the PUC to issue a franchise within 17 business days after receipt of a completed application from an eligible applicant.' In 2006, Indiana, Kansas, South Carolina, New Jersey,North Carolina, and California also passed legislation to streamline the franchising process by providing for expedited, state level grants of franchises 48 Virginia, by contrast, did not establish statewide franchises but mandated uniform time frames for negotiations,public hearings, and ultimate franchise approval at the local level. In particular, a "certificated provider of telecommunications service"with existing authority to use public rights-of-way is authorized to provide video service within 75 days of filing a request to negotiate with each individual LFA.49 Similarly,Michigan recently enacted legislation that streamlines the franchise application process, establishes a 30-day timeframe within which an LFA must make a decision, and eliminates build-out "requirements 5° 17. In some states, however, franchise reform efforts launched in recent months have failed. For example, in Florida, bills that would have allowed competitive providers to enter the market with a permit from the Office of the Secretary of State,and contained no build-out or service delivery schedules, died in committees' In Louisiana, the Governor vetoed a bill that would have created a state franchise 43 AT&T Comments at 17. 44 BellSouth Comments at 11. 45 Qwest Comments at 14. 46 See BSPA Comments at 1-2; Cavalier Telephone Comments at 2; South Slope Comments at 2; Cincinnati Bell Comments at 1; Hawaiian Telcom Comments at 1; Minnesota Telecom Alliance Comments at 2. In addition to video services,many of these new entrants also intend to provide broadband services. See, e.g.,Verizon Comments at i;BSPA Comments at 1;Cavalier Telephone Comments at 2. 47 TEX.UTIL.CODE ANN. §§ 66.001, 66.003. Holders of these franchises are required to pay franchise fees,comply with customer service standards,and provide the capacity for PEG access channels that a municipality has activated under the incumbent cable operator's franchise agreement. Id at §§ 66.005, 66.006, 66.008, 66.009, 66.014. Franchisees are not required to comply with any build-out requirements, but they are prohibited from denying service to any area based on the income level of that area. Id at§66.007. ' IND.CODE§ 8-1-34-16 (2006); 2006 Kan. Sess. Laws 93 (codified at KAN. STAT.ANN. § 17-1902); S.C. CODE ANN. § 58-12-310 et seq. (2006);Assemb.,No. 804,212th Leg. (N.J. 2006); 2006 N.C. Sessions Laws 151 (to be codified 1/1/2007 at N.C.GEN STAT.ANN. §66-351 (West 2006);CAL.PUB.UTIL.CODE 401,et seq.;. 49 VA.CODE ANN. § 15.2-2108.1:1 et seq. 50 2006 Mich.Pub.Acts 480. 51 S 1984,2006 Sess.(Fla.2006),HB 1199,2006 Sess.(Fla.2006). 9 Federal Communications Commission FCC 06-180 structure, provided for automatic grant of an application 45 days after filing, and contained no build-out requirements.' In Maine, a bill that would have replaced municipal franchises with state franchises was withdrawn?' Finally, a Missouri bill that would have given the Public Service Commission the authority to grant franchises and would have prohibited local franchising died in committee.54 III. DISCUSSION 18. Based on the voluminous record in this proceeding, which includes comments filed by new entrants, incumbent cable operators, LFAs, consumer groups, and others, we conclude that the current operation of the franchising process can constitute an unreasonable barrier to entry for potential cable competitors, and thus justifies Commission action. We find that we have authority under Section 621(a)(1)to address this problem by establishing limits on LFAs' ability to delay,condition, or otherwise "unreasonably refuse to award" competitive franchises. We find that we also have the authority to consider the goals of Section 706 in addressing this problem under Section 621(a)(1). We believe that, absent Commission action,deployment of competitive video services by new cable entrants will continue to be unreasonably delayed or, at worst, derailed. Accordingly, we adopt incremental measures directed to LFA-controlled franchising processes,as described in detail below. We anticipate that the rules and guidance we adopt today will facilitate and expedite entry of new cable competitors into the market for the delivery of multichannel video programming and thus encourage broadband deployment. A. The Current Operation of the Franchising Process Unreasonably Interferes With Competitive Entry 19. Most communities in the United States lack cable competition,which would reduce cable rates and increase innovation and quality of service.55 Although LFAs adduced evidence that they have granted some competitive franchises,56 and competitors acknowledge that they have obtained some franchises,57 the record includes only a few hundred examples of competitive franchises, many of which were obtained after months of unnecessary delay. In the vast majority of communities, cable competition simply does not exist. 52 HB 699,2006 Reg. Sess.(La.2006). 53 LR 2800,2006 Leg.,.2d.Reg. Sess.(Me.2005). 54 SB 816,2006 Sess.(Mo.2006). 55 See Local Franchising NPRM,20 FCC Rcd at 18588. 56 For example, in Michigan, a number of LFAs have granted competitive franchises to local telecommunications companies. See Ada Township, et al., Comments at 18-26. Vermont has granted franchises to competitive operators in Burlington,Newport,Berlin,Duxbury, Stowe, and Moretown. VPSB Comments at 5. Mt.Hood Cable Regulatory Commission ("MHRC"), a consolidated regulatory authority for six Oregon localities, has negotiated franchises with cable overbuilders, although those companies ultimately were unable to deploy service. MHRC Comments at 20-21. Similarly, the City of Los Angeles has granted two competitive franchises, but each of the competitors went out of business shortly after negotiating the franchise. City of Los Angeles Comments at 15;see also San Diego County,Cal. Comments at 4. Miami-Dade has granted 11 franchises to six providers,and currently is considering the application of another potential entrant. Miami-Dade Comments.at 1-2. New Jersey has granted five competitive franchises, but only two ultimately provided service to customers. NJBPU Comments at 3. See also, e.g., AT&T Reply Comments at 11-13; Chicago, Ill. Comments at 2-3; City of Charlotte and Mecklenburg County,N.C.Comments at 12-13;Henderson,Nev.Comments at 5. 57 For example, Verizon has obtained franchises covering approximately 200 franchise areas. See http://newscenter.verizon.com/press-releases/verizon/2006/verizon-to-bring-westem.html. 10 Federal Communications Commission FCC 06-180 20. The dearth of competition is due,at least in part,to the franchising process.58 The record demonstrates that the current operation of the franchising process unreasonably prevents or, at a minimum, unduly delays potential cable competitors from entering the MVPD market.59 Numerous commenters have adduced evidence that the current operation of the franchising process constitutes an unreasonable barrier to entry. Regulatory restrictions and conditions on entry shield incumbents from competition and are associated with various economic inefficiencies, such as reduced innovation and distorted consumer choices.60 We recognize that some LFAs have made reasonable efforts to facilitate competitive entry into the video programming market. We also recognize that recent state level reforms have the potential to streamline the process to a noteworthy degree. We find, though, that the current operation of the local franchising process often is a roadblock to achievement of the statutory goals of enhancing cable competition and broadband deployment. 21. Commenters have identified six factors that stand in the way of competitive entry. They are: (1) unreasonable delays by LFAs in acting on franchise applications; (2) unreasonable build-out requirements imposed by LFAs; (3) LFA demands unrelated to the franchising process; (4) confusion concerning the meaning and scope of franchise fee obligations; (5)unreasonable LFA demands for PEG channel capacity and construction of I-Nets; and (6) level-playing-field requirements set by LFAs. We address each factor below.. 22. LFA Delays in Acting on Franchise Applications. The record demonstrates that unreasonable delays in the franchising process have obstructed and, in some cases, completely derailed attempts to deploy competitive video services. Many new entrants have been subjected to lengthy,costly, drawn-out negotiations that, in many cases, are still ongoing. The FTTH Council cited a report by an investment firm that, on average, the franchising process, as it currently operates, delays entry by 8-16 months.61 The record generally supports that estimate. For example, Verizon had 113 franchise negotiations underway as of the end of March 2005. By the end of March 2006,LFAs had granted only 10 of those franchises. In other words,more than 90%of the negotiations were not completed within one year.62 Verizon noted that delays are often caused by mandatory waiting periods 63 BellSouth explained that negotiations took an average of 10 months for each of its 20 cable franchise agreements,"and that in one case,the negotiations took nearly three years.65 AT&T claims that anti-competitive conditions, such as level-playing-field constraints and LFA demands regarding build-out, not only delay entry but can prevent it altogether.66 BellSouth notes that absent such demands (in Georgia, for example), the 58 Qwest Reply at 13-14;USTelecom Ex Parte at 17-18. 59 Verizon Comments at 31-34;AT&T.Reply at 22-23; BellSouth Comments at 10; Cavalier Telephone Comments at 1. See also Mercatus Center Comments at 39-43. "See, e.g., DOJ Ex Parte at 3 61 FTTH Council Comments at 26. 62 Verizon Reply Comments at 35. These figures do not include Verizon's franchise applications in Texas, which now authorizes statewide franchises. See supra para. 16. 63 Verizon Comments at 31-32. "BellSouth Comments at 2. 65 BellSouth Comments at 11. BellSouth's franchise in Cobb County, Ga.took approximately 32 months to obtain; its franchises in Davie, Fla. and Orange County, Fla. took 29, and 28 months, respectively. BellSouth Comments Decl.of Thompson T.Rawls,II,Exh.A. 66 AT&T Reply at 6. 11 Federal Communications Commission FCC 06-180 company's applications were granted quickly.67 Most of Ameritech's franchise negotiations likewise took a number of years.68 New entrants other than the large incumbent local exchange carriers("LECs")69 also have experienced delays in the franchising process. NTCA provided an example of a small, competitive 1PTV provider that is in ongoing negotiations that began more than one year ago.70 23. These delays are particularly unreasonable when, as is often the case, the applicant already has access to rights-of-way. One of the primary justifications for cable franchising is the LFA's need to regulate and receive compensation for the use of public rights-of-way.71 However, when considering a franchise application from an entity that already has rights-of-way access, such as an incumbent LEC, an LFA need not and should not devote substantial attention to issues of rights-of-way management 72 Moreover, in obtaining a certificate for public convenience and necessity from a state, a facilities-based provider generally has demonstrated its legal, technical, and financial fitness to be a provider of telecommunications services. Thus, an LFA need not spend a significant amount of time considering the fitness of such applicants to access public rights-of-way. 24. Delays in acting on franchise applications are especially onerous because franchise applications are rarely denied outright,73 which would enable applicants to seek judicial review under Section 635.74 Rather, negotiations are often drawn out over an extended period of time.75 As a result, 67 BellSouth Reply at 7. 68 AT&T Reply at 24. 69 The term "local exchange carrier" means any person that is engaged in the provision of telephone exchange service or exchange access. 47 U.S.C. § 153(26). For the purposes of Section 251 of the Communications Act,"the term `incumbent local exchange carrier' means, with respect to an area, the local exchange carrier that(A) on the date of enactment of the Telecommunications Act of 1996,provided telephone exchange service in such area; and (B)(i)on such date of enactment,was deemed to be a member of the exchange carrier association ...; or(B)(ii)is a person or entity that, on or after such date of enactment,became a successor or assign of a member[of the exchange carrier association]." 47 U.S.C. §251(h)(1). A competitive LEC is any LEC other than an incumbent LEC. A LEC will be treated as an ILEC if "(A) such carrier occupies a position in the market for telephone exchange service within an area that is comparable to the position occupied by a carrier described in paragraph [251(h)](1); (B)such carrier has substantially replaced an incumbent local exchange carrier described in paragraph [251(h)](1); and(C) such treatment is consistent with the public interest, convenience, and necessity and the purposes of this section." 47 U.S.C. §251(h)(2). 70 NTCA Comments at 4, 10. 71 We note that certain franchising authorities may have existing authority to regulate LECs through state and local rights-of-way statutes and ordinances. 72 Recognizing this distinction, some states have enacted or proposed streamlined franchising procedures specifically tailored to entities with existing access to public rights-of-way. See, e.g.,VIRGINIA CODE ANN. § 15.2- 2108.1:1 et seq.); HF-2647, 2006 Sess. (Iowa 2006) (this proposed legislation would grant franchises to all telephone providers authorized to use the right-of-way without any application or negotiation requirement). See alga South Slope Comments at 11 (duplicative local franchising requirements imposed on a competitor with existing authority to occupy the rights-of-way are unjustified and constitute an unreasonable barrier to competitive video entry). 73 See Northwest Suburbs Cable Communications Commission Comments at 5-6 (rare instance of competitive franchise denial). 74 See 47 U.S.C. §§541(a)(1),555(a). 75 See Verizon Comments at 30-34; Verizon Reply Comments at 2, 34-37; AT&T Reply Comments at 24; NTCA Comments at 4, 10. 12 Federal Communications Commission FCC 06-180 the record shows that numerous new entrants have accepted franchise terms they considered unreasonable in order to avoid further delay.76 Others have filed lawsuits seeking a court order compelling the LFA to act, which entails additional delay, legal uncertainty, and great expense." Alternatively, some prospective entrants have walked away from unduly prolonged negotiations.78 Moreover, delays provide the incumbent cable operator the opportunity to launch targeted marketing campaigns before the competitor's rollout,thus undermining a competitor's prospects for success.79 25. Despite this evidence, incumbent cable operators and LFAs nevertheless assert that new entrants can obtain and are obtaining franchises in a timely fashion,80 and that delays are largely due to unreasonable behavior on the part of franchise applicants, not LFAs.81 For example, Minnesota LFAs claim that they can grant a franchise in as little as eight weeks.82 The record, however, shows that expeditious grants of competitive franchises are atypical. Most LFAs lack any temporal limits for 76 See, e.g., USTelecom Ex Parte at 20(Grand Rapids,Minnesota insisted that Paul Bunyan Telephone Cooperative provide fiber connections to every municipal building in the City, including a water treatment plant); Qwest Ex Parte at 7 (initially agreed to mandatory build-out provisions in certain situations); BellSouth Comments at 15-16 (in Dekalb County, Georgia, BellSouth makes PEG payments and I-Net support payments that drive total fees significantly above 5 percent of gross revenue). " For example, in Maryland, Verizon filed suit against Montgomery County, seeking to invalidate some of the County's franchise rules, and requesting that the County be required to negotiate a franchise agreement, after the parties unsuccessfully attempted to negotiate a franchise beginning in May 2005. See Complaint, Verizon Maryland Inc. v. Montgomery County, Md., No. 06-01663-MJG (N.D. Md. June 29, 2006). The court denied Verizon's Motion for Preliminary Injunction in August, and ordered the parties to mediation. See Verizon Maryland Inc. v. Montgomery County,Md.,Order,No. 06-01663-MJG(N.D.Md.August 8,2006). Since then,the parties have negotiated a franchise agreement and the County held a public hearing on the draft franchise agreement. See Press Release, Montgomery County, Md., County Negotiates Cable Franchise Agreement with Verizon; Agreement Resolves Litigation, Provides Increased Competition for Cable Service (Sept. 13, 2006) available at http://www.montgomerycountymd.2ov/apps/News/press/PR details.asp?PrID=2582. The County Council granted the negotiated franchise on November 28,2006. Neil Adler,Montgomery officials approve Verizon cable franchise, WASHINGTON BUSINESS JOURNAL, Nov. 28, 2006, available at http://washington.bizjoumals.com/ washington/stories/2006/11/27/daily23.html. Qwest's experience with the City of Colorado Springs, Colorado is a particularly onerous example. See Letter from Melissa E. Newman, Vice President, Federal Regulatory, Qwest,to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, Federal Communications Commission (June 13, 2006), Letter from Kenneth L. Fellman, Counsel to Colorado Springs, Colorado, to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, Federal Communications Commission(July 26,2006). The city charter in Colorado Springs requires that a franchise agreement be approved by voters rather than a franchising authority. Despite the fact that the Communications Act and federal case law deem this approach unlawful, the Colorado Springs City Counsel would not grant a franchise absent a vote, and invited Qwest to file a"friendly lawsuit" (presumably at Qwest's expense) to invalidate that provision of the city charter. 47 U.S.C. §§ 522(10), 541, Qwest Broadband Services, Inc. v. City of Boulder, 151 F.Supp.2d 1236 (D. Colo. 2001), Letter from Melissa E. Newman, Vice President, Federal Regulatory, Qwest, to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary,Federal Communications Commission at 2(June 13,2006). 78 See Qwest Comments at 9. 79 See, e.g.,South Slope Comments at 7. 80 Cablevision Reply at 5; Orange County Comments at 5; Palm Beach County Comments at 3. See Comcast Comments at 8-9. 81 Comcast Comments at 16; Cablevision Reply at 2. The incumbent cable operators accuse Verizon of making unreasonable demands through its model franchise. Verizon asserts that it submits a model franchise to begin negotiations because uniformity is necessary for its nationwide service deployment. Verizon Reply at 40. Verizon states that it is willing to negotiate and tailor the model franchise to each locality's needs. Id S2 LMC Comments at 18. 13 Federal Communications Commission FCC 06-180 consideration of franchise applications, and of those that have such limits, many set forth lengthy time frames. In localities without a time limit or with an unreasonable time limit, the delays caused by the current operation of the franchising process present a significant barrier to entry.83 For example,the cities of Chicago and Indianapolis acknowledged that, as currently operated, their franchising processes take one to three years, respectively.84 Miami-Dade's cable ordinance permits the county to make a final decision on a cable franchise up to eight months after receiving a completed application, and the process may take longer if an applicant submits an incomplete application or amends its application.85 26. Incumbent cable operators and LFAs state that new entrants could gain rapid entry if the new entrants simply agreed to the same terms applied to incumbent cable franchisees.86 However,this is not a reasonable expectation generally, given that the circumstances surrounding competitive entry are considerably different than those in existence at the time incumbent cable operators obtained their franchises. Incumbent cable operators originally negotiated franchise agreements as a means of acquiring or maintaining a monopoly position.87 In most instances, imposing the incumbent cable operator's terms and conditions on a new entrant would make entry prohibitively costly because the entrant cannot assume that it will quickly—or ever— amass the same number or percentage of subscribers that the incumbent cable operator captured 88 The record demonstrates that requiring entry on the same terms as incumbent cable operators may thwart entry entirely or may threaten new entrants' chances of success once in the market. 27. Incumbent cable operators also suggest that delay is attributable to competitors that are not really serious about entering the market, as demonstrated by their failure to'file the thousands of franchise applications required for broad competitive entry.S9 We reject this explanation as inconsistent with both the record as well as common sense. Given the complexity and time-consuming nature of the current franchising process, it is patently unreasonable to expect any competitive entrant to file several thousand applications and negotiate several thousand franchising processes at once. Moreover, the incumbent LECs have made their plans to enter the video services market abundantly clear, and the evidence in the record demonstates their seriousness about doing so. For instance, they are investing billions of dollars to upgrade their networks to enable the provision of video services, expenditures that 83 We recognize that some franchising authorities move quickly,as a matter of law or policy. The record indicates that some LFAs have stated that they welcome competition to the incumbent cable operator, and actively facilitate such competition. See, e.g., Manatee County, Fla_ Comments at 4,Ada Township, et al. Comments at 16-27. For example, a consolidated franchising authority in Oregon negotiated and approved competitive franchises within 90 days. See Mt.Hood Cable Regulatory Commission Comments at 20. An advisory committee in Minnesota granted two competitive franchises in six months, after a statutorily imposed eight-week notice and hearing period. See Southwest Suburban Cable Commission Comments at 5, 7. While we laud the prompt disposition of franchise applications in these particular areas,the record shows that these examples are atypical. 84 See Chicago Comments at 4;Indianapolis Comments at 8. 85 Miami-Dade Comments at 3. 86 See, e.g.,ANC Reply at 5-6. Commenters assert that Verizon's model agreement prevents LFAs from exercising control over rights-of-way, does not require Verizon to repair damage to municipal property due to construction, does not require service to all residents,and contains an"opt-out"provision that allows Verizon to abandon an area it does not find profitable. ANC Reply at 8-10. 87 Verizon Reply at 38-40. 88 Verizon Comments at 53. 89 Cablevision Comments at 3. 14 Federal Communications Commission FCC 06-180 would make little sense if they were not planning to enter the video market." Finally, the record also demonstrates that the obstacles posed by the current operation of the franchising process are so great that some prospective entrants have shied away from the franchise process altogether.9 28. We also reject the argument by incumbent cable operators that delays in the franchising process are immaterial because competitive applicants are not ready to enter the market and frequently delay initiating service once they secure a franchise.92 We fmd that lack of competition in the video market is not attributable to inertia on the part of competitors. Given the financial risk, uncertainty, and delay new entrants face when they apply for a competitive franchise, it is not surprising that they wait until they get franchise approval before taking all steps necessary to provide service.93 The sooner a franchise is granted,the sooner an applicant can begin completing those steps. Consequently, shortening the franchising process will accelerate market entry. Moreover, the record shows that streamlining the franchising process can expedite market entry. For example, less than 30 days after Texas authorized statewide franchises, Verizon filed an application for a franchise with respect to.21 Texas communities and was able to launch services in most of those communities within 45 days 94 29. Incumbent cable operators offer evidence from their experience in the renewal and transfer processes as support for their contention that the vast majority of LFAs operate in a reasonable and timely manner.95 We find that incumbent cable operators' purported success in the franchising process is not a useful comparison in this case. Today's large MSOs obtained their current franchises by either renewing their preexisting agreements or by merging with and purchasing other incumbent cable franchisees with preexisting agreements. For two key reasons,their experiences in franchise transfers and renewals are not equivalent to those of new entrants seeking to obtain new franchises.96 First, in the transfer or renewal context,delays in LFA consideration do not result in a bar to market entry. Second,in the transfer or renewal context, the LFA has a vested interest in preserving continuity of service for subscribers, and will act accordingly. 30. We also reject the claims by incumbent cable operators that the experiences of Ameritech, RCN, and other overbuilders97 demonstrate that new entrants can and do obtain competitive 9°See AT&T Comments at 14; Verizon Comments at 27. In addition to negotiating with LFAs, competitors also have lobbied for broad franchising reform. To be sure, when prospective entrants anticipate franchise reform may occur at the state level,there is evidence in the record they often have not sought franchises at the local level. See Fairfax County, Va. Comments at 4. Such tactics,however, do not indicate that prospective entrants are not serious about entering the market but rather represent a strategic judgment as to the best method of accomplishing that goal. 91 Qwest Comments at 9. 92 NCTA Comments at 11;Comcast Reply at 16;Cablevision Reply at 9;City of Murrieta,Ca.Comments at 2. 93 See Verizon Reply Comments at 37. 94 Verizon Reply Comments at 37-38. See also NTCA Comments at 10-11 (citing Texas PUC testimony at February Commission Meeting held in Keller, Texas, which revealed that 15 companies have filed applications to serve 153 discrete communities in Texas since adoption of the new statewide franchising scheme). 95 Comcast Comments at 17. For example, Comcast reports that when it acquired AT&T Broadband, it received timely approval from more than 1,800 LFAs within eight months. The company also states that it was well along in the process of receiving approvals from more than 1,500 LFAs for the Adelphia transaction. 96 AT&T Reply at 22. 97 The term "overbuild" describes the situation in which a second cable operator enters a local market in direct competition with an incumbent cable operator. In these markets,the second operator,or"overbuilder,"lays wires in the same area as the incumbent,"overbuilding"the incumbent's plant,thereby giving consumers a choice between cable service providers. See Implementation of Section 3 of the Cable Television Consumer Protection and (continued...) 15 Federal Communications Commission FCC 06-180 franchises in a timely manner.98 Charter claims that it secured franchises and upgraded its systems in a highly competitive market and that the incumbent LECs possess sufficient resources to do the same.99 BellSouth notes,however,that Charter does not indicate a single instance in which it obtained a franchise through an initial negotiation, rather than a transfer.100 Comcast argues that it faces competition from cable overbuilders in several markets.10' The record is scant and inconsistent, however, with respect to overbuilder experiences in obtaining franchises, and thus does not provide reliable evidence. BellSouth also claims that,despite RCN's claims that the franchising process has worked in other proceedings,RCN previously has painted a less positive picture of the process and has called it a high barrier to entry.102 Given these facts, we do not believe that the experiences cited by incumbent cable operators shed any significant light on the current operation of the franchising process with respect to competitive entrants. 31. Impact of Build-Out Requirements. The record shows that build-out issues are one of the most contentious between LFAs and prospective new entrants, and that build-out requirements can greatly hinder the deployment of new video and broadband services. New and potential entrants commented extensively on the adverse impact of build-out requirements on their deployment plans.1°3 Large incumbent LECs,104 small and mid-sized incumbent LECs,1°5 competitive LECs'°6 and others view build-out requirements as the most significant obstacle to their plans to deploy competitive video and broadband services. Similarly, consumer groups and the U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division, (Continued from previous page) Competition Act of 1992, Statistical Report on Average Prices for Basic Service, Cable Programming Services, and Equipment,20 FCC Rcd 2718,2719 n.6(2005). 98 Cablevision Reply at 6. Comcast states that the overbuilder industry as a whole has more than 16 million households under active franchise and two million households under franchise in anticipation of future network build-outs. Comcast Comments at 5-6(citing Broadband Service Providers Association Comments,MB Docket No. 05-255,at 7.(filed Sept. 19,2005)). 99 Charter Comments at 4. Specifically, Charter states that it entered the cable market in earnest in the late 1990s and has spent the last five years investing billions of dollars to upgrade its cable systems and deploy advanced broadband services in more than 4,000 communities. Charter Comments at 2. During Charter's peak period of growth,it secured over 2,000 franchise transfers with LFAs and invested several billion dollars to upgrade systems, all while subject to significant competition from DBS. Charter Comments at 5. 1°°BellSouth Reply at 11. 161 Comcast Comments at 4-5. 1°2 BellSouth Reply at 13 (citing RCN's petition to deny the AT&T/Comcast merger application). 1°3 See, e.g., Qwest Comments at 2; Cincinnati Bell Comments at 10-11; South Slope Comments at 7-9; NTCA Comments at 6-7; Cavalier Telephone Comments at 5; BSPA Comments at 6. See also Letter from Lawrence Spiwak, President, Phoenix Ctr. for Advanced Legal and Econ. Pub. Policy Studies,to Marlene Dortch, Secretary, Federal Communications Commission, at Att., Phoenix Center Policy Paper Number 22: The Consumer Welfare Cost of Cable "Build-out"Rules,at 3 ("build-out requirements are,on average,counterproductive and serve to slow down deployment of communications networks")(March 13,2006)("Phoenix Center Build-Out Paper"). 104 Qwest Comments at 2. 105 Cincinnati Bell Comments at 10-11; South Slope Comments at 7-9;NTCA Comments at 6-7(because the risk is great,the service provided by the new entrants must be guided by sound business principles; forcing a new entrant to build out an entire area before such action is financially justified is tantamount to forcing that entrant out of the video business);USTelecom Ex Parte at 8-11. 106 Cavalier Telephone Comments at 5; BSPA Comments at 6 (a number of competitive franchises have been renegotiated or converted to OVS because the operator could not comply with unreasonable and uneconomic build- out requirements). 16 Federal Communications Commission FCC 06-180 urge the Commission to address this aspect of the current franchising process in order to speed competitive entry.107 32. The record demonstrates that build-out requirements can substantially reduce competitive entry.108 Numerous commenters urge the Commission to prohibit LFAs from imposing any build-out requirements, and particularly universal build-out requirements.109 They argue that imposition of such mandates, rather than resulting in the increased service throughout the franchise area that LFAs desire, will cause potential new entrants to simply refrain from entering the market at a11.11° They argue that even build-out provisions that do not require deployment throughout an entire franchise area may prevent a prospective new entrant from offering service.111 33. The record contains numerous examples of build-out requirements at the local level that resulted in delayed entry, no entry, or failed entry. A consortium of California communities demanded that Verizon build out to every household in each community before Verizon would be allowed to offer service to any community, even though large parts of the communities fell outside of Verizon's telephone service area.112 Furthermore, Qwest has withdrawn franchise applications in eight communities due to build-out requirements." In each case, Qwest determined that entering into a franchise agreement that mandates universal build-out would not be economically feasible.114 • 107 See MMTC Comments at 13-24; Consumers for Cable Choice Comments at 8; DOJ Ex Parte at 12-13, 15 (stating that build-out requirements lead to abandonment of entry,less efficient competition,or higher prices). 1°8 See, e.g., USTelecom Comments at 24 (citing example of Shenandoah Telecommunications, which cannot provide service to an entire county, and thus cannot provide service at all). See also Phoenix Center Build-Out Paper at 1,3;DOJ Ex Parte at 12-13, 15. 1°9 See, e.g.,Alcatel Comments at 10-11;AT&T Comments at 44;BellSouth Reply at 6;NTCA Comments at 6. 1°See, e.g.,AT&T Comments at 44;Qwest Comments at 2;Ad Hoc Telecom Manufacturer Coalition Comments at 5;DOJ Ex Parte at 12-13, 15. 111 Not all new entrants to the video market with existing telecommunications facilities are engaging in the upgrades to which Verizon and AT&T have committed. Cavalier Telephone, for example, is delivering IPTV over copper lines. Such delivery is limited,however,by ADSL-2 technology. Cavalier Telephone argues that it is unreasonable to require that it become capable of providing service to all households in a franchise area, which would require Cavalier Telephone to dig up rights-of-way and install duplicative facilities,which it has specifically sought to avoid doing by virtue of relying on the unbundled local loop.•Cavalier Telephone Comments at 5. Similarly, Guadalupe Valley Telephone Cooperative (GVTC) could not deploy service in the face of differing build-out requirements across jurisdictions. See AT&T Reply at 37. Once Texas's new statewide franchising law went into effect, however, deployment became economically feasible for GVTC. See id See also Phoenix Center Build-out Paper at 1, 3, 4 (build-out rules can significantly increase the costs of a new video entrant, and are actually counter- productive, serving primarily to deter new video entry and slow down deployment of communications networks); Phoenix Center Redlining Paper at 3 (even when build-out requirements are applied to new entrants altruistically, the requirements can be self-defeating and often erect insurmountable barriers to entry for new firms); BSPA at 4 (When a new network operator is forced to comply with a build-out that is equal to the existing incumbent cable footprint,it is forced to a build on a timeframe and in geographic areas where the cost to build and customer density will likely produce an economic loss for both network operators.), DOJ Ex Parte at 12-13,15. 112 Verizon Comments at 41-42. Before the new statewide legislation, a Texas community had made the same request. 113 See Qwest Comments at 9. 114 Id. at 10. 17 Federal Communications Commission FCC 06-180 34. In many instances, level-playing-field provisions in local laws or franchise agreements compel LFAs to impose on competitors the same build-out requirements that apply to the incumbent cable operator:15 Cable operators use threatened or actual litigation against LFAs to enforce level- playing-field requirements and have successfully delayed entry or driven would-be competitors out of town.116 Even in the absence of level-playing-field requirements, incumbent cable operators demand that LFAs impose comparable build-out requirements on competitors to increase the financial burden and risk for the new entrant:17 35. Build-out requirements can deter market entry because a new entrant generally must take customers from the incumbent cable operator, and thus must focus its efforts in areas where the take-rate will be sufficiently high to make economic sense. Because the second provider realistically cannot count on acquiring a share of the market similar to the incumbent's share, the second entrant cannot justify a large initial deployment:18 Rather, a new entrant must begin offering service within a smaller area to determine whether it can reasonably ensure a return on its investment before expanding.119 For example, Verizon has expressed significant concerns about deploying service in areas heavily populated with MDUs already under exclusive contract with another MVPD. 2° Due to the risk associated with entering the video market, forcing new entrants to agree up front to build out an entire franchise area too quickly may be tantamount to forcing them out of—or precluding their entry into—the business.121 36. In many cases, build-out requirements also adversely affect consumer welfare. DOJ noted that imposing uneconomical build-out requirements results in less efficient competition and the potential for higher prices.122 Non-profit research organizations the Mercatus Center and the Phoenix Center argue that build-out requirements reduce consumer welfare.173 Each conclude that build-out 15 See, e.g., GMTC Comments at 15; Philadelphia Reply at 2; FTTH Council at 33-34; US Telecom at 30-31; TCCFUI Comments at 11, 15. 116 BSPA Comments at 5-6;BellSouth Comments at 44; Verizon Comments at 33-34 (noting that some LFAs are requesting indemnification from competitive applicants). For example, Insight Communications filed suit against the City of Louisville and Knology. Although the LFA and Knology ultimately won,the delay resulted in Knology declining to enter that market. BSPA Comments at 5-6. 117 See AT&T Comments at 51. 118 Qwest Comments at 8. 119 FTTH Council Comments at 33-34. 12°Verizon Reply at 70-71. 121 NTCA Comments at 7. See also DOJ Ex Parte at 12-13, 15; FTTH Council Comments at 29 (competitive entrants face a riskier investment than incumbents faced when they entered;moreover,incumbent firms have market power in the video market, their customers have little choice, and their costs can be spread over a large base, whereas new entrants do not have this same advantage). Although it is sometimes possible to renegotiate a build-out requirement if the new entrant cannot meet it, in many cases the LFA imposes substantial penalties for failure to meet a build-out requirement. See Anne Arundel County et al. Comments at 4, FTTH Council Comments at 34 (citing Grande Communications franchise agreement establishing penalty of$2,000 per day);Letter from Melissa E. Newman, Vice President-Federal Regulatory, Qwest, to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, Federal Communications Commission,(Apr.26,2006),Attachment at 7 ("Qwest Ex Parte"). " Id at 13. 123 Mercatus Center Comments at 39-41; Phoenix Center Build-Out Paper at 1; Letter from Stephen Pociask, President, American Consumer Institute, to Marlene Dortch, Secretary, Federal Communications Commission (March 3,2006). 18 Federal Communications Commission FCC 06-180 requirements imposed on competitive cable entrants only benefit an incumbent cable operator.124 The Mercatus Center, citing data from the FCC and GAO indicating that customers with a choice of cable providers enjoy lower rates, argues that, to the extent that build-out requirements deter entry, they result in fewer customers having a choice of providers and a resulting reduction in rates.125 The Phoenix Center study contends that build-out requirements deter entry and conflict with federal, state, and local government goals of rapid broadband deployment.126 Another research organization, the American Consumer Institute (ACI), concluded that build-out requirements are inefficient: if a cable competitor initially serves only one neighborhood in a community, and a few consumers in this neighborhood benefit from the competition, total welfare in the community improves because no consumer was made worse and some consumers (those who can subscribe to the competitive service) were made better.127 In comparison,requirements that deter competitive entry may make some consumers(those who would have been able to subscribe to the competitive service) worse off.128 In many instances, placing build-out conditions on competitive entrants harms consumers and competition because it increases the cost of cable service.129 Qwest commented that, in those communities it has not entered due to build-out requirements, consumers have been deprived of the likely benefit of lower prices as the result of competition from a second cable provider.13o This claim is supported by the Commission's 2005 annual cable price survey, in which the Commission observed that average monthly cable rates varied markedly depending on the presence — and type — of MVPD competition in the local market. The greatest difference occurred where there was wireline overbuild competition, where average monthly cable rates were 20.6 percent lower than the average for markets deemed noncompetitive.131 37. For these reasons,we disagree with LFAs and incumbent cable operators who argue that unlimited local flexibility to impose build-out requirements, including universal build-out of a franchise area, is essential to promote competition in the delivery of video programming and ensure a choice in • 124 See id. 125 Mercatus Center Comments at 41. The Mercatus Center bases this assertion on the evidence that cable rate regulation does not affect cable rates significantly, which, suggests that cable providers are not subsidizing less- profitable areas with the returns from more-profitable areas. Id 126 Phoenix Center Build-Out Paper at 1. 127 ACI Comments at 7. 128 AT&T Comments at 48 (citing Thomas Hazlett & George Ford, The Fallacy of Regulatory Symmetry: An Economic Analysis of the "Level Playing Field"in Cable TV Franchising Statutes, 3 BUSINESS AND POLITICS issue 1,at 25-26(2001)). 129 AT&T Comments at 48 (citing Thomas Hazlett & George Ford, The Fallacy of Regulatory Symmetry: An Economic Analysis of the `Level Playing Field"in Cable TV Franchising Statutes,3 BUSINESS AND POLITICS issue 1,at 25-26(2001)). 13°Qwest Comments at 10. 131 Implementation of Section 3 of the Cable Television Consumer Protection and Competition Act of 1992: Statistical Report on Average Rates for Basic Service, Cable Programming Service, and Equipment, MM Docket. No.92-266,FCC 06-179,para. 12(rel.Dec.27,2006)("2005 Cable Price Survey"). See also Annual Assessment of the Status of Competition in the Market for the Delivery of Video Programming,20 FCC Rcd 2755,2772-73(2005) ("2005 Video Competition Report"). 19 Federal Communications Commission FCC 06-180 providers for every household.132 In many cases,build-out requirements may have precisely the opposite effects—they deter competition and deny consumers a choice. 38. Although incumbent LECs already have telecommunications facilities deployed over large areas, build-out requirements may nonetheless be a formidable barrier to entry for them for two reasons. First,incumbent LECs must upgrade their existing plant to enable the provision of video service, which often costs billions of dollars. Second, as the Commission stated in the Local Franchising NPRM, the boundaries of the areas served by facilities-based providers of telephone and/or broadband services frequently do not coincide with the boundaries of the areas under the jurisdiction of the relevant LFAs.133 In some cases, a potential new entrant's service area comprises only a portion of the area under the LFA's jurisdiction.134 When LECs are required to build out where they have no existing plant,the business case for market entry is significantly weakened because their deployment costs are substantially increased. 135 In other cases, a potential new entrant's facilities may already cover most or all of the franchise area,but certain economic realities prevent or deter the provider from upgrading certain"wire center service areas" within its overall service area.136 For example, some wire center service areas may encompass a disproportionate level of business locations or multi-dwelling units ("MDUs") with MVPD exclusive contracts.137 New entrants argue that the imposition of build-out requirements in either circumstance creates a disincentive for them to enter the marketplace.138 132 State of Hawaii Reply Comments at 4-5; Ada Township, et al Comments at 8-9; Manatee County, Fla. Comments at 19; Burnsville/Eagan Reply Comments at 19-20;New Jersey Board of Public Utilities Comments at 11-12. 133 Local Franchising NPRA,L 20 FCC Rcd at para.618595. 134 See NTCA Comments at 15; South Slope Comments at 8-9 (mandatory build-out of entire franchise areas unreasonably impedes competitive entry where entrants' proposed service area is not located entirely within an LFA-defined local franchise area). 135 See, e.g.,FTTH Council Comments at 33-34; South Slope Comments at 8-9;NTCA Comments at 15;BellSouth Reply at 25. BellSouth has a franchise to serve unincorporated Cherokee County, Ga., but the geographic area of this franchise is much larger than the boundaries of BellSouth's wire center. Id BellSouth faces a similar issue in Orange County, Fla. Id See also Linda Haugsted, Franchise War in Texas, MULTICHANNEL NEWS, May 2, 2005 (noting that, although Verizon had negotiated successfully a cable franchise with the City of Keller, Texas,"it will not build out all of Keller: It only has telephone plant,in 80% of the community. SBC serves the rest of the locality."). NTCA states that theoretically the incumbent LEC could extend its facilities,but to do so within another provider's incumbent LEC territory would require an incumbent LEC to make a financially significant business decision,solely for purposes of providing video programming. See NTCA Comments at 15. 136 See Letter from Leora Hochstein, Executive Director, Federal Regulatory, Verizon, to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary,FCC,MB Docket No.05-311 at 3 (filed May 3,2006).In this Order we use"wire center service area"to mean the geographic area served by a wire center as defined in Part 51 of the Commission's rules, except wire centers that have no line-side functionality, such as switching units that exclusively interconnect trunks. See 47 • C.F.R. § 51.5. See also Unbundled Access to Network Elements: Review of the Section 251 Unbundling Obligations of Incumbent Local Exchange Carriers, 20 FCC Rcd 2533, 2586 (2005), para. 87 n.251 ("Triennial • Review Remand Order") ("By 'wire center,' we mean any incumbent LEC switching office that terminates and aggregates loop facilities"). The Commission's rules define "wire center" to mean "the location of an incumbent LEC local switching facility containing one or more central offices as defined in Part 36 [of the Commission's rules]. The wire center boundaries define the area in which all customers served by a given wire center are located." 47 C.F.R. § 51.5. The term"wire center"is often used interchangeably with the term"central office." Technically, the wire center is the location where a LEC terminates subscriber local loops, along with the facilities necessary to maintain them. 137 New entrants also point out that some wire center service areas are low in population density (measured by homes per cable plant mile). The record suggests, however, that LFAs generally have not required franchisees to (continued...) 20 Federal Communications Commission FCC 06-180 39. Incumbent cable operators assert that new entrants' claims are exaggerated, and that, in most cases,LEC facilities are coterminous with municipal boundaries.139 The evidence submitted by new entrants, however, convincingly shows that inconsistencies between the geographic boundaries of municipalities and the network footprints of telephone companies are commonplace.14° The cable industry has adduced no contrary evidence. The fact that few LFAs argued that non-coterminous boundaries are a problem141 is not sufficient to contradict the incumbent LECs' evidence.142 40. Based on the record as a whole, we fmd that build-out requirements imposed by LFAs can constitute unreasonable barriers to entry for competitive applicants. Indeed,the record indicates that because potential competitive entrants to the cable market may not be able to economically justify build- out of an entire local franchising area immediately,143 these requirements can have the effect of granting de facto exclusive franchises,in direct contravention of Section 621(a)(1)'s prohibition of exclusive cable franchises.' 44 41. Besides thwarting potential new entrants' deployment of video services and depriving consumers of reduced prices and increased choice,145 build-out mandates imposed by LFAs also may directly contravene the goals of Section 706 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996,which requires the Commission to "remov[e] barriers to infrastructure investment" to encourage the deployment of broadband services "on a reasonable and timely basis."146 We agree with AT&T that Section 706, in (Continued from previous page) provide service in.low-density areas. See, e.g., Madison, WI Comments at 4 (limiting build-out to areas with 40 dwelling units per cable mile);Renton,WA Comments at 3 (limiting build-out to 35 dwelling units per mile); West Palm Beach, Fla. Comments at 11 (limiting build-out to areas with 20 homes per mile). Nevertheless, density is likely to be of greater concern to a new entrant than to an incumbent cable operator,because the new entrant has to lure customers from the incumbent cable operator, and therefore cannot count on serving as many of the customers in a cable plant mile. 138 BSPA Comments at 5(when the footprint of an existing system does not match the territory of an LFA,build-out requirements restrict the growth of competition that could be created by incremental expansion of existing networks into adjacent territories because the operator must have the financial means to build out the entire adjacent franchise area before commencing any build-out);NTCA Comments at 15 (requiring small,rural incumbent LECs to deploy service beyond their existing telephone service areas would prohibit some carriers from offering video services to any community,thereby preventing competition). See also DOJ Ex Parte at 12-13, 15. 139 See Cablevision Reply at 16-17;Charter Reply at 8. 14°See BSPA Comments at 5;South Slope Comments at 8-9;NTCA Comments at 15. 141 Comcast Reply at 21 (citing comments of NATOA and Torrance,Cal.). 142 Compare Tele Atlas Wire Center Premium v10.1 (April 2006) Maps for Bergen County,NJ and Los Angeles, Ca. and surrounding areas with The BRIDGE Data Group CableBounds Maps for Bergen County, NJ and Los Angeles, Ca. and surrounding areas (filed by the Media Bureau), available at http://gullfoss2.fcc.gov/prod/ecfs/retrieve.cgi?native_or_pdf=pdf&id document=6518618170, http://gullfoss2.fcc.gov/prod/ecfs/retrieve.cgi?native_or_pdf—pdf&id document=6518618171. 143 See FTTH Council Comments at 32;NTCA Comments at 7; Qwest Comments at 2, 8;Verizon Comments at 39- 40. 144 47 U.S.C. §544(a)(1). 145 See Annual Assessment of the Status of Competition in the Market for the Delivery of Video Programming, MB Docket No. 05-255, Twelfth Annual Report, FCC 06-11, at ¶ 41 (rel. Mar. 3, 2006) (noting that overbuild competition,when present,often leads to lower cable rates and higher quality service). 146 Section 706 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996,47 U.S.C. § 157 nt. 21 Federal Communications Commission FCC 06-180 . conjunction with Section 621(a)(1),requires us to prevent LFAs from adversely affecting the deployment of broadband services through cable regulation.147 42. We do not find persuasive incumbent cable operators' claims that build-out should necessarily be required for new entrants into the video market because of.certain obligations faced by cable operators in their deployment of voice services. To the extent cable operators believe they face undue regulatory obstacles to providing voice services,they should make that point in other proceedings, not here. In any event, commenters generally agree that the record indicates that the investment that a competitive cable provider must make to deploy video in a particular geographic area far outweighs the cost of the additional facilities that a cable operator must install to deploy voice service.148 43. LFA Demands Unrelated to the Provision of Video Services. Many commenters recounted franchise negotiation experiences in which LFAs made unreasonable demands unrelated to the provision of video services. Verizon, for example, described several communities that made unreasonable requests, such as the purchase of street lights, wiring for all• houses of worship, the installation of cell phone towers, cell phone subsidies for town employees, library parking at Verizon's facilities, connection of 220 traffic signals with fiber optics, and provision of free wireless broadband service in an area in which Verizon's subsidiary does not offer such service.149 In Maryland, some localities conditioned a franchise upon Verizon's agreement to make its data services subject to local customer service regulation.15° AT&T provided examples of impediments that Ameritech New Media faced when it entered the market, including a request for a new recreation center and poo1.151 FTTH 147 AT&T Comments at 45. See also infra para.63. 148 See NTCA Comments at 7;Verizon Reply at 54-55;American Consumer Institute Comments at 7;Review of the Section 251 Unbundling Obligations of Incumbent Local Exchange Carriers, 18 FCC Rcd 16978, 17142-17143 (2003) ("Triennial Review Order");See also High Tech Broadband Coalition Comments at 4-5 (fiber-to-the-home deployment increased 5300 percent since the Triennial Review Order,due in large part to the elimination of barriers to entry in that Order). 149 Verizon Comments at 57 & Attachment A at 16-17. The Wall Street Journal reported"[Tampa, Florida] City officials presented [Verizon] with a $13 million wish list, including money for an emergency communications network, digital editing equipment and video cameras to film a math-tutoring program for kids." Another community presented Verizon with "requests'for seed money for wildflowers and a video hookup for Christmas celebrations."Dionne Searcey,As Verizon Enters Cable Business, it Faces Local Static,WALL ST.J.,Oct.28,2005, at Al. But see Verizon Comments at 65,filed February 13,2006(stating that"one franchising authority in Florida demanded that Verizon meet the incumbent cable operator's cumulative payments for PEG,which would exceed$6 million over 15 years of Verizon's proposed franchise term. When Verizon rejected this demand,the LFA doubled its request, asking for a fee in excess of$13 million that it said would be used for both PEG support and the construction of a redundant institutional network."); Verizon Revised Comments, filed March 6, 2006 at 65 (amending the second sentence of their comments above, in response to a request from the City of Tampa,to state that "[w]hen Verizon rejected this demand and asked for an explanation, the LFA provided a summary `needs assessment' in excess of$13 million for both PEG support."); Tampa Reply at 3-4 (noting that Verizon's errata "clarified that the City of Tampa has not demanded Verizon provide$13.5 million dollars as a condition of granting a cable television franchise,"and calling the Wall Street Journal article assertions an"urban legend");John Dunbar, FCC's Cable TV Ruling Criticized ASSOCIATED PRESS,Jan.29,2007(stating that"[The Tampa City Attorney] said Tampa gave Verizon a$13 million `needs assessment' that was required by law in order to obtain contributions for equipment for public access and government channels"and also quoting the City Attorney saying that"it is possible the `needs assessment' included video cameras to film shows such as the math class, but that there was never 'a specific quid pro quo.'Nor was anything like that mentioned in the franchise agreement."). 15°Verizon Comments at 75. 151 AT&T Comments at 24. 22 Federal Communications Commission. FCC 06-180 Council highlighted Grande Communications' experience in San Antonio, which required that Grande Communications make an up-front,$1 million franchise fee payment and fund a$50,000 scholarship with additional annual contributions of$7,200.152 The record demonstrates that LFA demands unrelated to cable service typically are not counted toward the statutory 5 percent cap on franchise fees, but rather imposed on franchisees in addition to assessed franchise fees.153 Based on this record evidence, we are convinced that LFA requests for unreasonable concessions are not isolated,and that these requests impose undue burdens upon potential cable providers. 44. Assessment of Franchise Fees. The record establishes that unreasonable demands over franchise fee issues also contribute to delay in franchise negotiations at the local level and hinder competitive entry.154 Fee issues include not only which franchise-related costs imposed on providers should be included within the 5 percent statutory franchise fee cap established in Section 622(b),155 but also the proper calculation of franchise fees(i.e.,the revenue base from which the 5 percent is calculated). In Virginia,municipalities have requested large"acceptance fees"upon grant of a franchise,in addition to franchise fees.156 Other LFAs have requested consultant and attorneys' fees.157 Several Pennsylvania localities have requested franchise fees based on cable and non-cable revenues.158 Some commenters assert that an obligation to provide anything of value, including PEG costs, should apply toward the franchise fee obligation.159 45. The parties indicate that the lack of clarity with respect to assessment of franchise fees impedes deployment of new video programming facilities and services for three reasons. First, some LFAs make unreasonable demands regarding franchise fees as a condition of awarding a competitive franchise. Second, new entrants cannot reasonably determine the costs of entry in any particular community. Accordingly, they may delay or refrain from entering a market because the cost of entry is unclear and market viability cannot be projected.160 Third, a new entrant must negotiate these terms prior to obtaining a franchise,which can take a considerable amount of time. Thus,unreasonable demands by some LFAs effectively creates an unreasonable barrier to entry. 46. PEG and I-Net Requirements. Negotiations over PEG and I-Nets also contribute to delays in the franchising process. In response to the Local Franchising NPRM, we received numerous comments asking for clarification of what requirements LFAs reasonably may impose on franchisees to 152 FTTH Council Comments at 38. 153 BSPA Comments at 8. BSPA argues that under the current franchising process, LFAs are able to bargain for capital payments to use on infrastructure needs when LFAs should use the capital to benefit consumers. BSPA claims that LFAs use the capital to build and maintain I-Nets, city broadcasting facilities, and traffic light control systems. Id. 154 See, e.g.,AT&T Comments at 64-67;BellSouth Comments at 38-40;Cavalier Telephone Comments at 7;FTTH Council Comments at 38-40. But see NATOA Reply at 27-35. 155 47 U.S.C. §542(b). 156 Verizon Comments at 59. 157Id at 59-60. 158 Id.at 63. 159 AT&T Comments at 65-67;BellSouth Comments at 39. 160 AT&T Reply at 31-32. 23 Federal Communications Commission FCC 06-180 support PEG and I-Nets.161 We also received comments suggesting that some LFAs are making unreasonable demands regarding PEG and I-Net support as a condition of awarding competitive franchises.162 LFAs have demanded funding for PEG programming and facilities that exceeds their needs, and will not provide an accounting of where the money goes.163 For example, one municipality in Florida requested $6 million for PEG facilities, and a Massachusetts community requested 10 PEG channels, when the incumbent cable operator only provides two.'64 Several commenters argued that it is unreasonable for an LFA to request a number of PEG channels from a new entrant that is greater than the number of channels that the community is using at the time the new entrant submits its franchise application.'65 The record indicates that LFAs also have made what commenters view as unreasonable institutional network requests, such as free cell phones for employees, fiber optic service for traffic signals,and redundant fiber networks for public buildings.166 47. Level-Playing-Field Provisions. The record demonstrates that, in considering franchise applications, some LFAs are constrained by so-called "level-playing-field" provisions in local laws or incumbent cable operator franchise agreements.167 Such provisions typically impose upon new entrants terms and conditions that are neither "more favorable" nor "less burdensome" than those to which existing franchisees are subject.168 Some LFAs impose level-playing-field requirements on new entrants even without a statutory, regulatory, or contractual obligation to do so.169 Minnesota's process allows incumbent cable operators to be active in a competitor's negotiation, and incumbent cable operators have challenged franchise grants when those incumbent cable operators believed that the LFA did not follow correct procedure.170 According to BellSouth, the length of time for approval of its franchises was tied directly to level-playing-field constraints; absent such demands (in Georgia, for example),the company's applications were granted quickly.171 NATOA contends, however, that although level-playing-field 161 See, e.g., AT&T Comments at 67-70;BellSouth Comments at 39; Consumers for Cable Choice Comments at 8; FTTH Council Comments at 36-37,66-67;Verizon Comments at 65-75. But see NATOA Reply at 30-42. 162 FTTH Council Comments at 36;Verizon Comments at 65-66. 163 Verizon Comments at 65. 164 Id.at 65-66. 165 Consumers for Cable Choice Comments at 8;Verizon Comments at 71. '66 Verizon Comments at 73. 167 See, e.g., Orange County, Fla. Comments at 3; Northwest Suburbs Cable Communications Commission Comments at 3;Winston-Salem,N.C.Comments at 5; Albuquerque,N.M. Comments at 3; Tulsa, Okla. Comments at 2-4;Enumclaw,Wash.Comments at 2;Madison,Wis.Comments at 5-6. 168 See Local Franchising NPRM, 20 FCC Red at 18588.At least 10 states impose level-playing-field requirements upon LFAs, and those laws vary significantly in the subject matters they encompass. For example, compare Minnesota's requirement that a competitive entrant face similar build-out, franchise fee, and PEG requirements to Illinois's requirement that the competitive franchise be no more favorable with respect to the territorial extent of the franchise, system design,technical performance standards,construction schedules,bonds, standards for construction and installation of facilities, service to subscribers,PEG channels and programming,production assistance,liability. and indemnification and franchise fees. MINN. STAT.ANN. §238.08 (West 2006),55 ILL. COMP. STAT.ANN. 5/5- 1095(e)(4)(West 2006),see also ALA.CODE§ 11-27-2(2005),CONN.GEN.STAT. § 16-331(g)(2006),FLA.STAT. § 166.046(3)(2006),N.H.REV.STAT.ANN. § 53-C:3-b(2005),OKLA.STAT.ANN.tit. 11, §22-107.1(B)(West 2006). S.D.CODIFIED LAWS §9-35-27(2005),TENN.CODE.ANN. §7-59-203 (2005). 169 See GMTC et al. Comments at 15;Pasadena,Ca.Comments at 10-11;Philadelphia,Pa.Comments at 7. See also AT&T Reply at 14. 170 LMC Comments at 12-15. 24 Federal Communications Commission FCC 06-180 provisions sometimes can complicate the franchising process,they do not present unreasonable barriers to entry.172 NATOA and LFAs argue that level-playing-field provisions serve important policy goals, such as ensuring a competitive environment and providing for an equitable distribution of services and obligations among all operators.173 48. The record demonstrates that local level-playing-field mandates can impose unreasonable and unnecessary requirements on competitive applicants.174 As noted above, level-playing-field provisions enable incumbent cable operators to delay or prevent new entry by threatening to challenge any franchise that an LFA grants.175 Comcast asserts that MSOs are well within their rights to insist that their legal and contractual rights are honored in the grant of a subsequent franchise.176 The record demonstrates, however, that local level-playing-field requirements may, require LFAs to impose obligations on new entrants that directly contravene Section 621(a)(1)'s prohibition on unreasonable refusals to award a competitive franchise.177 In most cases, incumbent cable operators entered into their franchise agreements in exchange for a monopoly over the provision of cable service.178 Build-out requirements and other terms and conditions that may have been sensible under those circumstances can be unreasonable when applied to competitive entrants. NATOA's argument that level-playing-field requirements always serve to ensure a competitive environment and provide for an equitable distribution of services and obligations ignores that incumbent and competitive operators are not on the same footing. LFAs do not afford competitive providers the monopoly power and privileges that incumbents received when they agreed to their franchises, something that investors recognize.179 49. Moreover, competitive operators should not bear the consequences of an incumbent cable operator's choice to agree to any unreasonable franchise terms that an LFA may demand. And while the record is mixed as to whether level-playing-field mandates "assure that cable systems are responsive to the needs and interests of the local community,"180 the more compelling evidence indicates that they do not because they prevent competition. Local level-playing-field provisions impose costs and risks (Continued from previous page) 171 BellSouth Reply at 7. '72 NATOA Reply at 43. 173 See, e.g.,NATOA Reply at 44;Burnsville/Eagan Comments at 44;City of Philadelphia Reply at 2. 174 See, e.g., South Slope Comments at 7-8 (build-out);Verizon Comments at 60-61,71 (PEG requirements);AT&T Comments at 67(redundant facilities). See also FTTH Council,Comments at 29-30 (quoting Hazlett&Ford study concluding that the result of level-playing-field laws"is that incumbents and[LFAs]can force entrants to incur sunk costs considerably in excess of what free market conditions would imply"). We note that,as described below,we do not address — and therefore do not preempt— state laws governing the franchising process including state level- playing-field mandates. '75 See supra para.34;see also I)OJ Ex Parte at 15-16. 176 Comcast Reply at 17-18 (citing Comcast's involvement in Verizon's Howard County, Maryland, franchise approval process). 177 Mercatus Center at 39-40;Phoenix Center Competition Paper at 7. 178M 179 See BSPA Comments 4;USTelecom Comments at 51-53;Mercatus Comments at 39-40. 18°47 U.S.C. §521(2);Id 25 Federal Communications Commission FCC 06-180 sufficient to undermine the business plan for profitable entry in a given community,thereby undercutting the possibility of competition.'" 50. Benefits of Cable Competition. We further agree with new entrants that reform of the operation of the franchise process is necessary and appropriate to achieve increased video competition and broadband deployment.182 The record demonstrates that new cable competition reduces rates far more than competition from DBS. Specifically, the presence of a second cable operator in a market results in rates approximately 15 percent lower than in areas without competition—about$5 per month.'83 The magnitude of the rate decreases caused by wireline cable competition is corroborated by the rates charged in Keller, Texas,where the price for Verizon's"Everything"package is 13 percent below that of the incumbent cable operator, and in Pinellas County, Florida, where Knology is the overbuilder and the incumbent cable operator's rates are $10-15 lower than in neighboring areas where it faces no competition.'" 51. We also conclude that broadband deployment and video entry are"inextricably linked"185 and that,because the current operation of the franchising process often presents an unreasonable barrier to entry for the provision of video services, it necessarily hampers deployment of broadband services!" The record demonstrates that broadband deployment is not profitable without the ability to compete with the bundled services that cable companies provide.167 As the Phoenix Center explains, "the more potential revenues that the network can generate in a household,the more likely it is the network will be 181 Mercatus Comments at 46. 182 Verizon Reply at 5-8. See also DOJ Ex Parte at 1,3. 183 FTTH Council Comments at 13. See also U.S.General Accountability Office,Subscriber Rates and Competition in the Cable Television Industry, GAO-04-262T(Mar. 2004) ("[S]ubscribers in areas with a wire-based competitor had monthly cable rates about $5 lower, on average, than subscribers in similar areas without a wire-based competitor. Our interviews with cable operators also revealed that these companies generally lower rates and/or improve customer service where a wire-based competitor is present.");U.S.General Accounting Office,GAO-04-8, Issues Related to Competition and Subscriber Rates in the Cable Television Industry, Report to the Chairman, Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation, U.S. Senate (2003) ("2003 GAO Report") at 3 (noting that cable rates are about 15 percent lower in markets where wireline competition is present), and at 10 (estimating that with an average monthly cable rate of approximately $34 that year, subscribers in areas with a wire-based competitor had monthly cable rates about$5 lower,on average,than subscribers in areas without such a competitor); U.S. General Accounting Office, GAO-03-130,Issues in Providing Cable and Satellite Television Services,Report to the Subcommittee on Antitrust, Competition, and Business and Consumer Rights, Committee on the Judiciary, U.S. Senate (2002) ("2002 GAO Report") at 9 (noting that in franchise areas with a second cable provider, cable prices are approximately 17 percent lower than in comparable areas without a second cable provider). See also Annual Assessment of the Status of Competition in the Market for the Delivery of Video Programming,MB Docket No. 05-255, Twelfth Annual Report, FCC 06-11, at para. 41 (rel. Mar. 3, 2006) and 2005 Cable Price Survey at paras. 2, 14 (noting that cable prices are 17 percent lower and decrease substantially when wireline cable competition is present). 184 FTTH Council Comments at 15-16,including chart and declaration. 185 AT&T Comments at 12. See also BSPA Comments at 7; Freedomworks Comments at 15; Mercatus Center Comments at 34-35. 186 Technology and Democracy Project Comments at 4. 187 AT&T Comments at 12.The Government Accountability Office reached this same conclusion in its review of the video service market.See Issues in Providing Cable and Satellite Television Services,GAO 03-130 at 2(2002). 26 Federal Communications Commission FCC 06-180 built to that household."188 DOJ's comments underscore that additional video competition will likely speed deployment of advanced broadband services to consumers.189 Thus, although LFAs only oversee the provision of wireline-based video services,their regulatory actions can directly affect the provision of voice and data services, not just cable.l9° We find reasonable AT&T's assertion that carriers will not invest billions of dollars in network upgrades unless they are confident that LFAs will grant permission to offer video services quickly and without unreasonable difficulty.191 52. In sum, the current operation of the franchising process deters entry and thereby denies consumers choices.192 Delays in the franchising process also hamper accelerated broadband deployment and investment in broadband facilities in direct contravention of the goals of Section 706,193 the President's competitive broadband objectives,194 and our established broadband goals.195 In addition,the economic effects of franchising delays can trickle down to manufacturing companies, which in some cases have lost business because potential new entrants would not purchase equipment without certainties that they could deploy their services.196 'We discuss below our authority to address these problems. B. The Commission Has Authority to Adopt Rules to Implement Section 621(a)(1) 53. In the Local Franchising NPRM, the Commission tentatively concluded that it has the authority to adopt rules implementing Title VI of the Act,197 including Section 621(a)(1).198 The Commission sought comment on whether it has the authority to adopt rules or whether it is limited to providing guidance.199 Based on the record and governing legal principles, we affirm this tentative conclusion and fmd that the Commission has the authority to adopt rules to implement Title VI and,more specifically, Section 621(a)(1). 54. Congress delegated to the Commission the task of administering the Communications Act. As the Supreme Court has explained, the Commission serves "as the `single Government agency' with `unified jurisdiction' and `regulatory power over all forms of electrical communication,whether by 188 Letter from Lawrence Spiwak, President, Phoenix Ctr. for Advanced Legal and Econ. Pub. Policy Studies, to Marlene Dortch, Secretary, Federal Communications Commission, at Att., Phoenix Center Policy Paper Number 23: The Impact of Video Service Regulation on the Construction of Broadband Networks to Low-Income Households,pg 23(March 13,2006)("Phoenix Center Redlining Paper"). 189 DOJ Ex Parte at 3-4. 1"FTTH Council Comments at 4. 191 AT&T Comments at 15. 192 DOJ Ex Parte at 7-8. 193 Section 706 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996,47 U.S.C. § 157 nt. 194 See The White House, A New Generation of American Innovation, 11-12 (April 2004), available at http://www.whitehouse.gov/infocus/technology/economic_policy200404/innovation.pdf. 195 See Federal Communications Commission,Strategic Plan 2006-2011 at 3 (2005). 196 AT&T Reply at 9; Alcatel Comments at 1; Letter from Danielle Jafari, Director and Legal Counsel of Government Affairs, Telecommunications Industry Association, to Marlene Dortch, Secretary, Federal Communications Commission(March 9,2006). 197 Local Franchising NPRM,20 FCC Rcd at 18589. 198 47 U.S.C. §541(a)(1). 199 Local Franchising NPRM,20 FCC Rcd at 18589. 27 Federal Communications Commission FCC 06-180 • telephone, telegraph, cable, or radio."'200 To that end, "[t]he Act grants the Commission broad responsibility to forge a rapid and efficient communications system, and broad authority to implement that responsibility"201 Section 201(b)authorizes the Commissiont"prescribe such rules and regulations as may be necessary in the public interest to carry out the provisions of this Act."202 "[T]he grant in §201(b) means what it says: The FCC has rulemaking authority to carry out the `provisions of this v"203 Act. This grant of authority therefore necessarily includes Title VI of the Communications Act in general, and Section 621(a)(1) in particular. Other provisions in the Act reinforce the Commission's general rulemaking authority. Section 303(r), for example, states that "the Commission from time to time, as public convenience, interest, or necessity requires shall ... make such rules and regulations and prescribe such restrictions and conditions,not inconsistent with law, as may be necessary to carry out the provisions of this Act...."204 Section 4(i)states that the Commission"may perform any and all acts,make such rules and regulations, and issue such orders, not inconsistent with this Act, as may be necessary in the execution of its functions."205 55. Section 2 of the Communications Act grants the Commission explicit jurisdiction over "cable services."206 Moreover, as we explained in the Local Franchising NPRA'L Congress specifically charged the Commission with the administration of the Cable Act, including Section 621207. In addition, federal courts have consistently upheld the Commission's authority in this area.208 56. Although several commenters disagreed with our tentative conclusion, none has persuaded us that the Commission lacks the authority to adopt rules to implement Section 621(a)(1). Incumbent-cable operators and franchise authorities argue that the judicial review provisions in Sections 621(a)(1) and 635209 indicate that Congress gave the courts exclusive jurisdiction to interpret and enforce 2°° United States v. Southwestern Cable Co.,392 U.S. 157, 167-68(1968)(quotation omitted). 201 United Telegraph Workers, AFL-CIO v. FCC, 436 F.2d 920, 923 (D.C. Cir. 1970) (citations and quotations omitted). 2°2 47 U.S.C. § 201(b) ("The Commission may prescribe such rules and regulations as may be necessary in the public interest to carry out the provisions of this Act."). 203 AT&T Corp. v.Iowa Utilities Board,525 U.S.366,378(1999). 204 See also 47 U.S.C. § 151 (the Commission"shall execute and enforce the provisions of this Act"). 205 47 U.S.C. § 154(i). - 206 47 U.S.C. § 152 ("The provisions of this Act shall apply with respect to cable service, to all persons engaged within the United States in providing such service, and to the facilities of cable operators which relate to such service,as provided in title VI."). 2207 Local Franchising NPRM,20 FCC Red at 18589. 2°8 See City of Chicago v. FCC, 199 F.3d 424(7th Cir. 1999)(finding that the FCC is charged by Congress with the administration of the Cable Act, including Section 621). See also City of New York v. FCC, 486 U.S. 57, 70 n.6 (1988) (explaining that Section 303 gives the FCC rulemaking power with respect to the Cable Act);Nat'l Cable Television Ass'n v. FCC, 33 F.3d 66, 70 (D.C. Cir. 1994) (upholding Commission finding that certain services are not subject to the franchise requirement in Section 621(b)(1)); United Video v. FCC, 890 F.2d 1173, 1183 (D.C.Cir. 1989) (denying petitions to review the Commission's syndicated exclusivity rules);ACLU v. FCC, 823 F.2d 1554 (D.C.Cir. 1987)(upholding the Commission's interpretive rules regarding Section 621(a)(3)). 2°9 47 U.S.C. § 541(a)(1) ("[a]ny applicant whose application for a second franchise has been denied by a final decision of the franchising authority may appeal such final decision pursuant to the provisions of section 635 for failure to comply with this subsection"). Section 635 sets forth the specific procedures for such judicial proceedings. 47 U.S.C. § 555. 28 Federal Communications Commission FCC 06-180 - Section 621(a)(1), including authority to decide what constitutes an unreasonable refusal to award a competitive cable franchise210 We find,however,that this argument reads far too much into the judicial review provisions. The mere existence of a judicial review provision in the Communications Act does not, by itself, strip the Commission of its otherwise undeniable rulemaking authority211 As a general matter, the fact that Congress provides a mechanism for judicial review to remedy a violation of a statutory provision does not deprive an agency of the authority to issue rules interpreting that statutory provision. Here, nothing in the statutory language or the legislative history suggests that by providing a judicial remedy, Congress intended to divest the Commission of the authority to adopt and enforce rules implementing Section 621212 In light of the Commission's broad rulemaking authority under Section 201 and other provisions in the Act,the absence of a specific grant of rulemaking authority in Section 621 is "not peculiar."213 Other provisions in the Act demonstrate that when Congress intended to grant exclusive jurisdiction,it said so in the legislation.214 Here,however,neither Section 621(a)(1)nor Section 635 includes an exclusivity provision,and we decline to read one into either provision. 57. In addition, we note that the judicial review provisions at issue here on their face apply only to a final decision by the franchising authority.215 They do not provide for review of unreasonable refusals to award an additional franchise by withholding a final decision or insisting on unreasonable terms that an applicant properly refuses to accept. Nor do the judicial review provisions say anything about the broader range of practices governed by Section 621216 21°See NCTA Reply, at 11-13 (given the courts have concurrent jurisdiction to review many provisions of Title VI, Section 635(a)only has meaning if it is read to grant exclusive jurisdiction to the courts);Comcast Comments at 27- 28(Congress provided no role for the Commission in the franchising process);Comcast Reply at 27-28 (621(a)(1)'s "unreasonably refuse" language and court review are inextricably linked and thus enforcement authority over the franchising approval process lies with the courts);NATOA Comments at 7-8(same). 211 See ACLUv. Texas, 823 F.2d 1554, 1574(D.C. Cir 1987)(recognizing that despite a reference to"court action" in Section 622(d), in the absence of more explicit guidance from Congress, the Commission has concurrent jurisdiction to take enforcement action with respect to franchise fee disputes). 212 See BellSouth Reply at 35;USTelecom Reply at 14-16. 213 AT&T v. Iowa Utilities Board, 525 U.S. 366,385 (1999). In Iowa Utilities Board,the Supreme Court reviewed Commission rules implementing provisions of the Telecommunications Act of 1996. In particular,states challenged Commission rules implementing Section 252(c)(2),which provides,"a State commission shall... establish any rates for interconnection, services, or network elements." 47 U.S.C. §252(c)(2). Although this and other provisions in the 1996 Act entrusted the states with certain tasks, the Supreme Court held that "these assignments ... do not logically preclude the Commission's issuance of rules to guide the state-commission judgments." Iowa Utilities Board,525 U.S.at 385. The same reasoning applies to the judicial review provisions in Sections 621(a)(1)and 635. 214 See, e.g.,47 U.S.C. § 255(f) ("The Commission shall have exclusive jurisdiction with respect to any complaint under this section."). We do not find persuasive commenters'argument that the only way to give Section 635(a)any meaning is to construe it as giving courts exclusive jurisdiction with regard to the three Title VI provisions enumerated in Section 635(a), i.e., Sections 621(a)(1), 625, and 626. See NATOA Comments at 9. None of the cases cited by commenters support this proposition. Rather, they suggest that in the absence of an exclusivity provision in the statute, the Commission and courts share jurisdiction. See, e.g., NATOA Comments at 9 (citing ACLUv.FCC, 823 F.2d 1554, 1573-75(D.C.Cir. 1987)). 215 47 U.S.C. § 541(a)(1) ("Any applicant whose application for a second franchise has been denied by a final decision of the franchising authority may appeal such final decision pursuant to the provisions of section 635 for failure to comply with this subsection") (emphasis added); 47 U.S.C. §555(a) ("Any cable operator adversely affected by any final determination made by a franchising authority under section 621(a)(1)" may commence an action in federal district court or State court)(emphasis added). 216 See USTelecom Reply at 14. 29 Federal Communications Commission FCC 06-180 58. We also reject the argument by some incumbent cable operators and franchise authorities that Section 621(a)(1) is unambiguous and contains no gaps in the statutory language that would give the Commission authority to regulate the franchising process 217 We strongly disagree. Congress did not define the term "unreasonably refuse," and it is far from self-explanatory. The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit has held that the term "unreasonable" is among the "ambiguous statutory terms" in the Communications Act, and that the "court owes substantial deference to the interpretation the Commission accords them."218 We therefore fmd that Section 621(a)(1)'s requirement that an LFA "may not unreasonably refuse to award an additional competitive franchise" creates ambiguity that the Commission has the authority to resolve219 The possibility that a court, in reviewing a particular matter, may determine whether an LFA "unreasonably" denied a second franchise does not displace the Commission's authority to adopt rules generally interpreting what constitutes an "unreasonable refusal"under Section 621(a)(1)220 59. Some incumbent cable operators and franchise authorities argue that Section 621(a)(1) imposes no general duty of reasonableness on the LFA in connection with procedures for awarding a competitive franchise221 According to these commenters,the"unreasonably refuse to award" language in the first sentence in Section 621(a)(1)must be read in conjunction with the second sentence,which relates to the denial of a competitive franchise application.222 Based on this, commenters claim that "unreasonably refuse to award"means"unreasonably deny"and,thus, Section 621(a)(1) is not applicable before a final decision is rendered223 We disagree. By concluding that the language "unreasonably refuse to award" means the same thing as "unreasonably deny," commenters violate the long-settled principle of statutory construction that each word in a statutory scheme must be given meaning.224 We fmd that the better reading of the phrase "unreasonably refuse to award" is that Congress intended to cover LFA conduct beyond ultimate denials by fmal decision, such as situations where an LFA has unreasonably refused to award an additional franchise by withholding a fmal decision or by insisting on unreasonable terms that an applicant refuses to accept 225 While the judicial review provisions in Sections 217 See Comcast Reply at 27. 218 Capital Network System, Inc. v. FCC, 28 F.3d 201,204(D.C. Cir. 1994)("Because `just,' `unjust,' `reasonable,' and `unreasonable' are ambiguous statutory terms, this court owes substantial deference to the interpretation the Commission accords them."). 219 47 U.S.C. §541(a)(1)(emphasis added). 22° See NCTA v. Brand X Internet Services, 545 U.S. 967, —, 125 S. Ct. 2688, 2700-02 (2005) (where statute is ambiguous, and implementing agency's construction is reasonable, Chevron requires federal court to accept agency's construction of statute,even if agency's reading differs from prior judicial construction). 221 See NCTA Comments at 28-29;Comcast Reply at 31. 222 See NCTA Comments at 29;Comcast Reply at 32. 223 See NATOA Comments at 30-31;NCTA Comments at 28-29; Burnsville/Eagan Comments at 31-32; Comcast Reply at 32-33. 224 See Bailey v. United States, 516 U.S. 137, 143-45 (1995)("We assume that Congress used two terms because it intended each term to have a particular,nonsuperfluous meaning."). 225 See, e.g., Tribune Co. v.FCC, 133 F.3d 61,66(D.C.Cir. 1998)(imposing an"intolerable"condition on the grant of a license application may be deemed a de facto denial of that license for purposes of the appeal provisions under§ 402(b) of the Act, citing Mobile Communications Corp. of America v. FCC, 77 F.3d 1399 (D.C. Cir. 1996)). See also DOJ Er Parte at 7 (stating that unnecessary delays, demands for goods and services unrelated to the provision of cable services, and imposition of build-out requirements are tantamount to a "refusal" to award an additional competitive franchise). 30 Federal Communications Commission FCC 06-180 621(a)(1) and 635 refer to a "final decision" or "final determination,"226 the Commission's rulemaking authority under Section 621 is not constrained in the same manner. Instead, the Commission has the authority to address what constitutes an unreasonable refusal to award a franchise, and as stated above, a local franchising authority may unreasonably refuse to award a franchise through other routes than issuing a fmal decision or determination denying a franchise application. For all of these reasons, we conclude that the Commission may exercise its statutory authority to establish federal standards identifying those LFA-imposed terms and conditions that would violate Section 621(a)(1)of the Communications Act 227 60. Incumbent cable operators and local franchise authorities also maintain that the legislative history of Section 621(a)(1) demonstrates that Congress reserved to LFAs the authority to determine what constitutes "reasonable" grounds for franchise denials, with oversight by the courts, and left no authority under Section 621(a)(1) for the Commission to issue rules or guidelines governing the franchise approval process.228 Commenters point to the Conference Committee Report on the 1992 Amendments,229 which adopted the Senate version of Section 621,23°rather than the House version,which "contained five examples of circumstances under which it is reasonable for a franchising authority to deny a franchise"231 We find commenters' reliance on the legislative history to be misplaced. While the House may have initially considered adopting a categorical approach for determining what would constitute a "reasonable denial," Congress ultimately decided to forgo that approach and prohibit franchising authorities from unreasonably refusing to award an additional competitive franchise.231 To be sure,commenters are correct to point out that Congress chose not to define in the Act the meaning of the phrase "unreasonably refuse to award." However, commenters' assertion that Congress therefore intended for this gap in the statute to be filled in by only LFAs and courts lacks any basis in law or logic. Rather, we believe that it is far more reasonable to assume, consistent with settled principles of administrative law, that Congress intended that the Commission, which is charged by Congress with the administration of Title VI,233 to have the authority to do so. There is nothing in the statute or the 226 47 U.S.C. §§ 541(a),555. See also Puget Sound Energy, Inc. v. U.S., 310 F.3d 613, 624-25 (9th Cir.2002)(for purposes of determining when power administration's rate determination becomes a "final action" under statutory judicial review provision,court will turn for guidance to general doctrine of finality in administrative law,which"is concerned with whether the initial decision-maker has arrived at a definitive position on the issue that inflicts an actual,concrete injury"). 227 See Qwest Reply at 10-11. 228 See NCTA Comments at 22-23;Florida Municipalities Comments at 9-10. 229 H.R.REP.No. 102-862,at 77-78(1992)(Conf.Rep.),as reprinted in 1992 U.S.C.C.A.N. 1231, 1259-1260. '70 S.REP.No. 102-92,at 185 (1991)(explaining that"[i]t shall not be considered unreasonable for purposes of this provision for local franchising authorities to deny the application of a potential competitor if it is technically infeasible. However,the Committee does not intend technical infeasibility to be the only justification for denying an additional franchise"). 231 H.R. REP. No. 102-862, at 77-78 (1992) (Conf. Rep.), as reprinted in 1992 U.S.C.C.A.N. 1231, 1259-1260 (listing five examples of reasonable denials identified in the House amendment to include:(1)technical infeasibility; (2) failure of the applicant to assure that it will provide adequate public, educational, and governmental access channel capacity, facilities, or financial support; (3) failure of the applicant to assure that it will provide service throughout the entire franchise area within a reasonable period of time;(4)the award would interfere with the ability of the franchising authority to deny renewal of a franchise; and (5) failure to demonstrate financial, technical, or legal qualifications to provide cable service."); H.R.REP.No. 102-628, at 90 (1992). See NCTA Comments at 22; Florida Municipalities Comments at 9-10. 232 H.R.REP.No. 102-862,at 77-78(1992)(Conf.Rep.),as reprinted in 1992 U.S.C.C.A.N. 1231, 1259-1260. 733 See City of Chicago v.FCC, 199 F.3d at 428. See also AT&T Corp. v.Iowa Utilities Boar4 525 U.S.at 377-380. 31 Federal Communications Commission FCC 06-180 • legislative history to suggest that Congress intended to displace the Commission's explicit authority to interpret and enforce provisions in Title VI,including Section 621(a)(1). 61. The pro-competitive rules and guidance we adopt in this Order are consistent with Congressional intent. Section 601 states that Title VI is designed to "promote competition in cable communications.."234 In a report to Congress prepared pursuant to the 1984 Cable Act, the Commission concluded that in order "[t]o encourage more robust competition in the local video marketplace, the Congress should ... forbid local franchising authorities from unreasonably denying a franchise to potential competitors who are ready and able to provide service. In response, Congress revised Section 621(a)(1) to prohibit a franchising authority from unreasonably refusing to award an additional competitive franchise236 The regulations set forth herein give force to that restriction and vindicate the national policy goal of promoting competition in the video marketplace. 62. Our authority to adopt rules implementing Section 621(a)(1) is further supported by Section 706 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, which directs the Commission to encourage broadband deployment by utilizing "measures that promote competition ... or other regulating methods that remove barriers to infrastructure investment."237 The D.C.Circuit has found that the Commission has the authority to consider the goals of Section 706 when formulating regulations under the Act.238 The record here indicates that a provider's ability to offer video service and to deploy broadband networks are linked intrinsically, and the federal goals of enhanced cable competition and rapid broadband deployment are interrelated.239 Thus, if the franchising process were allowed to slow competition in the video service market, that would decrease broadband infrastructure investment, which would not only affect video but other broadband services as well 240 As the DOJ points out, potential gains from competition, such as 734 47 U.S.C. §521(6). 235 See Competition,Rate Deregulation and the Commission's Policies Relating to the Provision of Cable Television Service, 5 FCC Rcd 4962,4974(1990). 736 47 U.S.C. §541(a)(1). See also H.R.REP.No.102-628,at 47(1992)(noting the Commission's recommendation that, in order to encourage competition, Congress should prevent LFAs from unreasonably denying a franchise to potential competitors);Implementation of Section 19 of the Cable Television Consumer Protection and Competition Act of 1992 Annual Assessment of the Status of Competition in the Market for the Delivery of Video Programming,9 FCC Rcd 7442, 7469 (1994) (recognizing that "Congress incorporated the Commission's recommendation in the 1992 Cable Act by amending§ 621(a)(1)of the Communications Act..."). The legislative history explained that the purpose of this abridgement of local government authority was to promote greater cable competition. S.REP.No. 102-92, at 47 (1991) (the prohibition on local franchising authorities from unreasonably refusing to grant second franchises is based on evidence in the record that there are benefits from competition between two cable systems and the Committee's belief that LFAs should be encouraged to award second franchises). ?37 Section 706 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996,47 U.S.C. § 157 nt. 238 See USTA v. FCC, 359 F.3d 554, 580, 583 (D.C. Cir. 2004); see also USTelecom Comments at 15; TIA Comments at 16. 239 See Alcatel Comments at 5-6;USTelecom Comments at 6 (broadband growth is tied to bundled services; firm's perceived need to compete for "triple play" customers is the driving force for broadband investment); AT&T Comments at 39-40 (the local franchising process discourages broadband infrastructure investment that supports video along with other broadband services). 240 See Ad Hoc Telcom Manufacturer Coalition Comments at 1-3 (the franchising process threatens toslow down incumbent LECs' capital expenditures,thereby slowing competition in the video service market and reducing output throughout the high-tech manufacturing industry); AT&T Reply at 31-32 (the lack of clear regulatory guidance is chilling investment because new entrants cannot gauge the cost of entry);BellSouth Comments at 20-22(the current franchising process impedes the deployment of BellSouth's broadband network). 32 Federal Communications Commission FCC 06-180 expedited broadband deployment, are more likely to be realized without imposed restrictions or conditions on entry in the franchising process 24i 63. We reject the argument by incumbent cable operators and LFAs that any rules adopted under Section 621(a)(1) could adversely affect the franchising process 242 In particular, LFAs contend that cable service requirements must vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction because cable franchises need to be "tailored to the needs and interests of the local community."243 The Communications Act preserves a role for local jurisdictions in the franchise process. We do not believe that the rules we adopt today will hamper the franchising process. While local franchising authorities and potential new entrants have opposing viewpoints about the reasonableness of certain terms,2 we received comments from both groups that agree that Commission guidance concerning factors that are"reasonable"will help to expedite the franchising process 245 Therefore,we anticipate that our implementation of Section 621(a)(1)will aid new entrants, incumbent cable operators, and LFAs in understanding the bounds of local authority in considering competitive franchise applications. 64. In sum, we conclude that we have clear authority to interpret and implement the Cable Act, including the ambiguous phrase "unreasonably refuse to award" in Section 621(a)(1), to further the congressional imperatives to promote competition and broadband deployment. As discussed above, this authority is reinforced by Section 4(i) of the Communications Act, which gives us broad power to perform acts necessary to execute our functions, and the mandate in Section 706 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 that we encourage broadband deployment through measures that promote competition.'" We.adopt the rules and regulations in this Order pursuant to that authority. We fmd that Section 621(a)(1) prohibits not only an LFA's ultimate unreasonable denial of a competitive franchise application, but also LFA procedures and conduct that have the effect of unreasonably interfering with the ability of a would-be competitor to obtain a competitive franchise, whether by (1)creating unreasonable delays in the process, or(2)imposing unreasonable regulatory roadblocks, such that they effectively constitute an "unreasonable refusal to award an additional competitive franchise" within the meaning of Section 621(a)(1).247 C. Steps to Ensure that the Local Franchising Process Does Not Unreasonably Interfere with Competitive Cable Entry and Rapid Broadband Deployment 65. Commenters in this proceeding identified several specific issues regarding problems with the current operation of the franchising process. These include: (1) failure by LFAs to grant or deny franchises within reasonable time frames; (2) LFA requirements that a facilities-based new entrant build out its cable facilities beyond a reasonable service area; (3) certain LFA-mandated costs, fees, and other compensation and whether they must be counted toward the statutory 5 percent cap on franchise fees; (4) 241 DOI Ex Parte at 4. 242 See, e.g.,Anne Arundel County et al. Comments at 15 (federal regulation would not allow each locality to tailor franchise terms to its specific needs);NCTA Comments at 23 (universal rules and standards cannot be tailored well enough to define what is reasonable;reasonableness must be reviewed on a case-by-case basis). 243 NATOA Comments at 27(quoting Section 601(2)of the Communications Act,47 U.S.C. §521(2)). 244 See, e.g., NATOA Reply at 43; Verizon Comments at 76-77 (disagreeing about the reasonableness of level • playing fields). 245 See Manatee County Comments at 15;Verizon Reply at 35. 24647 U.S.C. § 154(i), Section 706 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996,47 U.S.C. § 157 nt. 247Id 33 Federal Communications Commission FCC 06-180 new entrants' obligations to provide support mandated by LFAs for PEG and I-Nets; and (5) facilities- based new entrants' obligations to comply with local consumer protection and customer service standards when the same facilities are used to provide other regulated services, such as telephony. We discuss each measure below. • 1. Maximum Time Frame for Franchise Negotiations 66. As explained above,248 the record demonstrates that, although the average time that elapses between application and grant of a franchise varies from locality to locality, unreasonable delays in the franchising process are commonplace and have hindered, and in some cases thwarted entirely, attempts to deploy competitive video services. The record is replete with examples of unreasonable delays in the franchising process,249 which can indefmitely delay competitive entry and leave an applicant without recourse in violation of Section 621(a)(1)'s prohibition on unreasonable refusals to award a competitive franchise25°, 67. We find that unreasonable delays in the franchising process deprive consumers of competitive video services, hamper accelerated broadband deployment, and can result in unreasonable refusals to award competitive, franchises. Thus, it is necessary to establish reasonable time limits for LFAs to render a decision on a competitive applicant's franchise application.251 We define below the boundaries of a reasonable time period in which an LFA must render a decision, and we establish a remedy for applicants that do not receive a decision within the applicable time frame. We establish a maximum time frame of 90 days for entities with existing authority to access public rights-of-way, and six months for entities that do not have authority to access public rights-of-way. The deadline will be calculated from the date that the applicant files an application or other writing that includes the information described below. Failure of an LFA to act within the allotted time constitutes an unreasonable refusal to award the franchise under Section 621(a)(1), and the LFA at that time is deemed to have granted the entity's application on an interim basis, pursuant to which the applicant may begin providing service. Thereafter, the LFA and applicant may continue to negotiate the terms of the franchise,consistent with the guidance and rulings in this Order. a. Time Limit 68. The record shows that the franchising process in some localities can drag on for years. We are concerned that without a defined time limit, the extended delays will continue, depriving consumers of cable competition and applicants of franchises. We-thus-consider the appropriate length of time that should be afforded LFAs in reaching a final decision on a competitive franchise application. Commenters suggest a wide range of time frames that may be reasonable for an LFA's consideration of a competitive franchise application. TIA proposes that we adopt the time limit used in the Texas franchising legislation, which would allow a new entrant to obtain a franchise within 17 days of submitting an application252 Other commenters propose time limits ranging from 30 days to six 248 See supra paras. 14-17,22. 249 See Local Franchising NPRM, 20 FCC Rcd at 18590(quoting 47 U.S.C. § 541(a)(1)),FTTH Council Comments at 27,South Slope Comments at 13,Verizon Reply at 34-35. 25°See supra paras.22-30. 25147 U.S.C. §§541(a)(1),555. 252 See TIA Comments at 8, 18. 34 Federal Communications Commission FCC 06-180 months 253 While NATOA in its comments opposes any time limit,254 in February 2006 a NATOA representative told the Commission that the six-month• time limit that California law imposes is reasonable.255 Some commenters have suggested that a franchise applicant that holds an existing authorization to access rights-of-way (e.g., a LEC) should be subject to a shorter time frame than other applicants. These commenters reason that deployment of video services requires an upgrade to existing facilities in the rights-of-way rather than construction of new facilities, and such applicants generally have demonstrated their fitness as a provider of communications services 256 69. In certain states, an SFA is responsible for all franchising decisions (e.g., Hawaii, Connecticut, Vermont, Texas, Indiana, Kansas, South Carolina, and beginning January 1, 2007, California and North Carolina), and the majority of these states have established time frames within which those SFAs must make franchising decisions.'s' We are mindful, however,that states in which an LFA is the franchising authority, the LFA may be a small municipal entity with extremely limited resources. 25g Thus, it may not always be feasible for an LFA to carry out legitimate local policy objectives permitted by the Act and appropriate state or local law within an extremely short time frame. We therefore seek to establish a time limit that balances the reasonable needs of the LFA with the needs of the public for greater video service competition and broadband deployment. As set out in detail below, we believe that it is appropriate to provide rules to guide LFAs that retain ultimate decision-making power over franchise decisions. 70. As a preliminary matter, we find that a franchise applicant that holds an existing authorization.to access rights-of-way should be subject to a shorter time frame for review than other applicants. First, one of the primary justifications for cable franchising is the locality's need to regulate and receive compensation for the use of public rights-of-way.7S9 In considering an application for a cable franchise by an entity that already has rights-of-way access,however, an LFA need not devote substantial attention to issues of rights-of-way management7b0 Second, in obtaining a certificate for public 253 See AT&T Comments at 77, Cavalier Telephone Comments at 4 (suggesting a 30-day time limit); BellSouth Comments at 36, NTCA Comments at 9, OPASTCO Reply at 4 (suggesting a 90-day time limit); Consumers for Cable Choice Comments at 9,Verizon Comments at 38,FTTH Council Comments at 60, State of Hawaii Reply at 3 (suggesting a 120-day time limit);Alliance for Public Technology Comments at 3(suggesting a 180-day time limit); Qwest Comments at 26-27. 254 NATOA Comments at 36-37,NATOA Reply at 21-23. 255 Transcript of FCC Agenda Meeting and Panel Discussion at 38(Feb. 10,2006). 256 See Local Franchising NPRM,20 FCC Rcd at 18591. 757 See HAW.REV.STAT. §440G-4(2006);CONN.GEN.STAT.ANN. § 16-331 (West 2006);VT.STAT.ANN.tit.30, § 502 (2006); TEX.UTIL.CODE ANN. §•66.003 (West 2006);IND.CODE § 8-1-34-16 (2006); 2006 KAN.SESS.LAWS Ch. 93 (West 2006); S.C.CODE ANN. § 58-12-05 (2006);N.C.GEN STAT.ANN. § 66-351; CAL.PUB.UTIL.CODE§ 401,et seq. We note that our Order,does not affect these franchising decisions. 25B We note that a number of other states in addition to Texas have adopted or are considering statewide franchising in order to speed competitive entry. See, e.g., IND. CODE§ 8-1-34-16 (2006); VA. CODE ANN. § 15.2-2108.1:1 et seq. (2006); SB-816, 2006 Sess. (Mo. 2006). Nothing in our discussion here is intended to preempt the actions of any states. The time limit we adopt herein is a ceiling beyond which LFA delay in processing a franchise application becomes unreasonable. To the extent that states and/or municipalities wish to adopt shorter time limits, they remain free to do so. 259 NATOA Comments at 38-39;Ada Township Comments at 11-14;TCCFUI Reply Comments at 18. 26°Recognizing this distinction, some states have created streamlined franchising procedures specifically tailored to entities with existing access to public rights-of-way. See, e.g., VIRGINIA CODE ANN. § 15.2-2108.1:1 et seq.);HF- 2647,2006 Sess.(Iowa 2006)(this proposed legislation would grant franchises to all telephone providers authorized (continued...) 35 Federal Communications Commission FCC 06-180 convenience and necessity from a state, a facilities-based provider generally has demonstrated its legal, technical, and fmancial fitness to be a provider of telecommunications services. Thus, an LFA need not spend a significant amount of time considering the fitness of such applicants to access public rights-of- way. NATOA and its members concede that the authority to occupy the right-of-way has an effect on the review of the financial,technical,and legal merits of the application, and eases right-of-way management burdens 261 We thus find that a time limit is particularly appropriate for an applicant that already possesses authority to deploy telecommunications infrastructure in the public rights-of-way.262 We further agree with AT&T that entities with existing authority to access rights-of-way should be entitled to an expedited process, and that lengthy consideration of franchise applications made by such entities would be unreasonable263 Specifically, we find that 90 days provides LFAs ample time to review and negotiate a franchise agreement with applicants that have access to rights-of-way.2 71. Based on our examination of the record,we believe that a time limit of 90 days for those applicants that have access to rights-of-way strikes the appropriate balance between the goals of facilitating competitive entry into the video marketplace and ensuring.that franchising authorities have sufficient time to fulfill their responsibilities. In this vein, we note that 90 days is a considerably longer. time frame than that suggested by some commenters, such as TIA.265 Additionally,we recognize that the Communications Act gives an LFA 120 days to make a fmal decision on a cable operator's request to modify a franchise266 We believe that the record supports an even shorter time here because the costs associated-with delay are much greater with respect to.entry. When an incumbent cable franchisee requests a modification, consumers are not deprived of service while an LFA deliberates. Here, delay by an individual LFA deprives consumers of the benefits of cable competition.267 An LFA should be able to (Continued from previous page) to use the right-of-way without any application or negotiation requirement). See also South Slope Comments at 11 (duplicative local franchising requirements imposed on a competitor with existing authority to occupy the rights-of- way are unjustified and constitute an unreasonable barrier to competitive video entry). 261 See NATOA Comments at 38-39. Although NATOA contends that an applicant's authority to occupy the rights- of-way would not affect the length of the negotiations regarding PEG requirements, franchise fees, or build-out,we clarify the law concerning those issues below to minimize further disputes,and delays. 262 Ad Hoc Telecom Manufacturers Comments at 6. 263 AT&T argues that an entity authorized to occupy a right-of-way should simply complete a short-form application and agree to general cable franchise requirements such as franchise fees and PEG capacity,and that the right-of-way holder should receive a franchise within one month of filing the short-form application. See AT&T Comments at 74. - 264 See BellSouth Comments at 36; Ada Township, et al. Comments at 23; LMC Comments at 18; Hawaiian Telecom Comments at 7-8(recommending a time frame of 90 days from the filing of the application). Several state legislators agree that an applicant's existing authority to occupy the right-of-way lightens the administrative load, and enacted or proposed similar measures to streamline the franchising process for entities that hold the authority. See VIRGINIA CODE ANN. § 15.2-2108.21;HF-2647, 2006 Sess..(Iowa 2006) (this proposed legislation would grant franchises to all telephone providers authorized to use the right-of-way without any application or negotiation requirement). We assume generally that state and local regulators are sufficiently empowered to deal with any public safety or aesthetic issues that may arise by virtue of deployment of new video-related equipment by applicants already authorized to use the rights-of way. 265 See TIA Comments at 8-9 (a time frame of 17 business days, as set forth in the Texas statute, "provides ample time to negotiate an agreement reflecting the requirements of Section 621"); AT&T Comments at 75, 78-79. See also supra paras. 17,27. 266 See 47 U.S.C. §545. 267 Verizon Comments at 36-37. 36 Federal Communications Commission FCC 06-180 negotiate a franchise with a familiar applicant that is already authorized to occupy the right-of-way in less than 120 days. The list of legitimate issues to be negotiated is short,268 and we narrow those issues considerably in this Order. We therefore impose a deadline of 90 days for an LFA to reach a final decision on a competitive franchise application submitted by those applicants authorized to occupy rights- of-way within the franchise area. 72. For other applicants, we believe that six months affords a reasonable amount of time to negotiate with an entity that is not already authorized to occupy the right-of-way, as an LFA will need to evaluate the entity's legal, financial, and technical capabilities in addition to generally considering the applicant's fitness to be a communications provider over the rights-of-way. Commenters have presented substantial evidence that six months provides LFAs sufficient time to review an applicant's proposal, negotiate acceptable terms,and award or deny a competitive franchise.269 We are persuaded by the record that a six-month period will allow sufficient time for review. Given that LFAs must act on modification applications within the 120-day limit set by the Communications Act, we believe affording an additional two months — i.e., a six-month review period — will provide LFAs ample time to conduct negotiations with an entity new to the franchise area. 73. Failure of an LFA to act within these time frames is unreasonable and constitutes a refusal to award a competitive franchise. Consistent with other time limits that the Communications Act and our rules impose,270 a franchising authority and a competitive applicant may extend these limits if both parties agree to an extension of time. We further note that an LFA may engage in franchise review activities that are not prohibited by the Communications Act or our rules, such as multiple levels of • review or holding a public hearing,271 provided that a fmal decision is made within the time period established under this Order. b. Commencement of the Time Period for Negotiations 74. The record demonstrates that there is no universally accepted event that "starts the clock"for purposes of calculating the length of franchise negotiations between LFAs and new entrants.272 Accordingly, we find it necessary to delineate the point at which such calculation should begin. Few commenters offer specific suggestions on what event should open the time period for franchise negotiations. Qwest contends that the period for negotiations should commence once an applicant files an application.273 On the other hand, Verizon argues that the clock must start before an applicant files a formal application because significant negotiations often take place before a formal filing.274 Specifically, 268 Verizon Reply Comments at 43 n.69. 269 See Cablevision Comments at 10-12; GMTC Comments at 3, 6-8; State of Hawaii Reply at 3; Mt.Hood Cable Regulatory Commission Comments at 20; NJBPU Comments at 5; Southwest Suburban Cable Commission Comments at 7. See also Fairfax County,Va. Comments at 4-7(formal negotiations began April 1,2005,franchise granted Oct. 1,2005). 27°See, e.g.,47 U.S.C. §537,47 C.F.R. §76.502(c). 271 See Southwest Suburban Cable Commission Comments at 7. 272 See supra paras. 14-17. 273 See Qwest Reply at 2(establish a requirement that an LFA"must act on a franchise application within six months of filing"). 274 See Verizon Reply at 37; Letter from Leora Hochstein, Executive Director, Federal Regulatory, Verizon, to Marlene Dortch,Secretary,Federal Communications Commission at 1 (April 21,2006). 37 Federal Communications Commission FCC 06-180 the company advocates starting the clock when the applicant initiates negotiations with the LFA,275 which could be documented informally between the applicant and the LFA or with a formal Commission filing for evidentiary purposes. 75. We will calculate the deadline from the date that the applicant first files certain requisite information in writing with the LFA. This filing must meet any applicable state or local requirements, including any state or local laws that specify the contents of a franchise application and payment of a reasonable application fee in jurisdictions where such fee is required.276 This application,whether formal or informal, must at a minimum contain: (1) the applicant's name; (2) the names of the applicant's officers and directors; (3) the applicant's business address; (4) the name and contact information of the applicant's contact; (5) a description of the geographic area that the applicant proposes to serve; (6) the applicant's proposed PEG channel capacity and capital support; (7)the requested term of the agreement; (8)whether the applicant holds an existing authorization to access the community's public rights-of-way; and(9)the amount of the franchise fee the applicant agrees to pay (consistent with the Communications Act and the standards set forth herein). Any requirement the LFA imposes on the applicant to negotiate or engage in any regulatory or administrative processes before the applicant files the requisite information is per se unreasonable and preempted by this Order. Such a requirement would delay competitive entry by undermining the efficacy of the time limits adopted in this Order and would not serve any legitimate purpose. At their discretion, applicants may choose to engage in informal negotiations before filing an application. These informal negotiations do not apply to the deadline, however; we will calculate the deadline from the date that the applicant first files its application with an LFA. For purposes of any disputes that may arise,the applicant will have the burden of proving that it filed the requisite information or,where required,the application with the LFA,by producing either a receipt-stamped copy of the filing or a certified mail return receipt indicating receipt of the required documentation. We believe that adoption of a time limit with a specific starting point will ensure that the franchising process will not be unduly delayed by pre-filing requirements, will increase applicants' incentive to begin negotiating in earnest at an earlier stage of the process,and will encourage both LFAs and applicants to reach agreement within the specified time frame. We note that an LFA may toll the running of the 90-day or six-month time period if it has requested information from the franchise applicant and is waiting for such information. Once the information is received by the LFA,the time period would automatically begin to run again. c. Remedy for Failure to Negotiate a Franchise Within the Time Limit 76. Finally, we consider what remedy or remedies may be appropriate in the event that an LFA and franchise applicant are unable to reach agreement within the 90-day or six-month time frame. Section 635 of the Communications Act provides a specific remedy for an applicant who believes that an LFA unreasonably denied its application containing the requisite information within the applicable time frame. Here,we establish a remedy in the event an LFA does not grant or deny a franchise application by the deadline. In selecting this remedy, we seek to provide a meaningful incentive for local franchising authorities to abide by the deadlines contained in this Order while at the same time maintaining LFAs'_ authority to manage rights-of-way,collect franchise fees,and address other legitimate franchise concerns. 77. In the event that an LFA fails to grant or deny an application by the deadline set by the Commission, Verizon urges the Commission to temporarily authorize the applicant to provide video 275 Id 276 See infra paras.99-104. 38 Federal Communications Commission FCC 06-180 service.277 In general,we agree with this proposed remedy. In order to encourage franchising authorities to reach a final decision on a competitive application within the applicable time frame set forth in this Order, a failure to abide by the Commission's deadline must bring with it meaningful consequences. Additionally, we do not believe that a sufficient remedy for an LFA's inaction on an application is the creation of a remedial process, such as arbitration, that will result in even further delay. We also decline to agree to NATOA's suggestion that an applicant should be awarded a franchise identical to that held by the incumbent cable operator. This suggestion is impractical for the same reasons that we find local level- playing-field requirements are preempted.278 Therefore, if an LFA has not made a fmal decision within the time limits we adopt in.this Order, the LFA will be deemed to have granted the applicant an interim franchise based on the terms proposed in the application. This interim franchise will remain in effect only until the LFA takes fmal action on the application. We believe this approach is preferable to having the Commission itself provide interim franchises to applicants because a "deemed grant" will begin the process of developing a working relationship between the competitive applicant and the franchising authority,which will be helpful in the event that a negotiated franchise is ultimately approved. 78. The Commission has authority to deem a franchise application "granted" on an interim basis. As noted above, the Commission has broad authority to adopt rules to implement Title VI and, specifically, Section 621(a)(1) of the Communications Act.' As the Supreme Court has explained, the Commission serves"as the `single Government agency' with `unified jurisdiction' and `regulatory power over all forms of electrical communication, whether by telephone,telegraph, cable, or radio."'280 Section 201(b) authorizes the Commission to "prescribe such rules and regulations as may be necessary in the public interest to carry out the provisions of this Act.s281 "Mlle grant in § 201(b)means what it says: The FCC has rulemaking authority to carry out the `provisions of this Act."'282 Section 2 of the Communications Act grants the Commission explicit jurisdiction over "cable services."783 Moreover, Congress specifically charged the Commission with the administration of the Cable Act, including Section 621,and federal courts have consistently upheld the Commission's authority in this area.284 79. The Commission has previously granted franchise applicants temporary authority to operate in local areas. In the early 1970s, the Commission required every cable operator to obtain a federal certificate of compliance from the Commission before it could "commence operations:'285 In effect,the Commission acted as a co-franchising authority—requiring both an FCC certificate and a local franchise (granted pursuant to detailed Commission guidance and oversight) prior to the provision of 277 See Letter from Leora Hochstein,Executive Director,Federal Regulatory,Verizon,to Marlene Dortch, Secretary, Federal Communications Commission at 1 (May 3,2006). 278See infra para. 138. If new entrants were required to adopt the same franchises as incumbents, the new entrants would be forced to accept terms that violate Section 621(a)(1)'s prohibition on unreasonable refusals to grant franchises. See Mercatus Center at 39-40;Phoenix Center Competition Paper at 7. 279 See supra Section III.B. 28°United States v.Southwestern Cable Co., 392 U.S. 157, 167-68(1968)(citations omitted). 28147 U.S.C. §201(b).See also 47 U.S.C. §§ 151, 154(i),303(r). 282 AT&T Corp. v.Iowa Utilites Board 525 U.S.366,378(1999). 283 47 U.S.C. § 152. 284 See supra note 208. 285 Amendment of Part 74,Subpart of the Commission's Rules and Regulations Relative to Community Antenna Television Systems,36 F.C.C.2d 143,¶178(1972). 39 Federal Communications Commission FCC 06-180 services 286 As the Commission noted, "[a]lthough we have determined that local authorities ought to have the widest scope in franchising cable operators, the final responsibility is ours."287 And the Commission granted interim franchises for cable services in areas where there was no other franchising authority.288 80. We note that the deemed grant approach is consistent with other federal regulations designed to address inaction on the part of a State decision maker.'-89 In addition, this approach does not raise any special legal concerns about impinging on state or local authority. The Act plainly gives federal courts authority to review decisions made pursuant to Section 621(a)(1)290 As the Supreme Court observed in Iowa Utilities Board, "This is, at bottom, a debate not about whether the States will be allowed to do their own thing, but about whether it will be the FCC or the federal courts that draw the lines to which they must hew. To be sure,the FCC's lines can be even more restrictive than those drawn by the courts—but it is hard to spark a passionate`States' rights' debate over that detail."291 81. We anticipate that a deemed grant will be the exception rather than the rule because LFAs will generally comply with the Commission's rules and either accept or reject applications within the applicable time frame. However, in the rare instance that a local franchising authority unreasonably delays acting on an application and a deemed grant therefore occurs,we encourage the parties to continue to negotiate and attempt to reach a franchise agreement following expiration of the formal time limit. Each party will have a strong incentive to negotiate sincerely: LFAs will want to ensure that their constituents continue to receive the benefits of competition and cable providers will want to protect the investments they have made in deploying their systems. If the LFA ultimately acts to deny the franchise after the deadline, the applicant may appeal such denial pursuant to Section 635(a) of the Communications Act. If, on the other hand, the LFA ultimately grants the franchise, the applicant's operations will continue pursuant to the negotiated franchise,rather than the interim franchise. 2. Build-Out 82. As discussed above, build-out requirements in many cases may constitute unreasonable barriers to entry into the MVPD market for facilities-based competitors292 Accordingly, we limit LFAs' ability to impose certain build-out requirements pursuant to Section 621(a)(1). 286 The Commission ended the certificate requirement and ceded additional authority to state and local governments in the late 1970s, but only for pragmatic reasons. See, e.g.,Report and Order, 66 F.C.C.2d 380, ¶¶33, 37 (1977); Memorandum Opinion and Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 71 F.C.C.2d 569, ¶ 7 (1979) (withdrawing aspects of Commission franchising participation, but only "as long as the actions taken at the local level will not undermine important and overriding federal interests"). 287 Teleprompter Cable Sys.,52 F.C.C.2d 1263,119(1975)(emphasis added). 288 See,e.g.,Cable Television Reconsideration Order,36 F.C.C.2d 326,¶116(1972);Sun Valley Cable Communications (Sun City, Arizona), 39 F.C.C.2d 105 (1973); Mahoning Valley Cablevision, Inc. (Liberty Township, Ohio),39 F.C.C.2d 939(1973). 289 See, e.g., 40 C.F.R. 141.716(a) (watershed control plans that are submitted to a state and not acted upon by the regulatory deadline are "considered approved" until the state subsequently withdraws such approval.); 42 C.F.R. 438.56(e)(2)(an application to disenroll from a Medicaid managed care plan shall be"considered approved" if not acted on by a state agency within the regulatory deadline). See also 47 U.S.C. § 160(c) (petition for forbearance "deemed granted"if Commission fails to deny within the regulatory deadline). 29°See 47 U.S.C. §555. 291 AT&T Corp.v.Iowa Utils.Bcd,525 U.S.366,378 n.6(1999). 292 See Section M.A.,supra, at paras.31-42. 40 Federal Communications Commission FCC 06-180 a. Authority 83. Proponents of build-out requirements do not offer any persuasive legal argument that the Commission lacks authority to address this significant problem and conclude that certain build-out requirements for competitive entrants are unreasonable. Nothing in the Communications Act requires competitive franchise applicants to agree to build-out their networks in any particular fashion. Nevertheless, incumbent cable operators and LFAs contend that it is both lawful and appropriate, in all circumstances, to impose the same build-out requirements on competitive applicants that apply to incumbents 293 We reject these arguments and find that Section 621(a)(1) prohibits LFAs from refusing to award a new franchise on the ground that the applicant will not agree to unreasonable build-out requirements. 84. The only provision in the Communications Act that even alludes to build-out is Section 621(a)(4)(A), which provides that"a franchising authority . . . shall allow the applicant's cable system a reasonable period of time to become capable of providing cable service to all households in the franchise area."294 Far from a grant of authority, however, Section 621(a)(4)(A) is actually a limitation on LFAs' authority. In circumstances when it is reasonable for LFAs to require cable operators to build out their networks in accordance with a specific plan, LFAs must give franchisees a reasonable period of time to comply with those requirements. However, Section 621(a)(4)(A) does not address the central question here: whether it may be unreasonable for LFAs to impose certain build-out requirements on competitive cable applicants. To answer that question, Section 621(a)(4)(A)must be read in conjunction with Section 621(a)(1)'s prohibition on unreasonable refusals to award competitive franchises,and in light of the Act's twin goals of promoting competition and broadband deployment.295 85. Our interpretation of Section 621(a)(4)(A) is consistent with relevant jurisprudence and the legislative history. The D.C. Circuit has squarely rejected the notion that Section 621(a)(4)(A) authorizes LFAs to impose universal build-out requirements on all cable providers. The court has held that Section 621(a)(4)(A) does not require that cable operators extend service "throughout the franchise area," but instead is a limit on franchising authorities that seek to impose such obligations296 That decision comports with the legislative history, which indicates that Congress explicitly rejected an approach that would have imposed affirmative build-out obligations on all cable providers. The House version of the bill provided that an LFA's "refusal to award a franchise shall not be unreasonable if, for example, such refusal is on the ground . . . of inadequate assurance that the cable operator will, within a reasonable period of time, provide universal service throughout the entire franchise area under the 293 See, e.g., Comcast Reply Comments at 34;NCTA Reply Comments at 25-26;NATOA Reply Comments at 24; Southeast Michigan Municipalities Reply Comments at 44-45. 294 47 U.S.C. §541(a)(4)(A). 295 Americable Intern.,Inc.v.Dep't of Navy, 129 F.3d 1271, 1274-75(D.C.Cir. 1997). 296 Id. See also Americable Intern., Inc. v. U.S. Dept. of Navy, 931 F. Supp. 1, 2-3 (D.D.C. 1996) ("Americable argues first that the Cable Act establishes a`requirement' that a franchise `provide universal service throughout the franchise area.' Its authority for that position is 47 U.S.C. §541(a)(4)(A),which requires that a franchising authority (here the Navy) allow an applicant's system 'a reasonable period of time to become capable of providing cable service to all households in the franchise area. . . .' That language contains no requirement of universal service, of course. Americable's strained argument is at odds with the purpose of the Cable Act, which is to promote competition, and of the amendment in question, which protects the interests of new franchise applicants and not incumbents like Americable"). 41 Federal Communications Commission FCC 06-180 jurisdiction of the franchising authority."297 By declining to adopt this language, Congress made clear that it did not intend to impose uniform build-out requirements on all franchise applicants 298 86. LFAs and incumbent cable operators also rely on Section 621(a)(3) to support compulsory build-out. That Section provides: "In awarding a franchise or franchises, a franchising authority shall assure that access to cable service is not denied to any group of potential residential cable subscribers because of the income of the residents of the local area in which such group resides"299 We therefore address below some commenters' concerns that limitations on build-out requirements will contravene or render ineffective the statutory prohibition against discrimination on the basis of income ("redlining.")300 But for present purposes, it has already been established that Section 621(a)(3) does not mandate universal build-out., As the Commission previously has stated, "the intent of[Section 621(a)(3)] was to prevent the exclusion of cable service based on income" and "this section does not mandate that the franchising authority require the complete wiring of the franchise area in those circumstances where such an exclusion is not based on the income status of the residents of the unwired area."301 The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit(the"D.C. Circuit")has upheld this interpretation in the face of an argument that universal build-out was required by Section 621(a)(3): • The statute on its face prohibits discrimination on the basis of income; it manifestly does not require universal [build-out]. . . . [The provision requires] "wiring of all areas of the franchise" to prevent redlining. However, if no redlining is in evidence, it is likewise clear that wiring within the franchise area can be limited.302 b. Discussion 87. Given the current state of the MVPD marketplace,we find that an LFA's refusal to award a competitive franchise because the applicant will not agree to specified build-out requirements can be unreasonable. Market conditions today are far different from when incumbent cable operators obtained their franchises. Incumbent cable providers were frequently awarded community-wide monopolies?' In that context, a requirement that the provider build out facilities to the entire community was eminently. sensible. The essential bargain was that the cable operator would provide service to an entire community in exchange for its status as the only franchisee from whom customers in the community could purchase 297 H.R.REP.NO. 102-628,at 9(1992). 298 See Doe v. Chao, 540 U.S. 614,622-23 (2004)(finding relevance in the fact that Congress had cut out the very language in the bill that would have achieved the result claimant urged). 299 47 U.S.C. § 541(a)(3). 300 See, e.g., Comcast Reply at 2 (arguing that incumbent LECs are seeking Commission action on build-out requirements in order to pursue their"high-value"customers while bypassing"low-value"ones). 301 Implementing the Provisions of the Cable Communications Policy Act of 1984, Report and Order, MM Docket No. 84-1296, 58 Rad. Reg. 2d (P & F) 1, 62-63 (1985). BSPA Comments at 6 ("The most significant factors affecting where a wireline network will be built relate to cost of construction and the density of the population that will be served. These factors have a much more significant impact on the network expansion plans than the specific customer profile in a geographic area"). 302 ACLU v. FCC, 823 F.2d 1554, 1580 (D.C. Cir. 1987) (emphasis in original). See also Consumers for Cable Choice Comments at 8;DOJ Ex Parte at 4. 303 See H.R.REP.NO. 102-862,at 77-78 (1992)(Conf. Rep.), as reprinted in 1992 U.S.C.C.A.N. 1231, 1259-1260; Mercatus Center Comments at 39-40;Phoenix Center Competition Paper at 7. 42 Federal Communications Commission FCC 06-180 service. Thus, a fmancial burden was placed upon the monopoly provider in exchange for the undeniable benefit of being able to operate without competition 304 88. By contrast, new cable entrants must compete with entrenched cable operators and other video service providers. A competing cable provider that seeks to offer service in a particular community cannot reasonably expect to capture more than a fraction of the total market.' Build-out requirements thus impose significant financial risks on'competitive applicants,who must incur substantial construction costs to deploy facilities within the franchise area in exchange for the opportunity to capture a relatively small percentage of the market." In many instances, build-out requirements make entry so expensive that the prospective competitive provider withdraws its application and simply declines to serve any portion of the community 307 Given the entry-deterring effect of build-out conditions, our construction of Section 621(a)(1)best serves the Act's purposes of promoting competition and broadband deployment. 89. Accordingly, we find that it is unlawful for LFAs to refuse to grant a competitive franchise on the basis of unreasonable build-out mandates. For example, absent other factors, it would seem unreasonable to require a new competitive entrant to serve everyone in a franchise area before it has begun providing service to anyone. It also would seem unreasonable to require facilities-based entrants, such as incumbent LECs, to build out beyond the footprint of their existing facilities before they have even begun providing cable service 309 It also would seem unreasonable, absent other factors,to require more of a new entrant than an incumbent cable operator by, for instance, requiring the new entrant to build out its facilities in a shorter period of time than that originally afforded to the incumbent cable operator;or requiring the new entrant to build out and provide service to areas of lower density than those that the incumbent cable operator is required to build out to and serve 310 We note, however, it would seem reasonable for an LFA in establishing build-out requirements to consider the new entrant's market penetration. It would also seem reasonable for an LFA to consider benchmarks requiring the new entrant to increase its build-out after a reasonable period of time had passed after initiating service and taking into account its market success. 90. Some other practices that seem unreasonable include: requiring the new entrant to build out and provide service to buildings or developments to which the new entrant cannot obtain access on reasonable terms; requiring the new entrant to build out to certain areas or customers that the entrant cannot reach using standard technical solutions; and requiring the new entrant to build out and provide service to areas where it cannot obtain reasonable access to and use of the public rights of way. Subjecting a competitive applicant to more stringent build-out requirements than the LFA placed on the incumbent cable operator is unreasonable in light of the greater economic challenges facing competitive applicants explained above. Moreover, build-out requirements may significantly deter entry and thus 3°4 See FTTH Council Comments at 32-33;BellSouth Comments at 34. 3°5 See, e.g.,AT&T Comments at 50;FTTH Council Comments at 29-30. • 306 See FTTH Council Comments at 32-35;DOJ Er Parte at 12-15 (May 10,2006);AT&T Reply Comments at 34- 36;BellSouth Comments at 34-35;Verizon Comments at 39-40. 307 See FTTH Council Comments at 35; BellSouth Comments at 17-19, 35; USTA Comments at 22-25; Verizon Comments at 40-42. 3o5 AT&T Comments at 62-64;BellSouth Comments at 32-33; Qwest Comments at 21-22;USTA Comments at 27; Verizon Comments at 44-46. 309 See supra paras.38-40. 310 As we understand these franchising agreements are public documents, we find it reasonable to require the new entrant to produce the incumbent's current agreement. 43 Federal Communications Commission FCC 06-180 forestall competition by placing substantial demands on competitive entrants. 91. In sum, we find, based on the record as a whole,that build-out requirements imposed by LFAs can operate as unreasonable barriers to competitive entry. The Commission has broad authority under Section 621(a)(1) to determine whether particular LFA conditions on entry are unreasonable. Exercising that authority, we find that Section 621(a)(1) prohibits LFAs from refusing to award a competitive franchise because the applicant will not agree to unreasonable build-out requirements. c. Redlining 92. The Communications Act forbids access to cable service from being denied to any group of potential residential cable subscribers because of neighborhood income. The statute is thus clear that no provider of cable services may deploy services with the intent to redline and "that access to cable service [may not be] denied to any group of potential residential cable subscribers because of the income of the residents of the local area in which such group resides"31' Nothing in our action today is intended to limit LFAs' authority to appropriately enforce Section 621(a)(3) and to ensure that their constituents are protected against discrimination. This includes an LFA's authority to deny a franchise that would run afoul of Section 621(a)(3). 93. MMTC suggests that the Commission develop anti-redlining"best practices,"specifically defining who is responsible for overseeing redlining issues, what constitutes redlining, and developing substantial relief for those affected by redlining.312 MMTC suggests that an LFA could afford a new entrant means of obtaining pre-clearance of its build-out plans, establishing a rebuttable presumption that the new entrant will not redline (for example, proposing to replicate a successful anti-redlining program employed in another franchise area)313 Alternatively, an LFA could allow a new entrant to choose among regulatory options, any of which would be sufficient to allow for build-out to commence while the granular details of anti-redlining reporting are finalized.314 We note these suggestions but do not require them. 3. Franchise Fees 94. In response to questions in the Local Franchising NPRM concerning existing practices that may impede cable entry,315 various parties discussed unreasonable demands relating to franchise fees. Commenters have also indicated that unreasonable demands concerning fees or other consideration by some LFAs have created an unreasonable barrier to entry.316 Such matters include not only the universe 31147 U.S.C. §541. 312 MMTC Comments at 22,MMTC Reply at 15. MMTC urges that The State Regulators Council of the Advisory Committee on Diversity for Communication in the Digital Age should be the oversight committee for redlining issues. MMTC Comments at 24. 313 MMTC Reply at 11. 314 MMTC Reply at 11 (providing examples of "rapid buildout plan," "equal service verification plan," and "combined plan"). 315 Local Franchising NPRM, 20 FCC Rcd at 18588. 316 See, e.g.,AT&T Reply at Attachment C at 5 ("Lynbrook,N.Y. has asked Verizon to provide cameras to film a holiday visit from Santa Claus.Deputy Mayor Thomas Miccio said, 'They know if they don't get this process done they're going to be in big, big trouble, so we feel we're in a very good position."') (citing Dionne Searcey, As Verizon Enters Cable Business, it Faces Local Static, WALL ST. J., Oct. 28, 2005, at Al), Verizon Comments at Attachment A at 14 ("Two LFAs in California required application fees of $25,000 and $20,000, respectively. (continued...) 44 Federal Communications Commission FCC 06-180 of franchise-related costs imposed on providers that should or should not be included within the 5 percent statutory franchise fee cap established in Section 622(b),317 but also the calculation of franchise fees (i.e., the revenue base from which the 5 percent is calculated). Accordingly, we will exercise our authority under Section 621(a)(1) to address the unreasonable demands made by some LFAs. In particular, any refusal to award an additional competitive franchise because of an applicant's refusal to accede to demands that are deemed impermissible below shall be considered to be unreasonable. The Commission's jurisdiction over franchise fee policy is well established.318 The general law with respect to franchise fees should be relatively well known, but we believe it may be helpful to restate the basic propositions here in effort to avoid misunderstandings that can lead to delay in the franchising process as well as unreasonable refusals to award competitive franchises. To the extent that our determinations are relevant to incumbent cable operators as well, we would expect that discrepancies would be addressed at the next franchise renewal negotiation period, as noted in the FNPRM infra, which tentatively concludes that the findings in this Order should apply to cable operators that have existing franchise agreements as they negotiate renewal of those agreements with LFAs.319 95. We address below four significant issues relating to franchise fee payments. First, we consider the franchise fee revenue base. Second, we examine the limitations on charges incidental to the awarding or enforcing of a franchise. Third, we discuss the proper classification of in-kind payments unrelated to the provision of cable service. Finally,we consider whether contributions in support of PEG services and equipment should be considered within the franchise fee calculation. 96. The fundamental franchise fee limitation is set forth in Section 622(b), which states that "franchise fees paid by a cable operator with respect to any cable system shall not exceed 5 percent of such cable operator's gross revenues derived in such period from the operation of the cable system to �e provide cable services. 320 Section 622(g)(1)broadly defines the term"franchise fee"to include"any tax, fee, or assessment of any kind imposed by a franchising authority or other governmental entity on a cable operator or cable subscriber, or both, solely because of their status as such."321 Section 622(g)(2)(c), however, excludes from the term"franchise fee"any"capital costs which are required by the franchise to be incurred by the cable operator for public, educational, or governmental access facilities.s372 And Section 622(g)(2)(D) excludes from the term (and therefore from the 5 percent cap) "requirements or charges incidental to the awarding or enforcing of the franchise, including payments for bonds, security funds, letters of credit, insurance, indemnification, penalties, or liquidated damages.s323 It has been established that certain types of"in-kind" obligations, in addition to monetary payments, may be subject (Continued from previous page) Another community in that state has requested an upfront application fee of$30,000 plus an agreement to pay additional expenses(Le., attorneys fees)of up to an additional$20,000."). 317 47 U.S.C. §542(b). 318 See ACLU v. FCC, 823 F.2d 1554, 1574 (D.C. Cir. 1987)("[I]t is clear . . .that the ultimate responsibility for ensuring a 'national policy' with respect to franchise fees lies with the federal agency responsible for administering the Communications Act.")(emphasis in original). 319 See infra para. 140. 320 47 U.S.C. § 542(b) (emphasis added). FTTH Council supports an alternative cap based on the actual costs of managing the use of public rights-of-way, but we need not address that argument because we do not have the discretion to adopt a different limit than that set by Congress. 32147 U.S.C. §542(g)(1). 322 47 U.S.C. §542(g)(2)(C). 323 47 U.S.C. §542(g)(2)(D). 45 Federal Communications Commission FCC 06-180 to the cap. The legislative history of the 1984 Cable Act, which adopted the franchise fee limit, specifically provides that "lump sum grants not related to PEG access for municipal programs such as libraries,recreation departments, detention centers or other payments not related to PEG access would be subject to the 5 percent limitation°'32a 97. Definition of the 5 percent fee cap revenue base. As a preliminary matter,we address the request of several parties to clarify which revenue-generating services should be included in the gross fee figure from which the 5 percent calculation is drawn 325 The record indicates that in the franchise application process, disputes that arise as to the propriety of particular fees can be a significant cause of delay in the process and that some franchising authorities are making unreasonable demands in this area.326 This issue is of particular,concern where a prospective new entrant for the provision of cable services is a facilities-based incumbent or competitive provider of telecommunications and/or broadband services. A number of controversies regarding which revenues are properly subject to application of the franchise fee were resolved before the Supreme Court's decision in NCTA v. Brand X,327 which settled issues concerning the proper regulatory classification of'cable modem-based Internet access service. Nevertheless, in some quarters, there has been considerable uncertainty over the application of franchise fees to Internet access service revenues and other non-cable revenues. Thus, we believe it may assist the franchise process and prevent unreasonable refusals to award competitive franchises to reiterate certain conclusions that have been reached with respect to the.franchise fee base. 98. We clarify that a cable operator is not required to pay franchise fees on revenues from non-cable services!' Section 622(b) provides that the "franchise fees paid by a cable operator with respect to any cable system shall not exceed 5 percent of such cable operator's gross revenues derived in such period from the operation of the cable system to provide cable services."329 The term"cable service" is explicitly defined in Section 602(6) to mean (i) "the one-way transmission to subscribers of video programming or other programming service,"and(ii)"subscriber interaction, if any,which is required for the selection or use of such video programming or other programming service."330 The Commission determined in the Cable Modem Declaratory.Ruling that a franchise authority may not assess franchise fees on non-cable services, such as cable modem service, stating that"revenue from cable modem service would not be included in the calculation of gross revenues from which the franchise fee ceiling is determined."331' Although this decision related specifically to Internet access service revenues, the same 324 H.R.REP.NO. 98-934,at 65(1984),as reprinted in 1984 U.S.C.C.A.N.4655,4702. 328 Verizon Comments at 63-64;BellSouth Comments at 41-43. 326 See supra paras.43-45. 327125 S.Ct.2688(2005). See infra note 331. 328 Advertising revenue and home shopping commissions have been included in an operator's gross revenues for franchise fee calculation purposes. See Texas Coalition of Cities for Utility Issues v. FCC, 354 F.3d 802, 806(5th Cir. 2003)("A cable operator's gross revenue includes revenue from subscriptions and revenue from other sources- e.g., advertising and commissions from home shopping networks."); City of Pasadena, California The City of Nashville, Tennessee and The City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, 16 FCC Rcd. 18192, 2001 WL 1167612, par. 15 (2001) ("There is no dispute among the parties to this proceeding, or in relevant precedent,that advertising revenue and home shopping commissions can be considered part of an operator's gross revenues for franchise fee calculation purposes."). 32947 U.S.C. § 542(b)(emphasis added). 33°47 U.S.C. § 522(6). 331 In re Inquiry Concerning High Speed Access to the Internet Over Cable and Other Facilities, 17 FCC Rcd 4798, 4851 (2002)("Cable Modem Declaratory Ruling"),rev'd,Brand X Internet Services v.FCC,345 F.3d 1120(9th Cir. (continued...) 46 Federal Communications Commission FCC 06-180 would be true for other "non-cable" service revenues?" Thus, Internet access services, including broadband data services,and any other non-cable services are not subject to"cable services"fees. 99. Charges incidental to the awarding or enforcing of a franchise. Section 622(g)(2)(D) excludes from the term "franchise fee" "requirements or charges incidental to the awarding or enforcing of the franchise, including payments for bonds, security funds, letters of credit, insurance, indemnification, penalties, or liquidated damages."'" Such "incidental"requirements or charges may be assessed by a franchising authority without counting toward the 5 percent cap. A number of parties assert, and seek Commission clarification,that certain types of payments being requested in the franchise process are not incidental fees under Section 622(g)(2)(D) but instead must either be prohibited or counted toward the cap 3''4 Furthermore, a number of parties report that disputes over such issues as well as unreasonable demands being made by some franchising authorities in this regard may be leading to delays in the franchising process as well as unreasonable refusals to award competitive franchises. We therefore determine that non-incidental franchise-related costs required by LFAs must count toward the 5 percent franchise fee cap and provide guidance as to what constitutes such non-incidental franchise- related costs. Under the Act, these costs combined with other franchise fees cannot exceed 5 percent of gross revenues for cable service. 100. BellSouth urges us to prohibit franchising authorities from assessing fees that the authorities claim are"incidental"if those fees are not specifically allowed under Section 622 of the Cable Act.' BellSouth asserts that LFAs often seek fees beyond the 5 percent franchise fee allowed by the statutory provision. The company therefore asks us to clarify that any costs that an LFA requires a cable provider to pay beyond the exceptions listed in Section 622— including generally applicable taxes, PEG capital costs, and"incidental charges"—count toward the 5 percent cap336 OPASTCO asserts that higher fees discourage investment and often will need to be passed on to consumers337 Verizon also requests that we clarify that fees that exceed the cap are unreasonable.33s 101. AT&T argues that we should find unreasonable any fees or contribution requirements that are not credited toward the franchise fee obligation?" AT&T also asserts that any fmancial obligation to the franchising authority that a provider undertakes, such as application or acceptance fees (Continued from previous page) 2003), rev'd,NCTA v. Brand X, 545 U.S. 967 (2005). The Commission issued a notice of proposed rulemaking ("Cable Modem NPRM') concurrently with the Cable Modem Declaratory Ruling. Certain questions from the Cable Modem NPRM that are relevant, but not directly related, to this discussion remain pending before the Commission. Cable Modem Declaratory Ruling at 4839-4854. 332 See NATOA Reply at 29(agreeing that non-cable services are not subject to franchise fees). 333 47 U.S.C. §542(g)(2)(D). 334 AT&T Comments at 65-67;BellSouth Comments at 7,38-39. 336 BellSouth Comments at 7. 336 BellSouth Comments at 38-39. • 337 OPASTCO Reply at 5. 338 Verizon Reply at 59. 339 AT&T Comments at 64. 47 Federal Communications Commission FCC 06-180 that exceed the reasonable cost of processing an application, free or discounted service to an LFA, and LFA attorney or consultant fees,should apply toward the franchise fee obligation.' 102. Conversely, NATOA asserts that costs such as those enumerated above by AT&T fall within Section 622(g)(2)(D)'s definition of charges "incidental" to granting the franchise 341 NATOA contends that the word "incidental" does not refer to the amount of the charge, but rather the fact that a charge is "naturally appertaining" to the grant of a franchise. Thus, NATOA argues, these costs are not part of the franchise fee and therefore do not count toward the cap 342 103. There is nothing in the text of the statute or the legislative history to suggest that Congress intended the list of exceptions in Section 622(g)(2)(D) to include the myriad additional expenses that some LFAs argue are"incidental."' Given that the lack of clarity on this issue may hinder competitive deployment and lead to unreasonable refusals to award competitive franchises under Section 621,we seek to provide guidance as to what is"incidental"for a new competitive application 344 We find that the term "incidental" in Section 622(g)(2)(D) should be limited to the list of incidentals in the statutory provision, as well as other minor expenses, as described below. We find instructive a series of federal court decisions relating to this subsection of Section 622. These courts have indicated that (i) there are significant limits on what payments qualify as "incidental" and may be requested outside of the 5 percent fee limitation; and(ii) processing fees, consultant fees, and attorney fees are not necessarily to be regarded as "incidental" to the awarding of a franchise 34s In Robin Cable Systems v. City of Sierra Vista, for example,the United States District Court for the District of Arizona held that"processing costs" of up to $30,000 required as part of the award of a franchise were not excluded under subsection (g)(2)(D)because they were not"incidental,"but rather"substantial" and therefore"inconsistent with the Cable Act."346 Additionally, in Time Warner Entertainment v. Briggs, the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts decided that attorney fees and consultant fees fall within the defmition of franchise fees, as defined in Section 622. Because the municipality in that case was already collecting 5 percent of the operator's gross revenues, the Court determined that a franchise provision requiring the cable operator to pay such fees above and beyond its 5 percent gross revenues was preempted and therefore unenforceable.347 Finally, in Birmingham Cable Comm. v. City of Birmingham, the United States District for the Northern District of Alabama stated that "it would be an aberrant construction of 340 AT&T Comments at 65-67. 341 NATOA Reply at 34-35. 342 NATOA Reply at 35(citing Random House Dictionary of the English Language at 720). 343 See infra paras. 105-108. 344.NATOA argues that the Commission is powerless to rewrite the meaning of the statute. NATOA Reply at 35. Yet, Section 622(i) states "[a]ny Federal agency may not regulate the amount of the franchise fees paid by a cable operator, or regulate the use of funds derived from such fees,except as provided in this section." Therefore,we are within our Congressionally mandated authority to provide clarifying guidance regarding the meaning of this provision. 345 See Robin Cable Systems v. City of Sierra Vista, 842 F. Supp. 380(D.Ariz. 1993); Time Warner Entertainment Co. v. Briggs, 1993 WL 23710 (D. Mass. Jan. 14, 1993); Birmingham Cable Comm. v. City of Birmingham, 1989 WL 253850(N.D.Ala. 1989). 346 Robin Cable at 381. 347 Time Warner at 23710 *6. 48 Federal Communications Commission FCC 06-180 the phrase `incidental to the awarding ... of the franchise,' in this context, to conclude that the phrase embraces consultant fees incurred solely by the City."34s 104. We find these decisions instructive and emphasize that LFAs must count such non- incidental franchise-related costs toward the cap. We agree with these judicial decisions that non- incidental costs include the items discussed above, such as attorney fees and consultant fees, but may include other items, as well. Examples of other items include application or processing fees that exceed the reasonable cost of processing the application, acceptance fees,free or discounted services provided to an LFA, any requirement to lease or purchase equipment from an LFA at prices higher than market value, and in-kind payments as discussed below. Accordingly, if LFAs continue to request the provision of such in-kind services and the reimbursement of franchise-related costs, the value of such costs and services should count towards the provider's franchise fee payments.349 For future guidance, LFAs and video service providers may look to judicial cases to determine other costs that should be considered "incidental." 105. In-kind payments unrelated to provision of cable service. The record indicates that in the context of some franchise negotiations, LFAs have demanded from new entrants payments or in-kind contributions that are unrelated to the provision of cable services. While many parties argue that franchising authority requirements unrelated to the provision of cable services are unreasonable,35o few parties provided specific details surrounding the in-kind payment demands of LFAs 351 As discussed further below, most parties generally discussed examples of concessions, but were unwilling to provide details of specific instances, including the identity of the LFA requesting the unrelated services352 Even without specific details concerning the LFAs involved, however,the record adequately supports a fmding that LFA requests unrelated to the provision of cable services have a negative impact on the entry of new cable competitors in terms of timing and costs and may lead to unreasonable refusals to award competitive franchises. Accordingly,we clarify that any requests made by LFAs that are unrelated to the provision of cable services by a new competitive entrant are subject to the statutory 5 percent franchise fee cap. 106. The Broadband Service Providers Association states that an example of a municipal capital requirement can include traffic light control systems.353 FTTH Council states that non-video requirements raise the cost of entry for new entrants and should be prohibited.354 As an example, FTTH 348 Birmingham at 253850. 349 To the extent that an LFA requires franchise fee payments of less than 5 percent an offset may not be necessary. Such LFAs are able to request the reimbursement or provision of such costs up to the 5 percent statutory threshold. 350 Alcatel Comments at 10;FTTH Council Comments at 36; OPASTCO Reply at 4;USTelecom Comments at 48; BPSA Comments at 8;NTCA Comments at 13;South Slope Comments at 15. See also DOJ Ex Parte at 11. 351 Some LFAs argue that commenters' allegations about inappropriate fees fail to identify the LFAs in question. As a consequence, they contend, we should not rely on such unsubstantiated claims unless the particular LFAs in question are given a chance to respond. Communications Support Group Reply at 7;Anne Arundel County Reply at 5. We need not resolve particular disputes between parties,however,in order to address this issue. Our clarification that all LFA requests not related to cable services must be counted toward the 5 percent cap is a matter of statutory construction,and all commenters have had ample opportunity to address this issue. 352 Broadband Service Providers Association Comments at 8;AT&T Comments at 26;Verizon Comments at 57-58. Parties have indicated that they were unwilling to identify specific instances of unreasonable requests,since in many cases these parties are still trying to negotiate franchise agreements with the communities at issue. 353 Broadband Service Providers Association Comments at 8. 354 FTTH Council Comments at 66. 49 Federal Communications Commission FCC 06-180 Council asserts that in San Antonio, Grande Communications was required to prepay $1 million in franchise fees(which took the company five years to draw down)and to fund a$50,000 scholarship,with an additional $7,200 to be contributed each year. They assert that new entrants agree to these requirements because they have no alternative355 The National Telecommunications Cooperative Association ("NTCA") also asserts that its members have complained that LFAs require them to accept • franchise terms unrelated to the provision of video service 356 NTCA states that any incumbent cable operator that already abides by such a requirement has made the concession in exchange for an exclusive franchise, but that new entrants, in contrast, must fight for every subscriber and will not survive if forced into expensive non-video related projects 357 107. AT&T refers to a press article stating that Verizon has faced myriad requests unrelated to the provision of cable service. These include: a$13 million "wish list" in Tampa, Florida; a request for video hookup for a Christmas celebration and money for wildflower seeds in New York; and a request for fiber on traffic lights to monitor traffic in Virginia.3S6 Verizon provides little additional information about these examples, but argues that any requests must be considered franchise-related costs subject to the 5 percent franchise fee cap,as discussed above 359 108. We clarify that any requests made by LFAs unrelated to the provision of cable services by a new competitive entrant are subject to the statutory 5 percent franchise fee cap, as discussed above. Municipal projects unrelated to the provision of cable service do not fall within any of the exempted categories in Section 622(g)(2) of the.Act and thus should be considered a "franchise fee"under Section 622(g)(1). The legislative history of the 1984 Cable Act supports this fmding, providing that"lump sum grants not related to PEG access for municipal programs such as libraries, recreation departments, detention centers or other payments not related to PEG access would be subject to the 5 percent limitation."360 Accordingly, any such requests for municipal projects will count towards the 5 percent cap. 109. Contributions in support of PEG services and equipment. As further discussed in the Section below, we also consider the question of the proper treatment of LFA-mandated contributions in support of PEG services and equipment. The record reflects that disputes regarding such contributions are impeding video deployment and may be leading to unreasonable refusals to award competitive franchises 361 Section 622(g)(2)(C) excludes from the term "franchise fee" any "capital costs which are required by the franchise to be incurred by the cable operator for public, educational, or governmental access facilities."362 Accordingly, payments of this type, if collected only for the cost of building PEG facilities, are not subject to the 5 percent limit. Capital costs refer to those costs incurred in or associated 355 Id at 38. 356 NTCA Comments at 4. 357 NTCA Comments at 13. • 359 AT&T Comments at 26(citing Dionne Searcey,As Verizon Enters Cable Business, it Faces Local Static, WALL ST.J.,Oct.28,2005,at Al). See also City of Tampa Reply Comments at 5. 359 Verizon Comments at 54. See also USTelecom Comments at 48. 36°H.R.REP.No. 98-934,at 65(1984),as reprinted in 1984 U.S.C.C.A.N.4655,4702. 361 See, e.g., FTTH Council Comments at 36 (noting how Knology declined to enter the Louisville market after the Louisville LFA requested a PEG grant of$266,000 at the time of franchise grant, with $1.9 million total due over the 15-year term). 362 47 U.S.C. §542(g)(2)(C). 50 Federal Communications Commission FCC 06-180 with the construction of PEG access facilities 363 These costs are distinct from payments in support of the use of PEG access facilities. PEG support payments may include, but are not limited to, salaries and training. Payments made in support of PEG access facilities are considered franchise fees and are subject to the 5 percent cap 364 While Section 622(g)(2)(B) excluded from the term franchise fee any such payments made in support of PEG facilities, it only applies to any franchise in effect on the date of enactment.365 Thus, for any franchise granted after 1984, this exemption from franchise fees no longer applies. 4. PEG/Institutional Networks 110. In the Local Franchising NPRM, we tentatively concluded that it is not unreasonable for an LFA, in awarding a franchise, to "require adequate assurance that the cable operator will provide adequate public, educational and governmental access channel capacity, facilities, or financial support"366 because this promotes important statutory and public policy goals 367 However, pursuant to Section 621(a)(1), we conclude that LFAs may not make unreasonable demands of competitive applicants for PEG and I-Net368 and that conditioning the award of a competitive franchise on applicants agreeing to such unreasonable demands constitutes an unreasonable refusal to award a franchise. This finding is limited to competitive applicants under Section 621(a)(1). Yet, as this issue is also germane to existing franchisees, we ask for further comment on the applicability of this and other findings in the Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking attached hereto. The FNPRM tentatively concludes that the findings in this Order should apply to cable operators that have existing franchise agreements as they negotiate renewal of those agreements with LFAs. 111. As an initial matter, we conclude that we have the authority to address issues relating to PEG and I-Net support.369 Some commenters argue that Congress explicitly granted the responsibility for PEG and I-Net regulation to state and local governments370 For example, NATOA contends that we cannot limit the in-kind or monetary support that LFAs may request for PEG access, because Sections 624(a) and (b) allow an LFA to establish requirements "related to the establishment and operation of a cable system," including facilities and equipment371 In response,Verizon claims that PEG requirements should extend only to channel capacity, and that LFAs can obtain other contributions only to the extent 363 See H.R.REP.No.98-934,at 19(1984),as reprinted in 1984 U.S.C.C.A.N.4655,4656. 3"See Cable TV Fund 14-A v. City of Naperville, 1997 WL 433628(N.D.Ill. 1997)at 13;City of Bowie,Maryland, 14 FCC Rcd.7675(Cable Service Bureau, 1999);as clarified 14 FCC Rcd 9596(Cable Services Bureau, 1999). 365 47 U.S.C. §542(g)(2)(B). 366 47 U.S.C. §541(a)(4)(B). 367 Local Franchising NPRM,20 FCC Rcd at 18590. 368 An I-Net is defined as "a communication network which is constructed or operated by the cable operator and which is generally available only to subscribers who are not residential customers."47 U.S.C. §531(f). 369 See infra Section III.B.2. 370 NATOA Comments at 35; NATOA Reply at 30-31; Hawaii Reply at 2-3; Mercatus Comments at 35; Certain Florida Municipalities Comments at 17-18;Anne Arundel et al Comments at 35; City of New York Comments at 3- 4. 371 NATOA Reply at 30(quoting 47 U.S.C. §544(b)). 51 Federal Communications Commission FCC 06-180 that they are agreed to voluntarily by the cable operator.372 Verizon also asserts that the record confirms that LFAs often demand PEG support that exceeds statutory limits 373 112. Section 611(a)of the Communications Act operates as a restriction on the authority of the franchising authority to establish channel capacity requirements for PEG. This Section provides that"[a] franchising authority may establish requirements in a franchise with respect to the designation or use of channel capacity for public, educational, or governmental use only to the extent provided in this section."374 Section 611(b) allows a franchising authority to require that"channel capacity be designated for public, educational or governmental use," but the extent of such channel capacity is not defined.375 Section 621(a)(4)(b)provides that a franchising authority may require"adequate assurance"that the cable operator will provide "adequate" PEG access channel capacity, facilities, or fmancial support."376 Because the statute does not define the term"adequate,"we have the authority to interpret what Congress meant by "adequate PEG access channel capacity, facilities, and financial support," and to prohibit excessive LFA demands in this area, if necessary. We note that the legislative history does not define "adequate," nor does it provide any guidance as to what Congress meant by the term.377 We therefore conclude that"adequate"should be given its plain meaning: the term does not mean significant but rather "satisfactory or sufficient."378 As discussed above,we have also accepted the tentative conclusion of the Local Franchising NPRM that Section 621(a)(1) prohibits not only the ultimate refusal to award a competitive franchise, but also the establishment of procedures and other requirements that have the effect of unreasonably interfering with the ability of a would-be competitor to obtain a competitive franchise. Given this conclusion and our authority to interpret the term "adequate" in Section 621(a)(4), we will provide guidance as to what constitutes"adequate"PEG support under that provision as subject to the constraints of the"reasonableness"requirement in Section 621(a)(1). • 113. AT&T asserts that we should shorten the period for franchise negotiations by adopting standard terms for PEG channels.379 We reject this suggestion and clarify that LFAs are free to establish . their own requirements for PEG to the extent discussed herein,provided that the non-capital costs of such requirements are offset from the cable operator's franchise fee payments. This is consistent with the Act . and the historic management of PEG requirements by LFAs.3S0 114. Consumers for Cable Choice and Verizon argue that it is unreasonable for an LFA to request a number of PEG channels from a new entrant that is greater than the number of channels that the community is using at the time the new entrant submits its franchise application381 We fmd that it is 372 Verizon Reply at 60-61. • 373 Verizon Reply at 60(citing NATOA Comments). 374 47 U.S.C. § 531(a). 375 47 U.S.C. § 531(b). 376 47 U.S.C. § 541(a)(4)(B). 377 See See H.R.REP.NO. 102-862,at 78(1992)(Conf.Rep.),as reprinted in 1992 U.S.C.C.A.N. 1231, 1260. 378 American Heritage Dictionary, Second College Edition(1991). 379 AT&T Reply at 15. 38°See 47 U.S.C. §541(a)(4)(B); Time Warner Cable of New York City v. City of New York, 943 F.Supp. 1357, 1367 (S.D.N.Y 1996), aff'd sub nom. Time Warner Cable of New York City v. Bloomberg, L.P., 118 F.3d 917 (2nd Cir. 1997). 381 Consumers for Cable Choice Comments at 8;Verizon Comments at 71. 52 Federal Communications Commission FCC 06-180 unreasonable for an LFA to impose on a new entrant more burdensome PEG carriage obligations than it has imposed upon the incumbent cable operator. 115. Some commenters also asked whether certain requirements regarding construction or financial support of PEG facilities and I-Nets are unreasonable under Section 621(a)(1). Several parties indicate that, as a general matter, PEG contributions should be limited to what is "reasonable"to support "adequate" facilities.382 We agree that PEG support required by an LFA in exchange for granting a new entrant a franchise should be both adequate and reasonable, as discussed above. In addressing each of these concerns below,we seek to strike the necessary balance between the two statutory terms. 116. Ad Hoc Telecom Manufacturers argue that it is unreasonable to require the payment of ongoing costs to operate PEG channels, because a requirement is unrelated to right-of-way management, the fundamental policy rationale for an LFA's franchising authority.383 In response, Cablevision asserts that exempting incumbent LECs from PEG support requirements would undermine the key localism features of franchise requirements, and could undermine the ability of incumbent cable operators to provide robust community access 3" We disagree with Ad Hoc Telecom Manufacturers that it is per se unreasonable for LFAs to require the payment of ongoing costs to support PEG. Such a ruling would be contrary to Section 621(a)(4)(B) and public policy. We note, however, that any ongoing LFA-required PEG support costs are subject to the franchise fee cap,as discussed above. 117. FTTH Council, Verizon, and AT&T ask us to affirm that PEG or I-Net requirements imposed on a new entrant that are wholly duplicative of existing requirements imposed on the incumbent cable operator are per se unreasonable.385 AT&T and Verizon argue that Section 621(a)(4)(B) requires adequate facilities, not duplicative facilities386 FTTH Council contends that if LFAs can require duplicative facilities, they can burden new entrants with inefficient obligations without increasing the benefit to the public387 FTTH Council thus suggests that LFAs be precluded from imposing completely duplicative requirements, and that we require new entrants to contribute apro rata share of the incumbent cable operator's PEG obligations. For example, if an incumbent cable operator funds a PEG studio, the new entrant should be required to contribute a pro rata share of the ongoing fmancial obligation for such studio,based on the new entrant's number of subscribers.388 118. In addition to advocating a pro rata contribution rule, FTTH Council requests that we require incumbents to permit new entrants to connect with the incumbent's pre-existing PEG channel feeds389 FTTH Council proposes that the incumbent cable operator and new entrant decide how to accomplish this connection, with LFA involvement if necessary, and that the costs of the connection should be deducted from the new entrant's PEG-related financial obligations to the LFA.39° Others agree that PEG interconnection is necessary to maximize the value of local access channels when more than one 382 BellSouth Comments at 8;Verizon Comments at 71. 383 Ad Hoc Telecom Manufacturer Coalition Comments at 4. 384 Cablevision Reply at 29-30. 385 FTTH Council Comments at 66;Verizon Comments at 71;AT&T Comments at 67. 386 AT&T Comments at 67-68;Verizon Reply at 61. 387 FTTH Council Comments at 67. 388 Id 389M 390 Id 53 Federal Communications Commission FCC 06-180 video provider operates in a community.391 New entrants seek a pro rata contribution rule based on practical constraints as well. AT&T asserts that, although incumbent cable operators can provide space for PEG in local headend buildings, LEC new entrants' facilities are not designed to accommodate those needs. Thus, if duplicative facilities are demanded, new entrants would have to build or rent facilities solely for this purpose, which AT&T contends would be unreasonable under the statute 392. NATOA counters that AT&T's complaint regarding space mischaracterizes PEG studio requirements that exist in some franchises393. Specifically, NATOA claims that LFAs generally are not concerned with a PEG studio's location, and that PEG studios are usually located near cable headends simply because those locations reduce the cable operators' costs394 119. We agree with AT&T, FTTH Council, Verizon, and others that completely duplicative PEG and I-Net requirements imposed by LFAs would be unreasonable.395 Such duplication generally would be inefficient and would provide minimal additional benefits to the public,unless it was required to address an LFA's particular concern regarding redundancy needed for, for example, public safety. We clarify that an I-Net requirement is not duplicative if it would provide additional capability or functionality, beyond that provided by existing I-Net facilities. We note, however, that we would expect an LFA to consider whether a competitive franchisee can provide such additional functionality by providing financial support or actual equipment to supplement existing I-Net facilities, rather than by constructing new I-Net facilities. Finally,we find that it is unreasonable for an LFA to refuse to award a competitive franchise unless the applicant agrees to pay the face value of an I-Net that will not be constructed. Payment for I-Nets that ultimately are not constructed are unreasonable as they do not serve their intended purpose. 120. While we prefer that LFAs and new entrants negotiate reasonable PEG obligations, we find that under Section 621 it is unreasonable for an LFA to require a new entrant to provide PEG support that is in excess of the incumbent cable operator's obligations. We also agree that a pro rata cost sharing approach is one reasonable means of meeting the statutory requirement of the provision of adequate PEG facilities. To the extent that a new entrant agrees to share pro rata costs with the incumbent cable operator, such an arrangement is per se reasonable396 391 Communications Support Group,,Inc.Reply at 12. 392 AT&T Comments at 70. 393 NATOA Reply at 41-42. 394 NATOA Reply at 42. . 399 If a new entrant, for technical, financial, or other reasons, is unable to interconnect with the incumbent cable operator's facilities, it would not be unreasonable for an LFA to require the new entrant to assume the responsibility of providing comparable facilities,subject to the limitations discussed herein. 396 To determine a new entrant's per se reasonable PEG support payment, the new entrant should determine the incumbent cable operator's per subscriber payment at the time the competitive applicant applies for a franchise or submits its informational filing,and then calculate the proportionate fee based on its subscriber base. A new entrant may agree to provide PEG support over and above the incumbent cable operator's existing obligations, but such support is at the entrant's discretion. If the new entrant agrees to share the pro rata costs with the incumbent cable operator,the PEG programming provider,be it the incumbent cable operator,the LFA,or a third-party programmer, must allow the new entrant to interconnect with the existing PEG feeds. The costs of such interconnection should be borne by the new entrant. We note that we previously have required cost-sharing and interconnection for PEG channels and facilities in another context. Section 75.1505(d)of the Commission's rules requires that if an LFA and OVS operator cannot reach an agreement on the OVS operator's PEG obligations,the operator is required to match the incumbent cable operator's PEG obligations and the incumbent cable operator is required to permit the OVS (continued...) 54 Federal Communications Commission FCC 06-180 5. Regulation of Mixed-Use Networks 121. We clarify that LFAs' jurisdiction applies only to the provision of cable services over cable systems. To the extent a cable operator provides non-cable services and/or operates facilities that do not qualify as a cable system, it is unreasonable for an LFA to refuse to award a franchise based on issues related to such services or facilities. For example,we fmd it unreasonable for an LFA to refuse to grant a cable franchise to an applicant for resisting an LFA's demands for regulatory control over non- cable services or facilities397 Similarly, an LFA has no authority to insist on an entity obtaining a separate cable franchise in order to upgrade non-cable facilities. For example,assuming an entity(e.g., a LEC) already possesses authority to access the public rights-of-way, an LFA may not require the LEC to obtain a franchise solely for the purpose of upgrading its network?" So long as there is a non-cable purpose associated with the network upgrade, the LEC is not required to obtain a franchise until and unless it proposes to offer cable services. For example, if a LEC deploys fiber optic cable that can be used for cable and non-cable services, this deployment alone does not trigger the obligation to obtain a cable franchise. The same is true for boxes housing infrastructure to be used for cable and non-cable services. 122. We further clarify that an LFA may not use its video franchising authority to attempt to regulate a LEC's entire network beyond the provision of cable services. We agree with Verizon that the "entirety of a telecommunications/data network is not automatically converted to a `cable system' once subscribers start receiving video programming."399 For instance, we fmd that the provision of video services pursuant to a cable franchise does not provide a basis for customer service regulation by local law or franchise agreement of a cable operator's entire network, or any services beyond cable services 400 Local regulations that attempt to regulate any non-cable services offered by video providers are preempted because such regulation is beyond the scope of local franchising authority and is inconsistent with the defmition of "cable system" in Section 602(7)(C)401 This provision explicitly states•that a common carrier facility subject to Title II is considered a cable system"to the extent such facility is used . in the transmission of video programming. . . ."402 As discussed above,revenues from non-cable services are not included in the base for calculation of franchise fees. 123. In response to requests that we address LFA authority to regulate"interactive on-demand services,s403 we note that Section 602(7)(C) excludes from the defmition of"cable system" a facility of a common carrier that is used solely to provide interactive on-demand services 404 "Interactive on-demand services" are defined as "service[s] providing video programming to subscribers over switched networks on an on-demand, point-to-point basis, but does not include services providing video programming (Continued from previous page) operator to connect with the existing PEG feeds, with such costs borne by the OVS operator. 47 C.F.R. § 76.1505(d). 39' Verizon Comments at 75. 398 See Verizon Comments at 21. See also South Slope Comments at 11;NCTA Comments at 12. 399 Verizon Comments at 83. 400 Verizon Comments at 75. 40147 U.S.C. §522(7)(C). See also Verizon Comments at 82-87. 402 47 U.S.C. §522(7)(C). 403 See BellSouth at 42;NATOA Reply at 27-28. 4°4 47 U.S.C. § 522(7)(C). • 55 Federal Communications Commission FCC 06-180 prescheduled by the programming provider.s405 We do not address at this time what particular services . may fall within the definition. 124. We note •that this discussion does not address the regulatory classification of any particular video services being offered. We do not address in this Order whether video services provided • over Internet Protocol are or are not"cable services."'" D. Preemption of Local Laws,Regulations and Requirements 125. Having established rules and guidance to implement Section 621(a)(1), we turn now to the question of local laws that may be inconsistent with our decision today. Because the rules we adopt represent a reasonable interpretation of relevant provisions in Title VI as well as a reasonable accommodation of the various policy interests that Congress entrusted to the Commission, they have preemptive effect pursuant to Section 636(c). Alternatively, local laws are impliedly preempted to the extent that they conflict with this Order or stand as an obstacle to the accomplishment and execution of the full purposes and objectives of Congress 407 126. At that outset of this discussion, it is important to reiterate that we do not preempt state law or state level franchising decisions in this Order.408 Instead,we preempt only local laws,regulations, practices, and requirements to the extent that: (1) provisions in those laws, regulations, practices, and agreements conflict with the rules or guidance adopted in this Order; and (2) such provisions are not specifically authorized by state law. As noted above,409 we conclude that the record before us does not provide sufficient information to make determinations with respect to franchising decisions where a state is involved, issuing franchises at the state level or enacting laws governing specific aspects of the franchising process. We expressly limit our fmdings and regulations in this Order to actions or inactions at the local level where a state has not circumscribed the LFA's authority. For example, in light of differences between the scope of franchises issued at the state level and those issued at the local level, it may be necessary to use different criteria for determining what may be unreasonable with respect to the key franchising issues addressed herein. We also recognize that many states only recently have enacted comprehensive franchise reform laws designed to facilitate competitive entry. In light of these facts, we lack a sufficient record to evaluate whether and how such state laws may lead to unreasonable refusals to award additional competitive franchises. 127. Section 636(c) of the Communications Act provides that "any provision of law of any State, political subdivision, or agency thereof, or franchising authority, or any provision of any franchise granted by such authority, which is inconsistent with this Act shall be deemed to be preempted and superseded."410 In the Local Franchising NPRM,the Commission tentatively concluded that,pursuant to the authority granted under Sections 621 and 636(c), and under the Supremacy Clause,411 the Commission 405 47 U.S.C. §522(12). 406 See IP-Enabled Services, 19 FCC Rcd 4863 (2004); Petition of SBC Communications Inc. for a Declaratory Ruling, WC Docket No. 04-36 (filed Feb. 5, 2004); Letter from James C. Smith, Senior Vice President, SBC Services Inc.,to Marlene H.Dortch, Secretary,Federal Communications Commission,WC Docket No.04-36 (filed Sept. 14,2005). 407 Florida Lime and Avocado Growers v.Paul,373 U.S. 132, 142-43 (1963). 408 See supra note 2. 409 Id 410 47 U.S.C. §556(c). 411 U.S.Const.,Art.VI,c1.2. 56 Federal Communications Commission FCC 06-180 may deem to be preempted any state or local law that stands as an obstacle to the accomplishment and execution of the full purposes and objectives of Title VI.412 For example, we may deem preempted any local law that causes an unreasonable refusal to award a competitive franchise in violation of Section 621(a)(l)413 Accordingly, the Commission sought comment on whether it would be appropriate to preempt state and local legislation to the extent we fmd that it serves as an unreasonable barrier to the grant of competitive franchises. 128. The doctrine of federal preemption arises from the Supremacy Clause, which provides that federal law is the "supreme Law of the Land."414 Preemption analysis requires a statute-specific inquiry. There are various avenues by which state law may be superseded by federal law. We focus on the two which are most relevant here. First, preemption can occur where Congress expressly preempts state law.415 When a federal statute contains an express preemption provision, the preemption analysis consists of identifying the scope of the subject matter expressly preempted and determining if a state's law falls within its sco�e.416 Second, preemption can be implied and can occur where federal law conflicts with state law. 7 Courts have found implied"conflict preemption"where compliance with both state and federal law is impossible or where state law "stands as an obstacle to the accomplishment and execution of the full purposes and objectives of Congress."418 129. Applying these principles to this proceeding, we fmd that local franchising laws, regulations, and agreements are preempted to the extent they conflict with the rules we adopt in this Order. Section 636(c) expressly preempts state and local laws that are inconsistent with the Communications Act 419 This provision precludes states and localities• from acting in a manner inconsistent with the Commission's interpretations of Title VI so long as those interpretations are valid.42o It is the Commission's job, in the first instance, to determine the scope of the subject matter expressly preempted by Section 636.421 As noted elsewhere, we adopt the rules in this Order pursuant to our interpretation of Section 621(a)(1)and other relevant Title VI provisions in light of the twin congressional goals of promoting competition in the multichannel video marketplace and promoting broadband deployment 422 These rules represent a reasonable interpretation of relevant provisions in Title VI as well as a reasonable accommodation of the various policy interests that Congress entrusted to the Commission. They therefore have preemptive effect pursuant to Section 636(c). 412 Local Franchising NPRM,20 FCC Rcd at 18589. alald • 414 U.S.Const.Art. VI, cl.2. See also Hillsborough County, Florida v.Automated Med Labs., Inc.,471 U.S. 707, 712-13(1985). 415 Cipollone V.Liggett Group,Inc.,505 U.S.504,517(1992). 416 1d.at 517. 41.1 Florida Lime and Avocado Growers,373 U.S.at 142-43. • 41s1d 419 47 U.S.C. §556(c). 420 See, e.g., Liberty Cablevision of Puerto Rico, Inc. v. Municipality of Caguas, 417 F.3d 216 (1st Cir. 2005) (finding municipal ordinances that imposed franchise fees on cable operators were preempted under Section 636(c) where inconsistent with Section 622 of the Communications Act). 421 See Cipollone,505 U.S.at 517;Capital Cities Cable,467 U.S.691,699(1984). 422 See supra paras.2-4,61-64. 57 Federal Communications Commission FCC 06-180 130. Alternatively, we find that such local laws, regulations, and agreements are impliedly preempted to the extent that they conflict with this Order or stand as an obstacle to the accomplishment and execution of the full purposes and objectives of Congress 423 Among the stated purposes of Title VI is to (1) "establish a national policy concerning cable communications," (2)"establish franchise procedures and standards which encourage the growth and development of cable systems and which assure that cable systems are responsive to the needs and interests of the local community," and (3) "promote competition in cable communications and minimize unnecessary regulation that would impose an undue economic burden on cable systems"424 The legislative history to both the 1984 and 1992 Cable Acts identifies a national policy of encouraging competition in the multichannel video marketplace and recognizes the national implications that the local franchising process can have on that policy.425 The national policy of promoting a competitive multichannel video marketplace has been repeatedly reemphasized by Congress, the Commission, and the courts426 The record here shows that the current operation of the franchising process at the local level conflicts with this national multichannel video policy by imposing substantial delays on competitive entry and requiring unduly burdensome conditions that deter entry.427 And to the extent that local requirements result in LFAs unreasonably refusing to award competitive franchises, such mandates frustrate the policy goals underlying Title VI. The rules we adopt today, e.g., limits on the time period for LFA action on competitive franchise applications,428 limits on LFA's ability to impose build-out requirements,429 and limits on LFA collection of franchise fees,43° 423 Florida Lime and Avocado Growers,373 U.S.at 142-43. • 424 47 U.S.C. § 521 (1),(2)&(6). 425 See H.R.REP.No. 98-934, at 19 (1984), as reprinted in 1984 U.S.C.C.A.N.4655,4656; S.REP.NO. 97-518, at 14 (1982) ("free and open competition in the marketplace" and the"elimination and prevention of artificial barriers to entry"are essential to the growth and development of the cable industry);H.R.REP.No. 102-862,at 77-78(1992) (Conf.Rep.),as reprinted in 1992 U.S.C.C.A.N. 1231, 1259-60. 426 See, e.g., 47 U.S.C. § 521(6) (stating that one of the purposes of Title VI is "to promote competition in cable communications");FCC v. Beach Communications, Inc., 508 U.S.307,309(1993)(recognizing"[o]ne objective of the Cable Act was to set out `franchise procedures and standards which encourage the growth and development of cable systems and which assure that cable systems are responsive to the needs and interests of the local community.'(citing 47 U.S.C. §521(2))). 427 See, e.g., AT&T Reply at 6-7 ("today's standardless franchising process, and the anticompetitive substantive conditions demanded of new entrants by many LFAs ... not only delay entry, but often prevent it altogether"); AT&T Comments at 43 (listing several conditions commonly imposed in the local franchising process that raise the cost of entry, deter broadband investment, and deny consumers the benefits of competition and choice); Verizon Comments at iv-vi(the franchising process is often marked by inordinate delay and is often used by many LFAs"as • an opportunity to demand all manner of additional concessions,mostly unrelated to the provision of video services or the underlying purposes of franchise requirements, from the would-be competitor"); TIA Comments at 7-15 (many LFAs unreasonably delay the grant of competitive franchises and demand excessive concessions from potential entrants);USTA Comments at 19-20("The single biggest obstacle to widespread competition in the video service market is the requirement that a provider obtain an individually negotiated local franchise in each area where it intends to provide service"); FTTH Council Comments at 59-60 ("the franchising process as implemented by numerous LFAs across the country continues to suffer from numerous flaws that frustrate the twin Congressional objectives of promoting cable competition and fostering deployment of advanced services to.all Americans"); Alcatel Comments at 19("[t]he regulatory obstacle of thousands of local video franchises potentially wielding their authority to adopt unreasonable requirements will invariably impede deployment by competitors and negatively impact investment in advanced technologies and services"). 428 See supra Section III.C.1. 429 See supra Section III.C.2. 43°See supra Section III.C.3. 58 Federal Communications Commission FCC 06-180 are designed to ensure efficiency and fairness in the local franchising process and to provide certainty to prospective marketplace participants. This, in turn, will allow us to effectuate Congress' twin goals of promoting cable competition and minimizing unnecessary and unduly burdensome regulation on cable systems. Thus, not only are Section 636(c)'s requirements for preemption satisfied, but preemption in these circumstances is proper pursuant to the Commission's judicially recognized ability, when acting pursuant to its delegated authority, to preempt local regulations that conflict with or stand as an obstacle to the accomplishment of federal objectives 4 i 131. We reject the claim by incumbent cable operators and franchising authorities that the Commission lacks authority to preempt local requirements because Congress has not explicitly granted the Commission the authority to preempt 432 These commenters suggest that because the Commission seeks to preempt a power traditionally exercised by a state or local government (Le., local franchising), under the Fifth Circuit's decision in City of Dallas,433 the Commission can only preempt where it is given express statutory authority to do so 434 However, this argument ignores the plain language of Section 636(c), which states that"any provision of law of any State,political subdivision, or agency therefore, or franchising authority ... which is inconsistent with this chapter shall be deemed to be preempted and superseded."435 Moreover, Section 621 expressly limits the authority of franchising authorities by prohibiting exclusive franchises and unreasonable refusals to award additional competitive franchises.436 Congress could not have stated its intent to limit local franchising authority more clearly. These provisions therefore satisfy any express preemption requirement437 132. Furthermore, as long as the Commission acts within the scope of its delegated authority in adopting rules that implement Title VI, including the prohibition of Section 621(a)(1), its rules have preemptive effect438 Courts assess whether an agency acted within'the scope of its authority `without any presumption one way or the other";there is no presumption against preemption in this context.439 As noted above, Congress charged the Commission with the task of administering the Communications Act, 431 See, e.g.,Louisiana Public Service Commission v. FCC,476 U.S.355,369(1986). 432 See Comcast Comments at 36-37;Comcast Reply at 35-37;Bumsville/Eagan Comments at 35-36. 433 City of Dallas, 165 F.3d at 341. 434 See Comcast Comments at 37;Comcast Reply at 36;Bumsville/Eagan Comments at 35-36. 435 47 U.S.C. §556(c). 436 47 U.S.C. §541(a)(1). 437 See Liberty Cablevision of Puerto Rico v. Municipality of Caguas, 417 F.3d 216, 221 (1st Cir. 2005) (Section 636(c)makes clear that Congress"unmistakably" intended to preempt state and local franchising decisions that are inconsistent with the Act, including Section 621); Qwest Broadband Services, Inc. v. City of Boulder, 151 F. Supp. 2d. 1236, 1243 (D. Colo. 2001) (a franchise provision in the Boulder, Colorado charter was preempted by Section 621(a)(1)because it conflicted directly with that provision's mandate that the"franchising authority"be responsible for granting the franchise). 438 See City of New York v. FCC,486 U.S. 57, 64 (1988)("statutorily authorized regulations of an agency will pre- empt any state or local law that conflicts with such regulations or frustrates the purposes thereof');Louisiana Public Serv. Comm., 476 U.S. at 369 ("a federal agency acting within the scope of its congressionally delegated authority may pre-empt state regulation"); Capital Cities Cable, Inc. v. Crisp, 467 U.S. 691, 699 (1984) (when a federal agency promulgates regulations intended to preempt state law, courts uphold preemption as long as the agency's choice"represents a reasonable accommodation of conflicting policies that were committed to the agency's care by the statute");Fidelity Federal Savings&Loan Ass'n,458 U.S.at 153 ("Federal regulations have no less pre-emptive effect than federal statutes"). 439 New York v.FERC,535 U.S. 1, 18(2002). 59 Federal Communications Commission FCC 06-180 including Title VI, and the Commission has clear authority to adopt rules implementing provisions such as Section 621 44° Consequently,our rules preempt any contrary local regulations."' 133. We also fmd no merit in incumbent cable operators' and local franchising authorities' argument that the scope of the Commission's preemption authority under Section 636(c)is limited by the terms of Section 636(a) of the Act 442 Section 636(a)provides that nothing in Title VI"shall be construed to affect any authority of any State, political subdivision, or agency thereof, or franchising authority, regarding matters of public health, safety, and welfare,to the extent consistent with the express provisions of this title."443 The very reason for preemption in these circumstances is that many local franchising laws and practices are at odds with the express provisions of Title VI, as interpreted in this Order. Consequently, Section 636(a) presents no obstacle to preemption here. We therefore need not decide whether the state and local laws at issue relate to"matters of public health, safety, and welfare"within the meaning of Section 636(a). 134. We also reject the franchising authorities' argument that any attempt to preempt lawful local government control of public rights-of-way by interfering with local franchising requirements, procedures and processes could constitute an unconstitutional taking under the Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution"4 The "takings" clause of the Fifth Amendment provides: "[N]or shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."445 We conclude that our actions here do not run afoul of the Fifth Amendment for several reasons. To begin with, our actions do not result in a Fifth Amendment taking. Courts have held that municipalities generally do not have a compensable "ownership" interest in public rights-of-way,446 but rather hold the public streets and sidewalks in trust for the public 447 As one court explained, "municipalities generally possess no rights to profit from their streets unless specifically authorized by the state."448 Also, we note that aa°See supra paras.53-64. 441 See Fidelity Federal Savings&Loan Assn. v. De la Cuesta,458 U.S. 141, 153-58 (1982);City of New York, 486 U.S. at 64. See also AT&T Comments at 41-42. 442 See Comcast Comments at 39 (citing 47 U.S.C. § 556(a)). See also Florida Municipalities Comments at 18-19 (the Cable Act provides for limited preemption of local regulatory efforts in certain specific areas, none of which cover competitive franchises). Commenters further point to the legislative history for Section 636(a), which noted that a state may "exercise authority over the whole range of cable activities, such as negotiations with cable operators; consumer protection; construction requirements; rate regulation or deregulation; the assessment of financial qualifications;the provision of technical assistance with respect to cable;and other franchise-related issues —as long as the exercise of that authority is consistent with Title VI." See Comcast Comments at 39-40(citing H.R. REP.NO.98-934,at 94(1984),as reprinted in 1984 U.S.C.C.A.N.4655,4731). 443 47 U.S.C. §556(a)(emphasis added). 444 See Texas Coalition of Cities Comments at 29-35; Bumsville/Eagan Comments at 38. Bumsville/Eagan further argues that Fifth Amendment concerns would arise if the Commission were to'interfere with the terms under which a competitive franchise is granted,thereby forcing modifications to existing cable franchises,pursuant to state and local level-playing-field requirements,thus depriving LFAs of lawful and reasonable compensation they negotiated with the incumbent cable operators for the use of public rights-of-way. 445 U.S.Const.Amend.V. 446 See Liberty Cablevision,417 F.3d at 222. 447 See New Jersey Payphone Ass'n,Inc.v. Town of West New York, 130 F.Supp.2d 631,638(D.N.J.2001);see also Liberty Cablevision, 417 F.3d at 222 (recognizing that it is "'a mistake to suppose ... [that] the city is constitutionally and necessarily entitled to compensation'for use of the city streets). 448 See Liberty Cablevision,417 F.3d at 222. 60 Federal Communications Commission FCC 06-180 telecommunications carriers that seek to offer video service already have an independent right under state law to occupy rights-of-way."9 States have granted franchises to telecommunications carriers, pursuant to which the carriers lawfully occupy public rights-of-way for the purpose of providing telecommunications service.45° Because all municipal power is derived from the state,451 courts have held that "a state can take public rights-of-way without compensating the municipality within which they are located."452 Given the municipality is not entitled to compensation when its interest in the streets are taken pursuant to state law, it is difficult to see how the transmission of additional video signals along those same lines results in any physical occupation of public rights-of-way beyond that already permitted by the states.453 135. Moreover, even if there was a taking, Congress provided for "just compensation" to the local franchising authorities 454 Section 622(h)(2) of the Act provides that a local franchising authority may recover a franchise fee of up to 5 percent of a cable operator's annual gross revenue 455 Congress enacted the cable franchise fee as the consideration given in exchange for the right to use the public ways.456 The implementing regulations we adopt today do not eviscerate the ability of local authorities to impose a franchise fee. Rather, our actions here simply ensure that the local franchising authority does not impose an excessive fee or other unreasonable costs in violation of the express statutory provisions and policy goals encompassed in Title VI.457 136. Finally,LFAs maintain that the Commission's preemption of local governmental powers offends the Tenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.458 The Tenth Amendment provides that "[t]he powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."459 In support of their position, commenters argue 449 See Verizon Reply at 25. 45°See Verizon Reply at 25;South Slope Comments at 10-11;NCTA Comments at 12.. 451 See St.Louis v. Western Union Telegraph Co., 149 U.S.465,467(1893);Liberty Cablevision,417 F.3d at 221. 452 See City&County of Denver, 18 P.3d 748,761 (Colo.2001). 453 See Verizon Reply at 25-26. See also C/R TV, Inc. v. Shannondale, Inc., 27 F.3d 104, 109 (4th Cir. 1994) (reasoning that the transmission of cable television signals "would not impose an additional burden on [a] servient estate"on which telephone poles,power lines,and telephone wires had previously been installed). 454 See U.S. v.Riverside Bayview Homes,474 U.S. 121, 128(1985)(the Fifth Amendment does not prohibit takings, only uncompensated ones). Because we find that the statute provides just compensation, we need not address whether the takings clause of the Fifth Amendment encompasses the property interests of state and local governments in the same way that it applies to the property interests of private persons. 455 47 U.S.C. §542(h)(2). 456 In passing the 1984 Cable Act,Congress recognized local government's entitlement to"assess the cable operator a fee for the operator's use of public ways,"and established"the authority of a city to collect a franchise fee of up to 5 percent of an operator's annual gross revenues." H.R. REP. NO. 98-934, at 26 (1984), as reprinted in 1984 U.S.C.C.A.N.4655,4663. 457 For the reasons stated above, we need not reach the issue of whether a"taking" has occurred with respect to a competitive applicant providing cable service over the same network it uses to provide telephone service,for which it is already authorized by the local government to use the public rights-of-way. 458 See Michigan Municipal League Comments at 24("[a]ny action by the Commission to mandate the granting of a franchise directly or by means of state actions in favor of any party over the objection of the local franchising authority offends the Tenth Amendment of the U.S.Constitution");Anne Arundel County Comments at 50(same). 459 U.S.Const.Amend.X. 61 Federal Communications Commission FCC 06-180 that the Commission is improperly attempting to override local government's duty to "maximize the value of local property for the greater good" by imposing a federal regulatory scheme onto the states and/or local governments 46° Contrary to the local franchising authorities' claim, however, they have failed to demonstrate any violation of the Tenth Amendment. "If a power is delegated to Congress in the Constitution, the Tenth Amendment expressly disclaims any reservation of that power to the States."462 Thus, when Congress acts within the scope of its authority under the Commerce Clause, no Tenth Amendment issue arises.463 Regulation of cable services is well within Congress' authority under the Commerce Clause464 Thus, because our authority in this area derives from a proper exercise of congressional power, the Tenth Amendment poses no obstacle to our preemption of state and local franchise law or practices 465 Likewise, there is no merit to LFA commenters' suggestion that Commission regulation of the franchising process would constitute an improper "commandeering" of state governmental power.466 The Supreme Court has recognized that"where Congress has the authority to regulate private activity under the Commerce Clause," Congress has the "power to offer States the choice of regulating that activity according to federal standards or having state law preempted by federal regulation:,467 And here,we are simply requiring local franchising authorities to exercise their regulatory authority according to federal standards, or else local requirements will be preempted. For all of these reasons, our actions today do not offend the Tenth Amendment. 137. We do not purport to identify every local requirement that this Order preempts. Rather, in accordance with Section 636(c), we merely find that local laws, regulations and, agreements are preempted to the extent they conflict with this Order and the rules adopted herein. For example, local laws would be preempted if they: (1) authorize a local franchising authority to take longer than 90 days to act on a competitive franchise application concerning entities with existing authority to access public rights-of-way, and six months concerning entities that do not have authority to access public rights-of- way;468 (2) allow an LFA to impose unreasonable build-out requirements on competitive franchise applicants;469 or(3)authorize or require a local franchising authority to collect franchise fees in excess of the fees authorized by law.47° 138. One specific example of the type of local laws that this Order preempts are so-called "level-playing-field" requirements that have been adopted by a number of local authorities471 We fmd 46°See Michigan Municipal League Comments at 25;Anne Arundel County Comments at 51. 46'See Verizon Reply at 27-29. 462 See New York v. US., 505 U.S. 144, 156(1992). 463 See id at 157-58. 464 See Crisp, 467 U.S.at 700-701 (holding that cable services are interstate services). 465 See Qwest Broadband Services, Inc. v. City of Boulder, 151 F.Supp.2d 1236, 1245 ("the inquiries under the Commerce Clause and the Tenth Amendment are mirror images, and a holding that a Congressional enactment does not violate the Commerce Clause is dispositive of a Tenth Amendment challenge)(citing United States v. Baer, 235 F.3d 561,563 n.6(10th Cir.2000). See also Verizon Reply at 28. 4b6 See Michigan Municipal League Comments at 25;Anne Arundel County Comments at 51. 467 See New York v. U.S, 505 U.S. at 167. 468 See supra at Section III.C.1. 469 See supra at Section III.C.2. 47°See supra at Section III.C.3. 471 See, e.g., GMTC Comments at 15. 62 Federal Communications Commission FCC 06-180 that these mandates unreasonably impede competitive entry into the multichannel video marketplace by requiring LFAs to grant franchises to competitors on substantially the same terms imposed on the incumbent cable operators 472 As an initial matter,just because an incumbent cable operator may agree to franchise terms that are inconsistent with provisions in Title VI, LFAs may not require new entrants to agree to such unlawful terms pursuant to level-playing-field mandates because any such requirement would conflict with Title VI. Moreover, the record demonstrates that aside from this specific scenario, level-playing-field mandates imposed at the local level deter competition in a more fundamental manner. The record indicates that in today's market, new entrants face "steep economic challenges" in an "industry characterized by large fixed and sunk costs," without the resulting benefits incumbent cable operators enjoyed for years as monopolists in the video services marketplace473 According to commenters, "a competitive video provider who enters the market today is in a fundamentally different situation"from that of the incumbent cable operator: "[w]hen incumbents installed their systems,they had a captive market,"whereas new entrants "have to 'win' every customer from the incumbent" and thus do not have "anywhere near the number of subscribers over which to spread the costs."474 Commenters explain that "unlike the incumbents who were able to pay for any of the concessions that they grant an LFA out of the supra-competitive revenue from their on-going operations,""new entrants have no assured market position."475 Based on the record before us, we thus fmd that an LFAs refusal to award an additional competitive franchise unless the competitive applicant meets substantially all the terms and 472 See FTTH Council Comments at 28-31 ("there is substantial evidence that level playing field requirements have harmed new entrants or simply scared off applicants in the first place");Verizon Comments at 76-80(level-playing- field provisions are"protectionist requirements"for the benefit of the incumbent cable operator and are often cited as a basis for imposing all manner of additional costs and obligations, many of which are unreasonable and/or unlawful, on a would-be new entrant into the market); USIA Reply at 23-26, 32-34 (level-playing-field laws intrinsically limit the ability of LFAs to award franchises); see also, GAO Report, Wire-Based Competition Benefited Consumers in Selected Markets (Feb. 2004), GAO-04-241 Report at 21 (noting that one local official indicated that the level-playing-field law in his state was a factor in an interested competitive cable company's retracting a cable application); BSPA Comments at 4-5 (level-playing-field statutes,are a superficial appeal to fairness that masks the real intent to protect the incumbent's market position, and such requirements delay or limit the growth of competition by negatively impacting the availability or use of capital);Letter from Lawrence Spiwak, President, Phoenix Ctr. For Advanced Legal and Econ. Pub. Policy Studies, to Marlene Dortch, Secretary,Federal Communications Commission at Attachment, Phoenix Center Policy Paper Number 21: Competition After Unbundling: Entry, Industry Structure and Convergence, 37 ("presence of a 'first mover' advantage means that requiring a new entrant to bear an entry cost simply because the incumbent cable operator has already borne it will have the effect of deterring entry substantially, even if such costs did not deter the incumbent cable operator from offering service")(March 13,2006)("Phoenix Center Competition Paper");DOJ Ex Parte at 16. But see Comcast Comments at 40(maintaining that state level-playing-field statutes are a legitimate and well-established exercise of state and local regulatory authority and are not inconsistent with the Communications Act);NATOA Reply at 43-44 (maintaining that there is little or no evidence to suggest that state level-playing-field laws have had anywhere near the draconian effect on the granting of competitive franchises as the telephone industry alleges). 473 See USTA Reply at 24. See also, Verizon Reply at 65 ("In exchange for the costs they incurred to enter the market, the incumbent cable operators generally received exclusive franchises and enjoyed all of the benefits of being monopoly providers for years, often decades."); Mercatus Comments at 40 ("while a second cable operator will have to make the same unrecoverable investment previously made by the incumbent,it will not have the benefit of a monopoly over which to amortize it");FTTH Council Comments at 3 ("New entrants are highly unlikely to ever obtain and enjoy the fruits of market power. Consequently,the burdens of the pre-existing franchising process from the perspective of these new entrants are not offset by the benefits that the monopolists enjoyed."). 474 See FTTH Council Comments at 30 (quoting Andy Sarwal Declaration,para. 7);Verizon Comments at 77(new entrants"[face]ubiquitous competition from strong and entrenched competitors,which in turn leads to lower market share and lower profit margins"). 475 See Verizon Reply at 65. See also USIA Reply at 24. 63 Federal Communications Commission FCC 06-180 conditions imposed on the incumbent cable operator may be unreasonable, and inconsistent with the "unreasonable refusal"prohibition of Section 621(a)(1). Accordingly, to the extent a locally-mandated level-playing-field requirement is inconsistent with the rules, guidance, and fmdings adopted in this Order,such requirement is deemed preempted 476 TV. FURTHER NOTICE OF PROPOSED RULEMAKING 139. As discussed above, this proceeding is limited to competitive applicants under Section 621(a)(1)47 Yet, some of the decisions in this Order also appear germane to existing franchisees. We asked in the Local Franchising NPRMwhether current procedures and requirements were appropriate for any cable operator, including existing operators478 NCTA argues that if the Commission establishes franchising relief for new entrants, we should do the same for incumbent cable operators because imposing similar franchising requirements on new entrants and incumbent cable operators promotes competition479 Somewhat analogously,the BSPA argues that any new franchise regulatory relief should extend to all current competitive operators and new entrants equally; otherwise, the inequities would effectively penalize existing competitive franchisees simply because they were the first to risk competition with the incumbent cable operator480 The record does not indicate any opposition by new entrants to the idea that any relief afforded them also be afforded to incumbent cable operators481 Some incumbent cable operators discussed the potential impact of Commission action under Section 621 on incumbent cable operators. For example, Charter argues that granting competitive cable providers entry free from local franchise requirements would affect Charter's ability to satisfy its existing obligations; funds that Charter might use to respond to competition by investing in new facilities and services would instead be tied up in franchise obligations not imposed on Charter's competitors,which would undermine the company's investment and render its franchise obligations commercially impracticable482 AT&T 476 We also find troubling the record evidence that suggests incumbent cable operators use "level-playing-field" requirements to frustrate negotiations between LFAs and competitive providers, causing delay and preventing competitive entry. See, e.g., Letter from John Goodman, Broadband Service Providers Association, to Marlene Dortch, Secretary, Federal Communications Commission (March 3, 2006) (explaining that the incumbent cable operator used level-playing-field requirements to bring litigation against the LFA which delayed the negotiation process and made entry so expensive that it no longer became feasible for the new entrant);Texas Coalition of Cities Comments at 13 ("Most delays in competitive franchise negotiations result from the incumbent cable provider's demands that competitive providers' franchises contain virtually identical terms."); Verizon Reply at 65-66 ("incumbents' over-eagerness to support these anticompetitive requirements further evidences the need for the Commission to remove this roadblock to competition"). 477 See supra paras. 1, 113. 478 Local Franchising NPRM,20 FCC Rcd at 18588. 479 NCTA Comments at 13 (quoting Appropriate Framework for Broadband Access to the Internet Over Wireline Facilities, 20 FCC Rcd 14853, 14855-56, 14864-65(2005)"[T]reating like services alike promotes competition"by allowing the market to determine the better operator rather than providing one operator "artificial regulatory advantages"). See also Cox Reply at 2-4. 48°BSPA Comments at 2-3. "'See, e.g.,BSPA Comments at 2-3 (any new regulatory relief in franchising'should apply to all current competitive operators and potential new entrants). But see FTTH Council Comments at 24 (new entrants are not treated more favorably than incumbents when they are burdened with the same requirements as incumbents but do not have the same market power). 482 Charter Comments at 3-4. 64 Federal Communications Commission FCC 06-180 argues that competition will not harm incumbent cable operators: cable has handled the competition that DBS presents,and analysts predict that the new wave of competition will not put them out of business.483 140. We tentatively conclude that the findings in this Order should apply to cable operators that have existing franchise agreements as they negotiate renewal of those agreements with LFAs. We note that Section 611(a) states "A franchising authority may establish requirements in a franchise with respect to the designation or use of channel capacity for public, educational, or governmental use" and Section 622(a) provides "any cable operator may be required under the terms of any franchise to pay a franchise fee." These statutory provisions do not distinguish between incumbents and new entrants or franchises issued to incumbents versus franchises issued to new entrants. We seek comment on our tentative conclusion. We also seek comment on our authority to implement this finding. We also seek comment on what effect, if any,the findings in this Order have on most favored nation clauses that may be included in existing franchises. The Commission will conclude this rulemaking and release an order no later than six months after release of this Order. 141. In the Local Franchising NPRIIM we also sought comment on whether customer service requirements should vary greatly from jurisdiction to jurisdiction484 In response, AT&T urges us to adopt rules to prevent LFAs from imposing various data collection and related requirements in exchange for a franchise485 AT&T claims that LFAs have imposed obligations that franchisees collect, track, and report customer service performance data for individual franchise areas486 AT&T states that it operates its call centers and systems on a region-wide basis, and that it is not currently possible or economically feasible for AT&T to comply with the various local customer service requirements on a franchise by franchise basis487 AT&T also asks us to affirm that LFAs may not, absent the franchise applicant's consent, impose any local service quality standards that go beyond the requirements of duly enacted laws and ordinances488 Verizon indicates that some localities have conditioned the grant of a franchise upon the submission of Verizon's data services to local customer service regulation.489 142. NATOA opposes AT&T's request for relief from local customer service standards, and argues that the Act and the Commission's rules explicitly provide for local customer service regulation490 Specifically, NATOA asserts that Section 632(d)(2) of the Cable Act allows for the establishment and enforcement of local customer service laws that go beyond the federal standards491 Other parties assert that customer service regulation is necessary to ensure that consumers have regulatory relief.492 483 AT&T Reply at 5. 484 Local Franchising NPRM,20 FCC Rcd at 18588. • 485 AT&T Comments at 72-73. 486 Id 487 Id As discussed in Section I11.C.2 above, AT&T's existing call center regions do not mirror local franchise areas. One region can encompass multiple franchise areas, and impose a multitude of regulations upon a new entrant. 488 AT&T Comments at 73. 489 Verizon Comments at 75. 4"NATOA Reply at 40-41. See also New York City Comments at 3 (citing 47 U.S.C. §552). 49147 U.S.C. §552(d)(2). Accord 47 C.F.R. §76.309(b)(4). 492 See, e.g., Alliance for Public Technology Comments at 2-3;American Association of People with Disabilities at 2;Cavalier Comments at 6. 65 Federal Communications Commission FCC 06-180 143. Section 632(d)(2)states that: [n]othing in this Section shall be construed to preclude a franchising authority and a cable operator from agreeing to customer service requirements that exceed the standards established by the Commission . . . . Nothing in this Title shall be construed to prevent the establishment and enforcement of any municipal law or regulation, or any State law, concerning customer service that imposes customer service requirements that exceed the standards set by the Commission under this section, or that addresses matters not addressed by the standards set by the Commission under this section.493 Given this explicit statutory language, we tentatively conclude that we cannot preempt state or local customer service laws that exceed the Commission's standards, nor can we prevent LFAs and cable operators from agreeing to more stringent standards. We seek comment on this tentative conclusion. V. PROCEDURAL MATTERS • 144. Ex Parte Rules. This is a permit-but-disclose notice and comment rulemaking proceeding. Ex Parte presentations are permitted, except during the Sunshine Agenda period, provided that they are disclosed as provided in the Commission's rules. See generally 47 C.F.R. §§ 1.1202, 1.1203,and 1.1206(a). • 145. Comment Information. Pursuant to sections 1.415 and 1.419 of the Commission's rules, 47 CFR §§ 1.415, 1.419, interested parties may file comments on or before 30 days after this Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking is published in the Federal Register,and reply comments on or before 45 days of publication. Comments may be filed using: (1) the Commission's Electronic Comment Filing System (ECFS), (2) the Federal Government's eRulemaking Portal, or (3) by filing paper copies. See Electronic Filing of Documents in Rulemaking Proceedings,63 FR 24121 (1998). ■ Electronic Filers: Comments may be filed electronically using the Internet by accessing the ECFS: http://www.fcc.gov/cgb/ecfs/ or the Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. Filers should follow the instructions provided on the website for submitting comments. ■ For ECFS filers, if multiple docket or rulemaking numbers appear in the caption of this proceeding, filers must transmit one electronic copy of the comments for each docket or rulemaking number referenced in the caption. In completing the transmittal screen, filers should include their full name, U.S. Postal Service mailing address, and the applicable docket or rulemaking number. Parties may also submit an electronic comment by Internet e-mail. To get filing instructions, filers should send an e-mail to ecfs@fcc.gov, and include the following words in the body of the message, "get form." A sample form and directions will be sent in response. • Paper Filers: Parties who choose to file by paper must file an original and four copies of each filing. If more than one docket or rulemaking number appears in the caption of this proceeding, filers must submit two additional copies for each additional docket or rulemaking number. Filings can be sent by hand or messenger delivery, by commercial overnight courier, or by first- class or overnight U.S. Postal Service mail (although we continue to experience delays in 493 47 U.S.C. §552(d)(2). Accord 47 C.F.R. §76.309(b)(4). 66 Federal Communications Commission FCC 06-180 receiving U.S.Postal Service mail). All filings must be addressed to the Commission's Secretary, Office of the Secretary,Federal Communications Commission. ■ The Commission's contractor will receive hand-delivered or messenger-delivered paper filings for the Commission's Secretary at 236 Massachusetts Avenue, NE., Suite 110, Washington,DC 20002. The filing hours at this location are 8:00 a.m.to 7:00 p.m. All hand deliveries must be held together with rubber bands or fasteners. Any envelopes must be disposed of before entering the building. ■ Commercial overnight mail (other than U.S. Postal Service Express Mail and Priority Mail)must be sent to 9300 East Hampton Drive,Capitol Heights,MD 20743. ■ U.S. Postal Service first-class,Express, and Priority mail should be addressed to 445 12th Street, SW,Washington DC 20554. People with Disabilities: To request materials in accessible formats for people with disabilities(braille, large print, electronic files, audio format), send an e-mail to fcc504@fcc.gov or call the Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau at 202-418-0530(voice),202-418-0432(tty). 146. Initial Paperwork Reduction Act Analysis. This Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking does not contain proposed information collection(s) subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), Public Law 104-13. In addition,therefore, it does not contain any new or modified "information collection burden for small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees," pursuant to the Small • Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002,Public Law 107-198,see 44 U.S.C.3506(c)(4). 147. Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis. As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act,494 the Commission has prepared an Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA)of the possible significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities of the proposals addressed in this Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking. The IRFA is set forth in Appendix C. Written public comments are requested on the IRFA. These comments must be filed in accordance with the same filing deadlines for comments on the Second Further Notice, and they should have a separate and distinct heading designating them as responses to the IRFA. 148. Paperwork Reduction Act Analysis. This document contains new information collection requirements subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), Public Law 104-13. It will be submitted to the Office of Management and Budget(OMB)for review under Section 3507(d)of the PRA. OMB, the general public, and other Federal agencies are invited to comment on the new information collection requirements contained in this proceeding. In addition, we note that pursuant to the Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, Public Law 107-198, see 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(4), we will seek specific comment on how the Commission might "further reduce the information collection burden for small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees." 149. In this present document, we have assessed the effects of the application filing requirements used to calculate the time frame in which a local franchising authority shall make a decision, and fmd that those requirements will benefit companies with fewer than 25 employees by providing such companies with specific application requirements of a reasonable length. We anticipate this specificity will streamline this process for companies with fewer than 25 employees,and that these requirements will not burden those companies. 494 See 5 U.S.C. §603. 67 Federal Communications Commission FCC 06-180 150. Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act,49s the Commission has prepared a Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis ("FRFA") relating to this Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking. The FRFA is set forth in Appendix D. 151. Congressional Review Act. The Commission will send a copy of this Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in a report to be sent to Congress and the Government Accountability Office pursuant to the Congressional Review Act, see 5 U.S.C. § 801(a)(1)(A). 152. Additional Information. For additional information on this proceeding, please contact Holly Saurer, Media Bureau at (202) 418-2120, or Brendan Murray, Policy Division, Media Bureau at (202)418-2120. VI. ORDERING CLAUSES 153. IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to the authority contained in Sections 1, 2, 4(i), 303, 303r, 403 and 405 of the Communications Act of 1934, 47 U.S.0 §§ 151, 152, 154(i), 303, 303(r), 403 , - this Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking IS ADOPTED. 154. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that pursuant to the authority contained in Sections Sections 1, 2, 4(i), 303, 303a, 303b, and 307 of the Communications Act of 1934, 47 U.S.0 §§ 151, 152, 154(i), 303, 303a, 303b, and 307, the Commission's rules ARE HEREBY AMENDED as set forth in Appendix B. It is our intention in adopting these rule changes that, if any provision of the rules is held invalid by any court of competent jurisdiction, the remaining provisions shall remain in effect to the fullest extent permitted by law. 155. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the rules contained herein SHALL BE EFFECTIVE 30 days after publication of the Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in the Federal Register, except for the rules that contain information collection requirements subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act, which shall become effective immediately upon announcement in the Federal Register of OMB approval. 156. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Commission's Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau, Reference Information Center, SHALL SEND a copy of this Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, including the Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis,to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration. 157. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Commission SHALL SEND a copy of this Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in a report to be sent to Congress and the General Accounting Office pursuant to the Congressional Review Act, see 5 U.S.C. § 801(a)(1)(A). FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Marlene H.Dortch Secretary 495 See 5 U.S.C. §604. 68 Federal Communications Commission FCC 06-180 APPENDIX A List of Commenters and Reply Commenters 1. Abilene,TX 2. Access Channel 5,NY 3. Access Fort Wayne,IN 4. Access Sacramento, CA 5. Ad Hoc Telecom Manufacturer Coalition 6. Ada Township,et al. 7. Advance/Newhouse Communications 8. AEI-Brookings Joint Center for Regulatory Studies 9. Alamance County,NC 10. Albuquerque,NM 11. Alcatel 12. Alhambra,CA 13. Alliance for Public Technology 14. Alpina,MI 15. American Association of Business Persons with Disabilities 16. American Association of People with Disabilities 17. American Cable Association 18. American Consumer Institute 19. American Corn Growers Association 20. American Homeowners Grassroots Alliance 21. Anaheim, CA 22. Angels Camp;CA 23. Anne Arundel County,Carroll County,Charles County,Howard County and Montgomery County 24. Apex,NC 25. Apple Valley,MN 26. Appleton,WI • 27. Archdale,NC 28. Arlington Independent Media,VA 29. Asheboro,NC 30. Ashland,KY 31. Ashokie,NC 32. Association of Independent Programming Networks 33. AT&T Inc. 34. Atascadero,CA 35. Bailey,NC '36. Banning,CA 37. Barrington,IL - 38. Bellefonte,PA 39. Bellflower, CA 40. BellSouth 41. Benson,NC 42. Berks Community TV,PA 43. Beverly Hills,CA 44. Biddeford,ME 45. Billerica Access TV,MA 46. Billerica,MA 47. Birmingham Area Cable Board,MI 69 Federal Communications Commission . FCC 06-180 48. Blue Lake,CA 49. Bonita Springs,FL 50. Boston Community Access and Programming Foundation(BCAPF) 51. Boston,MA 52. Bowie,MD 53. Branford Commun. TV,CT 54. Brea, CA 55. Brisbane,CA 56. .Broadband Service Providers Association 57. Brunswick,ME 58. Bucks County Consortium of Communities,PA 59. Burlington,NC 60. Bumsville/Eagan Telecommunications Commission; The City of Minneapolis, MN; The North Metro Telecommunications Commission; The North Suburban Communications Commission; and The South Washington County Telecommunications Commission("City of Minneapolis") 61. Cable Access St.Paul,MN 62. Cable Advisory Council of South Central CT 63. Cablevision Systems Corporation 64. Cadillac,MI 65. Calabash,NC 66. California Alliance for Consumer Protection 67. California Farmers Union 68. California Small Business Association 69. California Small Business Roundtable 70. Cambridge Public Access Corp,MA 71. Cambridge,MA 72. Campbell County Cable Board,KY 73. Cape Coral,FL 74. Capital Community TV,OR 75. Carlsbad, CA 76. Carrboro,NC 77. Cary,NC 78. Castalia,NC 79. Caswell County,NC 80. Cavalier Telephone,LLC/Cavalier IP TV,LLC • 81. Cedar Rapids,Iowa 82. Center for Digital Democracy 83. Central St.Croix Valley Joint Cable Comm,MN 84. Certain Florida Municipalities 85. Champaign,IL 86. Champaign-Urbana Cable TV and Telecomm Commission,IL 87. Chapel Hill,NC 88. Charlotte,NC • 89. Charter Communications,Inc. 90. Chicago Access Corp,IL 91. Chicago,IL 92. Cincinnati Bell,Inc. 93. Cincinnati,OH • 94. . Citizen's Community TV,CO 95. City and County of San Francisco,CA 96. City of Los Angeles 70 Federal Communications Commission FCC 06-180 97. City of Philadelphia 98. City of St.Louis,Missouri 99. City of Ventura,California 100. Clackamas County,OR 101. Clark County,NV 102. Clay County,FL 103. Clayton,NC 104. Clinton Township,MI 105. Clovis,CA 106. College Twp,PA 107. Comcast Corporation 108. Communications Support Group,Inc. • 109. Community Access TV,IL 110. Community Programming Board of Forest Park et al,OH 111. Concord,CA 112. Concord,NC 113. Consumer Coalition of California 114. Consumer Electronics Association 115. Consumers First 116. Consumers for Cable Choice 117. Coral Springs,Florida 118. Coralville,IA 119. Coronado, CA 120. Cox Communications,Inc. 121. Cypress,CA 122. Daly City, CA 123. Dare County,NC 124. Darlington, SC 125. Davis,CA 126. Del Mar,CA 127. Delray Beach,FL 128. Democratic Processes Center 129. Discovery Institute's Technology&Democracy Project 130. Dortches,NC 131. Dublin,CA 132. Durham,NC 133. Eden,NC 134. El Cerrito, CA 135. Elk Grove,IL 136. Elon,NC* 137. Enumclaw,WA 138. Escondido,CA 139. Esopus,NY 140. Evanston,IL 141. Fairfax Cable Access,VA 142. Fairfax County,Virginia 143. Fairfax,CA 144. Faith,NC 145. Fall River Community TV,MA 146. Fargo,ND 147. Farmington,MN 71 Federal Communications Commission FCC 06-180 148. Ferguson,PA 149. Ferndale,CA 150. Fiber-to-the-Home Council 151. Floral Park,NY 152. Florence,Kentucky 153. Florence,KY 154. Fort Worth,TX 155. Fortuna,CA 156. Foster City,CA 157. Foxboro Cable Access,MA 158. Franklin Lakes,NJ 159. Franklin,KY 160. Free Enterprise Fund 161. Free Press(Reply) 162. Free Press,Consumers Union,Consumer Federation of America 163. Freedomworks 164. Ft.Lauderdale,FL 165. Gainesville,FL 166. Garland,TX 167. Garner,NC 168. Geneva,IL 169. Georgia Municipal Association(GMA) 170. Gibsonville,NC 171. Gilroy,CA 172. Glenview,IL 173. Graham,NC 174. Grand Rapids,MI 175. Granite Quarry,NC 176. Great Neck/North Shore Cable Comm'n,NY 177. Greater Metro Telecommunications Consortium,et al.(GMTC) 178. Green Spring,K 179. Greensboro,NC* 180. Greenville,NC 181. Guilford County,NC • 182. Harnett County,NC 183. Harris Township,PA 184. Haw River,NC 185. Hawaii Consumers 186. Hawaii Telcom Communications,Inc. 187. Henderson County,NC 188. Henderson,NV 189. Hialeah,FL 190. Hibbing Public Access TV,MN 191. High Point,NC 192. High Tech Broadband Coalition 193. Highlands,NC 194. Hillsborough,NC 195. Holly Springs,NC 196. Huntsville,AL 197. Imperial Beach,CA 198. Independent Multi-Family Communications Council 72 Federal Communications Commission . FCC 06-180 199. Indianapolis,IN 200. Institute for Policy Innovation 201. Intergovernmental Cable Comm Auth,MI 202. Iowa City,IA 203. Irvine,CA 204. Irwindale,CA 205. Itasca Comm TV,MN 206. Jackson,CA 207. Jamestown,NC 208. Jefferson County League of Cities Cable Comm'n,Kentucky 209. Jenkins,KY 210. Jersey Access Group,NJ 211. Kansas City,Missouri 212. Kemersville,NC 213. Killeen,TX 214. King County,WA 215. Kitty Hawk,NC 216. Knightdale,NC 217. La Puente,CA 218. Lake Forest,CA 219. Lake Lurie,NC 220. Lake Mills,WI 221. Lake Minnetonka Communications Comm,MN • 222. Lake Worth,FL 223. Lakewood,CA 224. Las Vegas,NV 225. LaVeme,CA 226. League of Minnesota Cities(LMC) 227. League of United Latin American Citizens of the Northeast Region+ 228. Leavenworth,KS 229. Lee County,FL 230. Leibowitz&Associates,P.A. 231. Lenexa,KS • 232. Lewisville,NC 233. Lexington,NC 234. Lincoln,CA 235. Lincoln,NE 236. Long Beach,CA 237. Longmont,CO 238. Loomis,CA 239. Los Angeles Cable Television Access Corp.,CA 240. Los Banos,CA 241. Lynwood,CA 242. Madison Hts,MI 243. Madison,NC 244. Madison,WI 245. Malveme,NY 246. Manatee County,Florida 247. Manhattan Community Access Corp.,NY 248. Marin Telecomm Agency, CA 249. Martha's Vineyard Comm TV,MA 73 Federal Communications Commission FCC 06-180 250. Maxton,NC 251. Mayodan,NC 252. Mayville,NY 253. Maywood,CA 254. Mecklenburg County,NC 255. Medford,OR 256. Medford, OR 257. Media Action Marin,CA 258. Media Bridges Cincinnati,OH 259. Mercatus Center 260. Metheun Comm TV,MA 261. Metropolitan Area Comm Comm'n,OR 262. Metropolitan Educational Access Corp,TN 263. Miami Valley Comm Council,OH 264. Miami-Dade County,Florida 265. Michigan Municipal League 266. Microsoft Corporation 267. Middlesex,NC 268. Midland,TX 269. Milpitas,CA 270. Minnesota Telecomm Alliance 271. Minority Media and Telecommunications Council,et al. 272. Missouri Chapter - National Association of Telecommunications Officers and Advisors (MO- NATOA) 273. Mobile,AL 274. Momeyer,NC 275. Monrovia,CA 276. Monterey Park,CA 277. Montrose,CO 278. Morrisville,NC 279. Mount Morris,MI 280. Mt.Hood Cable Regulatory Commission(MHCRC) . 281. Murfeesboro,TN 282. Murfreesboro,NC 283. Murrieta,CA 284. National Association of Broadcasters 285. National Black Chamber of Commerce 286. National Cable&Telecommunications Association 287. National Caucus and Center on Black Aged 288. National Grange 289. National Hispanic Council on Aging 290. National Taxpayers Union 291. National Telecommunications Cooperative Association 292. NATOA,NLC,NACO,USCM,ACM, and ACD 293. Naval Media Center,US 294. New Jersey Board of Public Utilities(NJBPU) 295. New Jersey Division of the Ratepayer Advocate 296. New York City 297. New York State Conference of Mayors(NYCOM) 298. Newton Comm Access Cntr,MA 299. Norfolk,VA 74 Federal Communications Commission FCC 06-180 300. North Kansas City,MO 301. North Liberty,IA 302. North Richland Hills,TX 303. Northbrook,IL 304. Northern Berkshire Comm TV Corp,MA 305. Northern Dakota County Cable Comm Comm'm 306. Northwest Suburbs Cable Commun Comm'n,MN 307. Norwalk,CA 308. Oceanside Comm TV,CA 309. Onslow Cnty,NC 310. Ontario,CA 311. Orange County,FL 312. Organization for the Promotion and Advancement of Small Telecommunications Companies 313. Orion Neighborhood TV,MI 314. Oxford,NC 315. Pacific Research Institute 316. Pac-West Telecomm,Inc. 317. Palmetto,FL 318. Palo Alto,CA(on behalf of Joint Powers) 319. Pasadena,CA 320. Patton,PA 321. Peachtree City,GA 322. Pennsville, NJ 323. Perris,CA 324. Philadelphia,PA 325. Pike County,Kentucky 326. Pike County,KY 327. Pikeville,Kentucky 328. Pikeville,KY 329. Pinetops,NC 330. Pittsboro,NC 331. Plainfield,MI 332. Pleasant Garden,NC 333. Pleasant Hill,CA 334. Plymouth,MA 335. Pocatello,ID 336. Post Falls,ID 337. Poway,CA 338. Prince George's Community TV,Inc. 339. Prince George's County,MD 340. Princeton Community TV,NJ 341. Public Cable Television Authority 342. Public Utility Commission of Texas 343. Public,Educational and Government Access Oversight Comm of Metro Nashville 344. Queen Anne's County,MD 345. Quote Unquote,NM 346. Qwest Communications International Inc. 347. Ramsey/Washington Counties Suburban Cable Commun.Comm'n,MN 348. Rancho Cordova, CA 349. Rancho Santa Margarita,CA 350. Randolph County,NC 75 Federal Communications Commission FCC 06-180 351. RCN Telecom Services,Inc. 352. Red Oak,NC 353. Redding,CA 354. Reidsville,NC 355. Renton,WA 356. Richmond,KY 357. River Bend,NC 358. Rockingham County,NC 359. Rockwell,NC 360. Rolling Hills Estates,CA 361. Rowan County,NC 362. Sacramento Metro Cable TV Commission,CA 363. Saint Charles,MO 364. Salem, OR 365. Salt Lake City,UT 366. San Diego, CA • 367. San Dimas, CA • 368. San Jose,CA 369. San Juan Capistrano,CA 370. San Marcos, CA 371. San Mateo County Telecomm Auth,CA 372. Sanford,NC 373. Santa Clara, CA 374. Santa Clarita,CA 375. Santa Cruz County Community TV 376. Santa Rosa, CA 377. Santee, CA 378. Saratoga Springs,NY 379. Scotts Valley,CA 380. Seattle,WA 381. Sebastopol,CA 382. Self-Advocacy Association of New York State,Inc. 383. Shaler,PA 384. Sierra Madre, CA 385. Signal Hill,CA 386. Siler City,NC 387. Simi Valley,CA 388. Sjoberg's,Inc. 389. Skokie,IL 390. Smithfield,NC 391. Solana Beach, CA 392. South Orange Village,NJ 393. South Portland,ME 394. South San Francisco,CA 395. South Slope Cooperative Telephone Company 396. Southeast Michigan Municipalities 397. Southwest Suburban Cable Commission(SWSCC) 398. Spring Hope,NC 399. Springfield,MO 400. St. Charles,IL 401. St.Paul,MN* 76 Federal Communications Commission FCC 06-180 402. St.Petersburg,FL 403. Standish,ME 404. State College Bourough,PA 405. State of Hawaii 406. Statesville,NC 407. Sun Prairie Cable Access TV,WI 408. Sunapee,NH* 409. Sunnyvale,CA 410. Susanville,CA 411. Tabor City,NC 412. Tampa,FL 413. Taylor,MI 414. Telco Retirees Association,Inc. 415. Telecommunications Industry Association 416. Temecula,CA 417. Texas Coalition of Cities for Utility Issues(TCCFUI)- 418. Texas Municipal League and the Texas City Attorneys Association 419. The Progress&Freedom Foundation 420. Time Warner Cable 421. Tobaccoville,NC 422. Toppenish,WA 423. Torrance,CA 424. Truckee,CA 425. Tulsa,OK 426. Tuolumne,CA 427. Ukiah,CA 428. United States Internet Industry Association 429. United States Telecom Association 430. United States-Mexico Chamber of Commerce 431. URTV Asheville,NC 432. Valley Voters Organized Toward Empowerment 433. Vancouver Educational Telecommunications Consortium(VETC) 434. Vass,NC 435. Verizon 436. Vermont Public Service Board(VPSB) 437. Video Access Alliance 438. Villages of Larchmont&Mamaroneck,NY 439. Virginia Cable Telecommunications Association(VCTA) 440. Vista,CA 441. Wake Forest,NC 442. Walnut Creek,CA 443. Walnut Creek, California 444. Warrenville,IL 445. Washington State Grange 446. Wayland,MA 447. Wendell,NC 448. West Allis,WI 449. West Palm Beach,FL 450. Westport,WI 451. Wheaton,IL 452. Whitakers,NC 77 Federal Communications Commission FCC 06-180 453. White Plains Cable Access TV,NY 454. White, SD 455. Whittier, CA 456. Wilbraham,MA 457. Wilson,NC 458. Winchester,KY&KY Regional Cable Comm. 459. Windham Community TV,NH 460. Winston-Salem,NC 461. Wisconsin Association of Public,Educational and Government Access Channels(WAPC) 462. Women Impacting Public Policy 463. Worchester,MA 464. World Institute on Disability 465. Yanceyville,NC 466. Yuma,AZ 467. Zebulon,NC 468. Zeeland,MI • 78 Federal Communications Commission FCC 06-180 APPENDIX B Rule Changes Part 76 of Title 47 of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended as follows: Part 76—MULTICHANNEL VIDEO AND CABLE TELEVISION SERVICE 1. Revise Subpart C title to read as follows: Subpart C—Cable Franchise Applications 2. Insert into new Subpart C the following: §76.41 Franchise Application Process (a)Definition. Competitive Franchise Applicant. For the purpose of this section, an applicant for a cable franchise in an area currently served by another cable operator or cable operators in accordance with 47 U.S.C. § 541(a)(1). (b) A competitive franchise applicant must include the following information in writing in its franchise application, in addition to any information required by applicable state and local laws: (1)the applicant's name; (2)the names of the applicant's officers and directors; (3)the business address of the applicant; (4)the name and contact"information of a designated contact for the applicant; (5)a description of the geographic area that the applicant proposes to serve; (6)the PEG channel capacity and capital support proposed by the applicant; (7)the term of the agreement proposed by the applicant; (8)whether the applicant holds an existing authorization to access the public rights-of-way in the subject franchise service area as described under subsection(b)(5); (9)the amount of the franchise fee the applicant offers to pay; and (10)any additional information required by applicable state or local laws. (c) A franchising authority may not require a.competitive franchise applicant to negotiate or engage in any regulatory or administrative processes prior to the filing of the application. (d)When a competitive franchise applicant files a franchise application with a franchising authority and the applicant has existing authority to access public rights-of-way in the geographic area that the applicant proposes to serve,the franchising authority must grant or deny the application within 90 days of the date the application is received by the franchising authority. If a competitive franchise applicant does not have existing authority to access public rights-of-way in the geographic area that the applicant proposes to serve, the franchising authority must grant or deny the application within 180 days of the date the application is received by the franchising authority. A franchising authority and a competitive franchise applicant may agree in writing to extend the 90-day or 180-day deadline,whichever is applicable. 79 Federal Communications Commission FCC 06-180 e) If a franchising authority does not grant or deny an application within the time limit specified in subsection (d), the competitive franchise applicant will be authorized to offer service pursuant to an interim franchise in accordance with the terms of the application submitted under subsection(b). f) If after expiration of the time limit specified in subsection (d) a franchising authority denies an application, the competitive franchise applicant must discontinue operating under the interim franchise specified in subsection (e) unless the franchising authority provides consent for the interim franchise to continue for a limited period of time, such as during the period when judicial review of the franchising authority's decision is pending. The competitive franchise applicant may seek judicial review of the denial under 47 U.S.C. § 555. g)If after expiration of the time limit specified in subsection(d) a franchising authority and a competitive franchise applicant agree on the terms of a franchise, upon the effective date of that franchise, that franchise will govern and the interim franchise will expire. 80 Federal Communications Commission FCC 06-180 APPENDIX C Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 1. As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, as amended (the "RFA"),' the Commission has prepared this Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis("IRFA")of the possible significant economic impact of the policies and rules proposed in the Further Notice of Proposed Ruleinaking ("Further Notice") on a substantial number of small entities' Written public comments are requested on this IRFA. Comments must be identified as responses to the IRFA and must be filed by the deadlines for comments on the Further Notice provided in paragraph 145 of the item. The Commission will send a copy of the Further Notice, including this IRFA, to.the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration("SBA").3 In addition,the Further Notice and IRFA(or summaries thereof)will be published in the Federal Register.' A. Need for,and Objectives of,the Proposed Rules 2. The Further Notice continues a process to implement Section 621(a)(1) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, in order to further the interrelated goals of enhanced cable competition and accelerated broadband deployment as discussed in the Report and Order ("Order"). Specifically, the Further Notice solicits comment on whether the Commission should apply the rules and guidelines adopted in the Order to cable operators that have existing franchise agreements, and if so, whether the Commission has authority to do so. The Further Notice also seeks comment on whether the Commission can preempt state or local customer service laws that exceed Commission standards. B. Legal Basis 3. The Further Notice tentatively concludes that the Commission has authority to apply the findings in the Order to cable operators with existing franchise agreements. In that regard, the Further Notice finds that neither Section 611(a) nor Section 622(a) distinguishes between incumbents and new entrants or franchises issued to incumbents and franchises issued to new entrants.5 C. Description and Estimate of the Number of Small Entities to Which the Proposed Rules Will Apply 4. The RFA directs agencies to provide a description of, and where feasible, an estimate of the number of small entities that may be affected by the proposed rules, if adopted.6 The RFA generally defines the term "small entity" as having the same meaning as the terms "small business," "small organization," and "small governmental jurisdiction."' In addition, the term "small business" has the 1 The RFA,see 5 U.S.C. §§601—612,has been amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996("SBREFA"),Pub.L.No. 104-121,Title II, 110 Stat.857(1996). 2 See 5 U.S.C. §603. Although we are conducting an IRFA at this stage in the process, it is foreseeable that ultimately we will certify this action pursuant to the RFA,5 U.S.C. § 605(b),because we anticipate at this time that any rules adopted pursuant to this Notice will have no significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. 3 See 5 U.S.C. §603(a). 4 See 5 U.S.C. §603(a). 5 See 47 U.S.C. §§531(a),542(a). 6 5 U.S.C. §603(b)(3). '5 U.S.C. §601(6). 81 Federal Communications Commission FCC 06-180 same meaning as the term "small business concern" under the Small Business Act.' A "small business concern" is one which: (1) is independently owned and operated; (2)is not dominant in its field of operation; and (3)satisfies any additional criteria established by the Small Business Administration ("SBA").9 5. Small Businesses. Nationwide, there are a total of approximately 22.4 million small businesses,according to SBA data.' 6. Small Organizations. Nationwide, there are approximately 1.6 million small organizations." 7. The Commission has determined that the group of small entities possibly directly affected by the proposed rules herein, if adopted, consists of small governmental entities. A description of these entities is provided below. In addition the Commission voluntarily provides descriptions of a number of entities that may be merely indirectly affected by any rules that result from the Further Notice. Small Governmental Jurisdictions 8. The term "small governmental jurisdiction" is defined as "governments of cities, towns, townships, villages, school districts, or special districts, with a population of less than fifty thousand."' As of 1997, there were approximately 87,453 governmental jurisdictions in the United States.13 This number includes 39,044 county governments, municipalities, and townships, of which 37,546 (approximately 96.2 percent)have populations of fewer than 50,000,and of which 1,498 have populations of 50,000 or more. Thus, we estimate the number of small governmental jurisdictions overall to be 84,098 or fewer. Miscellaneous Entities 9. The entities described in this section are affected merely indirectly by our current action, and therefore are not formally a part of this RFA analysis. We have included them, however,to broaden the record in this proceeding and to alert them to our tentative conclusions. Cable Operators • 10. The "Cable and Other Program Distribution" census category includes cable systems operators, closed circuit television services, direct broadcast satellite services, multipoint distribution systems, satellite master antenna systems, and subscription television services. The SBA has developed small business size standard for this census category,which includes all such companies generating$13.0 million or less in revenue annually.14 According to Census Bureau data for 1997, there were a total of 8 5 U.S.C. §601(3) (incorporating by reference the definition of"small-business concern" in the Small Business Act, 15 U.S.C. § 632). Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. §601(3),the statutory definition of a small business applies"unless an agency, after consultation with the Office of Advocacy of the Small Business Administration and after opportunity for public comment, establishes one or more definitions of such term which are appropriate to the activities of the agency and publishes such definition(s)in the Federal Register." 915 U.S.C. §632. to See SBA,Programs and Services,SBA Pamphlet No.CO-0028,at page 40(July 2002). "Independent Sector,The New Nonprofit Almanac&Desk Reference(2002). 12 5 U.S.C. §601(5). 13 U.S. Census Bureau, Statistical Abstract of the United States: 2000, Section 9, pages 299-300, Tables 490 and 492. 14 13 C.F.R. § 121.201,North American Industry Classification System(NAICS)517510. 82 Federal Communications Commission FCC 06-180 1,311 firms in this category, total, that had operated for the entire year.15 Of this total, 1,180 firms had annual receipts of under $10 million and an additional 52 firms had receipts of$10 million or more but less than $25 million. Consequently, the Commission estimates that the majority of providers in this service category are small businesses that may be affected by the rules and policies adopted herein. 11. Cable System Operators (Rate Regulation Standard). The Commission has developed its own small-business-size standard for cable system operators, for purposes of rate regulation. Under the Commission's rules,a"small cable company"is one serving fewer than 400,000 subscribers nationwide!" The most recent estimates indicate that there were 1,439 cable operators who qualified as small cable system operators at the end of 1995." Since then, some of those companies may have grown to serve over 400,000 subscribers, and others may have been involved in transactions that caused them to be combined with other cable operators. Consequently, the Commission estimates that there are now fewer than 1,439 small entity cable system operators that may be affected by the rules and policies adopted herein. 12. Cable System Operators (Telecom Act Standard). The Communications Act of 1934, as amended, also contains a size standard for small cable system operators, which is "a cable operator that, directly or through an affiliate, serves in the aggregate fewer than 1 percent of.all subscribers in the United States and is not affiliated with any entity or entities whose gross annual revenues in the aggregate exceed $250,000,000."18 The Commission has determined that there are 67,700,000 subscribers in the United States.19 Therefore, an operator serving fewer than 677,000 subscribers shall be deemed a small operator, if its annual revenues, when combined with the total annual revenues of all its affiliates, do not exceed $250 million in the aggregate 2° Based on available data, the Commission estimates that the number of cable operators serving 677,000 subscribers or fewer,totals 1,450.21 The Commission neither requests nor collects information on whether cable system operators are affiliated with entities whose gross annual revenues exceed $250 million,22 and therefore is unable, at this time, to estimate more accurately the number of cable system operators that would qualify as small cable operators under the size standard contained in the Communications Act of 1934. 13. Open Video Services. Open Video Service .("OVS") systems provide subscription services' As noted above, the SBA has created a small business size standard for Cable and Other 15 U.S. Census Bureau, 1997 Economic Census, Subject Series: Information, "Establishment and Firm Size (Including Legal Form of Organization),"Table 4,NAICS code 513220(issued October 2000). 16 47 C.F.R. §76.901(e). The Commission developed this definition based on its determination that a small cable system operator is one with annual revenues of$100 million or less. See Implementation of Sections of the 1992 Cable Act: Rate Regulation, Sixth Report and Order and Eleventh Order on Reconsideration, 10 FCC Rcd 7393 (1995). 17 Paul Kagan Associates,Inc.,Cable TV Investor,February 29, 1996(based on figures for December 30, 1995). 18 47 U.S.C. §543(m)(2). 19 See FCC Announces New Subscriber Count for the Definition of Small Cable Operator,Public Notice DA 01-158 (2001). 20 47 C.F.R. §76.901(f). 21 See FCC Announces New Subscriber Count for the Definition of Small Cable Operators, Public Notice,DA 01- 0158(2001). 22 The Commission does receive such information on a case-by-case basis if a cable operator appeals a local franchise authority's finding that the operator does not qualify as a small cable operator pursuant to §76.901(f) of the Commission's rules. See 47 C.F.R. §76.909(b). 23 See 47 U.S.C. §573. 83 Federal Communications Commission FCC 06-180 Program Distribution.' This standard provides that a small entity is one with.$13.0 million or less in annual receipts. The Commission has certified approximately 25 OVS operators to serve 75 areas, and some of these are currently providing service? Affiliates of Residential Communications Network, Inc. (RCN) received approval to operate OVS systems in New York City, Boston, Washington, D.C., and other areas. RCN has sufficient revenues to assure that they do not qualify as a small business entity. Little financial information is available for the other entities that are authorized to provide OVS and are not yet operational. Given that some entities authorized to provide OVS service have not yet begun to generate revenues, the Commission concludes that up. to 24 OVS operators (those remaining) might qualify as small businesses that may be affected by the rules and policies adopted herein. D. Description of Projected Reporting, Recordkeeping and Other Compliance Requirements 14. We anticipate that any rules that result from this action would have at most a de minimis impact on small governmental jurisdictions (e.g., one-time proceedings to amend existing procedures regarding the method of granting competitive franchises). Local franchising authorities ("LFAs") today must review and decide upon competitive cable franchise applications, and will continue to perform that role upon the conclusion of this proceeding; any rules that might be adopted pursuant to this Notice likely would require at most only modifications to that process. E. Steps Taken to Minimize Significant Economic Impact on Small Entities and Significant Alternatives Considered 15. The RFA requires an agency to describe any significant, specifically small business, alternatives that it has considered in reaching its proposed approach, which may include the following four alternatives (among others): "(1)the establishment of differing compliance or reporting requirements- or timetables that take into account the resources available to small entities;, (2)the clarification, consolidation, or simplification of compliance and reporting requirements under the rule for such small entities; (3)the use of performance rather than design standards; and (4)an exemption from coverage of the rule,or any part thereof,for such small entities."' 16. As discussed in the Further Notice, Sections 611(a) and 622(a) do not distinguish between new entrants and cable operators with existing franchises.' As discussed in the Order, the Commission has the authority to implement the mandate of Section 621(a)(1)to ensure that LFAs do not unreasonably refuse to award competitive franchises to new entrants, and adopts rules designed to ensure that the local franchising process does not create unreasonable barriers to competitive entry for new entrants. Such rules consist of specific guidelines (e.g., maximum timeframes for considering a competitive franchise application) and general principles regarding franchise fees designed to provide LFAs with the guidance necessary to conform their behavior to the directive of Section 621(a)(1). As noted above, applying these rules regarding the franchising process to cable operators with existing franchises likely would have at most a de minnnis impact on small governmental jurisdictions. Even if that were not the case, however, we believe that the interest of fairness to those cable operators would outweigh any impact on small entities. The alternative (i.e., continuing to allow LFAs to follow procedures that are unreasonable) would be unacceptable, as it would be inconsistent with the Communications Act. We seek comment on the impact that such rules might have on small entities, and on what effect alternative rules would have on those entities. We also invite comment on ways in which 24 13 C.F.R. § 121.201,NAICS code 517510. zs See http://www.fcc.gov/mb/ovs/csovscer.html (visited December 19, 2006), http://www.fcc.gov/mb/ovs/ csovsarc.html(visited December 19,2006). 26 5 U.S.C. §§603(c)(1)-(4). 27 47 U.S.C. §§531(a),542(a). 84 Federal Communications Commission FCC 06-180 the Commission might implement the tentative conclusions while at the same time imposing lesser burdens on small entities. F. Federal Rules that May Duplicate,Overlap,or Conflict with the Proposed Rules 17. None. • • 85 Federal Communications Commission FCC 06-180 APPENDIX D • Final Regulatory Flexibility Act Analysis 1. As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980,as amended("RFA")' an Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis("IRFA")was incorporated in the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking ("NPRM")to this proceeding.' The Commission sought written public comment on the proposals in the NPRM,including comment on the IRFA. The Commission received one comment on the IRFA. This present Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis("FRFA")conforms to the RFA.' A. Need for,and Objectives of,the Report and Order 2. This Report and Order ("Order") adopts rules and provides guidance to implement Section 621 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended(the"Communications Act").4 Section 621 of the Communications Act prohibits franchising authorities from unreasonably refusing to award competitive franchises for the provision of cable services.' The Commission has found that the current franchising process constitutes an unreasonable barrier to entry for competitive entrants that impedes enhanced cable competition and accelerated broadband deployment. The Commission also has determined that it has authority to address this problem. To eliminate the unreasonable barriers to entry into the cable market,and to encourage investment in broadband facilities, in this Order the Commission (1) adopts maximum time frames within which local franchising authorities("LFAs")must grant or deny franchise applications (90 days for new entrants with existing access to rights-of-way and six months for those who do not); (2) prohibits LFAs from imposing unreasonable build-out requirements on new entrants; (3) identifies certain costs, fees, and other compensation which, if required by LFAs, must be counted toward the statutory 5 percent cap on franchise fees; (4) interprets new entrants' obligations to provide support for PEG channels and facilities and institutional networks("I-Nets"); and(5)clarifies that LFA authority is limited to regulation of cable services, not mixed-use services. The Commission also preempts local laws, regulations, and franchise agreement requirements, including level-playing-field provisions, to the extent they impose greater restrictions on market entry for competitive entrants than what the Order allows. The rule and guidelines are adopted in order to further the interrelated goals of enhanced cable competition and accelerated broadband deployment. For the specific language of the rule adopted,see Appendix B. B. Summary of Significant Issues Raised by Public Comments in Response to the IRFA 3. Only one commenter, Sjoberg's,Inc. submitted a comment that specifically responded to the IRFA. Sjoberg's, Inc. contends that small cable operators are directly affected by the adoption of rules that treat competitive cable entrants more favorably than incumbents. Sjoberg's Inc. argues that small cable operators are not in a position to compete with large potential competitors. These arguments were considered and rejected as discussed below. 4. We disagree with Sjoberg's Inc. assertion that our rules will treat competitive cable entrants more favorably than incumbents. While the actions we take in the Order will serve to increase 1 See 5 U.S.C. § 603. The RFA, see 5 U.S.C. § 601 et. seq.,has been amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996("SBREFA"),Pub.L.No. 104-121,Title II, 110 Stat. 847(1996). The SBREFA was enacted as Title II of the Contract With America Advancement Act of 1996("CWAAA"). 2 Implementation of Section 621(a)(1) of the Cable Communications Policy Act of 1984 as amended by the Cable Television Consumer Protection and Competition Act of 1992,20 FCC Rcd 18581 (2005)("NPRM"). • 3 See 5 U.S.C.§604. 4 47 U.S.C. §541(a)(1). 5 Id 86 Federal Communications Commission . FCC 06-180 competition in the multichannel video programming("MVPD") market, we do not believe that the rules we adopt in the Order will put any incumbent provider at a competitive disadvantage. In fact,we believe that incumbent cable operators are at a competitive advantage in the MVPD market; incumbent cable operators have the competitive advantage of an existing customer base and significant brand recognition in their existing markets. Furthermore,we ask in the Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking whether the findings adopted in the Order should apply to existing cable operators and tentatively conclude that they • should. C. Description and Estimate of the Number of Small Entities to Which the Proposed Rules Will Apply Entities Directly Affected By Proposed Rules 5. The RFA directs the Commission to provide a description of and, where feasible, an estimate of the number of small entities that will be affected by the rules adopted herein.' The RFA generally defines the term "small entity" as having the same meaning as the terms "small business," "small organization," and "small government jurisdiction."' In addition, the term "small business" has the same meaning as the term"small business concern"under the Small Business Act! A small business concern is one which: (1) is independently owned and operated; (2) is not dominant in its field of operation; and (3) satisfies any additional criteria established by the Small Business Administration (SBA)! 6. The rules adopted by this Order will streamline the local franchising process by adopting rules that provide guidance as to what constitutes an unreasonable refusal to grant a cable franchise. The Commission has determined that the group of small entities directly affected by the rules adopted herein consists of small governmental entities(which,in some cases,may be represented in the local franchising process by not-for-profit enterprises). Therefore, in this FRFA, we consider the impact of the rules on small governmental entities.A description of such small entities, as well as an estimate of the number of such small entities, is provided below. 7. Small governmental jurisdictions. Small governmental jurisdictions are "governments of cities, towns,townships, villages, school districts, or special districts, with a population of less than fifty thousand."10 As of 1997, there were approximately 87,453 governmental jurisdictions in the United States." This number includes 39,044 county governments, municipalities, and townships, of which 37,546 (approximately 96.2 percent) have populations of fewer than 50,000, and of which 1,498 have populations of 50,000 or more.Thus,we estimate the number of small governmental jurisdictions overall to be 84,098 or fewer. 6 5 U.S.C. §603(b)(3). 'Id. §601(6). Id. § 601(3)(incorporating by reference the definition of"small business concern" in 15 U.S.C. § 632). Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 601(3), the statutory definition of a small business applies "unless an agency,after consultation with the Office of Advocacy of the Small Business Administration and after opportunity for public comment, establishes one or more definitions of such term which are appropriate to the activities of the agency and publishes such definition(s)in the Federal Register." 5 U.S.C. §601(3). 9 15 U.S.C. § 632. Application of the statutory criteria of dominance in its field of operation and independence are . sometimes difficult to apply in the context of broadcast television. Accordingly, the Commission's statistical account of television stations may be over-inclusive. 10 5 U.S.C. §601(5). 11 U.S. Census Bureau, Statistical Abstract of the United States: 2000, Section 9, pages 299-300, Tables 490 and 492. 87 Federal Communications Commission FCC 06-180 Miscellaneous Entities 8. The entities described in this section are affected merely indirectly by our current action, and therefore are not formally a part of this RFA analysis. We have included them, however,to broaden the record in this proceeding and to alert them to our conclusions. Cable Operators 9. The "Cable and Other Program Distribution" census category includes cable systems operators, closed circuit television services, direct broadcast satellite services, multipoint distribution systems, satellite master antenna systems, and subscription television services. The SBA has developed small business size standard for this census category,which includes all such companies generating$13.0 million or less in revenue annually.12 According to Census Bureau data for 1997, there were a total of 1,311 firms in this category, total, that had operated for the entire year.13 Of this total, 1,180 firms had annual receipts of under $10 million and an additional 52 firms had receipts of$10 million or more but less than $25 million. Consequently, the Commission estimates that the majority of providers in this service category are small businesses that may be affected by the rules and policies adopted herein. 10. Cable System Operators (Rate Regulation Standard). The Commission has developed its own small-business-size standard for cable system operators, for purposes of rate regulation. Under the Commission's rules,a"small cable company"is one serving fewer than 400,000 subscribers nationwide.14 The most recent estimates indicate that there were 1,439 cable operators who qualified as small cable system operators at the end of 1995.15 Since then, some of those companies may have grown to serve over 400,000 subscribers, and others may have been involved in transactions that caused them to be combined with other cable operators. Consequently, the Commission estimates that there are now fewer than 1,439 small entity cable system operators that may be affected by the rules and policies adopted herein. 11. Cable System Operators (Telecom Act Standard). The Communications Act of 1934, as amended, also contains a size standard for small cable system operators, which is "a cable operator that, directly or through an affiliate, serves in the aggregate fewer than 1 percent of all subscribers in the United States and is not affiliated with any entity or entities whose gross annual revenues in the aggregate exceed $250,000,000.s16 The Commission has determined that there are 67,700,000 subscribers in the United States.17 Therefore, an operator serving fewer than 677,000 subscribers shall be deemed a small operator, if its annual revenues, when combined with the total annual revenues of all its affiliates, do not exceed $250 million in the aggregate.18 Based on available data, the Commission estimates that the 1213 C.F.R. § 121.201,North American Industry Classification System(NAICS)code 517510. 13 U.S. Census Bureau, 1997 Economic Census, Subject Series: Information, "Establishment and Firm Size (Including Legal Form of Organization),"Table 4,NAICS code 513220(issued October 2000). 14 47 C.F.R. § 76.901(e). The Commission developed this definition based on its determination that a small cable system operator is one with annual revenues of$100 million or less. See Implementation of Sections of the 1992 Cable Act: Rate Regulation, Sixth Report and Order and Eleventh Order on Reconsideration, 10 FCC Rcd 7393 (1995). 15 Paul Kagan Associates,Inc.,Cable TV Investor,February 29, 1996(based on figures for December 30, 1995). 16 47 U.S.C. §543(m)(2). 17 See FCC Announces New Subscriber Count for the Definition of Small Cable Operator,Public Notice DA 01-158 (2001). 18 47 C.F.R. §76.901(f). 88 Federal Communications Commission FCC 06-180 number of cable operators serving 677,000 subscribers or fewer, totals 1,450.19 The Commission neither requests nor collects information on whether cable system operators are affiliated with entities whose gross annual revenues exceed $250 million,20 and therefore is unable, at this time, to estimate more accurately the number of cable system operators that would qualify as small cable operators under the size standard contained in the Communications Act of 1934. 12. Open Video Services. Open Video Service ("OVS") systems provide subscription services.21 As noted above, the SBA has created a small business size standard for Cable and Other Program Distribution.22 This standard provides that a small entity is one with $13.0 million or less in annual receipts. The Commission has certified approximately 25 OVS operators to serve. 75 areas, and some of these are currently providing service23 Affiliates of Residential Communications Network, Inc. (RCN) received approval to operate OVS systems in New York City, Boston, Washington, D.C., and other areas. RCN has sufficient revenues to assure that they do not qualify as a small business entity. Little financial information is available for the other entities that are authorized to provide OVS and are not yet operational. Given that some entities authorized to provide OVS service have not yet begun to generate revenues, the Commission concludes that up to 24 OVS operators (those remaining) might qualify as small businesses that may be affected by the rules and policies adopted herein. Telecommunications Service Entities 13. As noted above, a "small business" under the RFA is one that, inter alia, meets the pertinent small business size standard(e.g., a telephone communications business having 1,500 or fewer employees), and "is not dominant in its field of operation."24 The SBA's Office of Advocacy contends that, for RFA purposes, small incumbent local exchange carriers are not dominant in their field of operation because any such dominance is not "national" in scope 25 We have therefore included small incumbent local exchange carriers in this RFA analysis, although we emphasize that this RFA action has no effect on Commission analyses and determinations in other,non-RFA contexts. 14. Incumbent Local Exchange Carriers("LECs"). Neither the Commission nor the SBA has developed a small business size standard specifically for incumbent local exchange services. The appropriate size standard under SBA rules is for the category Wired Telecommunications Carriers.Under that size standard, such a business is small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees.26 According to 19 See FCC Announces New Subscriber Count for the Definition of Small Cable Operators, Public Notice, DA 01- 0158(2001). 20 The Commission does receive such information on a case-by-case basis if a cable operator appeals a local franchise authority's finding that the operator does not qualify as a small cable operator pursuant to § 76.901(f) of the Commission's rules.See 47 C.F.R. §76.909(b). 21 See 47 U.S.C. §573. 22 13 C.F.R. § 121.201,NAICS code 517510. 23 See http://www.fcc.gov/mb/ovs/csovscer.html(visited December 19,2006), http://www.fcc.gov/mb/ovs/csovsarc.html(visited December 19,2006). 24 15 U.S.C. § 632. 25 Letter from Jere W.Glover,Chief Counsel for Advocacy, SBA,to William E.Kennard,Chairman,FCC(May 27, 1999). The Small Business Act contains a definition of"small-business concern," which the RFA incorporates into its own definition of"small business."See 15 U.S.C. § 632(a)(Small Business Act);5 U.S.C. § 601(3)(RFA).SBA regulations interpret "small business concern" to include the concept of dominance on a national basis. See 13 C.F.R. § 121.102(b). 2613 C.F.R. § 121.201,NAICS code 517110(changed from 513310 in Oct.2002). 89 Federal Communications Commission FCC 06-180 Commission data,27 1,303 carriers have reported that they are engaged in the provision of incumbent local exchange services. Of these 1,303 carriers, an estimated 1,020 have 1,500 or fewer employees and 283 have more than 1,500 employees. Consequently, the Commission estimates that most providers of incumbent local exchange service are small businesses that may be affected by our action. In addition, limited preliminary census data for 2002 indicate that the total number of wired communications carriers increased approximately 34 percent from 1997 to 2002.28 15. ' Competitive Local Exchange Carriers, Competitive Access Providers (CAPs), "Shared- Tenant Service Providers,"and "Other Local Service Providers." Neither the Commission nor the SBA has developed a small business size standard specifically for these service providers. The appropriate size standard under SBA rules is for the category Wired Telecommunications Carriers. Under that size standard, such a business is small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees.29 According to Commission data,3° 769 carriers have reported that they are engaged in the provision of either competitive access provider services or competitive local exchange carrier services. Of these 769 carriers, an estimated 676 have 1,500 or fewer employees and 93 have more than 1,500 employees.In addition, 12 carriers have reported that they are "Shared-Tenant Service Providers," and all 12 are estimated to have 1,500 or fewer employees. In addition, 39 carriers have reported that they are "Other Local Service Providers." Of the 39, an estimated 38 have 1,500 or fewer employees and one has more than 1,500 employees. Consequently, the Commission estimates that most providers of competitive local exchange service, competitive access providers, "Shared-Tenant Service Providers," and "Other Local Service Providers" are small entities that may be affected by our action.In addition, limited preliminary census data for 2002 indicate that the total number of wired communications carriers increased approximately 34 percent from 1997 to 2002.31 D. Description of Projected -Reporting, Record Keeping and other Compliance Requirements 16. The rule and guidance adopted in the Order will require de minimus additional reporting, record keeping, and other compliance requirements. The most significant change requires potential franchisees to file an application to mark the beginning of the franchise negotiation process. This filing requires minimal information, and we estimate that the average burden on applicants to complete this application is one hour. The franchising authority will review this application in the normal course of its franchising procedures. The rule will not require any additional special skills beyond any already needed in the cable franchising context. E. Steps Taken to Minimize Significant Impact on Small Entities, and Significant Alternatives Considered 17. The RFA requires an agency to describe any significant alternatives that it has considered 27 FCC, Wireline Competition Bureau,Industry Analysis and Technology Division, "Trends in Telephone Service" at Table 5.3, page 5-5 (June 2005) ("Trends in Telephone Service"). This source uses data that are current as of October 1,2004. 28 See U.S.Census Bureau,2002 Economic Census,Industry Series: "Information," Table 2,Comparative Statistics for the United States (1997 NAICS Basis): 2002 and 1997, NAICS code 513310 (issued Nov. 2004). The preliminary data indicate that the total number of"establishments"increased from 20,815 to 27, 891.In this context, the number of establishments is a less helpful indicator of small business prevalence than is the number of"firms," because the latter number takes into account the concept of common ownership or control. The more helpful 2002 census data on firms,including employment and receipts numbers,will be issued in late 2005. 29 13 C.F.R. § 121.201,NAICS code 517110. 30"Trends in Telephone Service"at Table 5.3. 31 See supra note 28. 90 Federal Communications Commission FCC 06-180 in reaching its proposed approach,which may include the following four alternatives (among others): (1) the establishment of differing compliance or reporting requirements or timetables that take into account the resources available to small entities; (2) the clarification, consolidation, or simplification of compliance or reporting requirements under the rule for small entities; (3)the use of performance, rather than design, standards; and (4) an exemption from coverage of the rule, or any part thereof, for small entities!' 18. In the NPRM, the Commission sought comment on the impact that rules interpreting Section 621(a)(1) might have on small entities, and on what effect alternative rules would have on those entities. The Commission also invited comment on ways in which the Commission might implement Section 621(a)(1) while at the same time impose lesser burdens on small entities. The Commission tentatively concluded that any rules likely would have at most a de rininiis impact on small governmental jurisdictions, and that the interrelated, high-priority federal communications policy goals of enhanced cable competition and accelerated broadband deployment necessitated the establishment of specific guidelines for LFAs with respect to the process by which they grant competitive cable franchises. We agree with those tentative conclusions,and we believe that the rules adopted in the Order will not impose a significant impact on any small entity. 19. In the Order, we provide that LFAs should reasonably review franchise applications within 90 days for entities existing authority to access rights-of way, and within six months for entities that do not have such authority. This will result in decreasing the regulatory burdens on cable operators. We declined to adopt shorter deadlines that commenters proposed(e.g., 17 days, one month) in order to provide small entities more flexibility in scheduling their franchise negotiation sessions. In the Order,we also provide guidance on whether an LFA may reasonably refuse to award a competitive franchise based on certain franchise requirements, such as build-out requirements and franchise fees. As an alternative, we considered providing no guidance on any franchising terms. We conclude that the guidance we provide minimizes any adverse impact on small entities because it clarifies the terms within which parties must negotiate, and should prevent small entities from facing costly litigation over those terms. F. Report to Congress 20. The Commission will send a copy of the Order, including this FRFA, in a report to be sent to Congress pursuant to the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 199633 In addition, the Commission will send a copy of the Order, including the FRFA, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration. A copy of the Order and FRFA(or summaries thereof) will also be published in the Federal Register.34 32 5 U.S.C. § 603(c)(1)-(c)(4) 33 See 5 U.S.C. § 801(a)(1)(A). 34 See id. §604(b). 91 Federal Communications Commission FCC 06-180 STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN KEVIN J.MARTIN Re: Implementation of Section 621(a)(1) of the Cable Communications Policy Act of 1984 as amended by the Cable Television Consumer Protection and Competition Act of 1992 (MB Docket No. 05-311) Greater competition in the market for the delivery for multichannel video programming is a primary and long-standing goal of federal communications policy. In passing the 1992 Cable Act, Congress recognized that competition between multiple cable systems would be beneficial, would help lower cable rates, and specifically encouraged local franchising authorities to award competitive franchises. Section 621 of the statute reads,"A franchising authority may not grant an exclusive franchise and May not unreasonably refuse to award an additional competitive franchise." Telephone companies are investing billions of dollars to upgrade their networks to provide video. As new providers began actively seeking entry into video markets, we began to hear that some local authorities were making the process of getting franchises unreasonably difficult, despite clear statutory language. The record collected by the Commission in this proceeding cited instances where LFAs sat on applications for more than a year or required extraordinary in kind contributions such as the building of public swimming pools and recreation centers. Such unreasonable requirements are especially troubling because competition is desperately needed in the video market. As we just found, from 1995 to 2005, cable rates have risen 93%. In 1995 cable cost $22.37 per month. Last year, cable cost $43.04 per month. Today's Communications Daily reports that prices for expanded basic are now about $50 per month. The trend in pricing of cable services is of particular importance to consumers. Since 1996 the prices of every other communications service have declined while cable rates have risen year after year after year. This item appropriately removes such regulatory barriers by giving meaning to the words Congress wrote in section 621 of the Cable Act. Specifically, the Commission finds that an LFA is unreasonably refusing to grant a competitive franchise when it does not act on an application within a reasonable time period, imposes taxes on non-cable services such as broadband,requires a new entrant to provide unrelated services or imposes unreasonable build-out requirements. The widespread deployment of broadband remains my top priority as Chairman and a major Commission objective. During my tenure as Chairman, the Commission has worked hard to create a regulatory environment that promotes broadband deployment. We have removed legacy regulations, like tariffs and price controls, that discourage carriers from investing in their broadband networks, and we worked to create a regulatory level playing-field among broadband platforms.And we have begun to see some success as a result of the Commission's policies. High-speed connections to the Internet have grown over 400%since I became Commissioner in July 200. The ability to deploy broadband networks rapidly however, is intrinsically linked to the ability to offer video to consumers. As the Commission stated in the Notice in this proceeding: "The construction of modern telecommunications facilities requires substantial capital investment and such networks, once completed, are capable of providing not only voice and data, but video as well. As a consequence, the ability to offer video offers the promise of an additional revenue stream from which deployment costs can be recovered." Similarly, in a 2005 Policy Paper,the Phoenix Center found that video is "is now the key driver for new fiber deployment in the residential market." The Phoenix Center went on to say that: "If a new 92 Federal Communications Commission FCC 06-180 entrant cannot readily provide consumers multichannel video over an advanced network, then the prospects for success will be diminished substantially due to a reduction in the entrant's potential revenues. Quite simply,the ability to sell video services over these fiber networks may be a crucial factor in getting those fiber networks deployed." By enhancing the ability of new entrants to provide video services then we are advancing our goal of universal affordable broadband access for Americans, as well as our goal of increased video competition. I am also committed to seeing that consumers are able to realize the benefits of competition in the forms of better services and lower prices. In recent years however, consumers have had limited choice among video services providers and ever increasing prices for those services. But as was just demonstrated in our annual price survey, cable competition can impact cable bills. Again, it found that only in areas where there was competition from a second cable operator did average price for cable service decrease. I am pleased that the steps taken by the Commission today will expressly further this type of competition and help ensure that lower prices are available to as many Americans as possible as quickly as possible. Addressing build-out requirements was particularly difficult. This item seeks to strike a balance between encouraging as widespread deployment of broadband as possible while not deterring entry altogether. I believed it would have been appropriate to provide examples of build-out requirements that would be reasonable in addition to illustrating those that could not be.' 'For example,I would have been willing to find that it would seem reasonable for an LFA to require that,beginning five years after the effective date of a new entrant's franchise and every 3 years thereafter, if in the portion of the franchise area where the new entrant has chosen to offer cable service at least 15 percent of the households subscribe to such service,the new entrant increase by 20 percent the households in the franchise area to which the new entrant offers cable service by the beginning of the next 3-year interval,until the new entrant is capable of providing cable service to all households in the franchise area. 93 Federal Communications Commission FCC 06-180 DISSENTING STATEMENT OF COMMIVIISSIONER MICHAEL J.COPPS Re: Implementation of Section 621(a)(1) of the Cable Commwzications Policy Act of 1984 as amended by the Cable Television Consumer Protection and Competition Act of 1992 (MB Docket No. 05-311) I think that all of my colleagues and I can agree on the central importance of encouraging video competition. It is abundantly clear that cable rates are rising faster than inflation and that wireline cable competition can be helpful in bringing those rates.down. Consumers deserve rules that will bring such competition to their doorsteps because consumers are not being well-served by the lack of competition today. I think my colleagues and I can also agree on the central importance of broadband deployment. As I have often pointed out, our nation is falling behind in the international broadband race. Encouraging new entrants into the video market could at least assist in the challenge of building out broadband infrastructure, although it doesn't represent anything near the totality of what a real broadband strategy would look like. But agreeing on the many benefits of video competition is hardly the same thing as coming up with rules that will actually encourage honest-to-goodness competition within the framework of the statutes that Congress has given us. The item before us today doesn't get us there and I cannot support it as written. In recent days we had discussions attempting to craft an item with which I would feel more comfortable. Chairman Martin engaged in those discussions in good faith and I thank him for that. My goal was to encourage an item that preserves a local authority's statutory right to seek specific and far- reaching build-out requirements, protects each community's ability to negotiate for PEG and I-NET facilities, and maintains truly meaningful local ability to deal with the huge companies that are coming into our cities and towns to build important infrastructure. Throughout the consideration of this item and even as'we discussed ways to improve it in recent days, I have been troubled at the lack of a granular record that would demonstrate that the present franchising system is irretrievably broken and that traditional federal-state-local relationships have to be so thoroughly upended. If we are going to preempt and upend the balances inherent in long-standing federal-state-local jurisdictional authorities, we should have a record clearly demonstrating that those local authorities are not up to the task of handling this infrastructure build-out and that competition can be introduced only by preempting and upsetting these long-standing principles of federalism. My colleagues may recall that when we launched the NPRM on this item, I made it very clear how important the compilation of a compelling granular record would be in my consideration of this proceeding. I do not believe that either today's item or the record behind it makes such a showing. The various examples of "unreasonable" franchise requirements that the item enumerates are not closely or carefully supported by the record and often fail to rise beyond isolated episodes or anecdotal evidence. Many people questioned,and continue to question,the Commission's legal authority to do what it is doing today. It is clear that those questions remain and that the Commission has been asked by those with oversight powers to more conclusively demonstrate our authority to undertake the actions we initiate today. I believe it is the better course of wisdom in so far-reaching a proceeding, in light of the concern being expressed by those with oversight responsibilities of this Commission, to thoroughly answer those questions, to lay out the basis of our claimed legal authority, and to explain what legal risks this action entails before taking action. Under the circumstances, proceeding on such a controversial decision today 94 Federal Communications Commission FCC 06-180 does not put an end to this issue. It only invites more delay,more confusion,and more possibility of legal challenge. As we face the challenge of providing ubiquitous high-speed broadband to all our citizens, we need the certainty of a national strategy to get the job done. Right now this nation is hobbled because it has no such strategy, no plan for the infrastructure build-out our people need to be productive and competitive citizens of the world. The United States is ranked number twenty-one in the International Telecommunications Union's Digital Opportunity Index. It is difficult to take much comfort from being twenty-first in the Twenty-first century. The kind of broadband strategy I am talking about demands a level of consensus and national buy-in by the many diverse interests and entities that would be responsible for implementing it. While I have never equated franchise reform as anything remotely equivalent to a national broadband strategy,I do believe a properly-crafted and legally-certain franchising reform could facilitate some level of broadband build-out. That is what I attempted to work toward here. But if our decision is only going to increase concern, increase the questions and increase the risk, then I think we should pause, take a deep breath, answer the questions and reach out for more consensus. I don't say unanimity,of course,but at least a level of comfort that builds an environment wherein the next few years can see the job actually getting done rather than spent in contentious debate or court challenge because our reasoning was deemed inadequate. So I thank my colleagues, and especially the Chairman, for the discussions we have had— discussions that were both in good faith and substantive—but in light of the concerns I have,just discussed, I cannot support this afternoon's outcome. Unlike so many other proceedings coming before the Commission, I was nowhere near certain as I came to work this morning how the vote on this item would go. I actually thought that perhaps we would take the short time needed, answer the questions that had been posed,and then reassess where we were as to proceeding with an item. That was my preference. Instead it appears a majority will proceed to approve an item that, as drafted right now, is without important enhancements I have been advocating and without sufficient buy-in from the world beyond the FCC to assure its effectiveness. I must therefore respectfully dissent. • 95 Federal Communications Commission FCC 06-180 DISSENTING STATEMENT OF COMIVIISSIONER JONATHAN S.ADELSTEIN Re: Implementation of Section 621(a)(1)of the Cable Communications Policy Act of 1984 as amended by the Cable Television Consumer Protection and Competition Act of 1992 (MB Docket No. 05-311) The policy goals of this Order, to promote competitive video offerings and broadband deployment, are laudable. But while I support these goals, today's item goes out on a limb in asserting federal authority to preempt local governments, and then saws off the limb with a highly dubious legal scheme. It substitutes our judgment as to what is reasonable—or unreasonable—for that of local officials —all in violation of the franchising framework established in the Communications Act. Today's Order is certain to offend many in Congress, who worked long and hard on this important issue, only to have a Commission decision rushed through with little consultation. The result will be heavy oversight after-the-fact, and a likely rejection by the,courts. It will solve nothing, create much confusion, and provide little certainty or progress on our shared goal of promoting real video competition and universal broadband deployment. This outcome is disappointing because 'I believe we must do everything we can to encourage competitive video offerings. As I was driving to work this morning, I saw a line of Verizon trucks installing FiOS in my neighborhood. I must admit,I am very excited about this new service, and plan to subscribe. FiOS is now available because our local county officials approved a franchise for Verizon. If they had not, I imagine many of'my neighbors would have complained loudly. Maybe that is why Verizon has repeatedly told Wall Street investors, "[e]ven in those states where we don't have the whole state,places like Pennsylvania,we have become very successful now in getting.franchising. So we don't • see that as an issue going forward.' I am pleased with their efforts and their success, and want to encourage their continued investment. As I said in the underlying Notice of Proposed Rule Making, "Congress clearly sought to promote competitive cable offerings and to facilitate the approval of competitive cable franchises in the Cable Act of 1992.."2 I agree the Commission should do what it can within the current legal framework to facilitate increased video competition because it benefits American consumers, promotes U.S. deployment of broadband networks and services,and enhances the free exchange of ideas in our democratic society. Notwithstanding these worthy goals,I,unfortunately, cannot support this Order because the FCC is a regulatory agency, not a legislative body. In my years working on Capitol Hill, I learned enough to know that today's Order is legislation disguised as regulation. The courts will likely reverse such action because the Commission cannot act when it "does not really define specific statutory terms, but rather takes off from those terms and devises.a comprehensive regulatory regimen.... This extensive quasi- legislative effort to implement the statute does not strike [me] as merely a construction of statutory phrases."3 'Final Transcript, Thomson StreetEvents,VZ-Verizon at UBS 341 Annual Global Media Conference,Dec.6,2006, at page 7,available at,http://investor.verizon.com/news/20061206/20061206 transcript.pdf. 2 Statement of Commissioner Jonathan S. Adelstein, Implementation of Section 621(a)(1) of the Cable Communications Policy Act of 1984, as amended by the Cable Television Consumer Protection and Competition Act of 1992, MB Docket No. 05-311, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, FCC 05-180 (rel. Nov. 18, 2005) ("Local Franchising NPRM"). 3 Kelley v. E.P.A., 15 F.3d 1100, 1108 (DC. Cir. 1994). While the Commission contends that "[d]espite the parameters established by the Communications Act, ... operation of the franchising process has proven far more (continued...) 96 Federal Communications Commission FCC 06-180 Today's Order is disappointing because while there is bipartisan agreement that the current video franchising framework should be refined to better reflect marketplace realities, technological advancement, and consumer demands, the decision skips the fine-tuning and performs an extreme makeover. The majority accomplishes today what the elected representatives of the American people have tried to do through the legislative process. In doing so,the Commission not only disregards current law and exceeds its authority,but it also usurps congressional prerogatives and ignores the plain meaning of Title VI,the cannons of statutory construction, and the judicial remedy Congress already provided for unreasonable refusals. In crafting a broadly aggressive and legally tenuous solution,the majority attempts the legal equivalent of triple axels and quadruple toe loops that would only impress an Olympic judge who is willing to overlook slips, stumbles,and falls. We might keep in mind former President Ronald Reagan's views on federalism and the role of local governments. In his first State of the Union Address,President Reagan exhorted Americans to give power back to local governments: Together, after 50 years of taking power away from the hands of the people in their states and local communities we have started returning power and resources to them. ... Some will also say our states and local communities are not up to the challenge of a new and creative partnership. Well,that might have been true 20 years ago. ... It's no longer true today. This Administration has faith in state and local governments and the constitutional balance envisioned by the Founding Fathers! More recently, President George W. Bush echoed this trust in local government, asserting that "government closest to the people is more responsive and accountable?' While the Commission has long viewed the cable franchising process as "a deliberately structured dualism,s6 today's decision is a clear rebuke of this storied relationship with local government. Congressional action in 1984, 1992, and 1996 re-affirmed further that it is Congress' intent that "the franchise process take[s] place at the local level where city officials have the best understanding of local communities' needs and can require cable operators to tailor the cable system to meet those needs"' This is clearly set forth in the purposes of Title 6, wherein Congress made clear that Title 6 would establish the proper local, state and federal roles.' Congress established a framework whereby state and local authorities, within certain federal limits, are primarily responsible for the administration of the franchising process. That process is inherently local and fact-specific. Indeed, a one-size-fits-all (Continued from previous page) complex and time consuming than it should be,"(Order,¶3),the proper inquiry is whether the franchising process is operating as Congress intended. Today's Order ignores this important question. In so doing, the Commission disregards the parameters established in the Cable Act and imposes its view of how the franchising process should be. a President Ronald Reagan,State of the Union Address,January 26, 1982,available at, http://www.reagan.utexas.edu/archives/speeches/1982/12682c.htm. 5 George W.Bush,"What the Congress Can Do For America,"WALL ST.J.,January 3,2007,at A13. 6 Cable Television Report and Order, 36 F.C.C.2d 143,207¶177,recon., 36 F.C.C.2d 326(1972). 'H.R.Rep.No.934,98th Congress,2d Sess.at 24. 8 47 U.S.C. §521 (3). 97 Federal Communications Commission FCC 06-180 approach is antithetical to clear congressional intent that cable systems be "responsive to needs and interests of local community."' To be sure, the franchising process is not perfect and, by definition,;negotiations may result in some delay. But Congress, after much deliberation, created this process to achieve certain stated policy objectives, which are clearly set out in the Act. 10 Regardless of how commenters now feel about this carefully calibrated and negotiated balance, Congress delegated authority to state and local governments to make certain decisions and to determine the merit of granting cable franchises in their respective communities. It then set forth a judicial remedy if a party is aggrieved by a denial of franchising." While Congress has the power to revisit this scheme, and has strongly considered doing so, until then this Commission must adhere to the law as written. Yet today,the Commission is federalizing the franchising process,taking it upon itself to decide, in every local dispute, what is "unreasonable," without actually looking at specific, local examples to determine the real situation.'' Instead of acknowledging the vast dispute in the record as to whether there are actually any unreasonable refusals being made today, the majority simply accepts in every case that the phone companies are right and the local governments are wrong, all without bothering to examine the facts behind these competing claims, or conduct any independent fact-finding. This is breathtaking in its disrespect of our local and state government partners and in its utter disregard for agency action based on a sound record. Today's Order also displays a fundamental misunderstanding about the commitment of franchising authorities to bring competition to their citizens. By law, a franchise under Title 6 confers a right of access to people's property.13 Unlike members of this Commission,many state and local officials are elected and directly accountable to their citizens. Our knee-jerk embrace of everything interested companies say while discounting local elected officials on a matter grounded in local property rights certainly does not inspire a great deal of confidence in the Commission's ability on the federal level to arbitrate every local dispute in the country and fairly decide who is unreasonable and who is not. Even if the Commission had such power, there is no mechanism outlined in this Order to establish how that process would work. Consequently, the end result will likely be litigation, confusion, abuse of the process, and a certain amount of chaos. It is sadly ironic that this agency, which has been recently in violation of one of its own 90 day statutory deadlines,is telling localities to do as I say,not as I do." 9 47 U.S.C. § 521(2). 10 One of the principal purposes of Title VI is to"establish franchise procedures and standards which encourage the growth and development of cable systems and which assure that cable systems are responsive to the needs and interests of the local community."47 U.S.C. §521(2). 1147 U.S.C. §555. 12 See Letter from David L. Smith, City Attorney, City of Tampa,to Kevin Martin, Chairman,FCC,dated January 5, 2007 (stating "Now disappointing it was to learn that ... the FCC would embrace as truth an allegation in a rulemaking that has such far-reaching implications to so many, without doing any follow-up with the jurisdiction named to confirm it accuracy."). 13 See 47 U.S.C. §541 (a)(2). 14 See, e.g.,In the Matter of Comcast Corporation's Request for Waiver of 47 C.F.R. § 76.120(a)(1), CSR-7017-Z, CS Docket No 97-80,DA-06-2543,CS Docket No 97-80,filed 4/19/06 (waiver proceeding placed on public notice 5/17/06 and decided 1/10/2007, well past the statutory "shot clock"); 47 U.S.C. § 549(c) ("the Commission shall grant any such waiver request within 90 days of any application filed under this subsection."). 98 Federal Communications Commission FCC 06-180 Over the past two years, Congress held nearly two dozen hearings on franchising, and sought to amend the Cable Act in an effort to reform the current franchising process and"strike the right balance between national standards and local oversight.s15 Yet,the Commission has finalized in the dark of night what Congress was unable to resolve in two years of intensive public deliberations. In contrast to the Senate where I used to work, one might call the FCC the world's least deliberative body. And the final product shows it. Congress would not have expended effort on a major piece of legislation had its members believed it was not necessary to grant the Commission explicit authority to do what the majority now contends the Commission can do under existing law. The House bill proposed a national cable franchising regime, while the Senate bill proposed an expedited competitive franchise process which would have required local authorities to issue franchises pursuant to a standard application drafted by the Commission. Today's Order turns federalism on its head by putting the Commission in the role of sole arbiter of what is a "reasonable" or "unreasonable" LFA practice and short-circuiting the franchising process if an arbitrary shot clock has expired. While Congress worked to change federal law to create a role for the Commission in the franchising process,there was and continues to be considerable state and local activity to reform the local franchising process. To date, nearly half of all states have adopted state-wide franchise reform or mandatory state franchise terms, or have engaged in a democratic process to enact meaningful franchise reform legislation.16 Hundreds of other localities have approved new franchises, and many more are in the works. When we launched this proceeding, the central question was "whether the local franchising process truly is a hindrance to the deployment of alternative video networks, as some new entrants assert[ed]."17 Indeed, the Local Franchising NPRM explicitly solicited "empirical data" and "concrete examples"regarding problems in the franchising process that FCC could resolve. In response,the record evidence provides scant, dated, isolated, and unverified examples.that fall far short of demonstrating a systematic failure of state and local governments to negotiate in good faith and in a reasonable fashion. According to the Telecommunications.Industry Association, "some recent examples of overly- burdensome, and ... `unreasonable,' extraneous obligations»ls included: (1) Merton Groups two year negotiations with Hanover, New Hampshire, which concluded in December, 2004; (2) Knology's negotiations with Louisville, Kentucky in early 2000; (3) Knology's franchise negotiations with the greater Nashville,Tennessee area in March 2000; and(4)Grande Communication's negotiations with San Antonio and Corpus Christi, Texas in 2002.. Additionally, Fiber-To-The-Home Council cites the efforts of Guadalupe Valley Telephone Cooperative to seek a franchise in the City of Bulverde, Texas in 2004. The Order itself relies on unconfirmed allegations by Verizon and AT&T about unreasonable demands and negotiations being drawn out over an extended period of time; and complaints by U.S. Telecom 15 H.R.REP.No. 109-470,at 3(2006). 16 While the Order purportedly refrains from explicitly preempting "statewide franchising decisions" and only addresses "decisions made by [instrumentalities of the state, such as] county — or municipal level.franchising authorities," this dubious distinction has a questionable legal basis. Under Title 6, LFAs derive their power by virtue of state law, so such distinctions are not for the FCC to make. Moreover,the Commission's contention that it does not have sufficient information in the record to consider the effect of franchising by states(some of which have had laws in place for a decade),but has sufficient record evidence to preempt 33,000 LFAs,is facially preposterous. 17 Adelstein Statement,Local Franchising NPRM. 18 Letter from Grant Seiffert, to Jonathan S. Adelstein, Commissioner, FCC, MB Docket No. 05-311 (dated December 11,2006). 99 Federal Communications Commission FCC 06-180 Association, Qwest, and Bell South about new entrants accepting franchise teens that they considered unreasonable in order to avoid further delay in obtaining the franchise, or, in one case, filing a"friendly lawsuit." These examples, based on my review of the record evidence, represent the extent to which competitive video providers argue that LFAs are delaying in acting on franchise applications. However, considering the current franchising process has been in place nearly 15 years and there are over 30,000 LFAs, I find these sporadic examples, individually and collectively, wholly insufficient to justify the Commission's quasi-legislative attempt to federalize the local franchising process. These sparse allegations and anecdotal evidence do not rise to a level that warrants today's drastic, substantive measures. The Commission's blind acceptance of a few alleged instances as illustrative of a much broader problem is a poor and unfortunate reflection of the disregard for proper agency process. The Commission neither attempted to conduct any independent fact-fmding or due diligence, nor verify the allegations made by parties who have a vested interest in the outcome of this proceeding.19 Even more shocking,the Commission and the commenters fail to cite to a single actual,present day problem pending with any specific LFA 2° Notwithstanding the scant record evidence to justify agency preemption and the creation of a national, unified franchising process in contravention of federal law, the Commission conjures its authority to reinterpret and, in certain respects, rewrite section 621 and Title VI of the Communications Act, on just two words in section 621(a)(1)21—"unreasonably refuse." The Commission ignores the verb that follows: "to award." A plain reading section 621(a)(1) does not provide a wholesale"unreasonable" test for all LFA action. Rather,the statutory language focuses on the act of awarding a franchise. While I agree that the Commission has authority to interpret and implement the Communications Act, including Title VI," the Commission does not have authority to ignore the plain meaning, structure and legislative history of section 621,and judicial precedent. 19 Local Franchising NPRM, ¶1 ("potential competitors seeking to enter the multichannel video programming distributor ("MVPD") marketplace have alleged that in many areas the current operation of the local franchising process serves as a barrier to entry. Accordingly, this Notice is designed to solicit comment on implementation of Section 621(a)(1)'s directive that LFAs not unreasonably refuse to award competitive franchises.") 70 During the Commission's Agenda Meeting in Keller,Texas,on February 10,2006,one Verizon official identified Montgomery County, Maryland, as an obstinate LFA that was insisting upon unreasonable illegal demand and delaying negotiations. Since that meeting, Verizon has in fact obtained a franchise in Montgomery County. See Press Release,Montgomery Country,Md.,County Negotiates Cable Franchise Agreement with Verizon;Agreement Resolves Litigation, Provides Increased Competition. for Cable Service (Sept. 13, 2006) (available at http://www.montgomerycountymd.gov/apps/News/press/PR details.asp?PrID=2582). In fact, this Order blatantly ignores public statements that significantly undermine representations some proponents of this decision have made to the Commission. For example,AT&T has publicly stated that Project Lightspeed will be available to 90%of its "high-value" customers, but to less than 5% of its "low value" neighborhoods, but today the Commission undermines a locality's ability to ensure all residents are served. Leslie Cauley, Cable, Phone Companies Duke it out for Customers, USA Today, May 22, 2005, available_at: http://www.usatoday.com/money/media/2005-05-22- telco-tv-cover-usat x.htm?csp=34 (last viewed 12/20/06). As Verizon's CEO of one major new entrant recently noted,"Any place it's come to a vote,we win." Dionne Searcey,As Verizon Enters Cable Business, It Faces Local Static Telecom Giant Gets Demands As It Negotiates TV Deals, Wall St. J., Oct. 28, 2005, at Al. Yet in today's Order,the Commission somehow determines that there is widespread bad faith only on the part of the LFAs,not the new entrants,in order to justify this sweeping federal preemption. 2147 U.S.C. §541(a)(1). 22 Admittedly, however, read together, sections 621(a)(1) and 635(a),clearly vest the courts, not the FCC, with exclusive jurisdiction over the determination of what constitutes "unreasonably refuse." In light of the fact that these two provisions were amended simultaneously in 1992, this is the only rational interpretation. As NATOA pointed out in its Comments,"[i]t is ludicrous to suggest that Congress,having provided that only"final" decisions (continued...) 100 Federal Communications Commission FCC 06-180 While the Commission purports to limit its action today to interpreting"unreasonably refuse,"the Order stretches section 621 well beyond the meaning that the statute can bear and, consequentially, changes the franchising process in fundamental ways. There are certain salient features of today's Order that raise serious legal and policy implications, requiring careful scrutiny. Most notably, the Order: (1) imposes a 90-day shot clock on LFAs to render a decision on the franchise application of a competitive applicant with existing rights-of-way; (2) deems a competitive entrant's franchise application granted after 90-days; (3) prohibits the denial of a competitive entrant's application based upon the entrant's refusal to comply with any build-out obligations; (4) prohibits the denial of a competitive entrant's application based upon the entrant's refusal to build and support PEG and I-net; and(5) authorizes a new entrant to refrain from obtaining a franchise when it is upgrading"mixed use" facilities that will be used for the delivery of video content. The Order fmds that franchising negotiations that extend beyond the time frames created today by the Commission amount to an unreasonable refusal to award a competitive franchise within the meaning of 621(a)(1). This finding ignores the plain reading of the first sentence of section 621(a)(1), which provides that a franchising authority "may not unreasonably refuse to award.an additional competitive franchise."24 On its face, Section 621(a)(1) does not impose a time limitation on an LFA's authority to consider, award, or deny a competitive franchise. The second and fmal sentence of section 621(a)(1) provides judicial relief, with no Commission involvement contemplated, when the competitive franchise has been"denied by a final decision of the franchising authority."' There is no ambiguity here: Congress simply did not impose a time limit on franchise negotiations, as it did on other parts of Title VI (see discussion infra). Hence, whether you read the first sentence alone or in context of the entire statutory provision or title, its plain and unambiguous meaning is contrary to the Commission's interpretation. Section 621(a)(1) provides an expressed limitation on the nature, not the timing, of the refusal to award a competitive franchise.' (Continued from previous page) of the"denial"of a franchise application may be appealed,somehow intended,sub silentio,to have its own language gutted by allowing parties to bypass the last sentence of§ 621(a)(1)entirely and go directly to the FCC." NATOA Comments at 28. 23 The Senate Report of the 1992 Cable Act concluded that,"[biased on the evidence in the record taken as a whole, it is clear that there are benefits from competition between two cable systems. Thus, the Committee believes that local franchising authorities should be encouraged[not required] to award second franchises. Accordingly, [the 1992 Cable Act,] as reported, prohibits local franchising authorities from unreasonably refusing to grant second franchises." S.Rep.No. 102-92,at 47(1991)(emphasis supplied). Thus,an LFA's decision to not grant a franchise need only not be unreasonable. As one federal district court observed: The House version contained a specific list of"reasonable" grounds for denial. H. R. Conf. Rep. No. 102-862, at 168-69 (1992). The Senate version, on the other hand, listed "technically infeasible" and left other reasonable grounds undefined. By choosing not to adopt a federally mandated list of reasonable grounds for denial in favor of an open-ended definition, Congress intended to leave states with the power to determine the bases for granting or denying franchises, with the only caveat being that a denial must be "reasonable." Knology, Inc. v. Insight Communications Co., L.P.,2001 WL 1750839 at * 2 (W.D. Ky.March 20, 2001) (citation omitted)(emphasis supplied). 24 47 U.S.C. §541(a)(1)(emphasis added). 26 Id (emphasis added). 26 Congressional intent to qualify the nature of an LFA's refusal, not the timing of the refusal, is clear when you consider another provision of Section 621(a). Section 621(a)(4)(A)provides that"franchising authority shall allow (continued...) 101 Federal Communications Commission FCC 06-180 Even if I were able to move beyond this Order's facially defective reading of 621(a)(1), the Commission's selection of 90 days as the only reasonable time frame for an LFA to consider the franchise application of a competitive provider that already has rights-of-way access before it is "deemed granted" is demonstrably inconsistent with the overall framework of Title VI,unsupported by the record evidence, and quite arbitrary. The franchising framework established in Title VI does not support the Commission's decision to select 90 days as the deadline for a default grant—another Commission creation—to become effective." Throughout Part III (Franchising and Regulation) of Title VI, when Congress specifically decided to impose a deadline for LFAs to consider sales of cable systems, modification of franchise obligations, and renewals of existing franchises, in all three instances, Congress chose 120 days zs In other sections of the Act,the prevalent time frame Congress imposed on LFAs and the Commission is 180 days 29 Today,the Commission, without authority, cannot take the place of Congress and impose a tighter time frame than Congress ever contemplated to impose on LFAs in the franchising process. This is well beyond Commission "line-drawing" authority, which requires the Commission to operate within the established framework of the authorizing legislation. While a 90-day deadline arguably could be considered "reasonable," that is not the statutory standard the Commission is purporting to use as the basis of its authority. We can only define "unreasonable" refusal,30 which could be "foot-dragging" or "stonewalling" that amounts to a defacto denial of a franchise application. This is not the same as establishing an arbitrary, inflexible 90-day time frame, which overlooks the fact that 120 or 180 days may be reasonable under certain circumstances. While the Commission has line-drawing authority in some cases, the position taken in the Order is untenable on its face,given that Congress set a 120-day deadline for franchise transfers, which tend to be simpler than awarding new franchises, unless one is willing to assert that Congress itself was unreasonable. The aggressive schedule set here, while understandable and even desirable from a policy perspective,is evidence of the legislative nature of the Order. (Continued from previous page) the applicant's cable system a reasonable period of time to become capable of providing cable service to all households in the franchise area." In that case, Congress explicitly qualified timing,not the scope of buildout. As demonstrated in the Order, the Commission's attempt to super-inflate the meaning of"unreasonably refuse" in 621(a)(1), and diminish the significance of"unreasonable period of time" in section 621(a)(4)(A) is transparently inconsistent and blatantly self-serving. 27 The Order imposes a time limit of 90 days on LFAs to decide franchise applications from entities that already have access to public rights-of-way and a time limit of six months for applicants that are not already authorized to occupy the rights-of-way. Such a distinction does not exist in Title 6, notwithstanding the fact that Congress specifically contemplated phone companies—entities that already have access to public rights-of-way—obtaining franchises to provide video service. 28 47 U.S.C. § 537 (providing LFAs 120 days to act upon request for approval of sale or transfer on cable systems); 47 U.S.C. § 545 (providing LFAs 120 days to modify franchise obligations);and 47 U.S.C. §546(providing LFAs a "4-month period" to "renew the franchise or, issue a preliminary assessment that the franchise should not be renewed"). 29 See, e.g., 47 U.S.C. § 543 (authorizing the Commission to "ensure that the rates for the basic service tier are reasonable"and requiring the Commission to develop regulations in 180 days). 30 47 U.S.C. § 541(a)(1). Today's Order specifically adopts rules that prohibit franchising authorities from "unreasonably refusing"to award competitive franchises. Order at¶1. 102 Federal Communications Commission FCC 06-180 To make matters worse,the Commission-created 90-day shot clock seems to function more like a waiting period, during which time the new entrant has little incentive to engage in meaningful negotiations. An objective review of the evidence shows that there is sufficient blame on both sides of the negotiation table. Sometimes, there are good reasons for delay; and at other times, one side might stall to gain leverage.' While the majority is certainly aware of these tactics, they fail to even mention the need for LFAs and new entrants to abide by, or so much as to have, reciprocal good faith negotiation obligations. The majority also has ignored the apparent need to develop a complaint or grievance mechanism for the parties to ensure compliance. Perhaps Congress might consider imposing on the Commission a binding deadline to resolve complaints, which would inject an incentive for both sides to negotiate,meaningfully and in good faith?' Without anything other than the asserted authority to interpret "unreasonably refuse," the Commission creates a regulatory reprimand for an LFA's failure to render a final decision within the • Commission-created time limits. The consequences of the failure to reach agreement within 90 days is that the LFA will be deemed to have granted the competitive entrant an interim franchise based on the terms proposed in the entrant's franchise application. In practicality,this will confer rights-of-way access over local property. In selecting this remedy, the Commission purportedly "seeks to provide a meaningful incentive for local franchising authority to abide by the deadlines contained in the Order."33 While the policy goal is understandable and arguably consistent with congressional intent to encourage the award of competitive cable franchises,we do not have legal authority to establish punitive, one-sided consequences,in order to create an"incentive." Moreover,the Commission ignores that by establishing a default grant of franchise applications effectively confers local property rights unilaterally and without regard for inherent local police powers and public health,safety and welfare. The Commission cites no credible authority that empowers it to deem a new entrant's franchise application granted by the LFA and thus confer local property rights34 When construing a statute, principles of construction caution against any interpretation that may contravene existing law or U.S. Constitution. In this case, I am wary of a federal agency, which purports not to preempt any state-based 31 As the July 11, 2006,filing of the Greater Metro Telecommunications Consortium, the Rainer Communications Commission and the City of Tacoma, Washington explained: "[I]t is an oversimplification to believe that competitive entry into video programming can be facilitated by requiring a local government to act on a franchise application within a specific period of time. What the Commission may consider a delay is often a reasonable time for consideration,and indeed,the internal bureaucracies within many large companies often times dwarf the internal processes within local government,so that any rule the Commission might deem appropriate to apply regarding time to respond,must also be imposed upon the other party to negotiations." 32 The Commission purposefully stops short of creating reciprocal good faith obligations because that would authorize the parties to file a complaint with the Commission when negotiations fall apart. Such a complaint process would effectively serve as an enforcement mechanism,which would only increase this Order's litigation exposure as quasi-legislative document. Nevertheless,today's Order cannot be reasonably viewed as mere guidance to LFAs or a clarification of the term"unreasonably refuse"in section 621(a)(1). There is a real,punitive consequence if the LFA does not follow the Commission's dictates — a "deemed granted" franchise, which incurably alters the dynamics of franchise negotiations. 33 Order at¶76. 34 The Commission's reliance on ancillary authority it exercised in the early 1970s, well before congressional enactments in 1984, 1992 and 1996,is unavailing. In fact,such reliance reveals the Commission's need to make too large a reach to justify it actions. See Letter from James L. Casserly,Counsel for Comcast Corporation,to Marlene Dortch,Federal Communications Commission,MB Docket No.05-311 (filed December 13,2006). 103 Federal Communications Commission FCC 06-180 franchising law,but yet is prepared to step into the shoes of an LFA—an instrumentality of the state—to grant a franchise application with all the attendant rights-of-way privileges.' The Commission rejected an approach that would have deemed an application"denied"once the shot clock expired without LFA action. This approach, I maintain, would have expedited the judicial review that was Congress' chosen remedy,and is infinitely more consistent with the letter and spirit of the Communications Act, Title VI, and specifically sections 621(a)(1) and 635. Nowhere in the Act is the Commission granted the authority to force localities to grant franchises. Simply put, the Commission's "deemed granted" approach in the Order is not a justifiable choice to fill the perceived gap left open by Congress when it did not provide a specific remedy against LFA action that is short of an outright denial of a franchise application. While it is generally proper for the Commission to exercise its "predictive judgment,"that is only when the Commission has the requisite authority to act within a certain area and it stays within its authority. Neither exists in this case. In terms of build-out, the Commission seems to make a deliberate effort to overlook the plain meaning of the statute and to substitute its policy judgment for that of Congress. The Commission concludes that it is unlawful for LFAs to refuse to grant a competitive franchise on the basis of an applicants' refusal to agree to any build-out obligations. The Commission's analysis in this regard is anemic and facially inadequate. Section 621(a)(4)(A) provides that "[i]n awarding a franchise the franchising authority shall allow.the applicant's cable system a reasonable period of time to become capable of providing cable service to all households in the franchise area." Absent express statutory authority, the Commission cannot declare it unreasonable for LFAs to require build-out to all households in the franchise area over a reasonable period of time. The Commission's argument in this regard is particularly spurious in light of the stated objective of this Order to promote broadband deployment and our common goal of promoting affordable broadband to all Americans. In the end, this is less about fiber to the home and more about fiber to the McMansion. The Commission is correct on one point,that section 621(a)(4)(A)is actually a limitation on LFA authority. However, consistent with plain reading of the provision and its legislative history, Section 621(a)(4)(A) surely is not a grant of authority to the Commission and does not impose a limitation on the scope of a competitive provider's build-out obligations. Indeed, section 621(a)(4)(A) explicitly limits the "period of time" to build-out, but an LFA is unrestrained to impose full, partial, or no build-out obligations on all cable service providers. As long as an LFA gives a competitive provider"a reasonable period of time to become capable of providing cable service to all households in the franchise area," section 621(a)(4)(A)essentially shields build-out requirement from constituting an"unreasonable refusal" to grant a competitive franchise. While this policy could be changed by Congress to facilitate competitive entry,that is not the current state of the law. An LFA cannot be prohibited from requiring build-out to all households in the franchise area if an LFA allows "a reasonable period of time" to do so. The Commission has not been ordained with a legislative"blue pencil"to rewrite law. Congress specifically directed LFAs — not the FCC — to allow a reasonable period of time for build-out. As much as the Commission would like it be its role, Congress gave the role to LFAs, and it is Congress' purview to modify that explicit delegation of authority. 35 See generally, Charter Communications v. County of Santa Cruz, 304 F.3d 927 (9* Cir. 2002) (holding that deference is accorded to legislative action of local government), especially in light of fact that the Commission does not have clear congressionally delegated authority in this case; and local regulations, in this case, are likely explicitly sanctioned by the Cable Act and consistent with the express provisions of the Act,see 47 U.S.C. §556(a). 104 Federal Communications Commission FCC 06-180 Assuredly, Section 621(a)(4)(A) does not impose "universal" or "uniform" build-out requirements on franchise applicants. This may be a reflection of congressional intent to focus on the needs of the locality.36. However, it does not prohibit LFAs from requiring build-out obligations as a condition of franchise approval, so long as the competitive applicant is given a reasonable period of time. The rapid deployment of broadband has been a goal of mine since I joined this Commission. Wireline competition in the video market, particularly, is critical as a means to constrain prices,which in itself is a worthy goal after year upon year of price hikes. It is also critical to the future of our democracy that Americans have access to as many forms of video content as possible so they can make up their own minds about the issues of the day and not remain subject to a limited number of gatekeepers who decide what deserves airing based on their own financial or ideological interests. But, in order for the Commission to promote these goals effectively,we must operate within our legal authority. Perhaps the majority has failed to consider the real life consequences of today's Order. For instance, in New York City, competitive entrants could file the Commission-mandated informational filing that proposes to serve only Broadway, Madison, or Park Avenue. Under today's Order, the New York City franchising authority would be forbidden from denying the competitive franchise based solely on the fact that the new entrant refuses to certain build-out requirements. The LFA is placed in the difficult position of either denying.outright the franchise and absorb the costs and fees for the ensuing litigation,or agree to a franchise that is not responsive to needs and interests of local community. How can the majority declare build-out to be an impediment to entry when one of the major incumbent phone companies,AT&T, claims that it does not need a franchise to operate its video service, and the other,Verizon,has agreed to different,but favorable,build-out obligations with various states and localities? Under the federalist scheme of the Act, different jurisdictions can choose models that best suit their specific needs. For example, in New Jersey,the state-wide franchise reform law correlates build-out principally to population density, while build-out obligations in Virginia principally track the entrant's existing wireline facilities. And in New York City, Verizon and the LFA were actively negotiating universal build-out over a period of a few years. • The broad pen with which the majority writes today's Order does not stop with build-out. The Order also uses the Commission's alleged authority under Section 621(a)(1) to determine that any LFA refusal to award a competitive franchise because of a new entrant's refusal to support PEG or I-Net is per se unreasonable. Although the Order purports to provide clarification with respect to which franchise fees are permissible under the Act, it muddles the regime and leaves communities and new entrants with conflicting views about funding PEG and I-Net. Indeed, Congress provided explicit direction on what constitutes or does not constitute a franchise fee,with a remedy to the courts for aggrieved parties. Today's Order should make clear that, while any requests made by an LFA unrelated to the provision of cable service and unrelated to PEG or I-NET are subject to the statutory five percent franchise fee cap, these are not the type of costs excluded from the term "franchise fee" by section 622(g)(2)(C). That provision excludes from the term"franchise fee" any "capital costs that are required by the franchise to be incurred by the cable operator for public, educational, or governmental access facilities." The legislative history of the 1984 Cable Act clearly indicates that"any franchise requirement for the provision of services,facilities or equipment is not included as a`fee.'37 36 See 47 U.S.C. § 521 (2)(stating that the one of the central purposes of Title 6 is to"assure that cable systems are responsive to the needs and interests of the local community.") See also 47 U.S.C. § 521(3)(stating that another central purpose of Title 6 is to establish clear federal,state and local roles). 37 The legislative history of 1984 Cable Act provides "in general, [section 622(g)(2)(C)] defines as a franchise fee only monetary payments made by the cable operator, and does not include as a'fee' any franchise requirement for (continued...) 105 Federal Communications Commission FCC 06-180 PEG facilities and access provide an important resource to thousands of communities across this country. Equally important,redundancy or even duplicative I-Net provides invaluable homeland security and public health, safety and welfare functions in towns, cities, and municipalities across America. It is my hope that today's decision does not undermine these and other important community media resource needs. While my objections to today's Order are numerous and substantial,that should not overlook the real need I believe there is for franchise reform. Indeed, there is bipartisan support for reform in Congress, and most LFAs throughout this country are committed to bring video competition to their jurisdictions. My fundamental concern with this Order is that it is based on such paper-thin jurisdiction, but it is truly broad in scope. It ignores the plain reading of the section 621, usurps congressional prerogative and pre-empts LFAs in certain important respects that directly contradict the Act. The sum total here is an arrogant case of federal power riding roughshod over local governments. It turns federalism on its head. While I can support certain efforts to streamline the process and preclude local authorities from engaging in unreasonable practices,this item blatantly and unnecessarily tempts the federal courts to overturn this clearly excessive exercise of the limited role afforded to us by.the law. The likely outcome of being reversed in Federal Court could have pernicious and unintended consequences in limiting our flexibility to exercise our discretion in future worthy endeavors. Accordingly,I dissent. • (Continued from previous page) the provision of services, facilities or equipment. As regards PEG access in new franchises, payments for capital costs required by the franchise to be made by the franchise to be made by the cable operator are not defined as fees under this provision." H.R.REP.No.98-934,at 65 reprinted in 1984 U.S.C.C.A.N.4702. 106 Federal Communications Commission FCC 06-180 STATEMENT OF COMD'IISSIONER DEBORAH TAYLOR TATE Re: Implementation of Section 621(a)(1) of the Cable Communications Policy Act of 1984 as amended by the Cable Television Consumer Protection and Competition Act of 1992 (MB Docket No. 05-311) Today's item, like most we address as an expert agency, is full of sophisticated technical, legal, and policy arguments. At a high level,however,I view this as a continuation down a path of deregulatory policies designed to encourage new market entry, innovation, and investment. Indeed, "encourag[ing] more robust competition in the video marketplace" by limiting franchising requirements has long been a stated goal of the Commission as well as a driving force behind statutory terms we interpret today. Section 621(a)(1) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the "Act"), states that franchising authorities ("LFAs") may not "unreasonably refuse to award" a competitive franchise to provide cable services. I agree with our conclusion that we have the jurisdictional authority to interpret this section of the Act and adopt rules to implement it. In amending Section 621(a)(1) to include the phrase"unreasonably refuse to award,"Congress explicitly limited the authority of LFAs. However, if an LFA does not make a final decision for months on end,or perhaps even years as the record indicates,new entrants are given no recourse. Also, unreasonable demands, similar to long delays, serve as a further barrier to competitive entry. It is nonsensical to contend that, despite the limitation on LFA authority in the Act, LFAs remain the sole arbiters of whether their actions in the, franchise approval process are reasonable. Since the section's judicial review provision applies only to final decisions by LFAs, absent Commission action to identify"unreasonable"terms and conditions, franchise applicants would have no avenue for redress. I conclude that our broad and well-recognized authority as the federal agency responsible for administering the Act, including Title VI, permits us to identify such terms and conditions,and I support our exercise of that authority. As with most orders, we explored numerous ways to achieve our goals. I ultimately support today's item, because I believe that, by streamlining timeframes for action and providing practical guidelines for both LFAs and new entrants, the item encourages the development of competition in the video marketplace and speeds the deployment of broadband across the country in a platform-neutral manner. These beneficial policy results should not be underestimated. Our annual reports to Congress on cable prices, including the report we adopt today, consistently show that prices are lower where wireline competition is present. And, of course, broadband deployment enhances our ability to educate our children for the jobs of tomorrow and ensures that the United States remains competitive in this global communications age. Additionally, I am pleased that we recognize—and do not preempt—the actions of those states that have reformed their franchise rules. Their efforts to streamline the process for competitive entry are laudable. Finally, it is critical that as we advance pro-competitive policies, we ensure that our policies do not unreasonably create asymmetry in the marketplace. Accordingly, I am encouraged that we resolve to address open issues regarding existing franchise agreements on an expedited basis. I encourage all interested parties to use your energies toward assisting us as we seek a way to apply more broadly our conclusions across all companies. 107 Federal Communications Commission FCC 06-180 STATEMENT OF COMMISSIONER ROBERT M.MCDOWELL Re: In the matter of Implementation of Section 621(a)(1) of the Cable Communications Policy Act of 1984 as amended by the Cable Television Consumer Protection and Competition Act of 1992 (MB Docket No. 05-311) I have long advocated the Commission doing all that it can to open new opportunities for entrepreneurs to have the freedom to construct new delivery platforms for innovative new services. More delivery platforms mean more competition. More competition means consumers,can choose among more innovative offerings. As consumers become more empowered, prices fall and, as a result, new technologies become more available to help improve the lives of all Americans. In short, creating a de- regulatory environment where competition is given the chance to flourish kicks off a virtuous cycle of hope,investment, growth and opportunity. Today,the Commission is taking a step forward in what I hope will be a noble quest to spur more competition across many delivery platforms and,where appropriate,within delivery platforms. While we already have some competition in the video market, American consumers are demanding even more competition. And that's the goal of our action today: more competition through de-regulation. Perhaps President Ronald Reagan foresaw an issue like this one when he said, "We have a healthy skepticism of government, checking its excesses at the same time we're willing to harness its energy when it helps improve the lives of our citizens." That is precisely what we are doing today: checking any government excesses at the local level to unleash free markets which will help improve the lives of all Americans. This order strikes a careful balance between establishing a de-regulatory national framework to . clear unnecessary regulatory underbrush, while also preserving local control over local issues. It guards against localities making unreasonable demands of new entrants,while still allowing those same localities to be able to protect important local interests through meaningful negotiations with aspiring video service providers. Local franchising authorities are still free to deny deficient applications on their own schedule, but we are imposing a"shot clock"to guard against unreasonable delay. After the shot clock runs out,if the locality has not granted or denied the application, an interim or temporary authority will be granted to give the parties more time to reach a consensus. If the LFA feels as though it cannot grant'a franchise during this period,they are free to deny the application. And unhappy applicants still have the liberty to go to court, as codified under federal law. Additionally, should communications companies decide to upgrade their existing non-cable services networks, localities may not require them to obtain a franchise. However, this order does not address whether video service providers can avoid local or federal jurisdiction over those video services because those services are carried over differing protocols, such as Internet protocol. That question is explicitly left for another docket. In the same spirit of deference to localities, we are not pre-empting recently enacted state laws that make it easier for new video service providers to enter the market. Those important frameworks will remain intact. Similarly,on the important issue of build-out requirements,we preserve local flexibility to implement important public policy objectives, but we don't allow localities to require new entrants to serve everybody before they serve anybody. Many commenting parties, Members of Congress, and two of my distinguished colleagues, have legitimately raised questions regarding the Commission's authority to implement many of these initiatives. I have raised similar questions. However, as the draft of this item has evolved and, I think, improved, my concerns have been assuaged, for the most part. The Commission has ample general and 108 Federal Communications Commission FCC 06-180 specific authority to.issue these rules under several sections including, but not limited to, sections: 151, 201, 706, 621, 622, and many others. Furthermore, a careful reading of applicable case law shows that the courts have consistently given the Commission broad discretion in this arena. While I understand the concerns of others, after additional study, I feel as though we are now on safe legal ground. But I know that reasonable minds will differ on this point and that appellate lawyers are already on their way to the court house. That is the American way,I suppose. This order is not perfect. If it were, it would say that all of the de-regulatory benefits we are providing to new entrants we are also providing to all video providers,be they incumbent cable providers, over-builders or others. I want to ensure that no governmental entities, including those of us at the FCC, have any thumb on the scale to give a regulatory advantage to any competitor. But the record in this proceeding does not allow us to create a regulatory parity framework just yet. That's why I am pleased that today's order and further notice contain the tentative conclusion that the relief we are granting to new entrants will apply to all video service providers once they renew their franchises. Also, I have consistently maintained during my time here that if shot clocks are good for others then they are good for the FCC itself. Accordingly, I am pleased that the Chairman has agreed to release an order as a result of the further notice no later than six months from the release date of this order, and regardless of the appellate posture of this matter. Resolving these important questions soon will give much-needed regulatory certainty to all market players, spark investment, speed competition on its way, and make America a stronger player in.the global economy. By the same token, it is no secret that I. would also like to see the Commission act more quickly on petitions filed by any individual or industry group, especially if those petitions may help spur competition in any market, be it video, voice, data, wireless,or countless others. We should never let government inaction create market distortions. I thank my entire staff, especially Cristina Pauze, for their long hours, dedication and insight regarding this order. I also thank the tireless Media Bureau and the General Counsel's office for their tremendous efforts on this important matter. Lastly,I would like to thank Chairman Martin for his strong leadership on this issue. • • 109 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT The Villages of Larchmont and Mamaroneck, and.the Town of Mamaroneck,New York Petitioners, Case No. v. CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE United States of America and Federal Communications Commission, • Respondents CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that I have caused to be delivered as of April 3, 2007 via first class U.S. Mail copies of the foregoing Petition for Review and attachments to the attached Service List. Date as ?9 0 7 '-"`2-.. f Frederick E. Ellrod III UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT City of Tampa,Florida, Petitioner, V. Case No. United States of America CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE and Federal Communications Commission, Respondents CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that I have caused to be delivered as of April 3, 2007 via first class U.S. Mail copies of the foregoing Petition for Review and attachments to the attached Service List. Date a7S2. 2-, 2- 7 -e. Frederick E. Ellrod III Service List Larry D.Gilley Alcatel City Manager Paul Kenefick City of Abilene,Texas 919 18th Street,NW. 555 Walnut Street Washington,DC 20006 Abilene,TX 79601 Alhambra,CA Access Channel 5 111 South First Street PO Box 188 Alhambra,CA 91801 Mayville,NY 14757-0188 Daniel B.Phythyon Erik Mollberg Alliance for Public Technology Access Fort Wayne 919 18th Street,N.W. 200 East Berry Street Washington,DC 20006 P.O.Box 2270 Fort Wayne,IN 46801 Alpena,MI City Hall Access Sacramento 208 North First Avenue 4623 T Street Alpena,MI 49707 Sacramento,CA 95819 American Association of Business Persons with Ad Hoc Telecom Manufacturer Coalition Disabilities Rodney L Joyce 2 Wood Hollow Joyce&Associates Irvine,CA 92604-3229 10 Laurel Parkway Chevy Chase,MD 20815 Andrew J.Imparato President and CEO Ada Township American Association of People with Disabilities 7330 Thomapple River Drive 1629 K Street,N.W.,Suite 503 P.O.Box 370 Washington,DC 20006 Ada MI 49301 American Cable Association Advance/Newhouse Communications Cinnamon Mueller Hogan&Hartson L.L.P. Christopher Cinnamon Gardner F.Gillespie 307 N.Michigan Avenue,Suite 1020 555 Thirteenth Street,N.W. Chicago,IL 60601 Washington,DC 20004-1109 Stephen Pociask Bob Hahn The American Consumer Institute AEI-Brookings Joint Center for Regulatory Studies P.O.Box 2161 1150 17th Street,N.W. Reston,VA 20171 Washington,DC 20554 Alamance County Office Building The American Corn Growers Association 124 West Elm Street P.O.Box 18157 Graham,NC 27253 Washington,DC 20036 Carolyn Fudge American Homeowners Grassroots Alliance City of Albuquerque 6776 Little Falls Rd 1 Civic Plaza NW Arlington,VA 22213 -1213 P.O.Box 2248 Albuquerque,NM 87103 City of Anaheim,California 200 S.Anaheim Blvd. Suite 733 Anaheim,CA 92805 City of Angels Camp William Hutchinson AT&T 584 S.Main Thomas F.Hughes Angels Camp,CA 95222 1120 20th Street,N.W.,Suite 1000 Washington,DC 20036 Anne Arundel County,Carroll County, Charles County,Howard County and Montgomery City of Atascadero County 6907 El Camino Real Nicholas Miller Atascadero,CA 93422 Miller&Van Eaton 1155 Connecticut Avenue N.W. Town of Bailey Washington,DC 20036 P.O.Box 40 6260 Main Street Town of Apex,North Carolina Bailey,NC 27807-0040 P.O.Box 250 73 Hunter Street City of Banning Apex,NC 27502-3305 176.E.Lincoln Banning,CA 92220 Thomas Lawell,City Administrator City of Apple Valley Village of Barrington,Illinois Apple Valley Municipal Center 200 S.Hough Street 7100- 147th Street West Barrington,IL 60010-4322 Apple Valley,MN 55124 Borough of Bellefonte Ellen Totzke 236 West Lamb Street City of Appleton Bellefonte,PA 16823 100 North Appleton Street Appleton,WI 54911 Kevin M.Chun,City of Bellflower,CA 16600 Civic Center Drive Archdale,NC Bellflower,CA 90706 307 Balfour Drive P.O.Box 14068 BellSouth Archdale,NC 27263 Bennett L.Ross 1133 21st Street,N.W., Suite 900 Arlington Independent Media,VA Washington,DC 20036 2701-C Wilson Blvd. Arlington,VA 22201 Mayor Jerry McLamb Town of Benson Asheboro,NC 303 E Church Street 146 N Church Street Benson,NC 27504 Asheboro NC 27203 Ann Sheehan City of Ashland Berks Community Television Michelle R.Merchant 645 Penn Street P.O.Box 1839 Reading,PA 19601 -3543 Ashland,KY 41105-1839 Northern Berkshire Community Television Corp. Mayor Linda L.Blackburn Heritage State Park Town of Ahoskie Building#6 201 Main Street W North Adams,MA 01247 Ahoskie,NC 27910-0767 City of Beverly Hills Association of Independent Programming Networks Cable Television Office do Mark Geddes Kathleen Wallman 455 N.Rexford Drive 9332 Ramey Lane Beverly Hills,CA 90210 Great Falls,VA 22066 2 City Council of the City of Biddeford,Maine City of Brisbane John D.Bubier Attn: City Manager 205 Main Street 50 Park Place Biddeford,ME 04005 Brisbane,CA 94005 Billerica Access TV,MA Broadband Service Providers Association 430 Boston Road 1735 New York Avenue N.W.,Suite 500 Billerica,MA 01821 Washington,DC 20006 Billerica,MA Town of Brunswick Maine Sam Schauerman 28 Federal Street,Suite 2 430 Boston Road Brunswick,ME 04011 Billerica,MA 01821 Bucks County Consortium of Communities Birmingham Area Cable Board Frederick A.Polner Michael Salhaney Polner Law Office Beier Howlett,P.C. 4018 Mt.Royal Boulevard 200 E.Long Lake Road,Suite 110 Allison Park,PA 15101 Bloomfield Hills,MI 48316 Burlington,NC City of Blue Lake, 425 S.Lexington Avenue P.O.Box 458 Burlington,NC 27215 Blue Lake,CA 95525 Bumsville/Eagan Telecom Commission et al City of Bonita Springs Stephen J.Guzzetta Audrey E.Vance Bradley&Guzzetta,LLC 9101 Bonita Beach Road 444 Cedar Street Bonita Springs,FL 34135 Saint Paul,MN 55101 Curtis Henderson Jr./ Mike Wassenaar Boston Community Access&Programming Cable Access St Paul d/b/a Saint Paul Neighborhood Foundation Network Boston Neighborhood Network 375 Jackson Street,Suite 250 8 Park Plaza,Suite 2240 Saint Paul,MN 55101 Boston,MA 02458 Susan Adele Huizenga Boston Cable Office Cable Advisory Council of South Central CT,Inc. 43 Hawkins Street 36 Surrey Drive Boston,MA 02114 Wallingford,CT 06492 City of Bowie,Maryland Cablevision Systems Corp. David Deutsch Howard J. Symons Bowie City Hall Mintz Levin Cohn Ferris Glovsky and Popeo,PC 2614 Kenhill Drive 701 Pennsylvania Avenue,N.W.,Suite 900 Bowie,MD 20715 Washington,DC 20004 Ali Abulugma City of Cadillac Pres.Branford Community Television,Inc. 200 N.Lake St. Box 1019 Cadillac,MI 49601 Branford,CT 06405 Donna H.Prince City of Brea Town of Calabash 1 Civic Center Circle P.O.Box 4967 Brea,CA 92821 -5732 Calabash,NC 28467 3 California Alliance for Consumer Protection Town of Castalia 37 Derow Court P.O.Box 237 Sacramento,CA 95833 9507 Main Street.Hwy 58 Castalia,NC 27816-0237 California Farmers Union 2881 Geer Road Suite D Caswell County,NC Turlock,CA 95382 Chair,Board of Commissioners,Caswell County,NC County Courthouse California Small Business Association&California P.O.Box 98 Small Business Roundtable Yanceyville,NC 27379 6101 W.Centinela Avenue,Suite 342 Culver City,CA 90230 Cavalier Telephone LLC John K. Shumate,Jr. Susan Fleischmann 2134 West Laburnum Avenue Cambridge Public Access Corporation Richmond,VA 23227 675 Massachusetts Avenue Cambridge MA 02139 City of Cedar Rapids,Iowa James H.Flitz Robert W.Healy City Attorney's Office City Manager City Hall-7th Floor City of Cambridge Cedar Rapids,IA 52401 -1225 Cambridge City Hall 795 Massachusetts Avenue Center for Digital Democracy Cambridge,MA.02139 1718 Connecticut Avenue,N.W.,Suite 200 Washington,DC 20009 Campbell County Cable Board 10 Hilltop Drive Jack Doerr Highland Heights,KY 41076-5023 Central St.Croix Valley Joint Cable Communications Commission City of Cape Coral 1492 Frontage Road West Eleni C.Pantaridis Stillwater,MN 55082. Leibowitz&Associates 1 S.E.3rd Avenue,Suite 1450 Certain Florida Municipalities • Miami,FL 33131 Gary I.Resnick,Esq. Weiss Serota Helfinan,et al. Capital Community Television CCTV 3107 Stirling Road,Suite 300 P.O.Box 2342 Fort Lauderdale,FL 33312 Salem,OR 97308-2342 Champaign,IL Carlsbad,CA City of Champaign Office of City Attorney 102 N Neil Street Paul Edmonson Champaign,IL 61820 1200 Carlsbad Village Drive Carlsbad,CA 92008-1949 Champaign-Urbana Cable TV and Telecom Commission,IL Town of Carrboro,North Carolina Richard L.Atterberry 301 W.Main Street C-U Cable TV and Telecom Commission Carrboro,NC 27510-2029 705 W.Washington Street Champaign,IL 61820 Cary,NC Town of Cary Town of Chapel Hill,North Carolina P.O.Box 8005 405 Martin Luther King Jr.Blvd. Cary,NC 27512-8005 Chapel Hill,NC 27516-2124 4 Charlotte-Mecklenburg Office of Cable and Susan Littlefield Franchise Management Communications Manager 600 East Fourth Street-9th Floor City of St.Louis Communications Div. Charlotte,NC 28202-2816 4971 Oakland Avenue St.Louis,MO 63110 Charter Communications T. Scott Thompson City of Ventura,CA Cole,Raywid&Braverman,L.L.P. Joseph Van Eaton 1919 Pennsylvania Avenue,N.W.,Second Floor Miller&Van Eaton,Suite 1000 Washington,DC 20006 1155 Connecticut Avenue N.W. Washington,DC 20036 Barbara Popovic,Executive Director Chicago Access Corporation-CAN TV Clackamas County(#100) 322 S.Green Street 2051 Kaen Road Chicago,IL 60607 Oregon City,OR 97045 City Of Chicago Clark County(#101) 30 N.La Salle Street,Suite 900 County Clerk's Office Chicago,IL 60602 200 Lewis Avenue,Fifth Floor Las Vegas,NV 89101 Jouett Kinney Cincinnati Bell Inc. Clay County 201 E.Fourth Street, 103-1280 Leibowitz&Associates Cincinnati,OH 45202 Eleni C.Pantaridis 1 SE 3rd Avenue City of Cincinnati Suite 1450 Deborah C.Holston Miami,FL 33131 City of Cincinnati 801 Plum Street,Suite 104 Clayton,NC Cincinnati,OH 45202 PO Box 879 111 E.2nd Street Peter Stewart for Citizens Community Television Clayton,NC 27528-0879 1132 Jefferson Ave. PO Box 581 Clinton Township Communications Department Louisville,CO 80027 40700 Romeo Plank Road Clinton Township,MI 48044 City and County of San Francisco Thomas Long City of Clovis/John Holt City Attorney's Office 1033 Fifth Street City Hall, 1 Dr.Carlton B.Goodlett Place,Rm 234 Clovis,CA 93612 San Francisco,CA 94102-4682 College Township,Pennsylvania City of Los Angeles 1481 E.College Avenue Nicholas Miller State College,PA 16801 Miller&Van Eaton 1155 Connecticut Avenue N.W.,Suite 1000 Communications Support Group Washington,DC 20036 505 Scenic Avenue Piedmont,CA 94611 Joseph James,Deputy Commissioner Dept.of Public Property Community AccessTelevision Inc. City of Philadelphia 1126 West 17th Street City Hall,Room 732 Davenport,IA 52804-3714 Philadelphia,PA 19107 5 Community Programming Board of Concord NC(#112) Forest Park,Greenhills,and Springfield Township P.O.Box 308 2086 Waycross Road 26 Union Street Forest Park,OH 45240-2717 Concord,NC 28026-0308 Comcast Corporation City of Coralville Willie Farr&Gallagher LLP 1512 7th Street James L.Casserly PO Box 5127 1875 K Street NW Coralville,IA 52241 -1708 Washington,DC 20006 Tom Smisek Consumer Coalition of California City of Coronado 11304 Jack Rabbit Trail 1825 Strand Way Austin,TX 78750 Coronado,CA 92118-3005 Consumer Electronics Association City of Cypress 2500 Wilson Blvd 5275 Orange Avenue Arlington,VA 22201 Cypress,CA 90630 Consumers for Cable Choice City of Daly City P.O.Box 329 333-90th Street Greenwood,IN 46142 Daly City,CA 94015 Consumers First,Inc. County of Dare,North Carolina 33 Southwood Drive do Sharp Michael Outten and Graham Orinda,CA 94563 Bobby Outten P.O.Drawer 1027 City of Coral Springs,FL Kitty Hawk,NC 27949-1027 City Law Dept. 9551 West Sample Road County Administrator Office Coral Springs,FL 33065 1 Public Square,Room 210 Darlington, SC 29532 Cox Communications Dow Lohnes PLLC City of Davis,California Gary S.Lutzker 23 Russell Blvd. 1200 New Hampshire Ave.N.W.,Ste 800 Davis,Ca.95616 Washington,DC 20036 City of Del Mar City of Delray Beach,Florida 1050 Camino del Mar • Leibowitz&Associates Del Mar,CA 92014-2604 Eleni C.Pantaridis 1 SE 3rd Avenue, Suite 1450 Discovery Institute Miami,FL 33131 Hance Haney 1015 15th Street,N.W.,Ste 900 Democratic Processes Center,Inc. Washington,DC 20005 P.O.Box 329 Greenwood,IN 46142 Town of Dortches 3057 Town Hall Rd Susan Bonilla,Mayor do Peter Dragovich Director Rocky Mount,NC 27804-9186 of CM 1950 Parkside Drive,MS/O1 City of Dublin Concord,CA 94519 100 Civic Plaza Dublin,CA 94568 6 City of Eden Bristol Community College/Fall River Community Honorable John E.Grogan,Mayor Television 308 East Stadium Drive 777 Elsbree Street Eden,NC 27288 Fall River,MA 02720-7307 City of El Cerrito Pat Zavoral 10890 San Pabloe Avenue City Administrator El Cerrito,CA 94530 City of Fargo,North Dakota The Bailer Herbst Law Group,P.C. Village of Elk Grove Village,Illinois Adrian E.Herbst 901 Wellington Avenue 377N Grain Exchange Building Elk Grove Village,IL 60007 301 Fourth Avenue South Minneapolis,MN 55415-1015 Mayor 104 South Williamson Street City of Farmington Elon,NC 27244 325 Oak Street Farmington,MN 55024 Jon Funfar City of Enumclaw City of Durham,NC 1339 Griffin Avenue Theodore L.Voorhees Enumclaw,WA 98022 Assistant City Manager 101 City Hall Plaza Clay Phillips,City Manager Durham,NC 27701 City of Escondido 201 N.Broadway Fiber-to-the-Home Council Escondido,CA 92025 Kelley Drye&Warren LLP Thomas Cohen Town of Esopus 3050 K Street,NW,Suite 400 PO Box 700 Washington,DC 20007 Port Ewen,NY 12466 City of Florence,Kentucky City of Evanston Diane Whalen David Cook 8100 Ewing Boulevard. 2100 Ridge Florence,KY 41042-7588 Suite 1450 Evanston,IL 60201 -1495 City of Foster City,California Linda Koelling Fairfax Cable Access Corporation 610 Foster City Boulevard 2929 Eskridge Road,Suite S Foster,CA 94404 Fairfax,VA 22031 City of Franklin,KY Fairfax County W. Scott Crabtree Department of Cable Communications&Consumer 212 South College Street Protection P.O.Box 615 12000 Government Center Parkway,Ste 433 Franklin,KY 42135-0615 Fairfax,VA 22035-0048 Free Enterprise Fund Town of Fairfax,California E.O'Brien Murray Law Office of Lawrence Bragman 1850 M Street,N.W.,Suite 800 142 Bolinas Road Washington,DC 20036 Fairfax,CA 94930 William H.Johnson,Jr. Mayor 100 N.Main Street Faith,NC 28041 -0037 7 Free Press City of Fort Lauderdale,FL Institute for Public Representation 100 N Andrews Ave Angela J.Campbell Fort Lauderdale,FL 33301 600 New Jersey Avenue,N.W.,Suite 312 Washington,DC 20001 City of Gainsville,Florida Russ Blackburn Township of Ferguson P.O.Box 490 Mark A Kunkle Gainsville,FL 32602-0490 3147 Research Drive State College,PA 16801 City of Garland Texas William E.Dollar City of Ferndale 200 N.5th Street Michael Powers Garland,TX 7504 City Manager PO Box 1095 Town of Gamer Femdale,CA 95536 Judy Bass Post Office Box 446 Village of Floral Park Garner,NC 27529 One Floral Boulevard Floral Park,NY 11001 Mayor Kevin R.Burns 22 South First Street City of Fort Worth Geneva,IL 60134 401 W.2nd Street Fort Worth,TX 76101 Georgia Municipal Association Ed Rutter City of Fortuna 201 Pryor Street SW 621 l lth Street Atlanta,GA 30303 -3606 PO Box 545 Fortuna,CA 95540 Hawaiian Telcom Communications,Inc. Latham&Watkins LLP Foxboro Cable Access,Inc. Elizabeth Park PO Box 524 555 Eleventh Street,NW,Suite 1000 Foxboro,MA 02035 Washington,DC 20004-1304 G.Thomas Donch Hawaii Consumers Borough of Franklin Lakes P.O.Box 179375 DeKorte Drive Honolulu,HI 96817 Franklin Lakes,New Jersey 07417 Office of the County Attorney Free Press Henderson County,North Carolina Institute for Public Representation Charles Russell Burrell Angela J.Campbell 100 North King Street 600 New Jersey Avenue,N.W.Suite 312 Hendersonville,NC 28792 Washington,DC 20001 Mayor Free Press,Consumers Union 129 West Main Street Consumer Federation of America Gibsonville,NC 27249 1801 18th St.,NW Suite 9 Washington,DC 20009 City of Gilroy HCD 7351 Rosanna Street FreedomWorks Gilroy,CA 95020 1775 Pennsylvania Avenue,NW Eleventh Floor Village of Glenview Washington,DC 20006 Glenview Televison 1225 Waukegan Road Glenview,IL 60025 8 Mayor City of Henderson 201 South Main Street Mark Backus Graham,NC 27253 240 Water Street P.O.Box 95050 City of Grand Rapids Henderson,NV 89005-5050 Jon Koeze 300 Monroe,NW City of Hialeah,Florida Grand Rapids,MI 49503 Leibowitz&Associates Eleni C.Pantaridis Mayor,Town of Granite Quarry 1 SE 3rd Avenue, Suite 1450 143 N.Salisbury Street Miami,FL 33131 Granite Quarry,NC 28072 Hibbing Public Access Television Great Neck/North Shore Cable Comm'et al P.O.Box 712 1505 Kellym Place Hibbing,MN 55746 Mineola,NY 11501 Becky Smothers Greater Metro Telecommunications Consortium Mayor,City of High Point Ken Fellman 211 S.Hamilton Street 3773 Cherry Creek North Drive High point,NC 27261 • Ptarmigan Place,Suite 900 Denver,CO 80209 High Tech Broadband Coalition Derek Khlopin/TIA Green Spring,KY 1300 Pennsylvania Avenue,NW, Suite 350 William M.Huff Washington,DC 20004 7103 Green Spring Drive Louisville,KY 40241 Town of Hillsborough,North Carolina PO Box 429 City of Greenboro 111 E.2nd St. City Attorney's Office Hillsborough,NC 27278-0429 • P.O.Box 3136 Greensboro,NC 27402-3136 Town of Holly Springs,North Carolina PO Box 8 City of Greenville 128 S.Main Street David A.Holec Holly Springs,NC 27540-0008 P.O.Box 7207 Greenville,NC 27835-7207 City of Huntsville,Alabama Mayor Loretta Spencer Chairwoman Guilford County Claudia Anderson Board of Commissioners P.O.Box 308 301 W.Market Street Huntsville,AL 35804 Greensboro,NC 27402 City of Imperial Beach,California Chairman James P.Lough Board of Commissioners City Hall Harnett County 825 Imperial Beach Blvd PO Box 759 Imperial Beach,CA 91932 Lillington,NC 27546 Independent Multi-Family Communications Council Harris Township William J.Burhop 224 East Main Street 3004 Oregon Knolls Drive NW P.O.Box 20 Washington,DC 20015 Boalsburg,PA 16827 9 City of Indianapolis City of Jenkins,Kentucky Rick Maultra do Robert Shubert 2501 City-County Building P.O.Box 568 200 E.Washington Street Jenkins,KY 41537-0568 Indianapolis,Indiana 46204 City of Kansas City,Missouri Institute for Policy Innovation do William D.Geary,Assistant Ci Thomas A.Giovanetti 28th Floor City Hall 1660 S. Stemmons Freeway 414 East 12th Street Suite 475 Kansas City,MO 64106-2796 Lewisville,TX 75067 City of Killeen Mayor do Traci Briggs 403 East Main Street P.O.Box 1329 Haw River,NC 27258 Killeen,TX 76540-1329 Mayor King County,Washington 210 North Fourth Street do David Martinez Highlands,NC 28741 -0460 Chief Information Office 700 5th Avenue, Suite 2300 Institute for Policy Innovation Seattle,WA 98104 c/o Thomas A.Giovanetti 1660 S. Stemmons Freeway Town of Kitty Hawk Suite 475 Mayor Lewisville,TX 75067 PO Box 549 Kitty Hawk,NC 27947 Intergovernmental Cable Communications Authority do Timothy J.Currier,Esquire Town of Knightdale,North Carolina 200 E.Long Lake Road,Suite#110 c/o Mayor Doug Boyd Bloomfield Hills,MI 48304-2361 950 Steeple Square Ct. Knightdale,NC 27545 City of Irwindale 5050 North Irwindale Avenue City of La Puente Irwindale,CA 91706 c/o Hal Ledford,City Manager 15900 E.Main Street City of Irvine La Puente,CA 91744 1 Civic Center Irvine,CA 92623 Lake Minnetonka Communications Commission do Sally Koenecke Itasca Community Television 4071 Sunset Drive Executive Director Beth George Spring Park,MN 55384 724 Conifer Drive Grand Rapids MN 55744-2475 City of Lake Worth Leibowitz&Associates City of Iowa City Eleni C.Pantaridis do Steve Atkins,City Manager 1 SE 3rd Avenue Iowa City,IA Suite 1450 Miami,FL 33131 Jefferson County League of Cities Cable Commission City Of Las Vegas,Nevada do Linda K.Ain do Larry G.Bettis 4725 Inman Drive 400 Stewart Avenue,Ninth Floor Lexington,KY 40513 Las Vegas,NV 89101 -2986 10 City of La Verne City of Longmont,Colorado c/o Bob Russi do Jim Wall 3660 D Street 350 Kimbark Street La Verne,CA 91750 Longmont,CO 80503 League of Minnesota Cities and MN Assoc.of Town of Loomis,Placer County,California Community Telecom Administrators do Rhonda Morillas 145 University Avenue West 6140 Horseshoe Bar Rd.,Suite K St.Paul,MN 55103 -2044 Loomis,CA 95650 League Of United Latin American Citizens Of The City of Los Banos,California Northeast Region 520 J Street 41 Eden Street Los Banos,CA 93635 Framingham,MA 01702-6320 City of Lynwood Gary Ortiz,City of Leavenworth,Kansas 11330 Bullis Road City Hall Lynwood,CA 90262 100 North 5th Street Leavenworth,KS 66048-1970 City of Madison Heights Jon Austin,City Manager Lee County,Florida 300.W. 13 Mile Road Leibowitz&Associates Madison Heights,MI 48071 -1899 Eleni C.Pantaridis 1 SE 3rd Avenue Incorporated Village of Malveme N.Y. Suite 1450 do Anthony J.Panzarella Miami,FL 33131 99 Church Street Malveme,NY 11565 Leibowitz&Associates Matthew L.Leibowitz Manatee County 1 SE 3rd Ave do Manatee County Attorney's Office Suite 1450 Robert Michael Eschenfelder Miami,FL 33131 1112 Manatee Avenue West, Ste.969 Bradenton,FL 34205 City of Lenexa,Kansas do Rebecca A.Yocham Mann Telecommunications Agency 12350 W.87th Street Parkway do Richards,Watson&Gershon Lenexa,KS 66215 Gregory W. Stepanicich Richards,Watson&Gershon City of Lincoln,Nebraska 44 Montgomery Street,Suite 3800 c/o City Attorney's Office San Francisco,CA 94104-4811 Steven Huggenberger 575 South 10th Street,Room 4201 City of St.Petersburg,Florida Lincoln,NE 68508 do Muslim A.Gadiwalla One 4th Street North City of Lincoln St.Petersburg,FL 33705 do Gerald F.Johnson 640 Fifth Street City of St.Petersburg,FL Lincoln,CA 95648 ICS Dept. One Forth Street North City of Long Beach St.Petersburg,FL 33701 -3804 do Gerald R.Miller,City Manager, 333 West Ocean Boulevard State of Hawaii Long Beach,CA 90802 c/o Squire, Sanders&Dempsey LLP Bruce A. Olcott 1201 Pennsylvania Avenue NW Washington,DC 20004 11 Town of Sunapee,New Hampshire Town of Truckee c/o Douglas Munro,Chairman 10183 Truckee Airport Road Sunapee Electronic Communications Truckee,CA 96161 Board of Selectmen P.O.Box 717 • City of Tulsa,Oklahoma Sunapee,NH 03782-0717 do Tulsa City Attorney's Office Patrick T.Boulden City of Sunnyvale,California City Hall,Suite 300 c/o Amy Chan 200 Civic Center 456 West Olive Avenue Tulsa,OK 74103 -3833 Sunnyvale,CA 94086 Tuolumne County,California City of Susanville do Elizabeth E.Bass do Rodney E.DeBoer 2 South Green Street 66 North Lassen Street Sonora,CA 95370 Susanville,CA 96130-3904 City of Ukiah TelCo Retirees Associations,Inc do Rapport and Marston 6168 Capri Dive David J.Rapport San Diego,CA 92120 Ukiah Civic Center 300 Seminary Ave. Telecommunications Industry Association Ukiah,CA 95482 2500 Wilson Boulevard,Suite 300 Arlington,VA 22201 • United States Telecom Association do James W.Olson City of Temecula 607 14th Street,NW, Suite 400 do Richards,Watson and Gershon Washington,DC 20005-2164 William Rudell 43200 Business Park Drive United States Telecom Association P.O.Box 9033 c/o Jeffrey S Lanning Temecula,CA 92589-9033 607 14th Street,NW Suite 400 Texas Coalition of Cities on Franchised Utility Washington,DC 20005-2150 Issues.TCCFUI. do Clarence A.West U.S.-Mexico Chamber of Commerce 707 West Avenue 1300 Pennsylvania Ave.,N.W. Ste.G-0003 Suite 207 Washington,DC 20004-3021 Austin,TX 78701 Valley Voters Organized Toward Empowerment- Texas Coalition of Cities For Franchised Utility Valley Vote Issues.TCCFUI 14622 Ventura Blvd,Suite 424 do Clarence A.West Sherman Oaks,CA 91403 1201 Rio Grande, Suite 200 Austin,TX 78701 Verizon c/o Dee May Texas Municipal League/Texas City Attorneys 1300 I Street,NW Association Suite 400 West do Scott Houston Washington,DC 20005 1821 Rutherford Lane,Suite 400 Austin,TX 78754 Vermont Public Service Board c/o John Bentley Time Warner Cable 112 State Street do Fleischman and Walsh,L.L.P. Montpelier,VT 05620-2701 Seth Davidson 1919 Pennsylvania Avenue,NW,Suite 600 Washington,DC 20006 12 • Vermont Public Service Board and Vermont City of Wheaton Department of Public Service c/o Gary White do Leslie A.Cadwell 303 W Wesley 112 State Street,Drawer 20 Wheaton,IL 60189-0727 Montpelier,VT 05620-2601 • City of Whittier Video Access Alliance do Stephen W.Helvey,City Manage c/o Julia Johnson 13230 Penn Street PO Box 14917 Whittier,CA 90602 Tallahassee,FL 32317 City of Wilson,North Carolina Virginia Cable Telecommunications Association P.O.Box 10 do Christian&Barton,LLP Wilson,NC 27894 Peter E.Broadbent,Jr.,Esqui 909 East Main Street,Suite 1200 Dodd D.Dixon,Attorney at Law Richmond,VA 23219-3095 Executive Director Kentucky Regional Cable Commission City of Vista,California Mayor,City of Winchester 600 Eucalyptus Avenue Winchester,Kentucky Vista,CA 92084 Windham Cable Advisory Board Town of Wake Forest,North Carolina do Leo A.Hart 401 Elm Ave. 3 North Lowell Road Wake Forest,NC 27587-2932 Windham,NH 03087 City of Walnut Creek City of Winston-Salem c/o Paul M.Valle-Riestra P.O.Box 2511 1666 N.Main St. Attn Information Systems P.O.Box 8039 Winston-Salem,NC 27102 Walnut Creek,CA 94596 Wisconsin Association of Public,Education,and Washington State Grange Government Access Channels-WAPC 924 Capitol Way South do Mary Bennin Cardona,Executive Director Olympia,WA 98501 -1210 4209 Bagley Parkway Madison,WI 53705 Town of Wendell,North Carolina PO Box 828 Women Impacting Public Policy 15 E.Fourth St. 48 San Antonio Place Wendell,NC 27591 -0828 San Francisco,CA 94133 West Allis Community Center Media Center The World Institute on Disability c/o Mary Shanahan-Spanic do Kathy Martinez,Executive Director 7210 W.Greenfield Avenue 510 16th Street,Suite 100 West Allis,WI 53214 Oakland,CA 94612 City of West Palm Beach,Florida City of Yuma c/o Leibowitz&Associates c/o Gregory Dean Huland Eleni C.Pantaridis One City Plaza 1 SE 3rd Avenue,Suite 1450 Post Office Box 13014 Miami,FL 33131 Yuma,AZ 85366-3014 Thomas G.Wilson,Town of Westport Town of Zebulon,North Carolina Attorney/Administrator/Clerk-Treasurer 100 N.Arendell Ave. Town of Westport Zebulon,NC 27597-2837 5387 Mary Lake Road Waunakee,WI 53597 13 Zeeland Charter Township United States Internet Industry Association c/o Bradley Slagh James Anderson,Counsel 6582 Byron Road 1800 Diagonal Road,Suite 600 Zeeland,MI 49464 Alexandria,VA 22314 Town of Standish URTV do Gordon Billington 31 College Place 175 Northeast Road Ste 20 A Standish,ME 04804 Asheville,NC 28801 State College Borough Vancouver Educational Telecommunications do Thomas J.Fountaine II Association(VETC) 243 South Allen Street 2500 NE 65th Avenue State College,PA 16801 Vancouver,WA 98661 City of Statesville Mayor,Town of Vass do Rob Hites do Henry E.Callahan 301 South Center Street PO Box 487 Statesville,NC 28687-1111 Vass,NC 28394 Sun Prairie Cable Access City of Warrenville do Pam Steitz-Executive Director do Jennifer McMahon 1350 Linnerud Drive-Suite 2 28W701 Stafford Place Sun Prairie,WI 53590 Warrenville,IL 60555 Mayor,Town of Tabor City Chair,Cable TV Advisory Committee do Marion S.Baxter do Maurice H.Stauffer PO Drawer Town of Wayland Tabor City,NC 28463 Wayland,MA 01778 City of Taylor,City Clerk's Office Town of Whitaker,NC do Mary Ann Rilley PO Box 727 23555 Goddard Road 302 NW Railroad St. Taylor,MI 48180 Whitakers,NC 27891 The Progress and Freedom Foundation White Plains Cable Access TV do Garland T.McCoy Jr. do James D.Kenny and 1444 Eye Street,NW,Suite 500 4 Martine Ave. Washington,DC 20005 White Plains,NY,NY 10606 Village of Tobaccoville City of White do Mayor Keith P.Snow do Mayor Randy Brown P.O.Box 332 PO Box 682 Tobaccoville,NC 27050 White SD 57276-0682 City of Toppenish Town of Wilbraham Scott Staples c/o Richard Scott 21 West First Avenue 4 Chapel Street Toppenish,WA 98948 Wilbraham,MA 01095 City of Torrance City of Worcester Michael D.Smith c/o David M.Moore-City Solicitor 3350 Civic Center Drive City Hall Room 301 Torrance,CA 90503 455 Main Street Worcester,MA 01608 14 Town of Yanceyville Metropolitan Area Communications Commission do Daniel G.Printz,Jr.-Mayor Bruce Crest Daniel G.Print;Jr.-Mayor 1815 NW 169th Place,Suite 6020 P 0 Box 727 Beaverton,OR 97006 Yanceyville,NC 27379 Metropolitan Educational Access Corp. Jeffrey Bullins Elliott Mitchell Mayor 120 White Bridge Road Town of Mayodan MS 46 210 W.Main Street Nashville,TN 37209 Mayodan,NC 27027 Miami Valley Comm.Council Charles L.Kelsey Glenn Alexander Village Clerk 1195 East Alex-Bell Road Village of Mayville Centerville,OH 45459 PO Box 188 Mayville,NY 14757-0188 Miami Dade County,Florida Cathy Grimes-Peel Thomas Martin Director,Consumer Services Department Mayor 140 West Flagler Street,Suite 90 City of Maywood Miami,FL 33130 4319 Slauson Avenue Maywood,CA 90270 Michigan Municipal League Gerald L.Lederer Mecklenburg County Miller&Van Eaton Doris J.Boris 1155 Connecticut Avenue N.W.,Suite 1000 Charlotte-Mecklenburg Office of Cable and Washington,DC 20036 Franchise Management 600 East Fourth Street-9th Floor Microsoft Corp. Charlotte,NC 28202-2816 Gerald Waldron and David Fagan Covington and Burling City of Medford 1201 Pennsylvania Avenue,N.W. Gary Wheeler,Mayor Washington,DC 20004 John Huttel 411 W. 8th Street Microsoft Corp. Medford,OR 97501 do Scott Blake Harris Harris Wiltshire Peter Franck c/o 1200 18th Street,NW, 12th Floor Media Action Marin Washington,DC 20036 Franck Law Offices 1115 Irwin,Suite 101 Town of Middlesex San Rafael,CA 94901 -3321 P.O.Box 69 Middlesex,NC 27557-0069 Media Bridges Cincinnati,Inc. 1100 Race Street Rick Menchaca Cincinnati,OH 45202-7219 City of Midland PO Box 1152 Mercatus Center do Midland,TX 79702 Jerry Brito and Jerry Ellig 3301 N.Fairfax Drive,#450 Jose Esteves Arlington,VA 22201 Milipitas,CA 455 E.Calaveras Blvd Methuen Community Television Milpitas,CA 95035 13 Branch Street Methuen,MA 01844 15 Minnesota Telecom Alliance Alan Bozeman Stephen J.Guzzetta 111 West Vine Street Bradley and Guzzetta,LLC Murfreesboro,TN 37130 444 Cedar Street Saint Paul,MN 55101 Lynn Johnson,Mayor Town of Murfreesboro Minority Media Telecom Council P.O.Box 6 David Honig Murfreesboro,NC 27855-0006 3636 16th Street N.W. Suite B-366 City of Murrieta Washington,DC 20010 26442 Beckman Court Murrieta,CA 92562 Mobile,Alabama Mobile County Commission National Association of Broadcasters 205 Government St.,Mobile,AL 36644 Jerianne Timmerman 1771 N Street NW Missouri NATOA Washington,DC 20036 Miller&Van Eaton Frederick E.Ellrod III National Black Chamber of Commerce,Inc 1155 Connecticut Avenue,N.W.,Suite 1000 1350 Connecticut Ave.NW,Suite 405 Washington,DC 20036 Washington,DC 20036 Town of Momeyer National Cable&Telecommunications Association 4868 Momeyer Way 25 Massachusetts Avenue,N.W.,Suite 100 Nashville,NC 27856-9091 Washington,DC 20001 -1431 Richard Singer National Caucus and Center on Black Aged Monrovia,CA 1220 L Street NW,Suite 800 415 S.Ivy Avenue Washington DC 20005 Monrovia,CA 91016 National Grange Chris Jeffers,City Manager Leroy Watson,Legislative Dir. Monterey Park City Hall 1616 H St.NW Monterey Park,CA 91754 Washington,DC 20006 Russell D.Duree National Hispanic Council on Aging Montrose,CO 1341 Connecticut Avenue,N.W.,Suite 4.2 City Attorney's Office Washington,DC 20036 P.O.Box 790 Montrose,CO 81402-0790 National Taxpayers Union 108 N.Alfred Street Town of Morrisville,North Carolina Alexandria,VA 22314 PO Box 166 100 Town Hall Dr. National Telecommunications Cooperative Morrisville,NC 27560-0166 Association Daniel Mitchell Robert D.Slattery 4121 Wilson Blvd., 10th Floor Mount Morris,MI Arlington,VA 22203 116 49 N. Saginaw Street Mt.Morris,MI 48458 NATOA,NLC,NACO,USCM,ACM&ACD Spiegel&McDiarmid Mt.Hood Cable Regulatory Commission—MHCRC Tillman L.Lay 1120 SW 5th Ave.,Rm 1305 1333 New Hampshire Ave,N.W.,2nd FL Portland,OR 97204 Washington,DC 20036 16 Naval Media Center Northern Berkshire Community Television Corp 2713 Mitscher Road,SW,Bldg. 168 Heritage State Park Anacostia Annex,DC Building#6 20373-5819 North Adams,MA 0124 New Jersey Board of Public Utilities Northern Dakota County Cable Communications State of New Jersey,Division of Law Commission,NDC4 124 Halsey Street,5th Floor Jodie Miller,Executive Director P.O.Box 45029 5845 Blaine Avenue Newark,NJ 07101 Inver Grove Heights,MN 55076-1401 New Jersey Division of the Ratepayer Advocate Northwest Suburbs Cable Commun.Comm'n 31 Clinton Street, 11th Floor Coralie Wilson P.O.Box 46005 CTV 15/North Suburban Access Corp. Newark,NJ 07101 950 Woodhill Drive Roseville,MN 55113 • Radhika Karmarkar New York City Department of Information City of Norwalk Technology and Telecommunications 12700 Norwalk Blvd 75 Park Place Norwalk,CA 90650 New York,NY 10007 Oceanside Community Television(KOCT) New York State Conference of Mayors 3038 Industry Street,Suite 101, 119 Washington Ave. Oceanside,CA 92054 Albany,NY 12210 Delma Collins Newton Communications Access Center,Inc Chair,Board of Commissioners,Onslow County c/o P.O.Box 610192,90 Lincoln Street 118 Old Bridge Road Newton,MA 02461 -0192 Jacksonville,NC 27540 Norfolk,VA City of Ontario,CA Department of Law,City Attorney's Office Mayhook Law,PLLC Martha P.McGann,Deputy City Jeffrey Mayhook 900 City Hall Building,810 Union Street 34808 NE 14th Avenue Norfolk,VA 23510 La Center,WA 98629 City of North Kansas City Orange County Government Thomas E.Barzee,Jr. 201 S.Rosalind Ave.3rd Floor 2010 Howell Orlando,FL 32801 • North Kansas City,MO 64116 OPASTCO Chris Hoffman-City of North Liberty 21 Dupont Circle,NW,Suite 700 Telecommunications Commission Washington,DC 20036 5 E.Cherry Street • PO Box 77 Orion Neighborhood Television North Liberty,IA 52317-0077 Diane Griffiths 698 South Lapeer Road City of North Richland Hills Lake Orion,MI 48362 P.O.Box 820609 North Richland Hills,TX 76812-0609 City of Oxford,North Carolina PO Box 130 Village of Northbrook 300 Williamsboro St John Novinson Oxford,NC 27565-1307 1225 Cedar Lane Northbrook,IL 60015 17 Pacific Research Institute City of Pikeville KY 755 Sansome Street Frank Justice Suite 450 118 College Street San Francisco,CA 94111 Pikeville,KY 41501 -1786 Pac-West Telecomm,Inc. Town of Pinetops Swidler Berlin LLP J.Vines Cobb,Jr. Patrick J.Donovan Post Office Drawer C 3000 K Street,NW Pinetops,NC 27864 Suite 300 Washington,DC,DC 20007-5116 Town of Pittsboro,North Carolina do PO Box 759 City of Palo Alto 635 East St Office of City Attorney Pittsboro,NC 27312-0759 Grant Kolling 250 Hamilton Avenue, 8th Floor Plainfield Charter Township Palo Alto,CA 94301 -2531 6161 Belmont Avenue Belmont,MI 49306-9609 City of Palmetto 516 8th Ave W Rick Wallace Palmetto,FL 34221 -1209 Mayor Town of Pleasant Garden City of Pasadena,California PO Box 307 117 E.Colorado Blvd,3rd Floor Pleasant Garden,North Carolina 27309 Pasadena,CA 91105 February 1,2006 Patton Township City of Pleasant Hill Elliot Abrams Debra Margolis 100 Patton Plaza 100 Gregory Lane State College,PA 16803 Pleasant Hill,CA 94523 Harold K.Logsdon,Mayor Plymouth Area Community Access Television Peachtree City Nancy L.Richard 151 Willowbend Road Executive Director-PACTV Peachtree City,Georgia 30269 130 Court Street Peachtree City,GA 30269-3104 Plymouth MA 02360 Township of Pennsville Kathy Oborn,Video Service Director Thomas H. Strong,Sr.,Mayor City of Pocatello 90 North Broadway PO Box 4169 Pennsville,NJ 08070 Pocatello,ID 83205-4169 City of Perris-Michael McDermott Clay Larkin,Mayor City of Post Falls 101 N D'Street Mayor Clay Larkin,City of Post Falls Perris,CA 92570-1998 408 N. Spokane Street Post Falls,ID 83854 City of Philadelphia PA Joseph James,Deputy Commissioner Public Property City of Poway City Hall,Room 732 City Manager's Office Philadelphia,PA 19107 PO Box 789 Poway,CA 92074-0789 Pike County,KY William M.Deskins Princeton Community TV 146 Main Street 369 Witherspoon St. Pikeville,KY 41501-1180 Princeton,NJ 08540 18 Public Cable Television Authority Harold Holmes 10200 Slater Avenue Chair,Board of Commissioners Fountain Valley,CA 92708 Randolph County 725 McDowell Road Public Utility Commission of Texas Asheboro,North Carolina 27204 Rosemary McMahill . 1701 N.Congress Avenue RCN Telecom Services,Inc. P.O.Box 13326 Swidler Berlin LLP Austin,TX 78711 -3326 Katie Besha 3000 K Street NW,Suite 300 _ Public,Educational and Governmental Washington,DC 20007 (PEG)Access Oversight Committee of Nashville,Davidson County,Tennessee Town of Red Oak,NC Alan D.Johnson,Chair PO Box A 215 Second Avenue North Red Oak Blvd Nashville,TN 37201 Red Oak,NC 27868-0016 Qwest Communications International Inc. Richard Duvernay&Gerry Kersten on behalf of the Melissa E.Newman City of Redding 607 14th Street,N.W.,Suite 950 777 Cypress Avenue Washington,DC 20005 Redding,CA 96001 Quote...Unquote,Inc Mayor James K.Festerman 415 Tijeras N.W. 230 W.Morehead Street Albuquerque,NM 87102 Reidsville,NC 27320 Queen Anne's County Bonnie Walton Paul W.Comfort 1055 S.Grady Way 107 N.Liberty Street Renton,WA 98055 Centreville,MD 21617 City of Richmond,KY Prince George's County Community Television Connie Lawson McCollum&Associates 239 W Main Street James E.McCollum,Jr Richmond,KY 40476-0250 College Park,MD 20741 -1717 John Kirkland Prince George's County,Maryland Mayor Funk&Bolton,,PA Town of River Bend Ernest A.Crofoot 45 Shoreline Drive 315 High Street,Suite 202 New Bern,North Carolina 28562 Chestertown,MD 21620-0000 N.Jerry Owens Ramsey/Washington Counties Cable Chair,Board of Commissioners Communications Commission Rockingham County 2460 East County Road 371 NC 65,Suite 206 White Bear Lake,MN 55110 Wentworth,North Carolina 27375 City of Rancho Cordova Town of Rockwell Robert J.McGarvey,Mayor Mayor Beauford Taylor 2729 Prospect Park Drive PO Box 506 Rancho Cordova,CA 95670 Rockwell,NC 28138-0506 City of Rancho Santa Margarita Douglas R.Prichard,City Manager Steven E.Hayman City of Rolling Hills Estates 22112 El Paseo 4045 Palos Verdes Drive North Rancho Santa Margarita,CA 92688 Rolling Hills Estates,CA 90274 19 Gus Andres San Mateo County Telecommunications Authority— Chair,Board of Commissioners SAMCAT Rowan County Greg Rubens,Attorney at Law 130 W.Innes Street 600 Elm Street Salisbury,North Carolina 28144 San Carlos,CA 94070-3018 City of Rolling Hills Estates City of Sanford,North Carolina 4045 Palos Verdes Drive North PO Box 3729 Rolling Hills Estates,CA 90274 225 E.Weatherspoon Street Sanford,NC 27331 -3729 Sacramento Metropolitan Cable Television Commission City of Santa Clara McDonough,Holland&allen,PC 1500 Warburton Avenue Harriet A. Steiner Santa Clara,CA 95050-3713 555 Capitol Mall,9th floor Sacramento,CA 95814 City of Santa Clarita 23920 Valencia Blvd City of Saint Charles,Missouri Santa Clarita,CA 91355 Saint Charles City Hall 200 North Second Street Maryanne Rehberg on behalf of Community Saint Charles,MO 63301 television of Santa Cruz County 816 Pacific Ave. Linda Berman Santa Cruz„CA 95062 . 555 Liberty Street ST,Room 220 Salem,OR 97301 City of Santa Rosa,California Jane Bender Chris Bramhall City Hall,Room#8 451 South State Street,Suite 505A 100 Santa Rosa Avenue Salt Lake City,UT 84111 Santa Rosa,CA 95404 County of San Diego City of Santee 1600 Pacific Highway Room 208 Attn:Keith Till,City Manager San Diego,CA 92101 10601 Magnolia Avenue Santee,CA 92071 -1266 Rey Arellano City of San Diego City of Saratoga Springs 202 C Street,MS-9B Valene Keehn San Diego,CA 92101 City Hall, Suite 6 474 Broadway Curtis W.Morris Saratoga Springs,NY 12866 245 East Bonita Avenue San Dimas,CA 91773 Charles A.Comstock City Manager City Attorney's Office/City of San Jose City of Scotts Valley William H.Hughe Kirsten Powell,City Attorney 200 E. Santa Clara St., 16th Floor One Civic Center Drive San Jose,CA 95113 Scotts Valley,CA 95066 City of San Juan Capistrano City of Seattle 32400 Paseo Adelanto Tony Perez San Juan Capistrano,CA 92675 700 5th Avenue, Suite 2700 P.O.Box 94709 City of San Marcos Seattle,WA 98124-4709 1 Civic Center Drive San Marcos,CA 92069-2918 20 City of Sebastopol,California City of South Portland 7120 Bodega Ave. Tony Vigue Sebastopol,CA 95472 P.O.Box 9422 Portland,ME 04116 Self Advocacy Association of New York State . 75 Morton St# 1 City and County of San Francisco New York,NY 10014 City Attomey's Office Thomas Long Township of Shaler City Hall, 1 Dr.Carlton B.Goodlett Place,Rm 234 Timothy J.Rogers San Francisco,CA 94102-4682 300 Wetzel Road Timothy J.Rogers Glenshaw,PA 15116-2288 South Slope Cooperative Telephone Company Davis,Brown,Koehn,Shors&Roberts City of Sierra Madre John C.Pietila 232 W. Sierra Madre Blvd 2500 The Financial Center Sierra Madre,CA 91024 666 Walnut Des Moines,IA 50309-3993 City of Signal Hill 2175 Cherry Avenue Southeastern Michigan Municipalities Signal Hill,CA 90755 Neil J.Lehto 4035 Ivemess Lane Town of Siler City West Bloomfield,MI 48323 -1714 Charles L.Turner 311 N 2nd Ave Southwest Suburban Cable Commission Siler,NC 27344-0769 Moss&Barnett Brian T.Grogan City of Simi Valley 4800 Wells Fargo Center 2929 Tapo Canyon Road 90 South Seventh Street Simi Valley,CA 93063 Minneapolis,MN 55402-4129 Sjoberg's Inc. Town of Spring Hope,NC 315 N.Main Avenue PO BOX 87 Thief River Falls,MN 56701 118 W.Railroad St. Spring Hope,NC 27882-0087 Village of Skokie Albert J.Rigoni City of Springfield 5127 Oakton Street 840 Boonville Ave Skokie,IL 60077 P.O.Box 8368 Springfield,MO 65801-8368 Town of Smithfield,North Carolina PO Box 761 City of St.Charles 350 E.Market St. 2 E.Main Street Smithfield,NC 27577-0761 St.Charles,IL 60174 City of Solana Beach,California Mayor Chris Coleman James P.Lough 390 City Hall 635 S.HWY 101 15 West Kellogg Boulevard Solana Beach,CA 92075 Saint Paul,MN 55102 Township of South Orange Village City of Jackson Marjorie O. Smith do Alfred A.Nunes 101 South Orange Avenue 33 Broadway South Orange,NJ 07079 Jackson,CA 95642-2301 21 Town of Jamestown William G.Ragsdale,III City of Lexington PO Box 848 Mayor Richard L.Thomas Jamestown,NC 27282 28 West Center Street Lexington,NC 27292 Jersey Access Group c/o Rich Desimone Los Angeles Cable Television Access Corp 500 Main Street do Herb Isaacs,Corporate Secretary Metuchen,NJ 08840 LA36 108 West 2nd Street Unit 108, Los Angeles,Ca 90012 City of Kemersville do Curtis L. Swisher,Mayor Town of Madison •134 East Mountain Street Kenneth Y.Hawkins,Mayor Kemersville,NC 27284 120 N Market St Madison,NC 27025 City of Lake Forest do Scott C. Smith,City Attorney Bob Chemow Lake Forest City Hall City of Madison 25550 Commercentre Drive,Suite 100 215 Martin Luther King Jr.Blvd. Lake Forest,CA 92630 Madison,WI 53710-0002 Town of Lake Lure Manhattan Community Access Corp Don Mullen, Mayor do Manhattan Neighborhood Network 2948 Memorial Hwy Daniel Coughlin-Executive Director Lake Lure,NC 28746-0255 537 West 59th Street, New York,NY 10019 Town of Lake Mills James A.Heinz,Chairperson Martha's Vineyard Plum TV N7041 Faville Road c/o MacDara Bohan,General Manager Lake Mills,WI 53551 9 Main Street Vineyard Haven,MA 02568 City of Lakewood do Lisa Novotny City of Maxton 5050 Clark Ave Mayor Lillie McKoy Lakewood,CA 90712 201 McCaskill Ave Maxton,NC 28364 City of Lewisville Mayor Thomas J.Lawson PO Box 547 Lewisville,NC 27023 • 6013\.01\0 012 7543.DOC • 22 I. / Lie Edit accord Navigate Form r•.. . Format lab Help ' 0 Il.Ldan jGeneial Into,I,Defaults IAttachmentsl lerms,Status Agpioval History i Custom Reld j 7.' Contract III »:1 .j Class! Status Total - 5'I Doao,abon+ Change status 1 ' ' ; m z Contract type j AI o, .....; Contractor�........_..,.,._._._.,. j._.....,...._...,... , I Est slat j J Schad camp] J Board award j J� Closeout Actual start! J ,Actual comp I J Bid open I J lamination I J. .Last supp I J Expuation I Pont award notification i ' .._II of sops f .._...Renewals .... ........ ' iginal amt j .O Suppamtl . Taal j .. " Ql_GoldSlandadlb Reca30010 n t File Edit aecord Navigate Form ! : Format Lab belt 75: i 0 12. ! •fdam i�Genewllnfo^^-DDefaults iAttachmenlst terms•:Status Agptoval History, 0 Custom Fields :I • Contract tlr�» Class j Btatus�».�.�. Total! Ai Desa'Oon fr' Conbaut type l j Coaraclor r_ „_ _. .... ..Contact lnfarmaBon.......... .......___..._..,...._..._„ _..._..._.____,,,.....,._........... .... ._........ .,_. ....,,.,.._........_... CantractorI l�'-=-------------- Addiessl . I City E _ State] J Zip 1 ], Contact] Olfinej Cell Fax , II .Email Ir BuYar Information..."...v.��.__....._._................___........_.._..._.,............._..__._�,.._,._,,._,___..__....___,...._.....___,_.__..._.._,._..__._.____._.._."_-._.._._._.........,m...,._.•......._.,.........._..._.._ r........ ».,....3... _........... I, Code i 1` Office j . .. _ ' • 1i .Emat] . . `., Fax Celli— ' �34L GoIdSlardardlb® I Raced 0o10 r tti.co.ntrVs;' ..._ ..•' .:a., , .ow as ;,. • , ee. • ,. ^ „aa:...r,.„_.,e — _......—. Ede Edo Record Navigate Form "r, ,; Format Tab yelp LJ.. .-. . ',Al , s. ;Marl 1 General Info(Defaults I Atlachmentsqerms tj Status ApprovalHrstay,.Custom Fields I "l Contract#1 Class 1----I Status I I Total f • l • Description r n i,I Contract type j I,.... CaNradw ty'Sttus queue requtt 17'Supplemental queue required Mgmtdepti .. J .. .. Supp queue ._.. .j.fi _. ._._ .• . i • • - _ � -i4L_GoMSfandard(b Recoid;0o10 r x.... Contracts� •• ...: ,.. , .. �.+.�. ..,..sintx.'+ btwnrr... ... , ..�MiwT:�.n� ,_.W..,-,�3'!.•',lfa7 r"'..,:.r .*M914"7 .. f,:,a,��a�, _. .� _ E® Die ROt Record Mavlgate Form ,•YFormattei Dab yelp o s FI .Man_IGenerallnfo j DelauQs:,Altachmenfs Terms SlatusApNwal History:Custom Fields _ -- -; •DwmadH Cotsr�f Status l I Taal • . . >„i D� I , R Contract type �I __,..__. Contractor . - ' jIIContract terms _ y Renewal terms • I • • .—. ._. _.._ —___...,QL_GoMSlends78jb `, ,Racad DOfU 1.,4)Cerfir...aq' . •v ",S• . — •- . 5Ie Ede Record Navigate Form "s Format tab Nelp •fri 1 . • General Irk Defaults Mac hmerds4erms;Status Aopmval History Cystom Fields ,, • CanuacA# Cle;ss f Status I ) Total I .• II Contract type I „... , Contractor • , Qi L1 • 1 Current appme .'l Previous approves I, Date in Date o_ut_m_l Action Aspruyei Comments ' TT— ITT 1 . . I ' 1' I I. . • 1 L • , • 4. Ede Edit Eecord Navigate Form es cc: Format lob Neils . . , • 8 Main,,fienelal Info Delaults risTrIaTIhser—rits!eons iStatus Approval History;Djstom Fields I i Mad,Date i Attached By*.ilecstlaruupd Description Typo died I FdeNmno z ir • • • 1 . . • • itii._GoldStandarIdIRIEMS rtecor7:kGrci • • 'tutr of Nita 3lrrzrt DEPARTMENT OF THE PUBLIC ADVOCATE DIVISION OF RATE COUNSEL 31 CLINTON STREET^- 11TH FLOOR JON S. CORZINE PO Box 46005 RONALD K. CHEN Governor. NEWARK NJ 07101 Public Advocate • April26, 2007 VIA OVERNIGHT MAIL Marcia M. Waldron, Clerk U. S. Court of Appeals For the Third Circuit 21400 U.S. Courthouse 601 Market Street Philadelphia, PA 19106-1790 RE: New Jersey Department of the Public Advocate, Division of Rate Counsel vs:FCC Agency Docket: MB Docket No. 05-311 Dear Ms. Waldron: Enclosed please find: 1) A check in the amount of $450.00 representing the filing fee for the enclosed. 2) A Petition for Review captioned New Jersey Department of the Public Advocate, Division of Rate Counsel v. FCC and certificate of service. 3) An additional copy to be date stamped and returned in the self-addressed stamped envelope. The Public Advocate is aware that other appeals of this FCC Order have been taken, some within ten days of the issuance of the Order and are therefore subject to the procedures established under 28 U.S.C. § 2112(a). This appeal may eventually need to be transferred to the Circuit that is assigned to hear these multiple appeals. TEL:(973)648-2690 • FAX:(973)624-1047 • FAx(973)648-2193 http://www.rpa.state.nj.us E-Mail:njratepayer@rpa.state.nj.us New Jersey Is An Equal Opportunity Employer • Printed on Recycled Paper and Recyclable Your attention to this is appreciated. Should you have any questions please don't • hesitate to contact me at(973) 648-7575. Very truly yours,. RONALD K. CHEN. Public Advocate of New Jersey • By: Christopher J. White,Esq. Deputy Public Advocate Division of Rate Counsel s 2 IN THE • UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT ) The-New Jersey Department of the ) Public Advocate, Division of Rate ) Counsel ) ) Petitioner, ) ) v. .) Appeal No. ) Federal Communications Commission ) and the United States of America, ) • ) Respondents. ) ) PETITION FOR REVIEW The New Jersey Department of the Public Advocate, Division of Rate Counsels ("Public Advocate"), by its attorneys and pursuant to 47 U.S.C. § s/ Effective July 1, 2006, the New Jersey Division of the_ Ratepayer Advocate is now Rate Counsel. The office of Rate Counsel is a Division within the New Jersey Department of the Public Advocate. The Department' of the Public Advocate is a government agency that gives a.voice to New Jersey citizens who often lack adequate representation in our political system. The Depai tnient of the Public Advocate was originally established in 1974, but it was abolished by the New Jersey State Legislature and New Jersey Governor Whitman in 1994. The Division of the Ratepayer Advocate. was ° established in 1994 through enactment of Governor Whitman's Reorganization Plan. See New Jersey Reorganization Plan 001-1994, codified at N.J.S.A. 13:1D-1, et sec . The mission of the Ratepayer Advocate was to make sure that all classes of utility consumers receive safe, adequate and proper utility service at affordable rates that were just and nondiscriminatory. In addition, the Ratepayer Advocate worked to insure 402(a), 28' U.S.C. §§"2342 and 2344, Rule -15(a) of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure, and Circuitaule 15, respectfully petitions this Court • for review of the Federal Communications Commission's. ("FCC") Order upon I/M/O Implementation of Section 621(a)(1) of the Cable Communications Policy Act of 1984 as amended by the Cable Television • consumer Protection and Competition Act of 1992, MB Docket No. 05-311 , (the "Order" attached as exhibit "A" hereto); adopting cable franchising rules that impose limitations on local government's authority insofar as awarding franchises to new entrants adopted . on December 20, 2006, • released on March 5, 2007 and published in the Federal,Register on.March that all consumers were knowledgeable about the choices they had in the emerging age of utility competition. The Depai tnient of the Public Advocate was reconstituted as a principal executive department of the State on January 17, 2006, pursuant to the Public Advocate Restoration Act of 2005, P.L. 2005, c. 155 (N.J.S.A. §§ 52:27EE-1 et seq.). The Department is authorized by statute to "represent the public interest in such administrative and court proceedings . . . as the Public Advocate deems shall best serve the public interest,",N.J.S.A. 52: 27EE-57, i.e., an "interest or right arising from the Constitution, decisions of court, common law or other laws of the United States or of this State inhering in the citizens of this State or in a broad class of such citizens." N.J.S.A.52:27EE-12; The Division of Rate Counsel, formerly known as the Ratepayer Advocate, became a division therein to continue its mission of protecting New Jersey ratepayers in utility,matters. The Division of Rate Counsel represents and- protects the interests of all utility consumers, including residential, business, comthercial, and industrial entities. Rate Counsel participates in Federal and state administrative and judicial proceedings. • • 21, 2007 (72 Fed. Reg. 13189, March 21, 2007). The Public Advocate participated in the proceedings below. The Public Advocate is the administrative agency charged under New Jersey Law with the general protection of the interests of utility ratepayers. The Public Advocate, through the Division of Rate Counsel, represents New Jersey ratepayer interests that are directly affected by the outcome of the proceedings. The Public Advocate seeks relief on the ground that the FCC's Order illegally and improperly intrudes into the jurisdiction reserved to state and local governments under Section 621 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, (the "Act"). In addition, the Public Advocate seeks review of the Order because; 1) it exceeds the FCC's statutory authority; 2) is arbitrary, capricious and an abuse of discretion;. 3) is unsupported by substantial • evidence;. 4) is lacking a reasoned bases by the FCC's failure to address issues below which affect or would require a change in the proposed rules; 5) is misapplying the principles of pre-emption; and, 6) is in violation of the Fifth, Tenth and Eleventh Amendments to the United States Constitution. The Public Advocate requests that this Court hold unlawful, vacate,enjoin, and set aside the Order as unlawful. This Petition for Review involves an appeal of an action by the FCC. Accordingly,venue of this Court is proper pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 2342 and 2343. . Respectfully submitted, RONALD K. CHEN PUBLIC ADVOCATE OF NEW JERSEY By. Christopher J. White, Esq. (#2552) Deputy Public Advocate Division of Rate Counsel Dated: April 26, 2006 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE ON RESPONDENTS I, Christopher J. White, certify that on this 26th day of April, 2007, I served copies of the foregoing Petition for Review by causing them to be delivered by U.S. regular mail to the following Respondents: Sam Feder, Alberto R. Gonzalez General Counsel ,Attorney General of the United States Federal Communications Commission -United States Department of Justice 445, 12th Street, SW 950 Pennsylvania Avenue,NW Washington,DC 20554 Washington, DC 20530 Christopher J. White Deputy Public Advocate Division of Rate Counsel CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE ON COMMENTERS I, Christopher J. White, certify that on this 26th day of April, 2007, I served copies of the foregoing Petition for Review by causing them to be delivered by U.S. regular mail: A copy of Exhibit "A", the Order, was omitted from the commenters' service copies as they have already obtained a copy from other appeals. Christopher J. White Deputy Public Advocate Division of Rate Counsel • • • • 1 - i List of Commenters • NJ Department of the Public Advocate,Division of Rate Counsel v.FCC Larry D. Gilley Access Channel 5 - Eric Molberg City Manager P.O. Box 188 Access Fort Wayne 200 E. Berry St. City of Abilene,Texas Mayville,NY 14757-0188 P.O. Box 2270 555 Walnut Street Fort Wayne,IN 46801 Abilene,TX 79601 • Access Sacramento Ad Hoc Telecom Manufacturer Ada Township 4623 T. Street . Coalition 7330 Thornapple River Drive Sacramento, CA 95819 Rodney L. Joyce P.O. Box 370 Joyce&Associates Ada MI 49301 10 Laurel Parkway • Chevy Chase,MD 20815 • Advance/Newhouse Bob Hahn Alamance County Office Building Communications AEI-Brookings Joint Center for 124 West Elm Street Hogan& Hartson L.L.P. Regulatory Studies Graham,NC 27253 Gardner-F. Gillespie 1150 17th Street,N.W. 555 Thirteenth Street,N.W. Washington, D.C. 20554 Washington, D.C. 20004-1109 Carolyn Fudge Alcatel Alhambra, CA City of Albuquerque Paul Kenefick 111 South First Street 1 Civic Plaza NW 919 18th Street,N.W. Alhambra, CA 91801 P.O. Box 2248 Washington,DC 20006 Albuquerque,NM 87103 • • Daniel B. Phythyon Alpena, MI American Association of Business Alliance for Public.Technology City.Hall Persons with Disabilities 919 1 8th Street N.W. 208 North First Avenue 2 Wood Hollow Washington,DC 20006 Alpena, MI 49707 Irvine, CA 92604-3229 Andrew J. Imparato American Cable Association • Stephen Pociask President and CEO Cinnamon Mueller The American Consumer Institue American Association of People Christopher Cinnamon P.O. Box 2161 with Disabilities 307 N. Michigan Avenue, Reston,VA 20171 1629 K Street,N.W. Suite 503 . . Suite 1020 Washington, DC 20006 Chicago, IL 60601 5 • The American Corn Growers American Homeowners Grassroots City of Anaheim California Association Alliance 200 S. Anaheim.Blvd. Suite 733 P.O. Box 18157 6776 Little Falls Road Anaheim, CA 98205 Washington,DC 20036 Arlington, VA 22213-1213 City of Angels Camp Anne Arundel County, Carroll Town of Apex,North Carolina William Hutchinson County, Charles County, Howard P.O. Box 250 73 Hunter Street 584 S. Main County &Montgomery County Apex,NC 27502-3305 Angels Camp, CA 95222 Nicholas Miller Miller&Van Eaton 1155 Connecticut Avenue,N.W. Washington, DC 20036 • Thomas Lawell, City Administrator Ellen Tozke Archdale,NC City of Apple Valley City of Appleton 100 North 307 Balfour Drive Apple Valley Municipal Center Appleton Street P.O..Box 14068 7100 147th Street West Appleton, WI 54911 Archdale,NC 27263 Apple Valley,MN 55124 • Arlington Independent Media,VA Asheboro,NC City of Ashland 2701-C Wilson Blvd. 146 N Church Street Michelle R. Merchant Arlington, VA 22201 Asheboro,NC 27203 P.O. Box 1839 Ashland, KY 41105-1839 Mayor Linda L. Blackburn Association of Independent AT&T Town of Ahoskie Programming Networks Thomas F. Hughes 201 Main Street W Kathleen Wallman 1120 20th Street,N.W. Suite 1000 Ahoskie,NC 27901-0767 9332 Ramey Lane Washington,DC 20036 Great Falls,VA 22066 City of Atascadero Town of Bailey , City of Banning 6907 El Camino Real P.O. Box 40 176 E. Lincoln Atascadero, CA 93422 6260 Main Street Banning, CA 92220 Bailey,NC 27807-0040 Village of Barrington, Illinois Borough of Bellefonte Kevin M. Chun, City of Bellflower, 200 S. Hough Street 236 West Lamb Street CA Barrington, IL 60010-4322 Bellefonte,PA 16823 16600 Civic Center Drive Bellflower, CA 90706 BellSouth Mayor Jerry McLamb Ann Sheehan Bennett L. Ross Town of Benson Berks Community Television 1133 21st. Street,N.W. Suite 900 303 E. Church Street 645 Penn Street Washington, DC 20036 Benson,NC,27504 Reading, PA 19601-3543 Northern Berkshire Community City of Beverly Hills City Counsil of the City of Television Corp. Cable Television Office Biddeford,Maine Heritage State Park do Mark Geddes John D. Bubier' Building#6 - 455 N. Rexford Drive 205 Main Street North Adams, MA 01247 Beverly Hills, CA 90210 Biddeford, ME 04005 Billerica, MA Birmingham Area Cable Board City of Blue Lake Sam Schauerman Michael Salhaney. • P.O. Box 458 430 Boston Road Beier Howlett, P.C. Blue Lake, CA 95525 Billerica, MA 01821 200 E. Long Lake Road Suite 110 Bloomfield Hills, MI 48316 City of Bonita Springs ' Curtis Henderson, Jr.!Boston Boston Cable Office Audrey E. Vance Community Access & Programming 43 Hawkins Street 9101 Bonita Beach Road Foundation Boston,,MA 02114 Bonita Springs, FL 34135 Boston Neighborhood Network 8 Park Plaza, Suite 2240.; Boston,MA 02458 City of Bowie, Maryland Ali Abulugma City of Brea David Deutsch - Pres. Branford Community 1 Civic Center Circle Bowie City Hall Television, Inc.' Brea, CA 92821-5732 2614 Kenhill Drive Box 1019 Bowie, MD 20715 Branford, CT 06405 . City of Brisbane Broadband Service Providers Town of Brunswick Maine Attn:-City Manager Association 28.Federal Street Suite.2 50 Park Place 1735 New York Ave.N.W. Brunswick,ME 04011 Brisbane, CA 94005 ' Suite 500 Washington, DC 20006 • Bucks County Consortium of Burlington,NC Burnsville/Eagan Telecom Communities 425 S. Lexington Avenue Commission et al Frederick A. Polner Burlington,NC 27215 Stephen J. Guzzetta Polner Law Office - Bradley& Guzzetta, LLC 4018 Mt. Royal Boulevard . 444 Cedar Street Allison Park, PA 1510.1 ' . Saint Paul, MN 55101 . Mike Wassenaar Susan Adele Huizenga Cablevision Systems Corp. • Cable Access St. Paul d/b/a Saint Cable Advisory Council of South Howard J. Symons Paul Neighborhood Network Central CT,Inc. Mintz Levin Cohn Ferris Glovsky 375 Jackson Street, Suite 250 36 Surrey Drive and Popeo, PC Saint Paul,MN 55101 Wallingford, CT 06492 701 Pennsylvania Ave.,N.W., Suite 900 Washington, DC 20004 City of Cadillac Donna H. Prince California Alliance for Consumer 200 N. Lake Street Town of Calabash Protection Cadillac, MI 49601 P.O. Box 4967 37 Derow Court Calabash,NC 28467 Sacramento, CA 95833 California Farmers Union California Small Business Susan Fleischman 2881 Greer Road Suite D Association& California Small Cambridge Public Access Turlock, CA 95382 Business Roundtable Corporation 6101 W. Centinela Avenue, Suite 675 Massachusetts Avenue 342 Cambridge, MA 02139 Culver City, CA 90230 Robert W. Healy Campbell County Cable Board City of Cape Coral City Manager 10 Hilltop Drive Eleni C. Pantaridis City of Cambridge Highland Heights,KY 41076-5023 Leibowitz&Associates Cambridge City Hall 1 S.E. 3ra Avenue, Suite 1450 795 Massachusetts Avenue Miami, FL 33131 Cambridge, MA 02139 • Capital Community Television Carlsbad, CA Town of Carroro,NC CCTV Office of City Attorney 301 W. Main Street P.O. Box 2342 Paul Edmonson Carrboro,NC 27510-2029 Salem, OR 97308-2342 1200 Carlsbad Village Drive Carlsbad, CA 92008-1949 • Cary,NC Town of Castalia . Caswell County,,NC Town of Cary P.O. Box 237 Chair, Board of Commissioners, P.O. Box 8005 . - 9507 Main Street, Hwy, 58. Caswell County,NC Cary,NC 27512-8005 Castalia,NC 27816-0237 County Courthouse P.O. Box 98 Yanceyville,NC 27379 ccavalier Telephone LLC City of Cedar Rapids, Iowa - Center for Digital Democracy 1718 John K. Shumate, Jr. James H. Flitz Connecticut Avenue,N.W. 2134 West Laburnum Avenue City Attorney's Office Suite 200 Richmond, VA 23227 City Hall - 7th Floor Washington,DC 20009 Cedar Rapids, IA 52401-1225 Jack Doerr Certain Florida Municipalities Champaign, IL Central St. Croix Valley Joint Cable Gary I. Resnick,Esq. City of Champaign Communications Commission Weiss Serota Helfman, et al. 102 N.Neil Street 1492 Frontage Road West 3107 Stirling Road, Suite 300 Champaign,IL 61820 Stillwater, MN 55082 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33312 Champaign-Urbana Cable TV and Town of Chapel Hill,NC Charlotte-Mecklenburg Office of Telecom Commission, IL 405 Martin Luther,King, Jr. Blvd. Cable and Franchise Management Richard L. Atterberry Chapel Hill,NC 27516-2124 600 East Fourth Street 9th Floor C-U Cable TV and Telecom Charlotte,NC 28202-2816 Commission - 705 W Washington Street Champaign, IL 61820 . Charter Communications Barbara Popovic, Executive City of Chicago T. Scott Thompson Director 30 N. LaSalle Street, Suite 900 Cole, Raywid&Braverman, LLP Chicago Access Corporation CAN Chicago, IL 60602 1919 Pennsylvania Ave.N.W. TV Second Floor 322 S. Green Street Washington,DC 20006 • Chicago, IL 60607 Jouett Kinney City of Cincinnati Peter Steward for Citizens Cincinnati Bell Inc. Deborah C. Holston Community Television 201 E. Fourth Street, 103-1280 City of Cincinnati 1132 Jefferson Ave. Cincinnati, OH 45202 801 Plum Street, Suite 104 P.O. Box 581 Cincinnati, OH 45202 ' - Louisville, Co 80027 • City & County of San Francisco City of Los Angeles Joseph James,Deputy Thomas(Long Nicholas Miller Commissioner City Attorney's Office . Miller&Van Eaton Dept. of Public Property City Hall,-1 Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett 1155 Connecticut Avenue,N.W., City of Philadephia Place,Rm 234 S Suite 1000 City Hall, Room 732 San Francisco, CA 94102-4682 Washington, DC 20036 Philadelphia,PA 19107 Susan Littlefield City of Ventura, CA Clackamas County (#100) . • Communications Manager Joseph Van Eaton 2051 Kaen Road City of St. Louis Communications . Miller&Van Eaton, Suite 1000 Oregon City, Or 97045 Div. 1155 Connecticut Ave.,N.W. 4971 Oakland Avenue Washington,DC 20036 St. Louis, MO 63110 - Clark County (#101) • Clay County • Clayton,NC. County Clerk's Office Leibowitz&Associates Eleni C. P.O. Box 879 200 Lewis Avenue,Fifth Floor Pantaridis 111 E. 2nd Street Las Vegas,NV 89101 , 1 SE 3'Avenue Suite 1450 Clayton,NC 27528-0879 Miami, FL 33131 • Clinton Township Communications City of Clovis/John Holt College Township, PA • Department 1033 Fifth Street 1481 E. College Avenue 40700 Romeo Plank Road Clovis, CA 93612 State College, PA 16801 Clinton Township, MI 48044 • Communications Support Group Community Access Television Inc. Community Programming Board of 505 Scenic Avenue 1126 West 17th Street Forest Park, Greenhills and Piedmont, CA 94611 Davenport, IA 52804-3714 Springfield Township 2086 Waycross Road Forest Park, OH 45240-2717 • Comcast Corporation Wilkie Farr& Consumer Coalition of California Consumer Electronics Association Gallagher LLP 11304 Jack Rabbit Trail _ 2500 Wilson Blvd. James L. Casserly Austin, TX 78750 Arlington,VA 22201 1875 K Street,NW , Washington, DC 20006 Consumers for Cable Choice Consumers First, Inc City of Coral Springs,FL P.O. Box 329 33 Southwood Drive City Law Dept. Greenwood, IN 46142 Orinda, CA 94563 9551 West Sample Road Coral Springs,FL 33065 Cox Communications City of Delray Beach, FL Democratic Processes Center, Inc. Dow Lohnes PLLC Leibowitz&Associates P.O. Vox 329 Gary S. Lutzker Eleni C. Pantaridis Greenwood,IN 46142 1200 New Hampshire Ave,NW 1 SE 3rd Avenue Suite 1450 Suite 800 Miami, FL 33131 Washington,DC 20036 Susan Bonilla, Mayor Concord NC (#112) City of Coralville c/o Peter.Dragovich Director of CM P.O. Box 308 1512 7th Street 1950 Parkside Drive, MS/01 26 Union Street P.O. Box 5127 Concord, CA 94519 Concord,NC 28026-0308 Coralville, IA 52241-1708 Tom Smisek City of Cypress City of Daly City City of Coronado 5275 Orange Avenue 333-90th Street 1825 Strand Way Cypress, CA 90630 Daly City, CA 94015 Coronodo, CA 92118-3005 • • County of Dare,NC County Administrator Office City of Davis; CA • c/o Sharp Michael Outten& 1 Public Square, Room 210. 23 Russell Blvd. Graham Darlington, SC 29532 Davis, CA 95616 Bobby Outten P.O Drawer 1027 Kitty Hawk,NC 27949-1027 City of Del Mar Discovery Institute Town of Dortches 1050 Camino del Mar Hance Haney 3057 Town Hall Road Del Mar, CA 92014-2604 1015 15th Street,NW, Suite 900 Rocky Mounty,NC 27804-9186 Washington,DC 20005 City of Dublin City of Eden City of El Cerrito 100 Civic Plaza Honorable John E. Grogan, Mayor 10890 San Pabloe Avenue Dublin, CA 94568 308 E. Stadium Drive El Cerrito, CA 94530 Eden,NC 27288 r Village of Elk Grove Village, Il. Mayor Jon FunFar 901 Wellington Avenue 104 South Williamson Stret City of Enumclaw Elk Grove Village, IL 60007 Elon,NC 27244 1339 Griffin Avenue Enumclaw,WA 98022 • Clay Phillips, City Manager Town of Esopus City of Evanston City of Escondido ., P.O. Box 700 David Cook • 201 N Broadway Port Ewen,NY 12466 2100 Ridge Escondido, CA 92025 Suite 1450 Evanston, IL 60201-1495 Fairfax Cable Access Corporation Fairfax County Town of Fairfax, CA 2929 Eskridge Road, Suite S. Department of Cable Law Office of Lawrence Bragman Fairfax, VA 22031 Communications & Consumer 142 Bolinas Road Protection Fairfax, CA 94930 12000 Government Center Parkway, Ste. 433 Fairfax, CA 94930 William H.Johnson, Jr. . Bristol Community College/Fall Pat Zavoral, City Administrator, Mayor River Community Television . . City of Fargo,ND 100 N. Main Street 777 Elsbree Street The Baller Herbst Law Group,PC Faith,NC 28041-0037 . Fall River, MA 02720-7307 Adrian E. Herbst 377N:Grain Exchange Building 301 Fourth Avenue South Minneapolis, MN 55415-1015 City of Farmington City of Durham,NC Fiber-to-the-Home Council 325 Oak Street Theodore L. Voorhees Kelley Drye& Warren LLP Farmington, MN 55024 Assistant City Manager Thomas Cohen • 101 City Hall Plaza 3050 K Street,NW Suite 400 Durham,NC 27701 Washington, DC 20007 City of Florence, KY City of Foster City, CA City of Franklin, KY Diane Whalen Linda Koelling W. Scott Crabtree 8100 Ewing Boulevard 610 Foster City Blvd. 2i2 South College Street Florence,KY 41042-7588 Foster, CA 94404 P.O. Box 615 , Frranklin,KY 42135-0615 Free Enterprise Fund Free Press Township of Ferguson E. O'Brien Murray Institute for Public Representation Mark A. Kunkle 1850 M. Street NW Suite 800 Angela J. Campbell 3147 Research Drive Washington,DC 20036 600 New Jersey Avenue,NW State College,PA 16801 Suite 312 Washington, DC 20001 . City of Ferndale Village of Floral Park City of Fort Worth Michael Powers One Floral Boulevard 401 W. 2nd Street City Manager . Floral Park,NY 11001 Forth Worth, TX 76101 P.O. Box 1095 Ferndale, CA 95536 • City of Fortuna Foxboro Cable Acce1,Thomas Donch 621 11th Street P.O. Box 524 Borough of Franklin Lakes P.O. Box 545 Foxboro, MA 02035 DeKorte Drive Fortuna, CA 95540 Franklin Lakes,NJ 07417 Free Press Free Press, Consumers Union • Freedom Works Institute for Public Representation Consumer Federation of America 1775 Pennsylvania Avenue,NW Angela J. Campbell 1801 18th St.NW Suite 9 Eleventh Floor 600 New Jersey Avenue,NW Washington,DC 20009" Washington, DC 20006 Suite 312 Washington, DC 20001 City of Fort Lauderdale, F L • • City of Gainsville, FL City of Garland, TX 100 N. Andrews Avenue Russ Blackburn • • William E. Dollar Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 P.O. Box 490 200 N. 5th Street Gainsville, FL 32602-0490 Garland, TX 75040 Town of Garner • Mayor Kevin R. Burns, Georgia Municipal Association ' Judy Bass 22 South First Street Ed Rutter P.O. Box 446 Geneva,IL 60134 201 Pryor Street SW Garner,NC 27529 - Atlanta, GA 303\03-3606 Hawaiian Telcom Communications, Hawaii Consumers Office of the County Attorney Inc. P.O. Box 179375 Henderson County,NC Latham& Watkins LLP Honolulu,HI 96817 Charles Russell Burrell Elizabeth Park 100 North King Street 555 Eleventh Street,NW Suite 1000 Hendersonville,NC 28792 Washington, DC 20004-1304 Mayor City of Gilroy Village of Glenview 129 West Main Street HCD 7351 Rosanna Street Glenview Television Gibsonville,NC 27249 Gilroy, CA 95020 1225 Waukegan Road Glenview, IL 60025 Mayor City of Grand Rapids 0 Mayor, Town of Granite Quarry 201 South Main Street Jon Koeze 143 N. Salisbury Street Graham,NC 27253 300 Monroe,NW Granite Quarry,NC 28072 Grand Rapids, MI 46503 • Great Neck/North Shore Cable Greater metro Telecommunications Green Spring, KY Comm' et al • Consortium William M. Huff 1505 Kelly Place Ken Fellman 7103 Green Spring Drive Minneolla,NY 11501 3773 Cherry Creek North Drive Louisville,KY 40241 Ptarmingan Place, Suite 900 Denver, CO 80209 City of Greenboro _ City of Greenville Chairwoman Guilford County City Attorney's Office David A. Holec Board Of Commissioners P.O. Box 3136 P.O. Box 7207 301 W. Market Street Greenville,NC 27402-3136 Greenville,NC 27835-7207 Greensboro,NC 27402 Chairman Harris Township City of Henderson Board of Commissioners 224 East Main Street Mark Backus Harnett County P.O. Box 20 240 Water Street. P.O. Box 759 - Boalsburg,PA 16827 P.O. Box 95050 Lillington,NC 27546 Henderson,NV 89005-5050 City of Hialeah, Florida Hibbing Public Access Television Becky Smothers Leibowitz&Associates P.O. Box 712 Mayor, City of High Point Eleni C. Pantaridis Hibbing,MN 55746 211 S. Hamilton Street 1 SE 3rd Avenue, Suite 1450 High Point,NC 27261 Miami, FL 33131 High Tech Broadband Coalition Town of Hillsborough,NC Town of Holly Springs,NC Derek Khlopin/TIA P.O. Box 429 P.O. Box 8 1300 Pennsylvania Ave. NW 111 E. 2nd Street 128 S. Main Street Suite 350 Hillsborough,NC 27278-0429 Holly Springs,NC 27540-0008 Washington, DC 20004 City of Huntsville, AL City of Imperial Beach, CA Independent Multi-Family. Mayor Loretta Spencer James P. Lough Communications Council ' Claudia Anderson City Hall William J. Burhop P.O. Box 308 825 Imperial Beach Blvd. 3004 Oregon Knolls Drive NW Huntsville, AL 35804 Imperial Beach, CA 91932 Washington, DC 20015 City of Indianapolis Institute for Policy Innovation _ Mayor Rick.Maultra Thomas A. Giovanetti 403 East Main Street 2501 City-County Building ' 1660 S. Stemmons Freeway Haw River,NC 27258 200 E. Washington Street Suite 475 Indianapolis, IN 46204 Lewisville, TX 75067 Mayor Institute for Policy Innovation Intergovernmental Cable 210 North Fourth Street do Thomas A. Giovanetti Communications Authority Highlands,NC 28741-0460 1660 S. Stemmons Freeway do Timothy Currier, Esq. Suite 475 ' 200 E. Long Lake Road, Suite # 110 Lewisville, TX 75067 Bloomfield Hills, MI 48304-2361 City of Irwindale City of Irvine Itasca Community Television 5050 North Irwindale Avenue 1 Civic Center Executive Director Beth George Irwindale, CA 91706 Irvine, CA 92623 724 Conifer Drive Grand Rapids, MN 55744-2475 City of Iowa City Jefferson County League of Cities City of Jenkins,Kentucky do Steve Atkins, City Manager Cable Commission ' do Robert Shubert Iowa City, IA 52317 c/o Linda K. Ain P.O. Box 568 4725 Inman Drive Jenkins, KY 41537-0568 Lexington, KY 40513 • City of Kansas City MO City of Killeen King County, WA • do William D. Geary, Assist. CI do Traci Briggs do David Martinez 28th Floor City Hall P.O. Box 1329 Chief Information Office 414 East 12th Street Killeen, TX 76540-1329 700 5th Avenue Suite 2300 Kansas City, MO 64106-2796 Seattle, WA 98104 • Town of Kitty Hawk Town of Knightdale,NC Lake Minnetonka Communications Mayor do Mayor Doug Boyd Commission P.O. Box 549 950 Steeple Square Ct. c/o Sally Koenecke Kitty Hawk,NC 27941 Knighdale,NC 27545 4071 Sunset Drive Spring Park, MN 55384 City of La Puente. City of Lake Worth City of Las Vegas,NV do Hal Ledford, City Manager Leibowitz&Associates do Larry G. Bettis 15900 E. Main Street Eleni C. Pantardis 400 Stewart Avenue,Ninth Floor La Puente, CA 91744 1 SE 3rd Avenue Las Vegas,NV 89101-2986- Suite 1450 Miami, FL 33131 City of La Verne League of Minnesota Cities and MN League of United Latin American c/o Bob Russi Assoc. of Community Telecom Citizens of the Northeast Region 3660 D. Street ' Administrators 41 Eden Street La Verne, CA 91750 145 University Avenue West ' Framingham, MA 01702-6320 St. Paul,MN 55103-2044 • Gary Ortiz. Lee County, FL Leibowitz&Associates City of Leavenworth, KS Leibowitz&Associates Matthew L. Leibowitz City Hall Eleni C. Pantaridis 1 SE 3th Avenue 100 North 5th Street 1 SE 3rd Avenue Suite 1450 Leavenworth, KS 66048-1970 Suite 1450 Miami, FL 33131 Miami,FL 33131 City of Lenexa, KS City of Lincoln,NE City of Lincoln do Rebecca A. Yocham do City Attorney's Office. do Gerald F. Johnson 12350 W. 87th Street Parkway Steven Huggenberger 640 Fifth Street Lenexa, KS 66215 575 South 10th Street, Room 4201 Lincoln, CA 95648 Lincoln,NE 68508 City of Long Beach City of Longmont, CO , Town of Loomis, Placer County, do Gerald R. Miller, City Manager,' do Jim Wall CA 333 West Ocean Boulevard ' 350 Kimbark Street do Rhoda Morillas Long Beach, CA 90802 Longmont,CO 80503 6140 Horseshoe Bar Rd., Suite K Loomis CA 95650 • City of Los Banos, CA City of Lynwood City of Madison Heights 520 J. Street 11330 Bullis Road Jon Austin, City Manager Los Banos, CA 93635 Lynwood, CA 90262. 300 W. 13 Mile Road Madison Heights, MI 48071-1899 • Incorporated Village of Malverne, Manatee County Mann Telecommunications Agency NY do Manatee County Attorney's do Richards, Watson& Gershon do Anthony J. Panzarella Office Gregory W. Stepanicich 99 Church Street Robert Michael Eschenfelder 44 Montgomery Street Suite 3 800 Malverne,NY 11565 1112 Manatee Avenue, W, Ste. 969 San Francisco, CA 94104-4811 • Bradenton,FL 34205 City of St. Petersburg, FL City of St. Petersburg, FL State of Hawaii do Muslim A."Gadiwalla ICS Dept. do Squire, Sanders &Dempsey One 4th Street North One Forth Street North LLP St. Petersburg, FL 33705 St. Petersburg, FL 33701-3804 Bruce A. Olcott 1201 Pennsylvania Avenue.NW Washington, DC 20004 Town of Sunapee,NH City of Sunnyvale, CA City of Susanville do Douglas Munro, Chairman do Amy Chan do Rodney E. DeBoer Sunapee Electronic 456 West Olive Avenue 66 North Lassen Street Communications . .' Sunnyvale, CA 94086 Susanville, CA 96130-3904 - Board of Selectmen P.O. Box 717 Sunapee,NH 03782-0717 Telco Retirees Associations, Inc. Telecommunications Industry City of Temecula 6168 Capri Drive Association do Richards, Watson and Gershon San Diego, CA 92120, 2500 Wilson Boulevard, Suite 300 William Rudell Arlington,VA 22201 43200 Business Park Drive P.O. Box 9033 • Temecula, CA 92589 Texas Coalition of Cities on Texas Coalition of Cities for Texas Municipal League/Texas City Franchised Utility Franchised Utility Issues. TCCFUI Attorneys Association Issues. TCCFUI do Clarence A. West c/o Scott Houston c/o Clarence,A. West 707 West Avenue 1821 Rutherford Lane, Suite 400 707 West Avenue Suite 207 Austin, TX 78754 Suite 207 Austin, TX 78701, Austin,TX 78701 Time Warner Cable ' Town of Truckee City of Tulsa OK do Fleischman and Walsh, LLP 10183 Truckee Airport Road do Tulsa City Attorney's Office Seth Davidson Truckee, CA 96161 Patrick T. Boulden 1919 Pennsylvania Avenue,NW City Hall, Suite 300 Suite 600 200 Civic Center Washington, DC 20006 Tulsa, OK 74103-3833 • Tuolumne County, CA City of Ukiah United States Telecom Association c/o Elizabeth E. Bass do Rapport and Marston c/o James W. Olson 2 South Green Street David J. Rapport 607 14th Street,NW, Suite 400 Sonora, CA 95370 Ukiah Civic Center Washington,DC 20005-2164 300 Seminary Avenue Ukiah, CA 95482 • 'United States Telecom Association U.S. Mexico Chamber of :Valley Voters Organized Toward do Jeffrey S. Lanning Commerce Empowerment Valley Vote 607 14th Street,NW 1300 Pennsylvania Avenue,NW 14622 Ventura Blvd., Suite 424 Suite 400 Suite G-003 Sherman Oaks, CA 91403 Washington,DC 20005 Washington,DC 20004 • Verizon Vermont Public Service Board Vermont Public Service Board and do Dee May c/o John Bentley Vermont Department of Public 1300 I Street,NW 112 State Street Service Suite 400 West Montpelier,VT 05620-2701 c/o Leslie A. Cadwell Washington,DC 20005 112 State Street, Drawer 20 Montpelier,VT 05620 • Video Access Alliance Virginia Cable Telecommunications City of Vista, CA do Julia Johnson Association 401 Elm Avenue P.O. Box 14917 c/o Christian&Barton, LLP Wake Forest,NC 27857 Tallahassee, FL 32317 Peter E. Broadbent, Jr., Esq. 909 East Main Street Suite 1200 • Richmond, VA 23219 City of Walnut Creek Washington State Grange Town of Wendell,NC do Paul M. Valle-Riestra - 924 Capitol Way South P.O. Box 828 1666 N. Main Street Olympia, WA 98501 . 15 E. Fourth Street P.O. Box.8039 Wendell,.NC 27591 Walnut Creek, CA 94596 . • West Allis Community Center City of West Palm Beach, FL • Thomas G. Wilson, Town of Media Center do Leibowitz&Associates Westport do Mary Shanahan-Spanic Eleni C. Pantaridis Attorney/Administrator/Clerk- 7210 W. Greenfield Avenue 1 SE 3`d Avenue, Suite 1450. Treasurer West Allis, WI 53214 Miami, FL 33131 Town of Westport 5387 Mary Lake Road Wauakee, WI 53597 City of Wheaton City of Whittier City of Wilson,NC do Gary White do Stephen W. Helvey, City P.O. Box 10 303 W Wesley .Manager . Wilson,NC 27894 Wheaton, IL 60189 13230 Penn Street Whittier, CA 90602 Dodd D. Dixon,Attorney at Law Windham Cable Advisory Board City of Winston-Salem Executive Director Kentucky do Leo A. Hart P.O. Box 2511 - Regional Cable Commission 3 North Lowell Road Attn: Information Systems Mayor, City of Winchester Windham,NH 03087 Winston-Salem,NC 27102 Winchester,KY . Wisconsin Association of Public, Women Impacting Public Policy The World Institute on Disability Education, and Government Access 48 San Antonio Place do Kathy Martinez,Executive Channels-WAPC San Francisco, CA 94133 Director do Mary Bennin Cardona, 510 16th Street, Suite 100 Executive.Director Oakland, CA 94612 4209 Bagley Parkway • Madison, WI 53705 • City of Yuma Town of Zebulon,NC Zeeland Charter Township do Gregory Dean Huland 100 N. Arendell Avenue do Bradley Slagh One City Plaza Zebulon,NC 27579 6582 Byron Road Post Office Box 13014 • Zeeland, MI 49464 Yuma,AZ 85366 . Town of Standish State College Borough City of Statesville do Gordon Billington c/o Thomas J. Fountain II do Rob Hites 175 Northeast Road 243 South Allen Street 301 South Center Street Standish, ME 04804 State College, PA 16801 Statesville,NC 28687 • Sun Prairie Cable Access Mayor,Town of Tabor City City of Taylor, City Clerk's Office do Pam Steitz-Executive Director do Marion S.Baxter c/o Mary Ann Rilley 1350 Linnerud Drive Suite 2 PO Drawer 23555 Goddard'Road Sun Prairie, WI 53590 Tabor City,NC 28463 Taylor, MI.48180 The Progress and Freedom Village of Tobaccoville City of Toppenish Foundation do Mayor Keith P. Snow Scott Staples do Garland T. McCoy, Jr. P.O. Box 332 21 West First Avenue 1444 Eye Street,NW Suite 500 Tobaccoville,NC 27050 Toppenish, WA 98948 Washington, DC 20005 City of Torrence - United States Internet Industry URTV Michael D. Smith Association 31 College Place 3350 Civic Center Drive James Anderson, Counsel Suite 20A Torrance, CA 90503 . 1800 Diagonal Road, Suite 600 Asheville,NC 28801 Alexandria,VA 22314 - Vancouver Educational Mayor, Town of Vass City of Warrenville Telecommunications Association do Henry E. Callahan c/a Jennifer McMahon (VETC) ' P.O. Box 487 • 28W701 Stafford Place 2500 NE 65th Avenue Vass,NC 28394 Warrenville,IL 60555 Vancouver, WA 98661 Chair, Cable TV Advisory Town of Whitaker,NC White Plains Cable Access TV Committee P.O. Box 727 do James D. Kenny do Maurice H. Stauffer 302 NW Railroad Street 4 Martine Avenue Town of Wayland Whitakers,NC 27891 White Plains,NY 10606 Wayland, MA 01778 City of White Town of Wilbraham City of Worcester do Mayor Randy Brown c/o Richard Scott do David M. Moore-City Solicitor P.O. Box 682 4 Chapel Street City Hall Room 301 White, SD 57276 Wilbraham,MA 01095 455 Main Street Worcester, MA 01608 l ' Town of Yancyville Jeffrey Bullins Charles L. Kelsey do Daniel G. Printz, Jr. Mayor Mayor Village Clerk P.O. Box 727 Town of Mayodan Village of Mayville Yanceyville,NC 27379 210 W. Main Street P.O. Box 188 Mayodan,NC 27027 Mayville,NY 14757 Thomas Martin Mecklenburg County City of Medford Mayor • Doris J. Boris Gary.Wheeler, Mayor City of Maywood Charlotte-Mecklenburg Office of John Huttel 4319 Slauson Avenue Cable and Franchise Management 411 W. 8th Street Maywood, CA 90270 600 East Fourth Street 9th Floor Medford, OR 97501 Charlotte,NC 28202 Peter Frank Media Bridges Cincinnati, Inc. Mercatus Center c/o do Media Action Marin 1100 Race Street Jerry Brito and Jerry Ellig Franck Law Office Cincinnati, OH 45202 3301 N. Fairfax Drive, #450 1115 Irwin, Suite 101 Arlington,VA 22201 San Rafael, CA 94901 Methuen Community Television Metropolitan Area Communications Metropolitan Education Access 13 Branch Street Commission Corp. Methuen, MA 01844 Bruce Crest Elliott Mitchell 1815 NW 169th Place, Suite 6020 120 White Bridge Road Beaverton, OR 97006 MS46 Nashville, TN 37209 Miami Valley Comm. Council Miami Dade County, Florida Michigan Municipal League Glenn Alexander Cathy Grimes-Peel Gerald L. Lederer 1195 East Alex-Bell Road Director, Consumer Services Miller&Van Eaton Centerville, OH 45459 Department 1155 Connecticut Avenue NW, 140 West Flagler Street, Suite 90 Suite 1000 ' - Miami,FL 33130 Washington, DC 20036 Microsoft Corp. Microsoft Corp. Town of Middlesex . Gerald Waldron and David Fagan do Scott Blake Harris P.O. Box 69 Covington and Burling . Harris Wiltshire Middlesex,NC 27557 1201 Pennsylvania Avenue,NW 1200 18th Street NW 12th Floor Washington,DC 20004 Washington, DC 20036 Rick Menchaca Jose Esteves Minnesota Telecom Alliance City of Midland Milipitas, CA Stephen J. Guzzetta P.O. Box 1152 455 E. Calaveras Blvd. Bradley and Gnz7etta, LLC Midland, TX 79702 • Milipitas, CA 95035 444 Cedar Street Saint Paul, MN 55101 Minority Media Telecom Council Mobile,AL Missouri NATOA David Honig Mobile County Commission 205 Miller&Van Eaton 3636 16th Street,NW Government Street Frederick E. Ellrod III Suite B-366 Mobile,AL 36644 1155 Connecticut Avenue,NW Washington, DC 20010 Suite 1000 Washington, DC 20036 Town of Momeyer Richard Singer Chris Jeffers, City Manager 4868 Momeyer Way Monrovia, CA Monterey Park City Hall Nashville,NC 27856 415 S. Ivy Avenue Monterey Park, CA 91754 Monrovia, CA 91016 Russell D. Duree Town of Morrisville,NC , . Robert D. Slattery Montrose, CO . P.O. Box 166 Mount Morris,MI City Attorney's Office 100 Town Hall Drive 116 49 N. Saginaw Street P.O. Box 790 Morrisville,NC 27560 Mt. Morris, MI 48458. Montrose, CO 81402 - Mt. Hood Cable Regulatory Alan Bozeman - Lynn Johnson,Mayor Commission MHCRC ' 111 West Vine Street Town of Murfreesboro 1120 SW 5th Avenue Room 1305 Murfreesboro, TN 37130 P.O. Box 6 Portland, OR 97204. Murfreesboro,NC 27855 City of Murieta National Association of Broadcasters National Black Chamber of 26442 Beckman Court Jerianne Timmerman' Commerce, Inc. Murrieta, CA 92562 1771 N Street NW 1350 Connecticut Avenue,NW Washington, DC 20036 Suite 405. Washington, DC 20001 ' National Cable & National Caucus and Center on National Grange Telecommunications Association Black Aged Leroy Watson,Legislative Dir. 25 Massachusetts Avenue,NW 1220 L Street NW, Suite 800 1616 H Street NW Suite 100 Washington, DC 20005_ Washington, DC 20006 Washington, DC 20001 • National Hispanic Council on Aging National Taxpayers Union National Telecommunications 1341 Connecticut Avenue NW 105 N. Alfred Street Cooperative Association Suite 4.2 Alexandria,VA 22314 Daniel Mitchell Washington, DC 20036 4121 Wilson Blvd. 10th Floor Arlington,VA 22203 NATOA,NLC,NACO, USCM, Naval Media Center New Jersey Board of Public Utilities ACM&ACD 2713 Mitscher Road SW, State of New Jersey Spiegel &McDiarmid Bldg. 168' Division of Law Tillman L. Lay Anacostia Annex, DC 20373 124 Halsey Street, 5th Floor 1333 New Hampshire Avenue,NW P.O. Box 45029 2nd Floor Newark,NJ 07101 Washington, DC 20036 • • New Jersey Division of the Radhika Karmarkar New York State Conference of Ratepayer Advocate New York City Department of Mayors 31 Clinton Street, l lth Floor Information Technology and 119 Washington Avenue P.O. Box 46005 Telecommunications _Albany,NY 12210 Newark,NJ 07101 75 Park Place New York,NY 10007 Newton Communications Access Norfold, VA City of North Kansas City Center,Inc. Department of Law, City Attorney's Thomas E. Barzee, Jr. do P.O. Box 610192 Office 2010 Howell 90 Lincoln Street Martha P. McGann, Deputy City North Kansas City, MO 64116 Newton, MA 02461 900 City Hall Building 810 Union Street Norfolk,VA 23510 • Chris Hoffman-City of North Liberty . Village of Northbrook • Northern Berkshire Community Telecommunications Commission John Novinson Television Corp. 5 E. Cherry Street 1225 Cedar Lane Heritage State Park P.O. Box 77 • Northbrook, IL 60015 Building#6 North Liberty, IA 52317 North Adams, MA 01247 Northern Dakota County Cable Northwest Suburbs Cable City of Norwalk Communications Commission, Communications Commission 12700 Norwalk Blvd. NDC4 Coralie Wilson Norwalk, CA 90650 Jodie Miller, Executive Director CTV 15 n. Surburban Access Corp. 5845 Blaine Avenue 950 Woodhill Drive Inver Grove Heights,MN 55076 Roseville, MN 55113 Oceanside Community Television Delma Collins City of Ontario, CA (KOCT) Chair, Board of Commissioners, Mayhook Law, PLLC 3038 Industry Street, Suite 101 Onslow County Jeffrey Mayhook Oceanside, CA 92054 118 Old Bridge Road 34808 NE 14t Avenue Jacksonville,NC 27540 La Center, WA 98629 Orange County Government OPASTCO Orion Neighborhood Television 201 S. Rosalind Avenue 21 Dupont Circle,NW Suite 700 Diane Griffiths 3rd Floor Washington, DC 20036 698 South Lapeer Road Orlando, FL 32801 Lake Orion, MI 48362 City of Oxford,NC Pacific Research Institute Pac-West Telecomm, Inc. P.O. Box 130 755 Sansome Street Swindler Berlin LLP 300 Williamsboro Street Suite 450 Patrick J. Donovan Oxford,NC 27565 San Francisco, CA 94111 3000 K. Street,NW Suite 300 Washington, DC 20007 City of Palo Alto. City of Palmetto City of Pasadena, CA Office of City Attorney 516 8th Avenue W. 117 E. Colorado Blvd. 3rd Floor Grant Kolling Palmetto,FL 34221 Pasadena, CA 91105 250 Hamilton Avenue 8th Floor Palo Alto, CA 94301 Patton Township • Harold K. Logsdon, Mayor Township of Pennsville Elliot Abrams Peachtree City Thomas H. Strong, Sr., Mayor 100 Patton Plaza 151 Willowbend Road 90 North Broadway State College, PA 16803 Peachtree City, GA 30269 Pennsville,NJ 08070 City of Perris City of.Philadelphia, PA Pike County, KY Michael McDermott Joseph James,Deputy Commissioner William M. Deskins 101 N. D Street Public Property • 146 Main Street Penis, CA 92570 City Hall,Room 732 Pikeville, KY 41501 Philadelphia, PA 19107 City of Pikeville KYTown of Pinetops Town of Pittsboro,NC Frank Justice J.Vines Cobb, Jr. do P.O. Box 759 118 College Street P.O. Drawer C 635 East Street Pikeville, KY 41501 Pinetops,NC 27864 Pittsboro,NC 27312 Plainfield Charter Township Rick Wallace, Mayor City of Pleasant Hill 6161 Belmont Avenue Town of Pleasant Garden Debra Margolis Belmont, MI 49306 P.O. Box 307 100 Gregory Lane Pleasant Garden,NC 27309 Pleasant Hill, CA 94523 Plymouth Area Community Access Kathy Oborn, Video Service Director Clay Larkin, Mayor City of Post Television City of Pocatello Falls Nancy L. Richard . P.O. Box 4169 408 N. Spokane Street Executive Director PACTV Pocatello,ID 83205 Post Falls,ID 83854 130 Court Street Plymouth, MA 02360 City of Poway Princeton Community TV Public Cable Television Authority City Manager's Office 369 Witherspoon St. 10200 Slater Avenue P.O. Box 789 Princeton,NJ 08540 Fountain Valley, CA 92708 Poway, CA 92074 Public Utility Commission of Texas Public Educational and Qwest Communications International Rosemary McMahill Governmental(PEG)Access Inc. 1701 N. Congress Avenue Oversight Committee of Nashville, Melissa E.Newman P.O. Box. 13326 Davidson County, Tennessee . 607 14th Street NW Suite 950 Austin, TX 78711 Alan D. Johnson, Chair Washington, DC 20005 215 Second Avenue N. Nashville, TN 37201 Quote...Unquote, Inc. Queen Anne's County Prince George's County Community 415 Tijeras NW Paul W. Comfort Television Alburquerque,NM 87102 107 N. Liberty Street McCollum&Associates Centreville,MD 21617 James E. McCollum, Jr. College Park, MD 20741 Prince George's County, MD Ramsey/Washington Counties Cable City of Rancho Cordova Funk&Bolton, PA Communications Commission • Robert J. McGarvey, Mayor Ernest A. Crofoot 2460 East County Road 2729 Prospect Park Drive 315 High Street, Suite 202 White Bear Lake, MN 55110 Rancho Cordova, CA 95670 Chestertown, MD 21620 . City of Rancho Santa Margarita Harold Holmes RCN Telecom Services,Inc. Steven E. Hayman Chair, Board of Commissioners Swidler Berlin LLP 22112 El Paseo Randolph County Katie Besha Rancho Santa Margarita, CA 92688 725 McDowell Road 3000 K Street NW Suite 300 Asheboro,NC 27204 Washington, DC 20007 Town of Red Oak,NC Richard Duvernay & Gerry Kersten Mayor James K. Festerman P.O. Box A on behalf of the City of Redding 230 W. Morehead Street Red Oak Blvd. 777 Cypress Avenue Reidsville,NC 27320 Red Oak,NC 27868 Redding, CA 96001 • Bonnie Walton City of Richmond, KY John Kirland 1055 S. Grady Way Connie Lawson Mayor Renton, WA 98055 239 W. Main Street Town of River Bend Richmond,KY 40476 45 Shoreline Drive New Bern,NC 28562 N. Jerry Owens Town of Rockwell Douglas R. Prichard, City Manager Chair, Board of Commissioners Mayor Beauford Taylor City of Rolling Hills Estate Rockingham County P.O. Box 506 4045 Palos Verdes Drive North 371 NC 65 Suite 206 Rockwell,NC 28138 Rolling Hills Estates, CA 90274 Wentworth,NC 27375 Gus Andres City of Rolling Hills Estates Sacramento Metropolitan Cable Chair, Board of Commissioners 4045 Palos Verdes Drive North Television Commission Rowan County Rolling Hills Estates, CA 90274 McDonough, Holland, &Allen PC 130 W. Innes Street Harriet A. Steiner Salisbury,NC 28144 555 Capitol Mall, 9th Floor Sacramento, CA 95814 City of Saint Charles, MO Linda Berman Chris Bramhall Saint Charles City Hall 555 Liberty Street, Room 220 451 South State Street, Suite 505A 200 North Second Street Salem, OR 97301 Salt Lake City, UT 84111 Saint Charles, MO 63301 County of San Diego Rey Arellano Curtis W. Morris 1600 Pacific Highway Room 208 City of San Diego 245 East-Bonita Avenue San Diego, CA 92101 202 C Street,MS-9B San Dimas, CA 91773 San Diego, CA 92101 Village of Skokie Town of Smithfield,NC City of Solana Beach, CA Albert J. Rigoni P.O. Box 761 350 E. Market Street James P. Lough 5127 Oakton Street Smithfield,NC 27577 635 S. Hwy 101 Skokkie, IL 60077 Solana Beach, CA 92075 • Township of South Orange Village City of South Portland City and County of San Francisco Marjorie O. Smith Tony Vigue City Attorney's Office 101'South Orange Avenue P.O. Box 9422 Thomas Long South Orange,NJ 07079 Portland, ME 04116 City Hall, 1 Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett Place Room 234 San Francisco, CA 94102 South Slope Coop. Tele. Company Southeastern Michigan Southwest Suburban Cable Davis, Brown, Koehn, Shors & Municipalities Commission Roberts Neil J. Lehto Moss &Barnett Brian T. Grogan John C. Pietila 4035 Iverness Lane 4800 Wells Fargo Center 2500 The Financial Center West Bloomfield, MI 48323 90 South Seventh Street 666 Walnut Minneapolis, MN 55402 Des Moines, IA 50309 Town of Spring Hope,NC City of Springfield City of St. Charles P.O. Box 87 840 Boonville Ave 2 E. Main Street 118 W. Railroad Street P.O. Box 8368 St. Charles,IL 60174 Spring Hope,NC 27882 Springfield, MO 65801 Mayor Chris Coleman City of Jackson Town of Jamestown 390 City Hall - do Alfred A.Nunes William G. Ragsdale,III 15 West Kellogg Boulevard 33 Broadway P.O. Box 848 St Paul, MN 55102 Jackson, CA Jamestown,NC'27282 Jersey Access Group City of Kernersville , City of Lake Forest do Rich Desimone c/o Curtis L. Swisher, Mayor c/o Scott C. Smith, City Attorney 500 Main Street 134 East Mountain Street Lake Forest City Hall • Metuchen,NJ 08840 Kernersville,NC 27284 25550 Commercentre Drive, Suite 100 Lake Forest, CA 92630 Town of Lake Mills Town of Lake Lure City of Lakewood James A. Heinz, Chairperson Don Mullen, Mayor do Lisa Novotny N7041 Faville Road 2948 Memorial Hwy 5050 Clark Avenue Lake Mills, WI.53551 Lake Lure,NC 28746 Lakewood, CA 90712 • City of Lewisville City of Lexington Los Angeles Cable Television ' Mayor Thomas J. Lawson Mayor Richard L. Thomas Access Corp. P.O. Box 547 28 West Center Street c/o Herb Isaacs, Corporate Secretary Lewisville,NC 27023 Lexington,NC 27292 LA36 108 West 2nd Street Unit 108 Los Angeles, CA 90012 • Town of Madison Bob Chemow Manhattan Community Access Corp Kenneth Y. Hawkins,Mayor City of Madison c/o Manhattan Neighborhood ' 120 N. Market Street 215 Martin Luther King Jr. Blvd. Network Madison,NC 27025 Madison, WI 53710 Daniel Coughlin Executive Director 537 W. 59th Street New York,NY 10019 Martha's Vineyard Plum TV City of Maxton General Counsel of the Federal c/o MacDara Bohan, General Mgr. Mayor Lillie McKoy Communications Commission 9 Main Street 201 McCaskill Avenue Office of the General Counsel Vineyard Haven, MA 02568 Maxton,NC 28364 Room-A741 445 12`h Street, SW Washington, DC 20554 US Depaitiiient of Justice Antitrust Division-Appellate Section 950 Pennsylvania Avenue NW 0 Room 3224 Washington, DC 20530-0001 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Venue is proper under 28 U.S.C.§2343 because the GMTC is an intergovernmental FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT agency organized pursuant to Sections 29-1-203 and 29-1-401 of the Colorado Revised Statues,as • amended.The GMTC is comprised of 31 local government representatives in the metro Denver GREATER METRO ) TELECOMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION ) area'that work together on communications issues.Members share information and resources ) Petitioner ) pertaining to technologies;laws,ordinances,regulations and policies that govern the impact and v. ) No. implementation of services;and business transactions involving telecommunication related FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS ) industries,local governments and consumers and are therefore associated with the use of public, COMMISSION and the UNITED STATES ) OF AMERICA ) educational,and governmental(PEG)access channels provided by cable operators pursuant to Respondents ) local franchises under Section 611 of the Cable Act,47 U.S.C.§531. GMTC filed comments in • PETITION FOR REVIEW the FCC proceeding leading up to the Order on review.In the Order,the FCC adopted rules and Pursuant to 47 U.S.C.§402(a),28 U.S.C.§§2342-2344,and Federal Rule of Appellate policies addressing issues concerning the award of competitive franchises by local franchising Procedure 15(a),the Greater Metro Telecommunications Consortium("GMTC")hereby authorities. respectfully petitions the court for review of the Federal Communications Commission's GMTC seeks review of the Order on the grounds that it exceeds the FCC's statutory ("FCC")Report and Order,In the Matter of Implementation of Section 621(a)(1)of the Cable authority,is arbitrary and capricious,an abuse of discretion,unsupported by substantial Communications Policy Act of 1984 as amended by the Cable Television Consumer Protection evidence,in violation of the United States Constitution,including,without limitation,the Fifth and Competition Act of 1992,FCC 06-180,MB Docket No.05-311,which was adopted and Tenth Amendments,and is otherwise contrary to law.The Order also violates both the December 20,2006,and released March 5,2007("Order").A summary of the Order was Communications Act and Administrative Procedure Act's public notice requirements. published in the Federal Register on March 21,2007.72 Fed.Reg.13189(March 21,2007).A copy of the Order is attached as Exhibit A. This Petition for Review has been filed within ten days of the issuance of the Order,and 'The individual jurisdictions that are members of GMTC are Adams County,Arapahoe County,City of Arvada, City of Aurora,City of Brighton,City/County of Broomfield,Town of Castle Rock,City of Centennial,City of thus is subject to the procedures established under 28 U.S.C.§2112(a),should other qualified Cherry Hilts Village,Town of Columbine Valley,City of Commerce City,City and County of Denver,Douglas County,City of Edgewater,City of Englewood,Town of Erie,City of Federal Heights,City of Glendale,City of Petitions for Review be filed in different Courts of Appeals. Golden,City of Greenwood Village,Jefferson County,City of Lakewood,City of Littleton,City of Lone Tree,City of Louisville,City of Northglenn,Town of Parker,City of Sheridan,City of Thornton,City of Westminster,City of Wheat Ridge. 1 2 Erik Mollberg Alhambra,CA Access Fort Wayne 111 South First Street GMTC respectfully requests that this Court hold unlawful,vacate,enjoin,and set aside 200 East Berry St;Box 2270 Alhambra,CA 91801 Fort Wayne,IN 46801 the Order. GMTC also requests that this Court grant such other relief as it may deem Daniel B.Phythyon Access Sacramento Alliance for Public Technology appropriate. 4623 T Street 919 18th Street,N.W. Sacramento,CA 95819 Washington,DC 20006 Respectfully submitted this 3n°day of April 2007. Kissinger F 1 an P C. Ad Hoc Telecom Manufacturer Coalition' Alpena,MI By: I Rodney L Joyce City Hall Kenneth .Fellm Joyce&Associates 208 North First Avenue 10 Laurel Parkway • 3773 Cherry Creek N.Dr.,#900 Chevy Chase,MD 20815 Alpena MI 49707 Denver,Colorado 80209 Telephone:(303)320-6100 American Assc.of Business Facsimile:(303)320-6613 Ada Township Persons with Disabilities kfellman@kandf.com 7330 Thornapple River Drive 2 Wood Hollow P.O.Box 370 Irvine,CA 92604-3229 • Attorneys for Petitioner Ada,MI 49301 Andrew J.Imparato,PresJCEO CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE ON RESPONDENTS Advance/Newhouse Communications American Assc of People w/Disabilities Hogan&Hanson L.L.P. 1629 K Street,N.W.,Suite 503 I,Kenneth S.Fellman,certify that on this 3rd day of April,2007,I served copies of the Gardner F.Gillespie Washington,DC 20006 foregoing Petition for Review by causing them to be delivered by U.S.mail and by e-mail(as 555 Thirteenth Street,N.W. indicated)to the following Respondents: Washington,DC 20004-1109 American Cable Association Cinnamon Mueller Bob Hahn,AEI-Brookings Joint Center Christopher Cinnamon Sam Feder Alberto R.Gonzalez General Counsel Attorney General of the United States for Regulatory Studies 307 N.Michigan Avenue,Suite 1020 Federal Communications Commission United States Department of Justice 1150 17th Street,N.W. Chicago,IL 60601 445 121°Street,SW 950 Pennsylvania Avenue,NW Washington,DC 20554 • Washington,D.C.20554 Washington, 20530 Stephen Pociask (By First Class Mail and Email) (By Firs I vtai, Alamance County Office Bldg The American Consumer Institute 04, 124 West Elm Street P.O.Box 2161 Graham,NC 27253 Reston,VA 20171 Kenneth S.Felhhan CarolynFudge B The American Corn Growers Assc. CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE ON COMMENTERS City of Albuquerque P.O.Box 18157 1 Civic Plaza NW Washington,DC 20036 I,Kenneth S.Fellman,certify that on this 3rd day of April,2007,I served copies of the • P.O.Box 2248 foregoing Petition for Review by causing them to be delivered by U.S.mail to the following Albuquerque,NM 87103 American Homeowners Grassroots Alliance commenters in the underlying FCC rulemaking proceeding: 6776 Little Falls Rd Alcatel,Paul Kenefick Arlington,VA 22213-1213 Larry D.Gilley,City Manager Access Channel 5 919 18th Street,NW. City of Abilene,Texas PO Box 188 Washington,DC 20006 City of Anaheim,California 555 Walnut Street Mayville,NY 14757-0188 200 S.Anaheim Blvd.Suite 733 Abilene,TX 79601 Anaheim,CA 92805 4 City of Angels Camp Assc.of Indep.Programming Networks Ann Sheehan Curtis Henderson Jr. William Hutchinson Kathleen Wellman Becks Community Television Boston Community Access& 584 S.Main 9332 Ramey Lane 645 Penn Street Programming Foundation Angels Camp,CA 95222 Great Falls,VA 22066 Reading,PA 19601-3543 Boston Neighborhood Network 8 Park Plaza,Suite 2240 Town of Apex,North Carolina AT&T Northern Berkshire Community TV Corp. Boston,MA 02458 P.O.Box 250 Thomas F.Hughes Heritage State Park 73 Hunter Street 1120 20th Street,N.W.,Suite 1000 Building#6 Boston Cable Office Apex,NC 27502-3305 Washington,DC 20036 North Adams,MA 01247 43 Hawkins Street Boston,MA 02114 Thomas Lawell,City Administrator City of Atascadero City of Beverly Hills City of Apple Valley 6907 El Camino Real Cable Television Office c/o Mark Geddes City of Bowie,Maryland Apple Valley Municipal Center Atascadero,CA 93422 455 N.Rexford Drive David Deutsch 7100-147th Street West Beverly Hills,CA 90210 2614 Kenhill Drive Apple Valley,MN 55124 Town of Bailey Bowie,MD 20715 6260 Main Street;P.O.Box 40 City Council/City of Biddeford,Maine Ellen Totzke Bailey,NC 27807-0040 John D.Bubier Ali Abulugma City of Appleton 205 Main Street Pres.Branford Community Television,Inc. 100 North Appleton Street City of Banning Biddeford,ME 04005 Box 1019 Appleton,WI 54911 176.E.Lincoln Branford,CT 06405 Banning,CA 92220 Billerica Access TV,MA Archdale,NC 430 Boston Road City of Brea 307 Balfour Drive Village of Barrington,Illinois Billerica,MA 01821 1 Civic Center Circle P.O.Box 14068 200 S.Hough Street Brea,CA 92821-5732 Archdale,NC 27263 Barrington,IL 60010-4322 Billerica,MA Sam Schauerman City of Brisbane Arlington Independent Media,VA Borough of Bellefonte 430 Boston Road Attn:City Manager 2701-C Wilson Blvd. 236 West Lamb Street Billerica,MA 01821 50 Park Place Arlington,VA 22201 Bellefonte,PA 16823 Brisbane,CA 94005 Birmingham Area Cable Board Asheboro,NC Kevin M.Chun,City of Bellflower,CA Michael Salhaney Broadband Service Providers Association 146 N Church Street 16600 Civic Center Drive Beier Howlett,P.C. 1735 New York Avenue N.W.,Suite 500 Asheboro NC 27203 Bellflower,CA 90706 200 E.Long Lake Road,Suite 110 Washington,DC 20006 Bloomfield Hills,MI 48316 City of Ashland BellSouth Town of Brunswick Maine Michelle R.Merchant Bennett L.Ross City of Blue Lake 28 Federal Street,Suite 2 P.O.Box 1839 1133 21st Street,N.W.,Suite 900 P.O.Box 458 Brunswick,ME 04011 Ashland,KY 41 105-1839 Washington,DC 20036 • Blue Lake,CA 95525 Bucks County Consortium of Communities Mayor Linda L.Blackburn Mayor Jerry McLamb City of Bonita Springs Frederick A.Politer Town of Ahoskie Town of Benson Audrey E.Vance 4018 Mt.Royal Boulevard 201 Main Street W 303 E Church Street 9101 Bonita Beach Road Allison Park,PA 15101 Ahoskie,NC 27910-0767 Benson,NC 27504 Bonita Springs,FL 34135 Burlington,NC 425 S.Lexington Avenue Burlington,NC 27215 5 6 Bumsville/Eagan Telecom Commission et al Susan Fleischmann Cavalier Telephone LLC Charter Communications Stephen J.Guzzetta Cambridge Public Access Corporation John K.Shumate,Jr. T.Scott Thompson 444 Cedar Street 675 Massachusetts Avenue 2134 West Labumum Avenue Cole,Raywid&Braverman,L.L.P. Saint Paul,MN 55101 Cambridge MA 02139 Richmond,VA 23227 1919 Pennsylvania Ave.,N.W.,2nd Floor Washington,DC 20006 Mike Wassenaar Robert W.Healy,City Manager City of Cedar Rapids,Iowa Cable Access St Paul d/b/a City of Cambridge James H.Film Barbara Popovic,Executive Director Saint Paul Neighborhood Network Cambridge City Hall City Hall-7th Floor Chicago Access Corporation-CAN TV 375 Jackson Street,Suite 250 795 Massachusetts Avenue Cedar Rapids,IA 52401-1225 322 S.Green Street Saint Paul,MN 55101 Cambridge,MA.02139 Chicago,IL 60607 Center for Digital Democracy Susan Adele Huizenga Campbell County Cable Board 1718 Connecticut Avenue,N.W.,#200 City Of Chicago Cable Advisory Council of South 10 Hilltop Drive Washington,DC 20009 30 N.La Salle Street,#900 Central CT,Inc. Highland Heights,KY 41076-5023 Chicago,IL 60602 36 Surrey Drive Jack Doerr Wallingford,CT 06492 City of Cape Coral Central St.Croix Valley Joint Jouett Kinney Eleei C.Pantaridis Cable Communications Commission Cincinnati Bell Inc. Cablevision Systems Corp. Leibowitz&Associates 1492 Frontage Road West 201 E.Fourth Street,103-1280 Howard J.Symons,Mintz,Levin, 1 S.E.3rd Avenue,Suite 1450 Stillwater,MN 55082 Cincinnati,OH 45202 Cohn,Ferris,Glovsky,and Popeo,P.C. Miami,FL 33131 701 Pennsylvania Avenue,N.W.,Suite 900 Certain Florida Municipalities City of Cincinnati Washington,DC 20004 Capital Community Television CCTV Gary I.Resnick,Esq. Deborah C.Holston P.O.Box 2342 Weiss Serota Helfman,et al. 801 Plum Street,Suite 104 City of Cadillac Salem,OR 97308-2342 3107 Stirling Road,Suite 300 Cincinnati,OH 45202 200 N.Lake St. Fort Lauderdale,FL 33312 Cadillac,MI 49601 Carlsbad,CA Peter Stewart for CCTV Paul Edmonson,Office of City Attorney City of Champaign,IL 1132 Jefferson Ave. Donna H.Prince 1200 Carlsbad Village Drive 102 N Neil Street PO Box 581 Town of Calabash Carlsbad,CA 92008-1949 Champaign,IL 61820 Louisville,CO 80027 P.O.Box 4967 Calabash,NC 28467 Town of Carrboro,North Carolina Champaign-Urbana Cable TV City and County of San Francisco 301 W.Main Street and Telecom Commission,IL Thomas Long,City Hall, California Alliance for Carrboro,NC 27510-2029 Richard L.Atterberry I Dr.Carlton B.Goodlett Place,Ran 234 Consumer Protection C-U Cable TV&Telecom Commission San Francisco,CA 94102-4682 37 Derow Court Town of Cary,North Carolina 705 W.Washington Street Sacramento,CA 95833 P.O.Box 8005 Champaign,IL 61820 City of Los Angeles Cary,NC 27512-8005 Nicholas Miller California Farmers Union Town of Chapel Hill,North Carolina Miller&Van Eaton 2881 Geer Road Suite D Town of Castalia 405 Martin Luther King Jr.Blvd. 1155 Connecticut Avenue N.W. Turlock,CA 95382 , 9507 Main Street.Hwy 58;Box 237 Chapel Hill,NC 27516-2124 Washington,DC 20036 Castalia,NC 27816-0237 California Small Business Association Charlotte-Mecklenburg Office of Joseph James,Deputy Commissioner &California Small Business Roundtable Caswell County,NC Cable and Franchise Management Dept.of Public Property 6101 W.Centinela Avenue,Suite 342 Chair,Board of Commissioners 600 East Fourth Street-9th Floor City of Philadelphia Culver City,CA 90230 P.O.Box 98 Charlotte,NC 28202-2816 City Hall,Room 732 Yanceyville,NC 27379 Philadelphia,PA 19107 7 8 t Susan Littlefield Community Programming Board of Susan Bonilla,Mayor Discovery Institute Communications Manager, Forest Park,Greenhills,&Springfield Twnp do Peter Dragovich Dir.of CM Hance Haney City of St.Louis Communications Div. 2086 Waycross Road 1950 Parkside Drive,MS/01 1015 15th Street,N.W.,#900 4971 Oakland Avenue Forest Park,OH 45240-2717 Concord,CA 94519 Washington,DC 20005 • St.Louis,MO 63110 Comcast Corporation Concord NC(#112) Town of Dortches City of Ventura,CA James L.Casserly P.O.Box 308 3057 Town Hall Rd Joseph Van Eaton 1875 K Street NW 26 Union Street Rocky Mount,NC 27804-9186 Miller&Van Eaton,P.L.L.C. Washington,DC 20006 Concord,NC 28026-0308 1155 Connecticut Avenue N.W.,#1000 City of Dublin Washington,DC 20036 Consumer Coalition of California City of Coralville 100 Civic Plaza 11304 Jack Rabbit Trail 1512 7th Street Dublin,CA 94568 Clackamas County(#100) Austin,TX 78750 PO Box 5127 2051 Kaen Road Coralville,IA 52241-1708 City of Eden Oregon City,OR 97045 Consumer Electronics Assc. Honorable John E.Grogan,Mayor 2500 Wilson Blvd Torn Smisek 308 East Stadium Drive Clark County(#101) Arlington,VA 22201 City of Coronado Eden,NC 27288 County Clerk's Office 1825 Strand Way 200 Lewis Avenue,5th FloorConsumers for Cable Choice Coronado,CA 92118-3005 City of El Cerrito Las Vegas,NV 89101 P.O.Box 329 10890 San Pabloe Avenue Greenwood,IN 46142 City of Cypress El Cerrito,CA 94530 Clay County 5275 Orange Avenue Leibowitz&Associates Consumers First,Inc. Cypress,CA 90630 Village of Elk Grove Village,Illinois Eleni C.Pantaridis 33 Southwood Drive 1 SE 3rd Avenue,Suite 1450 Orinda,CA 94563 Elk rove Village,ion AvenueL60007 of Daly City Elk Grove IL 60007 Miami,FL 33131 333-90th Street City of Coral Springs,FL Daly City,CA 94015 Mayor Clayton,NC City Law Dept. 104 South Williamson St. 111 E.2nd St.;PO Box 879 9551 West Sample Road County of Dare,North Carolina Elon,NC 27244 Clayton,NC 27528-0879 Coral Springs,FL 33065 do Sharp Michael Outten&Graham Bobby Outten Jon Funfar Clinton Township Communications Dept Cox Communications P.O.Drawer 1027 City of Enumclaw 40700 Romeo Plank Road Gary S.Lutzker Kitty Hawk,NC 27949-1027 1339 Griffin Ave. Clinton Township,MI 48044 1200 New Hampshire Ave N.W.,#800 Enumclaw,WA 98022 Washington,DC 20036 County Administrator Office City of Clovis/John Holt 1 Public Square,Room 210 Clay Phillips,City Manager 1033 Fifth Street City of Delray Beach,Florida Darlington,SC 29532 City of Escondido Clovis,CA 93612 Leibowitz&Associates 201 N.Broadway Eleni C.Pantaridis City of Davis,California Escondido,CA 92025 College Township,Pennsylvania 1 SE 3rd Avenue,Suite 1450 23 Russell Blvd. 1481 E.College Avenue Miami,FL 33131 Davis,Ca.95616 Town of Esopus State College,PA 16801 PO Box 700 Democratic Processes Center,Inc. City of Del Mar Port Ewen,NY 12466 Communications Support Group P.O.Box 329 1050 Camino del Mar 505 Scenic Avenue Greenwood,IN 46142 Del Mar,CA 92014-2604 Piedmont,CA 94611 9 10 City of Evanston City of Durham,NC City of Ferndale City of Gainsville,Florida David Cook Theodore L.Voorhees Michael Powers,City Manager Russ Blackburn 2100 Ridge,Suite 1450 Asst.City Manager PO Box 1095 P.O.Box 490 Evanston,IL 60201-1495 101 City Hall Plaza Ferndale,CA 95536 Gainsville,FL 32602-0490 Durham,NC 27701 Fairfax Cable Access Corp Village of Floral Park City of Garland Texas 2929 Eskridge Road,Suite S Fiber-to-the-Home Council One Floral Boulevard William E.Dollar Fairfax,VA 22031 Kelley Drye&Warren LLP Floral Park,NY 11001 200 N.5th Street Thomas Cohen Garland,TX 75040 Fairfax County 3050 IC Street,NW,#400 City of Fort Worth Department of Cable Comm. Washington,DC 20007 401 W.2nd Street Town of Gamer &Consumer Protection Fort Worth,TX 76101 Judy Bass 12000 Government Center Parkway,#433 City of Florence,Kentucky Post Office Box 446 Fairfax,VA 22035-0048 Diane Whalen City of Fortuna Gamer,NC 27529 8100 Ewing Boulevard 621 11th Street Town of Fairfax,California Florence,KY 41042-7588 PO Box 545 Mayor Kevin R.Bums Law Office of Lawrence Bragman Fortuna,CA 95540 22 South First Street 142 Bolinas Road City of Foster City,California Geneva,IL 60134 Fairfax,CA 94930 Linda Koelling Foxboro Cable Access,Inc. 610 Foster City Boulevard PO Box 524 Georgia Municipal Association William H.Johnson,Jr.,Mayor Foster,CA 94404 Foxboro,MA 02035 Ed Rutter 100 N.Main Street 201 Pryor Street SW Faith,NC 28041-0037 City of Franklin,KY G.Thomas Donch Atlanta,GA 30303-3606 W.Scott Crabtree Borough of Franklin Lakes Bristol Community College/Fall 212 South College Street DeKorte Drive Hawaiian Telcom Communications,lash. River Community Television P.O.Box 615 Franklin Lakes,NJ 07417 Latham&Watkins LLP 777 Elsbree Street Franklin,KY 42135-0615 Elizabeth Park Fall River,MA 02720-7307 Free Press 555 Eleventh Street,NW,#1000 Free Enterprise Fund Institute for Public Representation Washington,DC 20004-1304 Pat Zavoral,City Administrator E.O'Brien Murray Angela J.Campbell City of Fargo 1850 M Street,NW,Suite 800 600 New Jersey Avenue,N.W.#312 Hawaii Consumers 200 and St.N. Washington,DC 20036 Washington,DC 20001 P.O.Box 179375 Fargo,N.D.58102 Honolulu,HI 96817 Free Press Free Press,Consumers Union, The Ballet Herbst Law Group,P.C. Institute for Public Representation Consumer Federation of America Henderson County,North Carolina Adrian E.Herbst Angela J.Campbell 1801 18th St.,NW Suite 9 Charles R.Burrell Office of the County Any 377N Grain Exchange Building 600 New Jersey Ave.,N.W.,#312 Washington,DC 20009 100 North King Street 301 Fourth Avenue South Washington,DC 20001 Hendersonville,NC 28792 Minneapolis,MN 55415-1015 FreedomWorks Township of Ferguson 1775 Pennsylvania Avenue,NW Mayor City of Farmington Mark A Kunkle Eleventh Floor 129 West Main Street 325 Oak Street 3147 Research Drive ' Washington,DC 20006 Gibsonville,NC 27249 Farmington,MN 55024 State College,PA 16801 City of Fort Lauderdale,FL City of Gilroy 100 N Andrews Ave HCD 7351 Rosanna Street Fort Lauderdale,FL 33301 Gilroy,CA 95020 11 12 • Village of Glenview Harris Township City of Imperial Beach,California Itasca Community Television Glenview Televison 224 East Main Street James P.Lough Executive Director Beth George 1225 Waukegan Road P.O.Box 20 825 Imperial Beach Blvd 724 Conifer Drive Glenview,IL 60025 Boalsburg,PA 16827 ' Imperial Beach,CA 91932 Grand Rapids MN 55744-2475 I. Mayor City of Henderson Independent Multi-Family Comm.Council City of Iowa City 201 South Main St. Mark Backus William J.Burhop c/o Steve Atkins,City Manager Graham,NC 27253 240 Water Street 3004 Oregon Knolls Drive NW Iowa City,IA P.O.Box 95050 Washington,DC 20015 City of Grand Rapids Henderson,NV 89005-5050 Jefferson Cnty League of Cities Cable Comm Jon Koeze City of Indianapolis c/o Linda K.Ain 300 Monroe,NW City of Hialeah,Florida Rick Maultra 4725 Inman Drive Grand Rapids,MI 49503 Leibowitz&Associates 2501 City-County Building Lexington,KY 40513 Eleni C.Pantaridis 200 E.Washington Street Mayor,Town of Granite Quarry 1 SE 3rd Avenue,#1450 Indianapolis,IN 46204 City of Jenkins,Kentucky 143 N.Salisbury Street Miami,FL 33131 c/o Robert Shubert Granite Quarry,NC 28072 Institute for Policy Innovation P.O.Box 568 Hibbing Public Access Television Thomas A.Giovanetti Jenkins,KY 41537-0568 Great Neck/North Shore Cable Comm et al P.O.Box 712 1660 S.Stemmons Freeway,#475 1505 Kellym Place Hibbing,MN 55746 Lewisville,TX 75067 City of Kansas City,Missouri Mineola,NY 11501 - do William D.Geary,Assistant Ci Becky Smothers Mayor 28th Floor City Hall Green Spring,KY Mayor,City of High Point 403 East Main St. 414 East 12th Street William M.Huff 211 S.Hamilton Street Haw River,NC 27258 Kansas City,MO 64106-2796 7103 Green Spring Drive High point,NC 27261 Louisville,KY 40241 Mayor City of Killeen High Tech Broadband Coalition 210 North Fourth Street do Traci Briggs City of Greenboro,City Attorney's Office Derek Khlopin/fIA Highlands,NC 28741-0460 P.O.Box 1329 P.O.Box 3136 1300 Pennsylvania Ave,NW,#350 Killeen,TX 76540-1329 Greensboro,NC 27402-3136 Washington,DC 20004 Institute for Policy Innovation do Thomas A.Giovanetti King County,Washington City of Greenville Town of Hillsborough,North Carolina 1660 S.Stemmons Freeway,#475 do David Martinez David A.Holec PO Box 429 Lewisville,TX 75067 Chief Information Office P.O.Box 7207 111 E.2nd St. 700 5th Avenue,Suite 2300 Greenville,NC 27835-7207 Hillsborough,NC 27278-0429 Intergovernmental Cable Comm.Auth. Seattle,WA 98104 do Timothy J.Currier,Esquire • Chairwoman Guilford County Town of Holly Springs,North Carolina 200 E.Long Lake Road,#I 10 Town of Kitty Hawk,Mayor Board of Commissioners PO Box 8 Bloomfield Hills,MI 48304-2361 PO Box 549 301 W.Market Street 128 S.Main St. Kitty Hawk,NC 27947 Greensboro,NC 27402 Holly Springs,NC 27540-0008 City of Irwindale 5050 North Irwindale Avenue Town of Knightdale,North Carolina Chairman City of Huntsville,Alabama Irwindale,CA 91706 do Mayor Doug Boyd Board of Commissioners Mayor Loretta Spencer 950 Steeple Square Ct. Harnett County Claudia Anderson City of Irvine Knightdale,NC 27545 PO Box 759 P.O.Box 308 1 Civic Center Lillington,NC 27546 Huntsville,AL 35804 Irvine,CA 92623 13 14 City of La Puente Leibowitz&Associates City of Madison Heights City of Susanville do Hal Ledford,City Manager Matthew L.Leibowitz Jon Austin,City Manager do Rodney E.DeBoer 15900 E.Main Street 1 SE 3rd Ave,Suite 1450 300 W.13 Mile Road 66 North Lassen Street La Puente,CA 91744 Miami,FL 33131 Madison Heights,MI 48071-1899 Susanville,CA 96130-3904 Lake Minnetonka Comm.Commission City of Lenexa,Kansas Incorporated Village of Malveme N.Y. City of Tampa,Florida do Sally Koenecke do Rebecca A.Yocham do Anthony J.Panzarella Nicholas P.Miller 4071 Sunset Drive 12350 W.87th Street Parkway 99 Church Street 1155 Connecticut Ave,N.W.,#1000 Spring Park,MN 55384 Lenexa,KS 66215 Malverrte,NY 11565 Washington,DC 20036 City of Lake Worth City of Lincoln,Nebraska Manatee County TelCo Retirees Associations,Inc •Leibowitz&Associates do City Attorneys Office Robert Michael Eschenfelder 6168 Capri Dive Eleni C.Pantaridis Steven Huggenberger 1112 Manatee Avenue West,#969 San Diego,CA 92120 1 SE 3rd Avenue,Suite 1450 575 South 10'"Street,Room 4201 Bradenton,FL 34205 Miami,FL 33131 Lincoln,NE 68508 Telecommunications Industry Association Marin Telecommunications Agency 2500 Wilson Boulevard,Suite 300 City Of Las Vegas,Nevada City of Lincoln Gregory W.Stepanicich Arlington,VA 22201 do Larry G.Bettis do Gerald F.Johnson 44 Montgomery Street,Suite 3800 . 400 Stewart Avenue,Ninth Floor 640 Fifth Street San Francisco,CA 94104-4811 City of Temecula Las Vegas,NV 89101-2986 Lincoln,CA 95648 William Rudell City of St.Petersburg,Florida 43200 Business Park Drive;P.O.Box 9033 City of La Verne City of Long Beach do Muslim A.Gadiwalla Temecula,CA 92589-9033 do Bob Russi c/o Gerald R.Miller,City Manager, One 4th Street North 3660 D Street 333 West Ocean Boulevard St.Petersburg,FL 33705 Texas Coalition of Cities on La Verne,CA 91750 Long Beach,CA 90802 Franchised Utility Issues.TCCFUI. City of St.Petersburg,FL do Clarence A.West League of Minnesota Cities and City of Longmont,Colorado ICS Dept 707 West Avenue,Suite 207 MN Assoc.of Community c/o Jim Wall One Forth Street North Austin,TX 78701 Telecom Administrators 350 Kimbark Street St.Petersburg,FL 33701-3804 145 University Avenue West Longmont,CO 80503 Texas Coalition of Cities For St Paul,MN 55103-2044 State of Hawaii Franchised Utility Issues.TCCFUI Town of Loomis,Placer County,California Bruce A.Olcott do Clarence A.West League of United Latin American Citizens do Rhonda Morillas 1201 Pennsylvania Avenue NW 1201 Rio Grande,Suite 200 of The Northeast Region 6140 Horseshoe Bar Rd.,Suite K Washington,DC 20004 Austin,TX 78701 41 Eden Street Loomis,CA 95650 - Framingham,MA 01702-6320 Town of Sunapee,New Hampshire Texas Muni/League/Texas City Arty Assc City of Los Banos,California do Douglas Munro,Chairman do Scott Houston Gary Ortiz 520 J Street Sunapee Electronic Communications 1821 Rutherford Lane,Suite 400 City of Leavenworth,Kansas Los Banos,CA 93635 P.O.Box 717 Austin,TX 78754 100 North 5th Street Sunapee,NH 03782-0717 Leavenworth,KS 66048-1970 City of Lynwood Time Warner Cable 11330 Bullis Road City of Sunnyvale,California Seth Davidson Lee County,Florida Lynwood,CA 90262 do Amy Chan 1919 Pennsylvania Ave.,NW,Suite 600 Eleni C.Pantaridis 456 West Olive Avenue Washington,DC 20006 1 SE 3rd Avenue,Suite 1450 • Sunnyvale,CA 94086 Miami,FL 33131 15 16 , Town of Truckee Vermont Public Service Board West Allis Community Center Wisconsin Assc of Public,Education, 10183 Truckee Airport Road, do John Bentley Media Center and Government Access Channels-WAPC Truckee,CA 96161 112 State Street do Mary Shanahan-Spanic do Mary Bennie Cardona,Exec.Director Montpelier,VT 05620-2701 7210 W.Greenfield Avenue 4209 Bagley Parkway City of Tulsa,Oklahoma West Allis,WI 53214 Madison,WI 53705 Patrick T.Boulden Vermont Public Service Board and • 200 Civic Center,#300 Vermont Department of Public Service City of West Palm Beach,Florida Women Impacting Public Policy Tulsa,OK 74103-3833 do Leslie A.Cadwell Eleni C.Pantaridis 48 San Antonio Place 112 State Street,Drawer 20 1 SE 3rd Avenue,#1450 San Francisco,CA 94133 Tuolumne County,California Montpelier,VT 05620-2601 Miami,FL 33131 do Elizabeth E.Bass The World Institute on Disability 2 South Green Street Video Access Alliance Thomas G.Wilson do Kathy Martinez,Executive Director Sonora,CA 95370 do Julia Johnson Town of Westport 510 16th Street,Suite 100 PO Box 14917 5387 Mary Lake Road, Oakland,CA 94612 City of Ukiah do Rapport and Marston Tallahassee,FL 32317 Waunakee,WI 53597 David J.Rapport City of Yuma;do Gregory Dean Huland Ukiah Civic Center Villages of Larchmont and Mamaroneck, City of Wheaton One City Plaza 300 Seminary Ave. Joseph Van Eaton do Gary White Post Office Box 13014 Ukiah,CA 95482 1155 Connecticut Ave,N.W.,#1000 303 W Wesley Yuma,AZ 85366-3014 Washington,DC 20036 Wheaton,IL 60189-0727 United States Telecom Assc. Town of Zebulon,North Carolina do James W.Olson Virginia Cable Telecommunications Assc City of Whittier 100 N.Arendell Ave. 607 14th Street,NW,Suite 400 Peter E.Broadbent,Jr.,Esquire do Stephen W.Helvey,City Manager Zebulon,NC 27597-2837 Washington,DC 20005-2164 909 East Main Street,Suite 1200 13230 Penn Street Richmond,VA 23219-3095 Whittier,CA 90602 Zeeland Charter Township United States Telecom Association do JeffreyS Laming Cityof Vista,California 6582 Byrony Road 8 City of Wilson,North Carolina Byron Road 607 14th Street,NW,Suite 400 600 Eucalyptus Avenue P.O.Box 10 Zeeland,MI 49464 Washington,DC 20005-2150 Vista,CA 92084 Wilson,NC 27894 Town of Standish U.S.-Mexico Chamber of Commerce Town of Wake Forest,North Carolina Dodd D.Dixon,Executive Director do Gordon Billington 1300 Pennsylvania Ave.,N.W.,Ste.G-0003 401 Elm Ave. Kentucky Regional Cable Commission;and 175 Northeast Rand Washington,DC 20004-3021 Wake Forest,NC 27587-2932 Mayor,City of Winchester,Kentucky Standish,ME 04804 32 Wall Street Valley Voters Organized Toward City of Walnut Creek Winchester,KY 40391 State College Borough Empowerment-Valley Vote do Paul M.Valle-Riestra do Thomas J.Fountain II 14622 Ventura Blvd,#424 1666 N.Main St.;P.O.Box 8039 Windham Cable Advisory Board 243 South Allen Street Sherman Oaks,CA 91403 Walnut Creek,CA 94596 do Leo A.Hart State College,PA 16801 Verizon Washington State Grange 3 North Lowell Road 8 B Windham,,NHH03087 City of Statesville do Dee May 924 Capitol Way South do Rob Hires 1300I Street,NW,Suite 400 West Olympia,WA 98501-1210 City of Winston-Salem 301 South Center Street Washington,DC 20005 PO Box 2511 Statesville,NC 28687-1111 Town of Wendell,North Carolina Attn Information Systems 15 E.Fourth St.;PO Box 828 Winston-Salem,NC 27102 Wendell,NC 27591-0828 17 18 • Sun Prairie Cable Access Vancouver Educational Town of Yanceyville Methuen Community Television do Pam Steitz-Executive Director Telecommunications Association(VETC) Daniel G.Prinz,Jr.-Mayor 13 Branch Street i' 1350 Linnerud Drive-Suite 2 2500 NE 65th Avenue P 0 Box 727 Methuen,MA 01844 Sun Prairie,WI 53590 Vancouver,WA 98661 Yanceyville,NC 27379 Metropolitan Area Comm.Commission Mayor,Town of Tabor City Mayor,Town of Vass Jeffrey Sullins,Mayor Bruce Crest do Marion S.Baxter do Henry E.Callahan Town of Mayodan 1815 NW 169th Place,Suite 6020 PO Drawer PO Box 487 210 W.Main Street Beaverton,OR 97006 Tabor City,NC 28463 Vass,NC 28394 Mayodan,NC 27027 Metropolitan Educational Access Corp. City of Taylor,City Clerk's Office City of Warrenville Charles L.Kelsey,Village Clerk Elliott Mitchell do Mary Ann Rilley do Jennifer McMahon Village of Mayville 120 White Bridge Road,MS 46 23555 Goddard Road 28W701 Stafford Place PO Box 188 Nashville,TN 37209 Taylor,MI 48180 Warrenville,IL 60555 Mayville,NY 14757-0188 Miami Valley Comm.Council The Progress and Freedom Foundation Chair,Cable TV Advisory Committee Thomas Martin,Mayor Glenn Alexander do Garland T.McCoy Jr. do Maurice H.Stauffer City of Maywood 1195 East Alex-Bell Road 1444 Eye Street,NW,Suite 500 Town of Wayland 4319 Slauson Avenue Centerville,OH 45459 Washington,DC 20005 Wayland,MA 01778 Maywood,CA 90270 Miami Dade County,Florida Village of Tobaccoville Town of Whitaker,NC Mecklenburg County,Doris J.Boris Cathy Grimes-Peel,Director do Mayor Keith P.Snow PO Box 727 Charlotte-Mecklenburg Office 140 West Flagler Street,Suite 90 P.O.Box 332 302 NW Railroad St. of Cable and Franchise Management Miami,FL 33130 Tobaccoville,NC 27050 Whitakers,NC 27891 600 East Fourth Street-9th Floor Charlotte,NC 28202-2816 Michigan Municipal League City of Toppenish White Plains Cable Access TV Gerald L.Lederer Scott Staples do James D.Kenny City of Medford 1155 Connecticut Ave N.W'.,#1000 21 West First Avenue 4 Martine Ave. Gary Wheeler,Mayor Washington,DC 20036 Toppenish,WA 98948 White Plains,NY,NY 10606 John Huttel 411 W.8th Street Microsoft Corp. City of Torrance City of White Medford,OR 97501 Gerald Waldron and David Fagan Michael D.Smith do Mayor Randy Brown 1201 Pennsylvania Avenue,N.W. 3350 Civic Center Drive PO Box 682 Peter Franck Washington,DC 20004 Torrance,CA 90503 White SD 57276-0682 Media Action Marin 1115 Irwin,Suite 101 Microsoft Corp.,do Scott Blake Harris United States Internet Industry Association Town of Wilbraham San Rafael,CA 94901-3321 1200 18i°Street,NW,12t Floor James Anderson,Counsel do Richard Scott Washington,DC 20036 1800 Diagonal Road,Suite 600 4 Chapel Street Media Bridges Cincinnati,Inc. Alexandria,VA 22314 Wilbraham,MA 01095 1100 Race Street Town of Middlesex Cincinnati,OH 45202-7219 P.O.Box 69 URN City of Worcester • Middlesex,NC 27557-0069 31 College Place,Ste 20 A do David M.Moore-City Solicitor Mercatus Center Asheville,NC 28801 City Hall Room 301 Jerry Brito and Jerry Ellig Rick Menchaca 455 Main Street 3301 N.Fairfax Drive,#450 City of Midland Worcester,MA 01608 Arlington,VA 22201 PO Box 1152 • Midland,TX 79702 19 20 Jose Esteves Robert D.Slattery National Hispanic Council on Aging Norfolk,VA Milipitas,CA Mount Moms,MI 1341 Connecticut Avenue,N.W.,#4.2 Martha P.McGann,Deputy City 455 E.Calaveras Blvd 116 49 N.Saginaw Street Washington,DC 20036 900 City Hall Bldg,810 Union St Milpitas,CA 95035 Mt.Morris,MI 48458 Norfolk,VA 23510 - National Taxpayers Union Minnesota Telecom Alliance Mt.Hood Cable Reg.Comm—MHCRC 108 N.Alfred Street City of North Kansas City Stephen J.Guzzetta 1120 SW 5th Ave.,Rim 1305 Alexandria,VA 22314 Thomas E.Berme,Jr. 444 Cedar Street Portland,OR 97204 2010 Howell Saint Paul,MN 55101 Nat'l Telecomm.Cooperative Association North Kansas City,MO 64116 Alan Bozeman Daniel Mitchell Minority Media Telecom Council I l I West Vine Street 4121 Wilson Blvd.,10th Floor Chris Hoffman David Honig Murfreesboro,TN 37130 Arlington,VA 22203 City of North Liberty 3636 16th Street N.W.,Suite B-366 5 E.Cherry Washington,DC 20010 Lynn Johnson,Mayor NATOA,NLC,NACO,USCM, North Lib Street; Town of Murfreesboro ACM&ACD erty,IAA 2 52317 Box 77 -0077 Mobile,Alabama P.O.Box 6 Tillman L.Lay City of North Richland Hills Mobile County Commission Murfreesboro,NC 27855-0006 1333 New Hampshire Ave,N.W.,2nd Fl P.O.Box 820609 205 Government St,Mobile,AL 36644 Washington,DC 20036 North Richland Hills,TX 76812-0609 City of Murrieta Missouri NATOA 26442 Beckman Court Naval Media Center Village of Northbrook Frederick E.Eilrod III Murrieta,CA 92562 2713 Mitscher Road,SW,Bldg.168 John Novinson 1155 Connecticut Ave,N.W.,Suite 1000 Anacostia Annex,DC 1225 Cedar Lane Washington,DC 20036 National Association of Broadcasters 20373-5819 Northbrook,IL 60015 Jeriatne Timmerman Town of Momeyer 1771 N Street NW New Jersey Board of Public Utilities Northern Berkshire Community TV Corp 4868 Momeyer Way Washington,DC 20036 State of New Jersey,Division of Law Heritage State Park,Building#6 Nashville,NC 27856-9091 124 Halsey Street,5th Floor,Box 45029 North Adams,MA 0124 National Black Chamber of Commerce,Inc Newark,NJ 07101 Richard Singer 1350 Connecticut Ave.NW,Suite 405 Northern Dakota County Cable 415 S.Ivy Avenue Washington,DC 20036 New Jersey Div.of the Ratepayer Advocate Communications Commission,NDC4 Monrovia,CA 91016 31 Clinton Street,11th Floor,Box 46005 Jodie Miller,Executive Director National Cable&Telecommunications Assc Newark,NJ 07101 5845 Blaine Avenue Chris Jeffers,City Manager 25 Massachusetts Ave.,N.W.,#100 Inver Grove Heights,MN 55076-1401 Monterey Park City Hall Washington,DC 20001-1431 Radhika Karmarkar Monterey Park,CA 91754 New York City Dept of Information Northwest Suburbs Cable Commun. National Caucus and Center on Black Aged Technology and Telecommunications Coralie Wilson Montrose,CO 1220 L Street NW,Suite 800 75 Park Place 950 Woodhill Drive Russell D.Duree,City Attomey's Office Washington DC 20005 New York,NY 10007 Roseville,MN 55113 P.O.Box 790 Montrose,CO 81402-0790 National Grange New York State Conference of Mayors City of Norwalk Leroy Watson,Legislative Dir. 119 Washington Ave. 12700 Norwalk Blvd Town of Morrisville,North Carolina 1616 H St.NW Albany,NY 12210 Norwalk,CA 90650 PO Box 166;100 Town Hall Dr. Washington,DC 20006 Morrisville,NC 27560-0166 Newton Commun.Access Center,Inc Oceanside Community Television(KOCT) do P.O.Box 610192,90 Lincoln Street 3038 Industry Street,Suite 101, Newton,MA 02461-0192 Oceanside,CA 92054 21 22 Delma Collins,Chair City of Pasadena,California Town of Pittsboro,North Carolina Public Utility Commission of Texas Board of Commissioners,Onslow Cnty. 117 E.Colorado Blvd,3rd Floor do PO Box 759 Rosemary McMahill 118 Old Bridge Road Pasadena,CA 91105 635 East St 1701 N.Congress Avenue;P.O.Box 13326 Jacksonville,NC 27540 Pittsboro,NC 27312-0759 Au stin,TX 78711-3326 Patton Township City of Ontario,CA Elliot Abrams Plainfield Charter Township Public,Educational and Governmental Jeffrey Mayhook 100 Patton Plaza 6161 Belmont Avenue (PEG)Access Oversight Committee of 34808 NE 14th Avenue State College,PA 16803 Belmont,MI 49306-9609 Nashville,Davidson County,Tennessee La Center,WA 98629 Alan D.Johnson,Chair Harold K.Logsdon,Mayor Rick Wallace,Mayor 215 Second Avenue North Orange County Government Peachtree City Town of Pleasant Garden Nashville,TN 37201 201 S.Rosalind Ave.3rd Floor 151 Willowbend Road PO Box 307 Orlando,FL 32801 Peachtree City,GA 30269-3104 Pleasant Garden,North Carolina 27309 Qwest Communications International Inc. Melissa E.Newman OPASTCO Township of Pennsville City of Pleasant Hill 607 14th Street,N.W.,#950 21 Dupont Circle,NW,#700 Thomas H.Strong,Sr.,Mayor Debra Margolis Washington,DC 20005 Washington,DC 20036 90 North Broadway 100 Gregory Lane Pennsville,NJ 08070 Pleasant Hill.CA 94523 Quote...Unquote,lnc Orion Neighborhood Television 415 Tijeras N.W. Diane Griffiths • City of Perris Plymouth Area Community Access TV Albuquerque,NM 87102 698 South Lapeer Road Michael McDermott Nancy L.Richard,Executive Director Lake Orion,MI 48362 101 N D'Street 130 Court Street Queen Perris,CA 92570-1998 Plymouth MA 02360 Paul Co County Comfort City of Oxford,North Carolina 107 N.Liberty Street 300 Williamsboro St;PO Box 130 City of Philadelphia PA Kathy Osborn,Video Service Director Centreville,MD 21617 Oxford,NC 27565-1307 Joseph James,Deputy City of Pocatello City Hall,Room 732 PO Box 4169 Prince George's County Community TV Pacific Research Institute Philadelphia,PA 19107 Pocatello,ID 83205-4169 McCollum&Associates 755 Sansome Street,Suite 450 James E.McCollum,Jr. San Francisco,CA 94111 Pike County,KY Clay Larkin,Mayor City of Post Falls College Park,MD 20741-1717 William M.Deskins 408 N.Spokane Street Pac-West Telecomm,Inc. 146 Main Street Post Falls,ID 83854 Prince George's County,Maryland Patrick J.Donovan Pikeville,KY 41501-1180 Ernest A.Crofoot 3000 K Street,NW,Suite 300 City of Poway 315 High Street,Suite 202 Washington,DC,DC 20007-5116 City of Pikeville KY City Manager's Office Chestertown,MD 21620-0000 Frank Justice PO Box 789 City of Palo Alto 118 College Street Poway,CA 92074-0789 Ramsey/Washington Counties Grant Kolling Pikeville,KY 41501-1786 Cable Communications Commission 250 Hamilton Avenue,8th Floor Princeton Community TV 2460 East County Road Palo Alto,CA 94301-2531 Town of Pinetops 369 Witherspoon St. White Bear Lake,MN 55110 J.Vines Cobb,Jr. Princeton,NJ 08540 City of Palmetto Post Office Drawer C City of Rancho Cordova 516 8th Ave W Pinetops,NC 27864 Public Cable Television Authority Robert J.MeGarvey,Mayor Palmetto,FL 34221-1209 10200 Slater Avenue 2729 Prospect Park Drive Fountain Valley,CA 92708 Rancho Cordova,CA 95670 23 24 • City of Rancho Santa Margarita Town of Rockwell Curtis W.Morris City of Santee Steven E.Hayman Mayor Beauford Taylor 245 East Bonita Avenue Attn:Keith Till,City Manager 22112 El Paso PO Box 506 San Dimas,CA 91773 10601 Magnolia Avenue Rancho Santa Margarita,CA 92688 Rockwell,NC 28138-0506 Santee,CA 92071-1266 • William H.Hughes,City Attorney's Office Harold Holmes,Chair(BOC) Douglas R.Prichard,City Manager City of San Jose City of Saratoga Springs Randolph County City of Rolling Hills Estates 200 E.Santa Clara St.,16th Floor Valene Keehn 725 McDowell Road 4045 Palos Verdes Drive North San Jose,CA 95113 City Hall,Suite 6;474 Broadway Asheboro,North Carolina 27204 Rolling Hills Estates,CA 90274 Saratoga Springs,NY 12866 City of San Juan Capistrano RCN Telecom Services,Inc. Gus Andres Chair,(BOC) 32400 Paseo Adelanto Charles A.Comstock,City Manager Katie Besha Rowan County San Juan Capistrano,CA 92675 Kersten Powell,City Attorney 3000 K Street NW,#300 130 W.lnnes Street City of Scotts Valley Washington,DC 20007 Salisbury,North Carolina 28144 City of San Marcos One Civic Center Drive 1 Civic Center Drive Scotts Valley,CA 95066 Town of Red Oak,NC City of Roiling Hills Estates San Marcos,CA 92069-2918 PO Box A;Red Oak Blvd 4045 Palos Verdes Drive North City of Seattle,Tony Perez Red Oak,NC 27868-0016 Rolling Hills Estates,CA 90274 San Mateo County Telecommunications 700 5th Avenue,Suite 2700;Box 94709 Authority—SAMCAT Seattle,WA 98124-4709 Richard Duvemay&Gerry Kersten Sacramento Metropolitan Cable TV Comm. Greg Rubens,Attorney at Law City of Redding Harriet A.Steiner 600 Elm Street City of Sebastopol,California 777 Cypress Avenue 555 Capitol Mall,9th floor San Carlos,CA 94070-3018 7120 Bodega Ave. Redding,CA 96001 Sacramento,CA 95814 Sebastopol,CA 95472 City of Sanford,North Carolina • Mayor James K.Festerman City of Saint Charles,Missouri PO Box 3729;225 E.Weatherspoon St Self Advocacy Assc of NY State 230 W.Morehead Street Saint Charles City Hall Sanford,NC 27331-3729 75 Morton St#1 Reidsville,NC 27320 200 North Second Street New York,NY 10014 Saint Charles,MO 63301 City of Santa Clam Bonnie Walton 1500 Warburton Avenue Township of Shaer 1055 S.Grady Way Linda Berman Santa Clara,CA 95050-3713 Timothy J.Rogers Renton,WA 98055 555 Liberty Street ST,Room 220 300 Wetzel Road Salem,OR 97301 City of Santa Clarita Glenshaw,PA 15116-2288 City of Richmond,KY 23920 Valencia Blvd Connie Lawson Chris Bramhall Santa Clarita,CA 91355 City of Sierra Madre 239 W Main Street 451 South State Street,Suite 505A 232 W.Sierra Madre Blvd Richmond,KY 40476-0250 Salt Lake City,UT 84111' Maryanne Rehberg Sierra Madre,CA 91024 Community television of Santa Cruz County John Kirkland,Mayor County of San Diego 816 Pacific Ave. City of Signal Hill Town of River Bend 1600 Pacific Highway Room 208 Santa Cruz„CA 95062 2175 Cherry Avenue 45 Shoreline Drive San Diego,CA 92101 Signal Hill,CA 90755 New Bern,North Carolina 28562 City of Santa Rosa,California Rey Arellano Jane Bender Town of Siler City N.Jerry Owens,Chair(BOC) City of San Diego City Hall,Room#8 Charles L.Turner Rockingham County 202 C Street,MS-9B 100 Santa Rosa Avenue 311 N 2nd Ave 371 NC 65,Suite 206 San Diego,CA 92101 Santa Rosa,CA 95404 Siler,NC 27344-0769 Wentworth,North Carolina 27375 25 26 City of Simi Valley Southwest Suburban Cable Commission Town of Lake Lure Bob Chemow 2929 Tapo Canyon Road Brian T.Grogan Don Mullen,Mayor City of Madison Simi Valley,CA 93063 4800 Wells Fargo Center;90 S.Seventh St. 2948 Memorial Hwy 215 Martin Luther King Jr.Blvd. Minneapolis,MN 55402-4129 Lake Lure,NC 28746-0255 Madison,WI 53710-0002 Sjoberg's Inc. 315 N.Main Avenue Town of Spring Hope,NC Town of Lake Mills Manhattan Community Access Corp Thief River Falls,MN 56701 PO Box 87;118 W.Railroad St. James A.Heinz,Chairperson do Manhattan Neighborhood Network Spring Hope,NC 27882-0087 N 7041 Faville Road Daniel Coughlin-Executive Director Village of Skokie Lake Mills,WI 53551 537 West 59th Street, Albert J.Rigoni City of Springfield New York,NY 10019 5127 Oakton Street 840 Boonville Ave;P.O.Box 8368 City of Lakewood Skokie,IL 60077 Springfield,MO 65801-8368 do Lisa Novotny Martha's Vineyard Plum TV 5050 Clark Ave do MacDara Bohan,General Manager Town of Smithfield,North Carolina City of St.Charles Lakewood,CA 90712 9 Main St. PO Box 761;350 E.Market St. 2 E.Main Street Vineyard Haven,MA 02568 Smithfield,NC 27577-0761 St.Charles,IL 60174 City of Lewisville Mayor Thomas J.Lawson City of Maxton City of Solana Beach,California Mayor Chris Coleman PO Box 547 Mayor Lillie McKoy James P.Laugh 390 City Hall;15 West Kellogg Boulevard Lewisville,NC 27023 201 McCaskill Ave 635 S.HWY 101 Saint Paul,MN 55102 Maxton,NC 28364 Solana Beach,CA 92075 City of Lexington • City of Jackson Mayor Richard L.Thomas Community Access Television Inc. Township of South Orange Village do Alfred A.Nunes 28 West Center Street 1126 West 17ih Street Marjorie O.Smith - 33 Broadway Lexington,NC 27292 Davenport,IA 52804-3714 101 South Orange Avenue Jackson,CA 95642-2301 South Orange,NJ 07079 Los Angeles Cable Television Access Corp Anne Arundel County,Carroll County, Town of Jamestown do Herb Isaacs,Corp Secretary Charles County,Howard County City of South Portland William G.Ragsdale,III LA36 108 West 2nd St Unit 108 and Montgomery County Tony Vigue PO Box 848 Los Angeles,CA0012 Nicholas Miller of Miller&Van Eaton P.O.Box 9422 Jamestown,NC 27282 1155 Connecticut Avenue N.W. Portland,ME 04116 Town of Madison Washington,DC 20036 Jersey Access Group Kenneth Y.Hawkins,Mayor City and County of San Francisco do Rich Desimone 120 N Market St Thomas Long,City Hall 500 Main Street Madison,NC 27025 1 Dr.Carlton B.Goodlett Pt,Rm 234 Metuchen,NJ 08840 San Francisco,CA 94102-4682 City of Kemersville ? ,,.`,___ S.Slope Cooperative Telephone Company do Curtis L.Swisher,Mayor Kenneth S. ellm John C.Pierila 134 East Mountain Street 2500 The Financial Center;666 Walnut Kemersville,NC 27284 Des Moines,IA 50309-3993 City of Lake Forest Southeastern Michigan Municipalities do Scott C.Smith,City Attorney Neil J.Lehto 25550 Commerce Centre Drive,Suite 100 4035 Inverness Lane Lake Forest,CA 92630 West Bloomfield,MI 48323-1714 27 28 9 Federal Communications Commission FCC 06-180 Federal Communications Commission FCC 06-180 Before the I. INTRODUCTION Federal Communications Commission Washington,D.C.20554 1. In this Report and Order("Order"),we adopt rules and provide guidance to implement " Section 621(a)(I)of the Communications Act of 1934,as amended(the"Communications Act"),which prohibits franchising authorities from unreasonably refusing to award competitive franchises for the In the Matter of ) provision of cable services! We find that the current operation of the local franchising process in many ) jurisdictions constitutes an unreasonable barrier to entry that impedes the achievement of the interrelated Implementation of Section 621(a)(1)of the Cable ) MB Docket No.05-311 federal goals of enhanced cable competition and accelerated broadband deployment'We further find that Communications Policy Act of 1984 as amended ) Commission action to address this problem is both authorized and necessary. Accordingly,we adopt by the Cable Television Consumer Protection and ) measures to address a variety of means by which local franchising authorities,i.e.,county-or municipal- Competition Act of 1992 ) level franchising authorities("LFAs"),are unreasonably refusing to award competitive franchises. We anticipate that the rules and guidance we adopt today will facilitate and expedite entry of new cable competitors into the market for the delivery of video programming,' and accelerate broadband REPORT AND ORDER AND deployment consistent with our statutory responsibilities. FURTHER NOTICE OF PROPOSED RULEMAKING Adopted:December 20,2006 Released:March 5,2007 '47 U.S.0§541(a)(1). While there is a sufficient record before us to generally determine what constitutes an"unseasonable refusal to Comment Date:[30 days after date of publication in the Federal Register] award an additional competitive franchise"at the local level under Section 621(a)(1),we do not have sufficient Reply Comment Date:(45 days after date of publication in the Federal Register] information to make mob determinations with respect to franchising decisions where a state is involved,either by issuing franchises at the state level or enacting laws governing specific aspects of the franchising process. We By the Commission:Chairman Martin,Commissioners Tate and McDowell issuing separate statements; therefore expressly limit our findings and regulations in this Order to actions or inaction at the local level where a Commissioners Copps and Adelstein dissenting and issuing separate statements. state has not specifically circumscribed the LFA's authority. In light of the differences between the scope of franchises issued at the state level and those issued at the local level,we do not address the reasonableness of TABLE OF CONTENTS demands made by state level franchising authorities,mob as Hawaii,which may need to be evaluated by different criteria than those applied to the demands of local franchising authorities. Additionally,what constitutes an Paragraph unreasonable period of time for a stare level franchising authority to take toreview an application may differ from what ccnsti[ura an unreasonable period of time at the local level Moreover,as discussed infra,many states have 1 INTRODUCTION 1 enacted comprehensive franchise reform laws designed to facilitate competitive cony. Some of these laws allow I. BACKGROUND 6 competitive entrants to obtain statewide franchises while others establish a comprehensive set of statewide M.DISCUSSION 18 parameters that cabin the discretion of LFAs. Compare TER.Urn.CODE ANN.§§66.001.66.017 with VA.Cool A. The Current Operation of the Franchising Process Unreasonably Interferes With Airs.§§15.2-1108.19 es seq.In light of the fact that many of these laws have only been in effect for a short period Competitive Entry 19 of time.and we do not have an adequate record from those relatively few states that have had statewide franchising B.The Commission Has Authority to Adopt Rules Pursuant to Section 621(a)(1) 53 for a longer period of time to draw general conclusions with respect to the operation of the franchising process C. Steps to Ensure that the Local Franchising Process Does Not Unreasonably where there is state involvement,we lark a sufficient record to evaluate whether and how such state laws may lead Interfere with Competitive Cable Entry and Rapid Broadband Deployment 65 to=reasonable refusals to award additional competitive franchises. As a result,our Order today only addresses 1.Time Limit for Franchise Negotiations 66 derision made by county-or municipal-level franchising authorities.See US.Cellular Corp.v.FCC,254 F.3d 78, 2.Build-Out 82 86(D.C.Cir.2001)("agencies need not address all problems in one fell swoop")(citations and internal quotation 3.Franchise Fees 94 marks omitted);Personal Watercaft lndurry Assoc.v.Dept of Commerce.48 F3d 540,544(D.C.Cir.1995)("An agency does not have to'make pmgress on every front before it can make progress on any front')(quoting United 4.PEG/Institutional Networks 110 Stater v.Edge Broadcasting Co.,509 U.S.418,434(1993));National Association of Broadcasters v.FCC,740 F.2d 5.Regulation of Mixed-Use Networks 121 1190,1207(D.C.Cr.1984)("[A]gencies,while entitled to less deference than Congress,nonetheless need not deal D.Preemption of Local Laws,Regulations and Requirements 125 in one fell swoop with the entire breadth of a novel development instead,'reform may take place one step at a time, IV.FURTHER NOTICE OF PROPOSED RULEMAKING 139 addressing itself to the phase of the problem which seems most acute to the[regulatory]mint'")(citations and V. PROCEDURAL MATTERS 144 internal quotation marks omitted,alteration in original). Moreover,it does not address any aspect of an LFA's VI.ORDERING CLAUSES 153 derision-raking to the extent that mch aspect is specifically addressed by state law. For example,the state of APPENDIX A—List of Commenters and Reply Commenters Massachusetts provides LFAs with 12 months from the date of their decision to begin the licensing process to APPENDIX B—Rule Changes approve or deny a franchise application.207 Macs.Code Regs.3.02(2006).These laws are not addressed by this APPENDIX C—Initial Regulatory Flexibility Act Analysis decision Consequently,= s otherwise stated,references herein to'the franchising process"or"franchising" APPENDIX D—Final Regulatory Flexibility Act Analysis refer solely to processes controlled by county-or municipal-level franchising authorities,including but not limited to the ultimate decision m award a franchise. 'References throughout this Order to"video programming"or"video services"are intended to mean cable services. EXHIBIT iA 2 Federal Communications Commission FCC 06-180 Federal Communications Commission FCC 06-180 t 2. New competitors are entering markets for the delive ry of services historically offered by a Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking("FNPRM")seeking comment on bow our findings in this monopolists: traditional phone companies arc primed to enter the cable narket,while traditional cable Order should affect existing franchisees. In addition,the FNPRM asks for comment on local consumer companies are competing in the telephony market. Ultimately,both types of companies are projected to protection and customer service standards as applied to new entrants. offer customers a"triple play"of voice,high-speed Internet access,and video services over their respective networks.We believe this competition for delivery of bundled services will benefit consumers It. BACKGROUND by driving down prices and improving the quality of service offerings.We are concerned,however,that traditional phone companies seeking to enter the video market face unreasonable regulatory obstacles,to6. Section 621. Any new entrant seeking to offer"cable service"'as a"cable operator' the detriment of competition generally and cable subscribers in particular. becomes subject tothe requirements of Tice VI.Section 621 of Title VI sets forth general cable franchise requirements.Subsection(b)(1)of Section 621 prohibits a cable operator from providing cable service in 3. The Communications Act sets forth the basic rules concerning what franchising a particular area without first obtaining a cable franchise,'and subsection(a)(1)grants to franchising authorities may and may not do in evaluating applications for competitive franchises. Despite the authorities the power to award such franchises.' parameters established by the Communications Act,however,operation of the franchising process has proven far more complex and time consuming than it should be,particularly with respect to facilities- 7. The initial purpose of Section 62l(a)(1),which was added to the Communications Act by based telecommunications and broadband providers that already have access to rights-of-way. New the Cable Communications Policy Act of 1984(the"1984 Cable Act"),'was to delineate the role of LFAs entrants have demonstrated that they are willing and able to upgrade their networks to provide video in the franchising prucess,1O As originally enacted,Section 621(a)(1)simply stated that"[a]franchising services,but the current operation of the franchising process at the local level unreasonably delays and,in authority may award,in accordance with the provisions of this title,I or more franchises within its some cases,derails these efforts due to LFAs'unreasonable demands on competitive applicants. These jurisdiction.'" A few years later,however,the Commission prepared a report to Congress on the cable delays discourage investment in the fiber-based infrastructure necessary for the provision of advanced industry pursuant to the requirements of the 1984 Cable Act.'In that Report,the Commission concluded broadband services,because franchise applicants do not have the promise of revenues from video services to offset the costs of such deployment. Thus,the current operation of the franchising process often not s Section 602(6)of the Communications Act,47 U.S.C.§522(6)(defining"cable service"as"(A)the one-way only contravenes the statutory imperative to foster competition in the multichannel video programming transmission to subsenbets of(i)video programming,or(ii)other programming service,and(B)subscnber distribution("MVPD")market,but also defeats the congressional goal of encouraging broadband interaction,if any,which is required for the selection or use of such video programming or other programming deployment. service"). 4. In light of the problems with the current operation of the franchising process,we believe °Section 602(5)of the Communications Act,47 U.S.C.§522(5)(defmiag"able operator'as"airy person or group that it i5 now appropriate for the Commission to exercise its authority and take steps to prevent LFAs of persons(A)who provides able scrim over a cable system and directly or trough one or more affiliates owns a from unreasonably refusing to award competitive franchises. We have broad tulemakin authority to significantagintact in a cable of or cable(B)who ten").other ice controls or is responsible for,through any arrangement, 8 [Y the management and operation of such a system. implement the provisions of the Communications Act,including Title VI generally and Section 621(a)(I) in particular.In addition,Section 706 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 directs the Commission to 47 U.S.C.§541(b)(I)("Except to the extort provided in paragraph(2)and subsection(f),a cable operate may not encourage broadband deployment by removing barriers to infrastructure investment,and the U.S.Court of provide able service without a franchise."). Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit has held that the Commission may fashion its rules to fulfill r 47 U.S.C.§541(axl)(stating that"[a]franchising authority may award,in accordance with the provisions of this the goals of Section 706.' title,I or more franchise within in jurisdiction").A"franchising authority"is defined to mean"any governmental entity empowered by Federal,State,or local law to grant a franchise."Section 602(10)of the Communications Act, 5. To eliminate the unreasonable barriers to entry into the cable market,and to encourage 47 U.S.G.§522(10).As noted above,references herein to"local franchising authorities"or"CFAs"mean only the investment in broadband facilities,we: (1)fed that an LFA's failure to issue a decision on a competitive rotary or muWcipal governmental entities empowered to grant franchises. application within the tine frames specified herein constitutes an unreasonable refusal to award a 'Cable Communications Policy Act of 1984.Pub.L No.98-549,98 Stat.2779. competitive franchise within the meaning of Section 621(ax1);(2)find that an LFA's refusal to grant a 10 See, .,RP_REP.No.90-934,at l9(1984 competitive franchise because of an applicant's unwillingness to agree to unreasonable build-out a 8 )("(TLC 1984 Cable Act]establishes a national policy that ciarifies the current system of local,ante and federal regulation of cable television. This policy continues reliance on the mandates constitutes an unreasonable refusal to award a competitive franchise within the meaning of local franchising process as the primary minas of cable television regulation while defining sod limiting the Section 621(a)(I);(3)find that unless certain specified costs,fees,and other compensation required by authority that a franchising authority may remise trough the franchise process....[this legislation]will preserve LFAs are counted toward the statutory 5 percent cap on franchise fees,demanding them could result in an the critical role of municipal governments in the franchise process,while providing appropriate deregulation in unreasonable refusal to award a competitive franchise(4)find that it would bean unreasonable refusal so certain respects to the provision of cable service 1;id at 24("It is the Cotamittee's intent that the franchise process award a competitive franchise if the LFA denied an application based upon a new entrant's refusal to take place at the loaf level where city officials have the best understanding of local communications needs and can undertake certain obligations relating to public,educational,and government("PEG")and institutional require able operators to tailor the cable system to meet those needs. However,if that process is to further the networks("I-Nets")and(5)find that it is unreasonable under Section 621(a)(1)for an LFA to refuse to purposes of this legislation,the provisions of these franchises,and the authority of the municipal governments to grant a franchise based on issues related to non-cable services or facilities. Furthermore,we preempt enforce these provisions,must be based on certain important uniform federal standards that are not continually local laws,regulations,and requirements,including level-playing-field provisions,to the extent they altered by Federal state and local regulation."). permit LFAs to impose grater restrictions on market entry than the rules adopted herein.We also adopt "Cable Communications Policy Act of 1984,Pub.L No.98-549,98 Stat 2779,§621(1984). 'See generally Camperinae,Rate Deregealarian and the Commission's Policies Relating to the Provirion of Cable 'See USIA v.FCC,359 Fad 554,579-80(D.C.Cir.2004). Television Service,5 FCC Red 4962(1990)("Report"). 3 4 Federal Communications Commission FCC 06-180 Federal Communications Commission FCC 06-180 that in order"[t]o encourage more robust competition in the local video marketplace,the Congress should As revised,Section 621(a)(1)establishes a clear,federal-level limitation on the authority of LFAs in the ..forbid local franchising authorities from unreasonably se denying a franchise to potential competitors franchising process in order to"promote the availability to the public of a diversity of views and • who are ready and able to provide service"" information through cable television and other video distribution media,"and to"rely on the marketplace, sec to the maximum extent feasible,to achieve that availability."" Congress further recognized that 8. In response, Congress revised Section 621(a)(l) through the Cable Television increased competition in the video programming industry would curb excessive rate increases and Consumer Protection and Competition Act of 1992(the"1992 Cable Act")"to read as follows: "A enhance customer service,two areas in particular which Congress found had deteriorated because of the franchising authority may award,in accordance with the provisions of this title,I or more franchises monopoly power of cable operators brought about,at least in part,by the local franchising process?' within its jurisdiction;except that a franchising authority may not grant an exclusive franchise and may not unreasonably refuse to award an additional competitive franchise."' In the Conference Report on 9. In 1992,Congress also revised Section 621(a)(I)to provide that"[a]oy applicant whose the legislation,Congress found that competition in the cable industry was sorely lacking; application for a second franchise has been denied by a final decision of the franchising authority may appeal such final decision pursuant to the provisions of section 635."rt Section 635,in turn,states that For a variety of reasons,including local franchising requirements and the "(a)ay cable operator adversely affected by any final determination made by a franchising authority under extraordinary expense of constructing more than one cable television section 621(a)(1) ... may commence an action within 120 days after receiving notice of such system to serve a particular geographic area, most cable television determination"in federal court or a state court of general jurisdiction.' Congress did not,however, subscribers have oo opportunity to select between competing cable provide an explicit judicial remedy for other forms of unreasonable refusals to award competitive systems. Without the presence of another multichannel video franchises,such as an LFA's refusal to act on a pending franchise application within a reasonable time programming distributor,a cable system faces no local competition.The period result is undue market power for the cable operator as compared to that of consumers and video programmers." 10. The Local Franchising NPRM. Notwithstanding the limitation imposed on LFAs by Station 621(a)(1),prior to commencement of this proceeding,the Commission bad seen indications that To address this problem,Congress abridged local government authority over the franchising process to the current operation of the franchising process still serves as an unreasonable barrier to entry'for promote greater cable competition potential new cable entrants into the MVPD markets` In November 2005,the Commission issued a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking ("Local Franchising NPRM" to determine whether LFAs are Based on the evidence in the record taken as a whole,it is clear that there unreasonably refusing to award competitive franchises and thereby impeding achievement of the statute's are benefits from competition between two cable systems. Thus,the goals of increasing competition in the delivery of video programming and accelerating broadband Committee believes that local franchising authorities should be deployment. . encouraged to award second franchises. Accordingly,[the 1992 Cable Act] as reported, prohibits local franchising authorities from 11. The Commission sought comment on the current environment in which new cable unreasonably refusing to grant second franchises.° entrants attempt to obtain competitive cable franchises.For example,the Commission requested input on 1'Id. "Id.at 4974;see also id.at 5012("This Commission is convinced that the most effective method of promoting the '0 S.REP.No.102-92,at 9(quoting members of the cable industry who acknowledged that"because the fmnehiu interests of viewers or consumers is through the free play of competitive market forces."). The Report also limits the customers to a single provider in the market,other'customer-oriented'intangibles relating to the recommended that Congress"prohibit franchising rules whose intent or effect is to create unreasonable barriers to expectation of future patronage do not exist for a cable system. There is a goodwill in a monopoly. Customers the entry of potential competing multichannel video providers,""limit local franchising requirements to appropriate governmental interests(e g.,public health and safety,repair and good condition of public rights-of-way,and the return,not because of any sense of satisfaction with the monopolist but rather because they have no other choices"); posting of an appropriate construcnon bond),"and"permit competitors to enter a market pursuant man initial,time. see also id at 3-9,13-14,20.21. limited suspension of any'universal[build-out]'obligation."Id. n 47 U S.C.§541(aX1). "See HP_REP.No.102-628,at 47(1992)("The Commission recommended that Congress,in order to encourage '47 U.S.C.§555(a). more robust competition in the local video marketplace,prevent local franchising authorities horn unreasonably 'See Ira/ Caron of Sect..62! (I)of the Cable Communications Policy Act of 1984 as amended by the denying a franchise to potential competitors who are ready and able to provide service."). The Commission has Cable Television Consumer Protection and Competition Art of1992,20 FCC Red 18581,I8584 2005 L previously recognized that"Congress incorporated the Commission's recommendations in the 1992 Cable Act by "p ° ( )("Local Franchising 1✓PR amending§62I(a)(I)of the Communications Act" Implementation of Section 19 of the Cable Television Af')(riling comments of Alcatel.BellSouth,Broadcast Service Providers Assoc.,and Consumers Consumer Protection and Competition Act of 1992(Annual Assessment ofthe Status af Competition in the Market for Cable Choice,filed in MB Docket No.05•255). for the Delivery of Video Programming),9 FCC Red 7442,7469(1994). t'We refer herein to"new mason,""new cable entrants,"and"new cable competitors"interchangeably. 's Cable Television Consumer Protection and Competition Act of 1992,Pub.L No.102.385,106 Stat.1460. Specifically,we intend[hoe terns to a defined under the Communications Act as"cable opemtor[sr that must 's 47 U.S.C.§541(axl)(emphasis added). obtain a franchise. Although we recognize that there are numerous other ways to enter the MVPD market(e.g., "H.R.GONF.REP.NO.102$62,at 1231(1992). direct broadcast satellite("DBS"),wireless cable,private cable),our actions in this proceeding relate to our authority under Section 621(a)(I)of the Communications Act,and thus are limited to competitive entrants seeking 't S.REP.No.102-92.at 47(1991), to obtain cable franchises. 5 6 Federal Communications Commission FCC 06-180 Federal Communications Commission FCC 06-180 the number of: (a)LFAs in the United States;(b)competitive franchise applications filed to date,"and 13. The Commission also asked whether Section 706 provides a basis for the Commission to (c)ongoing franchise negotiations' To determine whether the current operation of the franchising address barriers faced by would-be entrants to the video market"Section 706 directs the Commission to process discourages competition and broadband deployment the Commission also sought information encourage broadband deployment by utilizing"measures that promote competition...or other regulating regarding,among other things: methods that remove barriers to infrastructure investment"" Competitive entrants in the video market are,in large part,deploying new fiber-based facilities that allow companies to offer the"triple play"of • how much time,on average,elapses between the date a franchise application is filed and the voice,data,and video services. New entrants'video offerings thus directly affect their roll-out of new date an LFA acts on the application,and during that period,how much time is spent in active broadband services. Revenues from cable services are,in fact,a driver for broadband deployment. In negotiations; light of that relationshiph,the Commission sought comment on whether it could take remedial action pursuant to Section 706.t • whether to establish a maximum time frame for an LFA to act on an application for a competitive franchise,' 14. The Franchising Process The record in this proceeding demonstrates that the franchising process differs significantly from locality to locality. In most states,franchising is conducted • whether"level-playing-field"mandates,which impose on new entrants terms and conditions at the local level,affording counties and municipalities broad discretion in deciding whether to grant a identical to those in the incumbent cable operator's franchise,constitute unreasonable barriers franchise.' Some counties and municipalities have cable ordinances that govern the structure of to entry;" negotiations, while others may proceed on an applicant-by-applicant basis J9 Where franchising negotiations are focused at the local level,some LFAs create formal or informal consortia to pool their • whether build-out requirements(i.e.,requirements that a franchisee deploy cable service to resources and expedite competitive entry.'" parts or all of the franchise area within a specified period of time)are creating unreasonable barriers to competitive entry;t0 15. To provide video services over a geographic area that encompasses more than one LFA,a prospective entrant must become familiar with all applicable regulations. This is a time-consuming aid • specific examples of any monetary or in-kind LFA demands unrelated to cable services that expensive process that has a chilling effect on competitors." Verizon estimates,for example,that it will could be adversely affecting new entrants'ability to obtain fiaachiscs;t'and need 2,500-3,000 franchises in order to provide video services throughout its service area, AT&T states • whether current procedures or requirements are appropriate for any cable operator,including 'Id.at 18590. incumbent cable operators." re Section 706 of the Telecommunication Act of 1996,47 U.S.C.§157 at 12. In the Local Franchising NPRM,we tentatively concluded that Section 621(a)(1) "See LISTA v.FCC,359 F.3d 554,580,583(D.C.Cir.2004). See also USTelecom Comments at 15;TIA empowers the Commission to adopt rules to ensure that the franchising process does not unduly interfere Comments at 16-17. with the ability of potential competitors to provide video programming to consumers.10 Accordingly,the 'See,e,.,MD.ANN.CODE a2 23A Commission sought comment on how it could best remedy any problems with the current franchising S §20:X13);On.CONsr.ART.L§21(2005);COLO.REV.STAT.ANN.§30-35- Commi" 201(West 2005). We also note that several states have adopted statutes governing the franchising process. For process. example,some states require public hearings or special elections. See Lague of Minnesota Cities("LMC") Comments at 6-8,South Slope Comments at 6. Other states have laws limiting the range of issues that can be negotiated in a franchise.See Cablevisioi Comment at 12,LMC Comments at 15. As we discuss below,certain states have adopted sew franchising laws that allow providers to apply for franchises through state franchising 'Local Franchising NPRM,20 FCC Red at 18588. authorities("SFAs"),and we note ilia[lawmakers in those states adopted these new franchising laws toaddress the a needs of the current marketplace.Furthermore,certain states have traditionally considered fmuhise applications at -Id the state level. Set eg,HAw.REv.STAT.§440C4(2006),CONN.GEN.STAT.ANN.§16-331(West 2006),VT. tt Id STAT.ANN.tit 30.§502(2006).The record radicals that stare level franchising may provide a practical solution to the problems that facilities•based entrants face when seeking to provide competitive services on a broader basis than 'Id at 18591. county or municipal boundaries and seek to provide service in a significant number of franchise areas. See.e.g., Id at 18588. AT&T Reply at 21,37,MCA Comments at 10. '2 Id.at 18592. "See.e.g.,Mobile,Ala.Comments at 2(discussing its Muter Cable Services Regulatory Ordinance that was crated to crime all potential entant were treated in a uniform manner);Ontario,Cal.Comments at 5-6(discussing 'Id See also Comment of Vernon,MB Docket No.05-255 at 12(filed Sept.19,2005)(arguing that"[m]any draft master ordinance that will ensue a"fair and equitable application process"for all new entrants). local franchising authorities unfortunately view the franchising process as an opporuuairy to gamer from a potential '0 See,e.g.,MO-NATOA Comments at 8("some localities work together to franchise and mans e rights-of-work new video entrant concession that are in no way related to video services or m the rationoles for requiring MEIRC Comments at I C is a consolidated regulatory 8 franchises').See Appendix A fora list of all commenters and reply commenters. (MHR authority for sic Oregon localities). t0Local Franchising NPRM,20 FCC Red at 18592.. "Sea.e.g.,Verizon Comment at 27,An.A,pars.10,59-75;BellSouth Comment at 2,I I:Lents from Jeffrey S. Laming,Associate General Counsel,USTelaom,to Marlene H.Dosch,Secretary,Federal Communications tt Id at 18590. Commission at 17-18(July 28,2006)("USTelecom Er Porte"). "Id at 18581. 'Vcnzm Comments at 27,Ae,A,pares 10. 7 a Federal Communications Commission FCC 06-180 Federal Communications Commission FCC 06-180 that its Project Lightspeed deployment is projected to cover a geographic area that would encompass as stmmure,provided for automatic grant of an application 45 days after filing,and contained no build-out many as 2,000 local franchise areas." BellSouth estimates that there are approximately 1,500 LFAs requirements"In Maine,a bill that would have replaced municipal franchises with state franchises was within Os service area Qwest's in-region territory covers a potential 5,389 LFA'.° While other withdrawn"Finally,a Missouri bill that would have given the Public Service Commission the authority a companies are also considering competitive entry,"these estimates amply demonstrate the regulatory to grant franchises and would have prohibited local franchising died in committee." burden faced by competitors that seek to enter the market on a wide scale,a burden that is amplified when individual LFAs unreasonably refuse to grant competitive franchises. III. DISCUSSION 16. A few states and municipalities recently have recognized the need for reform and have 18. Based on the voluminous record in this proceeding,which includes comments filed by established expedited franchising processes for new entrants.Although these processes also vary greatly new entrants,incumbent cable operators,LFAs,consumer groups,and others,we conclude that the and thus are of limited help to new cable providers seeking to quickly enter the marketplace on a regional current operation of the franchising process can constitute an unreasonable barrier to tatty for potential basis,they do provide more uniformity in the franchising process on an intrastate basis.These state level cable competitors,and thus justifies Commission action. We find that we have authority under Section reforms appear to offer promise in assisting new entrants to more quickly begin offering consumers a 621(a)(1)to address this problem by establishing limits on LFAs'ability to delay,condition,or otherwise competitive choice among cable providers. In 2005,the Texas legislature designated the Texas Public "unreasonably refuse to award"competitive franchises. We find that we also have the authority to Utility Commission("PUC")as the franchising authority for state-issued franchises,and required the consider the goals of Section 706 in addressing this problem under Section 621(a)(I). We believe that PUC to issue a franchise within 17 business days after receipt of a completed application from an eligible absent Commission action,deployment of competitive video services by new cable entrants will continue applicant" In 2006,Indiana,Kansas,South Carolina,New Jersey,North Carolina,and California also to be unreasonably delayed or,at worst,derailed Accordingly,we adopt incremental measures directed passed legislation to streamline the franchising process by providing for expedited,state level grants of to LFA-controlled franchising prn-"sses,as described in detail below. We anticipate that the rules and franchises." Virginia,by contrast,did not establish statewide franchises but mandated uniform time guidance we adopt today will facilitate and expedite entry of new cable competitors into the market for frames for negotiations,public bearings,and ultimate franchise approval at the local level.In particular,a the deliveryof multichannel video pro gramming and thus encourage broadband deployment. "certificated provider of telerortuauaications service"with existing authority to use public rights-of-way is authorized to provide video service within 75 days of filing a request to negotiate with each individual A. The Current Operation of the Franchising Process Unreasonably Interferes With LFA.9 Similarly,Michigan recently enacted legislation that streamlines the franchise application process, Competitive Entry establishes a 30-day timeframe within which an LFA must make a decision,and eliminates build-out requirements." 19. Most communities in the United States lack cable competition,which would reduce cable rates and increase innovation and qualss of services° Although LFAs adduced evidence that they have 17. In some states,however,franchise reform efforts launched in recent months have failed granted some competitive franchises, and competitors acknowledge that they have obtained some For example,in Florida,bills that would have allowed competitive providers to enter the market with a franchises,"the record includes only a few hundred examples of competitive franchises,many of which permit from the Office of the Secretary of State,and contained no build-out or service delivery schedules, were obtained after months of unnecessary delay.In the vast majority of communities,cable competition died in committee." In Louisiana,the Governor vetoed a bill that would have created a state franchise simply does not exist. "AT&T Comments at 17. "BellSouth Comments at 11. "a KB 699,2006 Reg.Sess.(La.2006). "Quest Comments at 14. " Lk 2600,2006 Leg„2d Reg.Secs.(Me.2005). "See BSPA Comments at 1-2;Cavalier Telephone C000neats at 2;South Slope Comments at 2;Cincinnati Bell "SB 816,2006 Sess.(Mo.2006). Comments at 1;Hawaiian Telcom Comments at I;Minnesota Telecom Alliance Comments at 2. In addition to as See loaf Franchising NPRM,20 FCC Red at 18588. video services,many of these new tenon also intend to provide broadband services.See.e.g.,Verizon Comments at i;BSPA Commmrs at I;Cavalier Telephone Comments at 2. °For example,in Michigan,a number of LFA'have granted competitive franchises to local telecommunications "TEr,Urn.CODE ANN.§§66.001,66.003.Holden of these franchises a required to pay franchise fees,comply companies. See Ada Township,es aL,Comments at IS-26. Vermont has granted franchiser to competitive with customer service standards,and provide the capacity for PEG access channels that a municipality has activated operators in Burlington,Newport Berlin,Danbury,Stowe,and Moretown.VPSB Comments at 5.Mt Hood Cable under the incumbent cable operators franchise agreement. Id at§§66.005,66.006,65.008,66.009,66.014, Regulatory Commission("MHRC"),a consolidated regulatory authority for six Oregon localities,has negotiated Franchisees are not required to comply with any build-out requirements,but they are prohibited front denying franchises with cable overbuilden,although those companies ultimately were unable to deploy service. MHRC service to any area based on the income level of that area.lid at§66.007. Comments at 20-21. Similarly,the Cityof Los Angeles has granted two competitive franchises,but each of the competitors went out of business shortly after negotiating the franchise.City of Los Angeles Comments at Is;see "°Ism.Cool§8.1-34.16(2006);2006 Kart Sess.Laws 93(codified at KAN.STAT.ANN.§17-1902);S.C.CoDE also San Diego County,Cal.Comments at 4.Miami-Dade has grated 11 f chlses to six providers,and erurmdy ANN.§58-12-310 et seq.(2006);Assemb.,No.804,212ti Leg.(N.J.2006);2006 N.C.Sessions Laws 151(to be is considering the application of another potential entrant Miami-Dade Comments at 1-2.New Jersey has granted codified l/12007 at N.C.GEN Scar.ANN.§66351(West 2006);CAL Pun.UrnL CODE§401,et seq.;. five competitive franchises,but only two ultimately provided service to customers.NJBPU Comments at 3.See at VA.CODE ANN.§I5.2-2108.I nl mug. also,erg.,AT&T Reply Comments at 11-13;Chicago,ILL Comments at 2-3;Cityof Charlone and Mecklenburg " County,N.C.Comments at 12-13;Henderson.Nev.Comments at 5. 2006 Mich.Pub.Acts 480. ° For example, Veri000 has obtained franchises covering approximately 200 franchise areas. See "S 1984,2006 Seas.(Fla 2006),HB 1199,2006 Sess.(Fla 2006). hnpl/newscenter.wetizon.wMptess-releases/verirnd2006/vedzon-ion-bring-westeuhrmt 9 10 Federal Communications Commission FCC 06-180 Federal Communications Commission FCC 06-180 20. The dearth of competition is due,at least in part,to the franchising process."The record company's applications were granted quickly.°Most of Ameritech's franchise negotiations likewise took demonstrates that the current operation of the franchising process unreasonably prevents or,at a a number of years.°New entrants other than the large incumbent local exchange caniers("LECs")69 also minimum,unduly delays potential cable competitors from entering the MVPD market" Numerous have experienced delays in the franchising process. NTCA provided an example of a small,competitive commenters have adduced evidence that the current operation of the franchising process constitutes an IPTV provider that is in ongoing negotiations that began more than one year ago." unreasonable barrier to entry. Regulatory restrictions and conditions on entry shield incumbents from competition and are associated with various economic inefficiencies,such as reduced innovation and 23. These delays are particularly unreasonable when,as is often the case,the applicant distorted consumer choices.° We recognize that some LFA'have made reasonable efforts to facilitate already has access to rights-of-way. One of the primary justifications for cable franchising is the LFA's competitive entry into the video programming market. We also recognize that recent state level reforms need to regulate and receive compensation for the use of public rights-of-way," However,when have the potential to streamline the process to a noteworthy degree. We find,though,that the current considering a franchise application from an entity that already has rights-of-way access,such as an operation of the local franchising process often is a roadblock to achievement of the statutory goals of incumbent LEC,an LFA need not and should not devote substantial attention to issues of rights-of-way enhancing cable competition and broadband deployment. management' Moreover,in obtaining a certificate for public convenience and necessity from a state,a facilities-based provider generally has demonstrated its legal,technical,and financial fitness to be a 21. Commenters have identified six factors that stand in the way of competitive entry. They provider of telecommunications services. Thus,an LFA Deed not spend a significant amount of time are (I)unreasonable delays by LFAs in acting on franchise applications;(2)unreasonable build-out considering the fitness of such applicants to access public rights-of-way. requirements imposed by LFAs;(3)LFA demands unrelated to the franchising process;(4)confusion concerning the meaning and scope of franchise fee obligations;(5)unreasonable LFA demands for PEG 24. Delays in acting on franchise applications are especially onerous because franchise channel capacity and construction of I-Nets;and(6)level-playing-field requirements set by LFAs. We applications are rarely denied outright'which would enable applicants to seek judicial review under address each factor below. Section 635."Rather,negotiations are often drawn out over an extended period of time." As a result, 22. LFA Delays in Acing on Franchise Applications. The record demonstrates that unreasonable delays in the franchising process have obstructed and,in some eases,completely derailed °BellSouth Reply at 7. attempts to deploy competitive video services.Many new entrants have been subjected to lengthy,costly, °AT&T Reply at 24. drawn-out negotiations that,in many cases,are still ongoing. The PITH Council cited a report by an investment firm that,on average,the franchising process,as it currently operates,delays may by 8.16 °the term"local exchange cattier"means any person that is engaged in the provision of telephone acehange months.° The record generally supports that estimate. For example,Verizon had 113 franchise seance or ezchwge access.47 U.S.C.§153(26).For the purposes of Section 251 of the Communications Ace"the term enactment 'incumbent local exchange=trier'mans,with respect to an area,the loot exchange carrier that(A)on the negotiations underway as of the end of Match 2005.By the and of March 2006,LFAs bad granted only date of enacment of the Telecommunications Act of 1996,provided telephone exchange service ion such area;and 10 of those franchises.In other words,more than 90%of the negotiations were not completed within one (B)(t)on such date of enactment was deemed to be a member of the exchange carrier association...;or(B)(ii)is a year. Verizon noted that delays are often caused by mandatory waiting periods. BellSouth explained person or entity that,on or after such date of manner%became a successor or assign of a member[of the exchange that negotiations rook an average of 10 months for each of its 20 cable franchise agreements, and that in carrier association]."47 U.S.C.§251(hxl).A competitive LEC is any LEC other than an incumbent LEC.A LEC one case,the negotiations took nearly three years.°AT&T claims that anti-competitive conditions,such will be treated as an ILEC if"(A)such carrier occupies a position in the market for telephone exchange service as level-playing-field constraints and LFA demands regarding build-out,not only delay entry but can within an area that is comparable to the position occupied by a carrier desrbed in paragraph[251(h))(l);(B)such prevent it altogether.° BellSouth notes that absent such demands(in Georgia,for example),the carrier has substantially replaced an incumbent local exchange varier described in paragraph(251(h))(I);and(C) such''=tams is onsateot with the public interest convenience,and necessity and the purposes of this section." 47 U.S.C.§251(10(2). r°Qwm Reply at 13-14;USTelecom Es Pane at 17-18. t0 MCA Comments at 4,10. "°Veimn Comments at 31.34;AT&T Reply at 22-23;BellSouth Comments at 10;Cavalier Telephone Comments tt We note that certain franchising anthorines may have existing authority to regulate LEC through state and local at 1.See also Metesnrs Curter Comments at 39-43. righuof-way sumtes and ordinances. °See,erg.,DOJEr Pane at 3 ' Recognizing this distinction,some states have enacted or proposed streamlined franchising procedures ' specifically tailored to entities with existing access to public rights-of-way.See,erg.,VIRGmu CODE ANN.§15.2- "FTr14 Council Comments at 26. 2108.1:1 et seq.);BF-2647,2006 Sess.(Iowa 2006)(this proposed legislation would grant franchises to a0 °Verhrnn Reply Comments at 35.These figures applications which telephone providers authorized to use the right-of-way without any application m negotiation requrremmt.See also W Y gates do not include Verimn's franchise 8cations in TSouth Slope Comments at 11(duplicative local franchising requirements on a our ) now authorizes statewide franchises.See supra par 16. unposed competitor with existing authority to occupy the rights-of-way am unjustified and constitute an unreasonable barrier to competitive video °Venter Comments at 31-32. entry)• "BellSouth Comments at 2. "See Northwest Suburbs Cable Comrnuoiotiom Commission Comments at 5-6(rare instance of competitive °BellSouth Comments at I I.BellSouth's franchise in Cobb County,Ga.took approximately 32 months to obtain; franchise denial). its franchises in Davie,Fla and Orange County,Fla took 29 and 28 months,respectively. BellSouth Comments "See 47 U.S.C.§§541(ax1),555(a). De 1,of Thompson T.Rawls,D,Erie.A. "See Verizon Comments at 30-34;Vernon Reply Comments at 2,34-37;AT&T Reply Comments at 24;NTCA "AT&T Reply at 6. Comments at 4,10. 11 12 Federal Communications Commission FCC 06-180 Federal Communications Commission FCC 06-180 the record shows that numerous new entrants have accepted franchise terms they considered unreasonable consideration of franchise applications,and of those that have such limits,many set forth lengthy time in order to avoid further delay.1t Others have filed lawsuits seeking a court order compelling the LFA to frames. In localities without a time limit or with an unreasonable time limit,the delays caused by the act, which entails additional delay, legal uncertainty, and great expense. Alternatively,some current operation of the franchising process present a significant barrier to entry."For example,the cities prospective entrants have walked away from unduly prolonged negotiations. Moreover,delays provide of Chicago and Indianapolis acknowledged that,as currently operated,their franchising processes take the incumbent cable operator the opportunity to launch targeted marketing campaigns before the one to three years,respectively." Miami-Dade's cable ordinance permits the county to make a final competitor's rollout,thus undermining a competitor's prospects for success." decision on a cable franchise up to eight months after receiving a completed application,and the process may take longer if an applicant submits an incomplete application or amends its application" 25. Despite this evidence,incumbent cable operators and LFAs nevertheless assert that new entrants can obtain and are obtaining franchises in a timely fashion,'0 and that delays are largely due to 26. Incumbent cable operators and LFAS state that new entrants could gain rapid entry if the unreasonable behavior on the part of franchise applicants,not LFA-5." For example,Minesota LFAs new entrants simply agreed to the same terms applied to incumbent cable franchisees."However,this is claim that they can grant a franchise in as little as eight weeks." The record,however,shows that not a reasonable expectation generally,given that the circumstances surrounding competitive entry are expeditious grants of competitive franchises are atypical. Most LFAs lack any temporal limits for considerably different than those in existence at the time incumbent cable operators obtained their franchises.Incumbent cable operators originally negotiated franchise agreements as a means of acquiring "See,e.g.,USTelecont Ex Parse at 20(Grand Rapids,Minnesota insisted that Paul Bunyan Telephone Cooperative or maintaining a monopoly position"_Inmost instances,imposing the incumbent cable operator's tams provide fiber connections to every municipal building in the City,including a water neaanent plant);Qwest Ex and conditions on a new entrant would make envy prohibitively costly because the entrant cannot assume Pane at 7(initially agreed to mandatory build-out provisions in certain situations);BellSouth Comments at 15-16 that it will quickly-or ever-amass the same number or percentage of subscribers that the incumbent (in lyvalb County,Georgia,BellSouth makes PEG payments and I-Net support payments that drive total fees cable operator captured"The record demonstrates that requiring entry on the same terms as incumbent significantly above 5 percent of gross revenue). cable operators may thwart entry entirely or may threaten new entrants'chances of success once in the "For example,in Maryland,Verizon filed suit against Montgomery County,seeking to invalidate some of the market Counry's franchise toles,,and requesting that the County be required to negotiate a franchise agreement,after the 27. Incumbent cable operators also suggest that delayis attributable to competitors that are parties unsuccessfully nempted to negotiate a franchise beginning in May 2005. See Complaint, Vericona BBper Maryland,Inc.v.Montgomery Counrv,Md.,No.06-01663•MJG(N.D.Md.lune 29,2006). The court denied not really serious about entering the market,as demonstrated by their failure to file the thousands of Verizn's Motion for Preliminary Injunction in August,and ordered the parties to mediation. See pert-on franchise applications required for broad competitive entry."We reject this explanation as inconsistent Maryland,Inc.v,Montgomery County,Md.,Order,No.06-01663-MJG(ND.Md.August 8,2006).Since then,the with both the record as well as common sense. Given the complexity and time-consuming nature of the Fames have negotiated a franchise agreement and the County held a public hearing on the draft franchise agreement. current franchising process,it is patently unreasonable to expect any competitive entrant to file several See Press Release,Montgomery County,Md.,County Negotiates Cable Franchise Agreement with Verizon; thousand applications and negotiate several thousand franchising processes at once. Moreover,the Agreement Resolves Litigation,Provides Increased Competition for Cable Service(Sept 13,2006)available at incumbent LECs have made their plans to enter the video services market abundantly clear,and the htmJlwww toentgomervcounrvmd.gov/aoos/News/oress/PR details unaPr1D-2582. The County Council granted evidence in the record demonstates their seriousness about doing so. For instance,they are investing the negotiated franchise on November 28,2006.Neil Adler,Montgomery officials approve Vericon cable franchise, billions of dollars to upgrade their networks to enable the provision of video services,expenditures that WausrvuTON BUSINESS JOURNAL, Nov. 28, 2006, available as hnpt//washington.bizjoumals.com/ washingmdstories2006/1127/daily23.bboL Qwest's experience with the City of Colorado Springs,Colorado is a particularly onerous example.See Letter from Melissa E.Newman,Vice President Federal Regulatory,Quest,to ' Marlene H.Dorsch,Secretary,Federal Communications Commission(Ise 13,2006),Lerner from Kemeth L. "We recognize that some franchising authorities move quickly,as a matter of law or policy.The retard indicates Feilman.Counsel to Colorado Springs.Colorado,to Marlene H.Dartch,Secretary,Federal Communications that some LFAs have stated that they welcome competition to the incumbent cable operator,and actively facilitate Commission(July 26,2006).The city chaser in Colorado Springs requires that a franchise agreement be approved such competition.See,erg.,Manatee County,Fin.Comments at 4,Ada Township,et al.Comments at 16-27.For by voters rather than a franchising authority.Despite the fact that the Communications Act and federal case law example,a consolidated franchising authority in Oregon negotiated and approved eompedtive franchises within 90 deem this approach unlawful,the Colorado Springs City Counsel would not grant a franchise absent a vote,and invited Quest to file a"friendly Iawsuit'(pr.vmably at Qwest's expense)to invalidate that provision of the city days.See Mt Hood Cable Regulatory Commission Comments at 20.An advisory committee in Minnesota granted charter.47 U.S.C.§§522(10),541,Qrreor Broadband Services,Inc.v.Cry of Boulder,151 F.Supp.2d 1236(D. two competitive franchises in six months,after a stautorily imposed eight•week notice and hearing period See Colo.2001),Lener from Melissa E.Newman,Vice President,Federal Regulatory,Quest,to Marlene H.Dosch, Southwest Suburban Cable Commission Comments at 5,7. While we laud the prompt disposition of franchise Secretary,Federal Communications Commission at 2(June 13,2006). applications in these particular areas,the record shows that these examples are atypical. "See Quest Comments at 9. "See Chicago Comments at 4;Indianapolis Comments at 8. "See,erg.,South Slope Comments at 7. "Miami-Dade Comments at 3. "Cablevision Reply at 5;Orange County Comma at 5;Palm Beach County Comments at 3. See Comcast "See.e.g.,ANC Reply at 5do eat require assert that Verizon's model agreement prevents LFAs from exercising Commens a 8-9. control over rights-of-way,servi-way,does not require Verizon to repair damage to municipal property due to construction, does not require service to all residents,and contains an"opt-out"provision that allows Verizon to abandon an area "Comcast Comments at 16;Cablevision Reply at 2. The incumbent cable operators accuse Verizon of making it dots not find profitable.ANC Reply at 8.10, unreasonable demands through its model franchise. Verizon asserts that it submits a model franchise to begin U Verizon Reply at 38-411, negotiations bemuse uniformity is necessary for its nationwide service deployment Verizon Reply at 40.Verizon sates that it is willing to negotiate and tailor the model franchise to each locality's needs.Id "Vernon Comments at 53. "LMC Comments at IS. "Cablevision Comments at 3. 13 14 Federal Communications Commission FCC 06-180 Federal Communications Commission FCC 06-180 would make little sense if they were not planning to enter the video market" Finally,the record also franchises in a timely manner.°' Charter claims that it secured franchises and upgraded its systems in a demonstrates that the obstacles posed by the current operation of the franchising process are so great that highly competitive market and that the incumbent LECs possess sufficient resources to do the same." some prospective entrants have shied away from the franchise process altogether.' BellSouth Dotes,however,that Charter does not indicate a single instance in which it obtained a franchise through an initial negotiation,rather than a transfer.°° Comcast argues that it faces competition from 28. We also reject the argument by incumbent cable operators that delays in the franchising cable overbuildees in several markets.' The record is scant and inconsistent,however,with respect to process are immaterial because competitive applicants are not ready to enter the market and frequently overbuilder experiences in obtaining franchises,and thus does not provide reliable evidence. BellSouth delay initiating service once they secure a franchise.92 We find that lack of competition in the video also claims that despite RCN's claims that the franchising process has worked in other proceedings,RCN market is not attributable to inertia on the part of competitors.Given the financial risk,uncertainty,and previously has painted a less positive picture of the process and has called it a high barrier to entry.1ra delay new entrants face when they apply for a competitive franchise,it is not surprising that they wait Given these facts,we do not believe that the experiences cited by incumbent cable operators shed any until they get franchise approval before taking all steps necessary to provide service." The sooner a significant light on the current operation of the franchising process with respect to competitive entrants. franchise is gamed,the sooner an applicant can begin completing those steps.Consequently,shortening the franchising process will accelerate market entry. Moreover,the record shows that streamlining the 31. Impact of Build-Out Regrtireeeens. The record shows that build-out issues are one of franchising process can expedite market entry. For example,less than 30 days after Texas authorized the most contentious between LFAs and prospective new eoatats,and that build-out requirements can statewide franchises,Verizon filed an application for a franchise with respect to 21 Texas communities greatly hinder the deployment of new video and broadband services. New and potential entrants and was able to launch services in most of those communities within 45 days.°' commented extensively on the adverse impact of build-out requirements on their deployment plans.1° Large incumbent LECs,1a small and mid-sized incumbent LECs,10'competitive LECs10'and others view 29. Incumbent cable operators offer evidence from their experience in the renewal and build-out requirements as the most significant obstacle to their plans to deploy competitive video and transfer processes as support for their contention that the vast majority of LFAs operate in a reasonable broadband services. Similarly,consumer groups and the U.S.Department of Justice,Antitrust Division, and timely manner." We find that incumbent cable operators'purported success in the franchising process is not a useful comparison in this case.Today's large MSOs obtained their current franchises by (Continued from previous page) either renewing their preexisting agreements or by merging with and purchasing other incumbent cable Competition Act of 1992,Statistical Report an Average Prices for Basic Service,Cable Programming Services,and franchisees with preexisting agreements.For two key reasons,their experiences in franchise transfers and Equipment,20 FCC Red 2718,2719 n.6(2005). renewals arc not equivalent to those of new entrants seeking to obtain new franchises.96 First,in the "Cablevision Reply at 6. Comcast states that the overbuilder industry as a whole has more than 16 million transfer or renewal context,delays in LFA consideration do not result in a bar to market entry.Second,in households under active franchise and two million households nder franchise in anticipation of future network the transfer or renewal context,the LFA has a vested interest in preserving continuity of service for build-outs.Comcast Comments at 5-6(citing Broadband Service Providers Association Comments,MB Docket No. subscribers,and will act accordingly. 05-255,at 7(filed Sept 19,2005)). 30. We also reject the claims by incumbent cable operators that the experiences of "Charter Comments err 4. Specifically,Charter states that it entered the cable market in earnest in the late 1990s Ameritech,RCN,and other overbuilders"demonstrate that new entrants can and do obtain competitive and has spent the last five years investing billions of dollars to upgrade its cable systems and deploy advanced broadband services in more than 4,000 communities. Charter Comments at 2. During Charter's peak period of w See AT&T Comments at 14;Verizon Comments at 27.In addition to negotiating growth,it secured over 2,000 franchise transfers with LFAs and invested several billion dollars to upgrade systems, go g with LFAs,competitors also all while subject to significant competition from DBS.Charter Comments at 5. have lobbied for broad franchising reform To he sure,when prospective ennnu anticipate franchise reform may occur at the state level,there is evidence in the record they often have not sought franchises at the local level.See 10°BellSouth Reply at 11. Fairfax County,Va.Comments at 4.Such tactics,however,do not indicate that prospective entrants are not serious 101 Comeau Commas at 4•5. about entering the market but rather represent a strategic judgment as to the best method of accomplishing that goal. p1 Quest Comments at 9 1°BellSouth Reply at 13(citing RCN's petition to deny the AT&T/Comcast merger application). "NCTA Comments at I l;Camas'Reply at 16;Cablevision Reply at 9;City of Minima,Ca.Comments at 2. i"See.e.g,Quest Commons at 2;Cincinnati Bell Commeos at l0.l l;South Slope Commons at 7-9;MCA Comments at 6-7;Cavalier Telephone Comments at 5;BSPA Comments at 6. See also Letter from Lawrence "See Varian Reply Comments at 37. Spiwak,President Phoenix Cm,for Advanced Legal and Econ.Pub.Polity Studies,to Marlene Dortct Secretary, p1 Verizon Reply Commons at 37-38.See also MCA Commens at 10.11(citing Texas PUC testimony at February Federal Communications Commission,at An,Phoenix Center Policy Paper Number 11:The Consumer Welfare Commission Mcering held in Killer,Texas,which revealed that 15 companies have filed applications to serve 153 Corr of Cable"Build-me"Rules,at 3 rebuild-out requirements lS,2 ere,on average,counterproductive and serve to slow discrete co=nities in Texas since adoption oldie new statewide franchising scheme). down deployment of communications networks')(Marsh 13,2006)("Phoenix Center Build-Out Paper"). Broadband,AT&T°f Comcast Comments at 17. For example,Comcast reports that when it acquiredd,it received 10'Quest Comments at 2. timely approval from more than 1,800 LFAs within eight months.The company also stares that it was well along in in Cineimati Bell Commma at 10-I1;South Slope Comments at 7-9;MCA Comments at 6-7(because the risk is the process of receiving approvals from more than 1,500 LFAs for the Adelphia transaction great the service provided by the new entrants must be guided by sond business principles;forcing a new entrant to build out an entire area before such action is financially justified is tantamount to forcing that entrant out of the 9°AT&T Reply at 22. video business);USTelecam En Pate at 8-11. "The term"overbuild"describes the situation in which a second cable operator enters a kcal market in direct 1n Cavalier Telephone Comments at 5;BSPA Comments at 6(a number of competitive franchises have been competinon with an incumbent able operator.In these makes,the second operator,or"ovsebudder,"lays wiry in renegotiated or converted to OVS because the operator could not comply with unreasonable and uneconomic build- the same area as the incumbent"overbuilding"the incumbent's plant thereby giving consumers a choice between out requvemens). cable service provides. See Implementation of Section 3 of the Cable Television Consumer Protection and (continued...) 15 16 Federal Communications Commission FCC 06-IS0 Federal Communications Commission FCC 06-180 urge the Commission to address this aspect of the current franchising process in order to speed 34. In many instances,level-playing-field provisions in local laws or franchise agreements ' competitive entry." compel LFAs to impose on competitors the same build-out requirements that apply to the iacumbent cable operator." Cable operators use threatened or actual litigation against LFAs to enforce level- 32. The record demonstrates that build-out requirements can substantially reduce competitive requirementssuccessfully delayedtry or driven would-be competitors out of +is playing-field and have en cony. Numerous commenters urge the Commission to prohibit LFAs from imposing any build-out town. 'Even in the absence of level-playing-field rearequirements,m incumbent ecable operatorsburden demand thatre k mandates, re. and than particularly ni the al e requirements.'the h They argue that imposition asCFA f such LFAs impose comparable build-out requirements on competitors to increase the financial burden and risk mandates,other resulting in the increased service throughout the franchise area that LFAs desire, �' will cause potential new entrants to simply refrain from entering the market at a11)0 They argue that for the new entrant. even build-out provisions that do not require deployment throughout an entire franchise area may prevent 35. Build-out requirements can deter market entry because a new entrant generally must take a prospective new entrant from offering service!" customers from the incumbent cable'operator,and thus must focus its efforts in areas where the take-rote will be sufficiently high to make economic sense.Because the second provider realistically cannot count 33. The record contains numerous examples of build-out requirements at the local level that on acquiring a share of the market similar to the incumbent's share,the second entrant cannot justify a resulted in delayed entry,no entry,or failed entry. A consortium of California communities demanded large initial deploymentru Rather,a new entrant must begin offering service within a smaller area to that Verizon build out to every household in each community before Verizon would be allowed to offer determine whether it can reasonably ensure a return on its investment before expanding)"For example, service to any community,even though large parts of the communities fell outside of Verizon's telephone Verizon has expressed significant concerns about deploying service in areas heavily ulated with service area.'r Furthermore,Qwest has withdrawn franchise applications in eight communities due to MDUs already under exclusive contract with another MVPD!"Due to the risk associated with entering build-out requirements. In each case,Qwest determined that entering into a franchise agreement that the video market,forcing new entrants to agree up front to build out an entire franchise area too quickly mandates universal build-out would not be economically feasible. may be tantamount to forcing them out of-or precluding their entry into-the business.D' 36. In many cases,build-out requirements also adversely affect consumer welfare. DOI - _ noted that imposing uneconomical build-out requirements results in less efficient competition and the 101 See MMTC Comments at 13-24;Consumers for Cable Choice Comments at 8;D01 Er Parte at 12-13,15 potential for higher prices.• Non-profit research organizations the Mereatsa Center and the Phoenix (stating that build-out requirements lead to abandonmmt of entry,less efficient competition,or higher prices). Center argue that build-out requirements reduce consumer welfare.'¢ Each conclude that build-out 'See,eg.,USTelecom Comments at 24(citing example of Shenandoah Teleeonueuoiations,which cannot provide service to an entire county,and thus cannot provide service at all). See also Phoenix Center Build-Out Paper at 1,3;DOI Es Parte at 12-13,15. 1'See.e.g.,GMTC Common at 15;Philadelphia Reply at 2;FTTH Council at 33-34;US Telecom at 30-31; 109 See.eg,Alcatel Comments at 10-I l;AT&T Comments at 44;BellSouth Reply at 6;NTCA Comments at 6. TCCFUI Comments at 11.15. "See,e.g.,AT&T Comments at 44;Qwest Comments at 2;Ad Hoc Telecom Manufacturer Coalition Cammots at "6 BSPA Comments a[5.6;BellSouth Comments at 44;Verizon Comments at 33-34(noting that some LFAs are 5;DO]Ex Porte at 12-13,15. =questing indemnification front competitive applicants). For example,Insight Communications filed suit against i� the City of Louisville and Knology.Although the LFA and Knology ultimately won,the delay resulted in Knology Not all new entrants to the video market with existing telecommunications facilities we engaging in the upgrades declining to tree that market.BSPA Comments at 5.6. to which Verizon and AT&T have committed.Cavalier Telephone,for example,is delivering IPTV over copper "'See AT&T Comments at 51. lines Such delivery is limited,however,by ADSL-2 technology.Cavalier Telephone argues that it is unreasonable to require that it become capable of providing service to all households in a franchise men,which would require .Quest Common at 8. Cavalier Telephone to dig up rights-of-way and install duplicative facilities,which it has specifically sought to avoid 1s FTTFi Council Comments at 33.34. doing by virtue of relying an the unbundled local loop.Cavalier Telephone Comments at 5.Similarly,Guadalupe Valley Telephone Cooperative(GVTC)could not deploy service in the fate of differing build-out requiremou .Velma Reply at 70-71. across jurisdictions. See AT&T Reply at 37. Once Texas's new statewide franchising law coot into effect, however,deployment became economically feasible for GVTC.See id.See also Phoenix Center Build-out Paper 1S1 NTCA Comments at 7. See also DOS Ex Parte at 12-13,15;FTTH Council Comments at 29(competitive at I,3,4(build-out rules can significantly increase the costs of a new video entrant,and are actually coveter- entrants face a riskier invesveent than incumbents heed when they entered;moreover,inn.hest firms have market producdve,serving primarily to deter new video entry and slow down deployment of communications networks); power in the video market,their customers have little choirs,and their costs can be spread over a large bast, Phoenix Center Redlining Paper at 3(even when build-out requirements are applied to new entrants altruistically, whereas new entrants do not have this same advantage).Although it is sometimes possible to renegotiate a build-out the requirements can be self-defeating and often erect iasurmoantsble barriers to entry for new firms);BSPA at 4 requirement if the new entrant cannot meet it,in many cases the LFA imposes substantial penalties for failure to (When a new network operator is forced to comply with a build-out that is equal to the existing incumbent cable meet a build-out requirement. See Ante Arundel County et al.Comments at 4,FTTH Council Comments at 34 footprint,it is forced to a build on a timefrvme and in geographic areas where the cost to build and customer density (citing Grande Communication franchise agreement establishing penalty of 52,000 per day);Letter from Melissa E Newman,Vice will nicely produce an aoaomic loss for both network operators.),DOSE:Parte at 12-13,15. President-Federal Regulatory,Quest,to Marlene H.Dortch,Secretary,Federal Commveiatians Commission,(Apr.26,2006),Attachment at 7("Qwat Fs Parte"). e Verizon Comments at 4I-42. Before the new statewide legislation a Texas community mmunity had made the same 'u Id at 13. request 1°See Quest Common at 9. " Meranus Center Commots at 39-41;Phoenix Center Build-Out Paper at 1;Letter from Stephen Poiask, President American Consumer Institute,to Marlene Donoh,Semetuy,Federal Communications Commission "4 Id.at 10. (March 3,2006). • 17 18 Federal Communications Commission FCC 06-180 Federal Communications Commission FCC 06-180 requirements imposed on competitive cable entrants only benefit an incumbent cable operator.'a' The providers for every household!"In many cases,build-out requirements may have precisely the opposite Meteatus Center,citing data from the FCC and GAO indicating that customers with a choice of cable effects-they deter competition and deny consumers a choice. providers enjoy lower rates,argues that,to the extent that build-out requirements deter entry,they result in fewer customers having a choice of providers and a resulting reduction in rates.'u The Phoenix Center 38. Although incumbent LECs already have telecommunications facilities deployed over study contends that build-out requirements deter entry and conflict with federal, state,and local large areas,build-out requirements may nonetheless be a formidable barrier to entry for them for two government goals of rapid broadband deployment.12' Another research organization,the American reasons.First,incumbent LECs must upgrade their existing plant to enable the provision of video service, Consumer Institute(ACI),concluded that build-out requirements are inefficient: if a cable competitor which often costs billions of dollars.Second,as the Commission stated in the Local Franchising NPRM, initially serves only one neighborhood in a community,and a few consumers in this neighborhood benefit the boundaries of the areas served by facilities-based providers of telephone and/or broadband services from the competition,total welfare in the commuoity improves because no consumer was made worse frequently do not coincide with the boundaries of the areas under the jurisdiction of the relevant CFAs.'" and some consumers(those who can subscribe to the competitive service)were made better.'" In In some cases,a potential new entrant's service aro comprises only a portion of the area under the LFA's • comparison,requirements that deter competitive entry may make some consumers(those who would have jurisdiction.°'When LECs are required to build out where they have no existing plant,the business case been able to subscribe to the competitive service)worse off'. In many instances,placing build-out for market entry is significantly weakened because their deployment costs are substantially increased.. conditions on competitive entrants harms consumers and competition because it increases the cost of In other cases,a potential new entrant's facilities may already cover most or all of the franchise area,but cable service.119 Qwest commented that,in those communities it has not entered due to build-out certain economic realities prevent or deter the provider from upgrading certain"wire center service arms" requirements,consumers have been deprived of the likely benefit of lower prices as the result of within its overall service ara1 6 For example,some wire center service areas may encompass a competition from a second cable provider!'This claim is supported by the Commission's 2005 annual disproportionate level of business locations or molt-dwelling units("MDUs")with MVPD exclusive cable price survey,in which the Commission observed that average monthly cable rates varied markedly contracts." New entrants argue that the imposition of build-out requirements in either c rcrrrnstance depending on the presence-and type-of MVPD competition in the local market. The greatest creates a disincentive for them to enter the marketplace.'O. difference occurred where there was wireline overbuild competition where average monthly cable rates were 20.6 percent lower than the average for markets deemed noncompetitive.''' 'ss State of Hawaii Reply Comments at 4-5;Ada Township,et a!Comments at 8-9;Manatee County,Fla 37. For these reasons,we disagree with LFAs and incumbent cable operators who argue that Commots at 19;Burnsville/Eagan Reply Comments at 19-20;New Jersey Board of Public Utilities Comments at unlimited local flexibility to impose build-out requirements,including universal build-out of a franchise 11-12. area,is essential to promote competition in the delivery of video programming and ensure a choice in 'u Local Franchising NPRM 20 FCC Red at para.618595. 1°'See NTCA Comments at 15;South Slope Comments at 8-9(mandatary build-out of entire franchise areas unreasonably impedes competitive entry where entrants'proposed service area is nor located entirely within an LFA-defined local franchise area). us See,e.g.,FTTH Council Comments at 33-34;South Slope Comments at 8-9;NTCA Comments at 15;BellSouth Reply at 25. BellSouth has a franchise to save unincorporated Cherokee County,Ga,but the gographic area of this franchise is much larger than the boundaries of BellSouth's wire center.Id BellSouth aces a similar issue in '-'See id Orange County,Fla Id See also Linda Haugsted,Franchise War in Texas,MULr7CtovNtiEL NEWS,May 2,2005 '°Macao.Center Common at 4l. The Mareatus Center bases this assertion on the evidence that cable rate (noting that,although Verizon had negotiated successfully a cable franchise with the City of Keller,Texas,"it will regulation does not affect cable rates significantly,which suggests that cable providers are not subsidizing has• not build out all of Keller. It only has telephone plant in 80%of the community. SBC serves the rest of the profitable areas with the return from more-profitable areas. /d loaliry.").NTCA states that theoretically the incumbent LEC could extend its facilities,but to do so within mother provider's manmbmt LEC territory would require an incumbent LEC to make a financially significant business "'PhoenixCenter Build•OutPaper at I. decision,solely for purposes ofpmviding video programming.See NTCA Comments at 15. .ACI Comments at 7. 'sib See Letter from Isom Hocbstein,Executive Director,Federal Regulatory,Ve.•izon to Marlene H.Dorteh, 1e1 AT&T Comments at 48(citing Thomas Hazlet&George Ford,The Fallacy of Regulatory Symmetry: An Secretary,FCC,MB Docker No.05-311 at3(filed May 3,2006).In this Order we use"wire cotes service area"to Economic Analysis of the"Level Playing Field"in Cable TV Franchising Statutes.3 BUSINESS AND POLITICS issue mean the geographic area carved by wire cater as defined is Part 51 of the Commission's roles,weep wire 1,at 25.26(2001)). centers that have no line-side(unetioaaliry,such u switching units that exclusively ia[aeomeet.mkt See 47 C.F.FL§51.5. See also Unbundled Access to Nenwrh Elements: Review of the Section 25!Unbundling 1"AT&T Comments m 48(citing Thomas Hazlett&Gorge Ford,The Fallacy of Regulatory Symmetry An Obligations of Incumbent Local Exchange Carriers,20 FCC Red 2533,2586(2005).para.87 n.251(-Triennial Economic Analysis of the"Level Playing Field"in Cable T1'Franchising Statntes,3 BUSINESS AND PDLtr1CS issue Review Remand Order")("By'wire center,'we mean any incumbent LEC switching office that terminates and 1,at 25-26(2001)). aggregates loop facilities").The Commissions rules define"wire corer"to mean"the location of an imcumbot 10 Quest Commas at 10. LEC local switching facility containing me or more central offices as defined in Pan 36[of the Commission's Hiles].The wire center boundaries define the area in which all customers served by a given wire center ate located" "'Implementation of Section 3 of the Cable Televvion Consumer Protection and Competition Act of 1992: 47 C.F.R.§51.5.The tam"wire center"is often used interchangeably with the term"central office."Technically, Statistical Report on Average Rates for Boric Service,Cable Programming Service,and Equipment,MM Docker. the wire center is the!Darien when a LEC terminates subscriber local lops,along with the facilities necessary to No.92.266,FCC 06-179,para.12(rel.Dec.27,2006)("2005 Cable Price Survey').See also Annual Assessment of maintain them. the Status of Competition in the Market for the Delivery of Video Programming,20 FCC Red 2755,2772-73(2005) "'New canon also point out that some wire onto service areas are low in population density(measured ("200J Video Competition Report'). by homes per able plant mile).The record suggests,however,that LFAs generally have not required franchisees to (continued...) 19 20 6 Federal Communications Commission FCC 06-180 Federal Communications Commission FCC 06-180 39. Incumbent cable operators assert that new entrants'claimsi are exaggerated,and that,in conjunction with Section 621(a)(1),requires us to prevent LFA'from adversely affecting the deployment most cases,LEC facilities arc coterminous with municipal boundaries. The evidence submitted by new of broadband services through cable regulation." entrants,however,convincingly shows that inconsistencies between the geographic boundaries of • municipalities and the network footprints of telephone companies are commonplace.'° The cable 42. We do not find persuasive incumbent cable operators'claims that build-out should industry has adduced no contrary evidence. The fact that few LFA'argued that non-coterminous necessarily be required for new entrants into the video market because of certain obligations faced by boundaries are a problem is not sufficient to contradict the incumbent LECs'evidence.' cable operators in their deployment of voice services. To the extent cable operators believe they face undue regulatory obstacles to providing voice services,they should make that point in other proceedings, 40. Based on the record as a whole,we fend that build-out requirements imposed by LFA' not here. In any event,commenters generally agree that the record indicates that the investment that a can constitute unreasonable barriers to entry for competitive applicants. Indeed,the record indicates that competitive cable provider must make to deploy video in a particular geographic arca far outweighs the because potential competitive entrants to the cable market may not be able to economically justify build- cost of the additional facilities that a cable operator must install to deploy voice service.'" out of an entire local franchising area immediately,"r these requirements can have the effect of granting de facto exclusive franchises,in direct contravention of Section 621(a)(l)'s prohibition of exclusive cable 43. LFA Demands Unrelated to the Provision of Video Services. Many commenters franchises." recounted franchise negotiation experiences in which LFAs made unreasonable demands unrelated to the provision of video services. Verizon, for example, described several communities that made 41. Besides thwarting potential new entrants'deployment of video services and depriving unreasonable requests,such as the purchase of street lights,wiring for all homes of worship,the consumers of reduced prices and increased choice,'build-out mandates imposed by LFAs also may installation of cell phone towers,,cell phone subsidies for town employees,library parking at Verizon's directly contravene the goals of Section 706 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996,which requires the facilities,connection of 220 traffic signals with fiber optics,and provision of free wireless broadband Commission to"remov[e] barriers to infrastructure investment" to encourage the deployment of service in an area in which Verizon's subsidiary does not offer such service.' In Maryland,some broadband services"on a reasonable and timely basis."' We agree with AT&T that Section 706,in localities conditioned a franchise upon Verizon's agreement to make its data services subject to local customer service regulation.150 AT&T provided examples of impediments that Ameritech New Media (Continued from previous page) faced when it entered the market,including a request for a new recreation center and pool." FTTH provide service in low-density areas.See,e.g.,Madison,WI Comments at 4(limiting build-out to areas with 40 dwelling units per sable mile);Renton,WA Comments at 3(limiting build-out to 35 dwelling units per mile);West Palm Beach,Fla Comments at I 1(limiting build-out to areas with 20 homes per mile).Nevertheless,density is "'AT&T Comments at 45.See also infra parr 63. likely to be of greater concern to a sew meant than to an incumbent cable operator,because the new entrant has to "See NTCA Comments at 7;Verizon Reply at 54-55;American Consumer Institute Comments at 7;Review of the lure customers from the incumbent cable operator,and therefore cannot count on serving as many of the customers Section 251 Unbundling Oblrgariom of Incumbent Local Exchange Carriers,18 FCC Red 16978,17142.17143 in a cable plant mile. (2003)("Triennia/Review Order");See also High Tech Broadband Coalition Comments at 4-5(fiber-to-the-home 16 BSPA Commas a[5(when the footprint of an existing system does not match the territory of an LFA,build-out increased 5300 percent since the Triennial Review Order,due in large pan m the elimination of barriers requirements restrict the growth of competition that could be created by incremental expansion of existing networks to miry in that Order)• into adjacent territories because the operator must have the financial means to build out the mire adjacent franchise 19 Verizon Comments at 57&Attachment A at 16.17. The Wall SO-eer Journal repotted"(Tampa,Florida)City area before commencing any build-out);NTCA Comments at 15(requiring small,coral incumbmt LECs to deploy officials presented[Verizon]with a S13 million wish list including money for an emergency communications service beyond their existing telephone service areas would prohibit some carriers from offering video services to network digital editing equipment ad video cameras to film a math-tutoring program for kids."Another any community,thereby preventing competition).See also DOS Er Parte at 12-13,IS. community presented Verizon with"requests for seed money for wildflowers and a video hookup for Christmas 19 See Cablevisiom Reply at I6-17;Charter Reply at 8. celebrations."Dionne Searccy,As Verne Enters Cable Business,it Faces Local Static,WALL ST.J.,Oct 28,2005, at Al.But see Verizon Comments at 65,filed February 13,2006(stating that"one franchising authority in Florida 10 See BSPA Comments at 5;South Slope Comments at 8-9;NTCA Comments at IS. demanded that Verizon meet the incumbent cable operator's cumulative payments for PEG,which would exceed S6 'Comcut Reply at 21(citing comments of NATOA and Torrance,Cal.). minim over 15 years of Verizon's proposed franchise term.When Verizon rejected this demand,the LFA doubled its request asking fora fee in excess of SI3 million that it said would be used for both PEG support and the "'Compare Tele Atlas Wire Center Premium v10.1(April 2006)Maps for Bergen County,NJ and Los Angeles, construction of a redundant imstimtioal network');Verizon Revised Comments,filed March 6,2006 at 65 Ca.and surrounding areas with The BRIDGE Data Group CableBounds Maps for Bergen County,NJ and Los (amending the second smrence of their comments above,in response to a request from the City of Tampa,to stare Angeles, Ca and surrounding areas (filed by the Media Bureau), available at that"lw]hen Verizon rejected this demand and asked for an explanation,the LFA provided a summary'needs http://gu0foss2.fcc.gov/prod/ccfshemeve.cgi?native o r_pdfpdf&iddocument-6518618170, assessment'in moms of 513 million for both PEG support");Tampa Reply at 3-4(noting that Verizon's errata htmllgullfossLtcc.gov/prod/mfshetrieve.egi?native or_pdb pdf&id_document651861817). "clarified that the City of Tampa has not demanded Verizon provide S13.5 million dollars as a condition of granting "'See MI;Council Comments at 32;MCA Comments at 7;Qwest Comments at 2,8;Venzon Comments at 39• a cable television franchise;'and calling the Wall Sneer Journal article assertion an"urban legend");John Dunbar, 40. FCC's Cable TV Ruling Criticized,ASSOCIATED PRESS,Jan.29,2007(stating that"(The Tampa CityAttorney]said • Tampa gave Verizo°a S13 million'needs assessment'that was required by law in order to obtain contributions for "47 U.S.C.§544(a%l). equipment for public access aid government channels"and also quoting the City Anomry saying that"it is possible "s See Annual Assessment of the Stand of Competition in the Maker far the Delivery of Video Programming,MB the'needs assessment'included video cameras to film shows such as the math class,but that there was never'a Docket No.05-255,Twelfth Annual Report,FCC 06-11,at 1141(rel.Mar.3,2006)(noting that overbuild specific quid pro quo.'Nor was anything like that mentioned in the franchise agreement"). competition,when present,often Inds to lower cable rates and higher quality service). 10 Verizon Comments at 75. 16 Sestien 706 of the Telemmmunicanom Act of 1996,47 U.S.C.§157 at Si AT&T Commis at 24. 21 22 Federal Communications Commission FCC 06-180 Federal Communications Commission FCC 06-180 Council highlighted Grande Communications'experience in San Antonio,which required that Grande support PEG and i-Nets."t We also received comments suggesting that some LFAs are making Communications make an up-front,SI million franchise fee payment and fund a$50,000 scholarship with unreasonable demands regarding PEG and 1-Net support as a condition of awarding competitive additional annual contributions of S7,200.s' The record demonstrates that LFA demands unrelated to franchises.' LFAs have demanded funding for PEG programming and facilities that exceeds their cable service typically are not counted toward the statutory 5 percent cap on franchise fees,but rather needs,and will not provide an accounting of where the money goes."For example,one municipality in imposed on franchisees in addition to assessed franchise fees.' Based on this record evidence,we are Florida requested S6 million for PEG facilities,and a Massachusetts community requested 10 PEG convinced that LFA requests for unreasonable concessions are not isolated,and that these requests impose channels,when the incumbent cable operator only provides two."Several commenters argued that it is undue burdens upon potential cable providers. unreasonable for an LFA to request a number of PEG channels from a new entrant that is greater than the number of channels that the community is using at the time the new entrant submits its franchise ' 44. Assessment of Franchise Fees.The record establishes that unreasonable demands over application.' The record indicates that LFAs also have made what commenters view as unreasonable franchise fee issues also contribute to delay in franchise negotiations at the local level and hinder institutional network requests,such as free cell phones for employees,fiber optic service for traffic competitive entry.' Fee issues include not only which franchise-related costs imposed on providers signals,and redundant fiber networks for public buildings." should be included within the 5 percent statutory franchise fir cap established in Section 622(b),"a but also the proper calculation of franchise fees(i.e.,the revenue base from which the 5 percent is calculated). 47. Level-Playing-Field Provisions The record demonstrates that,in considering franchise In Virginia,municipalities have requested large"acceptance fees"upon grant of a franchise,in addition to applications,some LFAs are constrained by so-called"level-playing-field"provisions in local laws or franchise fees.16 Other LFAs have requested consultant and attorneys'fees.' Several Pennsylvania incumbent cable operator franchise agreements." Such provisions typically impose upon new entrants localities have requested franchise fees based on cable and non-cable revenues."c Some commenters terms and conditions that are neither"more favorable"nor"less burdensome"than those to which assert that an obligation to provide anything of value,including PEG costs,should apply toward the existing franchisees are subject"a Some LFAs impose level-playing-field requirements on new entrants franchise fee obligation.'' even without a statutory,regulatory,or contractual obligation to do so.69 Minnesota's process allows incumbent cable operators to be active in a competitor's negotiation,and incumbent cable operators have 45. The parties indicate that the lack of clarity with respect to assessment of franchise fees challenged franchise grants when those incumbent cable operators believed that the LFA did not follow impedes deployment of new video programming facilities and services for three reasons. First,some correct procedure.°t According to BellSouth,the length of time for approval of its franchises was tied LFAs make unreasonable demands regarding franchise fees as a condition of awarding a competitive directly to level-playing-field constraints;absent such demands(in Georgia,for example),the company's franchise. Second,new entrants cannot reasonably determine the costs of entry in any particular applications were granted quickly." NATOA contends,however,that although level-playing-field community. Accordingly,they may delay or refrain from entering a market because the cost of may is unclear and market viability cannot be projected-.Third,a new entrant must negotiate these terms prior 'See,eg.,AT&T Comments at 67.70;BellSouth Comments at 39;Consumers for Cable Choice Comments at 8, to obtaining a franchise,which can take a considerable amount of time.Thus,unreasonable demands by FTTH Council Comments at 36-37,66-67;Verizon Comments at 65-75.Bur see NATOA Reply at 30-42. some LFAs effectively creates an unreasonable barrier to entry. "FTTH Council Comments at 36;Verizon Comments at 65-66. 46. PEG and Met Requirements Negotiations over PEG and I-Nets also contribute to 16'Verizon Comments at 65. delays in the franchising process. In response to the Local Franchising NPRM,we received numerous "Id.at 65-66. comments asking for clarification of what requirements LFA'reasonably may impose on franchisees to 161 Consumers for Cable Choice Comments at 8;Verizon Comments at 71. 16 Verizon Comments at 73. "'See.e.g.,Orange County,Fla.Comments at 3;Northwest Suburbs Cable Communications Commission 'es FT]H Council Comments at 36. Commmts at 3;Winston-Salem,N.C.Comments at 5;Albuquerque,N.M.Comments at 3;Tulsa,Okla.Comments at 2-4;Enumclaw,Wash.Commons at 2;Madison,Wis.Comments at 5-6. Si BSPA Comments at 8. BSPA argues that under the current franchising process,LFA'art able to bargain for capital payments to use m iniasnuc[ure needs when LFAs should use the capital to benefit consumers. BSPA 16t See Local Franchising NPAsd 20 FCC Red at 18588.At least 18 states impose level-playing-field requirements claims that LFAs use the capital to build and maintain I-Nets,city broadcasting facilities,and traffic light control upon LFA',and those laws vary significantly in the subject matters they encompass. For example,compare systems.Id Minnesota's:equucmens;iron a m ant mpentive ma face similar build-our,franchise requirements,and PEG requirements to Illinois's requirement that the competitive franchise be no more favorable with respect to the territorial extort of the "'See.e.g.,AT&T Comments at 64-67;BellSouth Commmts at 38-40;Cavalier Telephone Comments at 7;FTTH franchise,system design•technical performance standards,mnsnucdon schedules,bonds,standards for construction Council Comments at 38-40.But see NATOA Reply at 27-35. and installation of facilities,service to subscribers,PEG channels and programming,ptnduci°a assistance,liability "47 U.S.C.§542(b). and indemnification and franchise fees.ANN.STAT.Nat.§238.08(West 2006),$$ILL.COMP.STAT.ANN.$/5- 1095(e)(4)(West 2006),see also Arco CODE§11-27-2(2005),Cohn.GEN.STAT.§16-331(g)(2006),Ftw.Styr.§ 's'Verizon Comments at 59. 166.0,16(3)(2006),N.H.REv,STAT.ANN.§53-C 3b(2005),OKLA.STAT.ANN.tit 11,§22-107.1(B)(West 2006). '”id.at 59-60. S.D.Ccorwm LAws§9-35-27(2005),Tee,CODE.ANN.§7-59-203(2005). "'Id.at 63. "See GMTC et al Comments at 15;Pasadena Ca.Comments ar 10-11;Philadelphia,Pa.Comments at 7.See also AT&T Reply at 14. sea AT&T Commma at 65-67;BellSouth Comments at 39. 160 AT&T Reply at 31-32. t0 LMC Comments as 12-15. 23 24 a Federal Communications Commission FCC 06-180 Federal Communications Commission FCC 06-180 provisions sometimes can complicate the franchising process,they do not present unreasonable barriers to sufficient to undermine the business plan for profitable entry in a given community,thereby undercutting entry.'"NATOA and LFAs argue that level-playing-field provisions serve important policy goals,such the possibility of competition.. as ensuring a competitive environment and providing for an equitable distribution of services and • obligations among all operators."' 50. Benefits of Cable Competition. We further agree with new entrants that reform of the operation of the franchise process is necessary and appropriate to achieve increased video competition 48. The record demonstrates that local level-playinFfield mandates can impose unreasonable and broadband deployment.• The record demonstrates that new cable competition reduces rates far and unnecessary requirements on competitive applicants." As noted above, level-playing-field more than competition from DBS. Specifically,the presence of a second cable operator in a market provisions enable incumbent able operators to delay or prevent new entry by threatening to challenge results in rates approximatoly 15 percent lower than in areas without competition-about S5 per month.'' any franchise that an LFA grants. Comcast asserts that MSOs are well within their rights to insist that The magnitude of the rate decreases caused by wireline cable competition is corroborated by the rates their legal and contractual rights arc honored in the grant of a subsequent franchise.1' The record charged in Keller,Texas,where the price for Verizon's"Everything"package is 13 percent below that of demonstrates, however, that local level-playing-field requirements may require LFAs to impose the incumbent cable operator,and in Pinellas County,Florida,where Knology is the overbuilder and the obligations on new entrants that directly contravene Section 621(a)(1)'s prohibition on unreasonable incumbent cable operator's rates are S10-15 lower than in neighboring areas where it faces no refusals to award a competitive franchise.'"In most cases,incumbent cable operators entered into their competition." franchise agreements in exchange for a monopoly over the provision of cable service.O1 Build-out requirements aad other terms and conditions that may have been sensible under those circumstances can 51. We also conclude that broadband deployment and video entry are"inextricably linked"" be unreasonable when applied to competitive entrants. NATOA's argument that level-playing-field and that,because the current operation of the franchising process often presents an unreasonable barrio to requirements always serve to ensure a competitive environment and provide for an equitable distribution entry for the provision of video services,it necessarily hampers deployment of broadband services." of services and obligations ignores that incumbent and competitive operators are not on the same footing. The record demonstrates that broadband deployment is not profitable without the ability to compete with LFAs do not afford competitive providers the monopoly power and privileges that incumbents received the bundled services that cable companies provide." As the Phoenix Center explains,"the more when they agreed to their franchises,something that investors recognize.''' potential revenues that the network can generate in a household,the more likely it is the network will be 49. Moreover,competitive operators should not bear the consequences of an incumbent cable ' operator's choice to agree to any unreasonable franchise terms that an LFA may demand.And while the record is mixed as to whether level-playing-field mandates"assure that cable systems arc responsive to ui di Mera tus Comments at 46. the needs and interests of the localm community; the more compelling evidence indicates that they do not because they prevent competition. Local level-playing-field provisions impose costs and risks "Verimn Reply at 5-8 Ste also DOI Es Pate at 1,3. "FTTH Cmmcil Comments at 13.See also U.S.General Accountability Office,Subscriber Rotes and Competition in the Cable Television Industry,GAO-04-262T(Mar.2004)("[S]ubsenbers in areas with a wire-based competitor had monthly cable rates about S5 lower,on avenge,than mbseribers in similar areas without a wire-based competitor.Our interviews with cable operators also revealed that these companies generally lower rates and/or (Continued from previous page) improve customer service when'wive-based competitor is present");U.S.General Accounting Office,GAO-04-8, 'BellSouth Reply at 7. Issues Related to Competition and Subscriber Rates in the Cable Television Industry,Report to the Chairman, Commieeo on Commerce,Science and Transportation,U.S.Smote(2003)("2003 GAO Report')at 3(noting that . i"NATOA Reply at 43. cable rates are about 15 percent lower in marker where wireline competition is present),and at 10(estimating that 'a See e.g.,NATOA Reply m 44;Bumsville/Eagae Comments at 44;City of Philadel her I at 2. with an average monthly cable rate of approximately 534 that year,subscn in areas with'wire-hued p y competitor had monthly cable rates about SS lower,on average,than subscribershaare arras without such a competitor); 'See,erg.,South Slope Comments at 7-8(build-out);Versus Comments at 60-61,71(PEG requirements);AT&T U.S.General Accounting Office,GAO-03-130,Issuer in Providing Cable and Scrollite Television S'ices,Report Comments at 67(redundant facilities).See also FTTH Council Comments at 29-30(quoting Hazlett&Ford study to the Subcommittee on Antitrust Competition,and Business and Consumer Rights,Committee on the Judiciary, concluding that the result of level-playing-field laws"is that incumbents and[CFAs]can force entrants to moor sunk U.S.Senate(2002)("2002 GAO Report')at 9(noting that in franchise areas with a second cable provider,cable costs considerably in excess of what free market conditions would imply").We note that,as described below,we do prices are approximately 17 percent lower dam in comparable areas without a second cable provider). See also not address-and therefore do not preempt-state laws governing the franchising process including state level- Annual Assessment of the Status of Competition in the Market for the Delivery of Video Programming,MB Docket playing-field mandates. No.05-255,Twelfth Annual Report,FCC 06-11,at para.41(rel.Mar.3,2006)and 2005 Cable Price Survey at 'See supra para.34;see afro DOJ Ex Pane at 15-16. pares.2,14(Hating that cable prices are 17 percent lower and decrease substantially when wireline cable competition is present). ""Comcast Reply at 17-18(citing Contrast's involvement in Verizon's Howard County,Maryland,franchise 'N FI'iH Comv,l Comments at IS•l6,including chart and declaration.approval process). B '"Merwnu Center at 39-40;Phoenix Center Competition Paper etc 7. 'rs AT&T Comments at 12. See also BSPA Comments at 7;Freedomwor}s Comments at 15;Manaus Cent= Comments at 34-35. in Id "Technology and Democracy Project Comments at 4. 'n See BSPA Comments 4,USTeleeom Comments at sl'53;Mercaos Commas at 39-40. 'AT&T Comments at 12.The Government Accououbiliry Office reached this same conclusion in its review of the '"47 U.S.C.§321(2);Id video service market See Issues in Providing Cable and Satellite Television Services,GAO 03-I30 at 2(2002). 25 26 Federal Communications Commission FCC 06.180 Federal Communications Commission FCC 06-180 built to that household."" DOJ's comments underscore that additional video competition will likely telephone,telegraph,cable,or radio.'". To that end,"[t)he Ate grants the Commission broad speed deployment of advanced broadband services to consumers.p9 Thus,although LFAs only oversee responsibility to foe a rapid and efficient communications system,and broad authority to implement the provision of wireline-based video services,their regulatory actions can directly affect the provision of that responsibility.''Section 201(b)authorizes the Commission to'prescribe such odes and regulations voice and data services,not just cable."o We find reasonable AT&T's assertion that carriers will not as may be necessary in the public interest to carry out the provisions of this Act"'tit "mhe grant in invest billions of dollars in network upgrades unless they are confident that LFAs will grant petmission to §201(b)means what it says: The FCC has rulemaking authority to carry out the'provisions of this offer video services quickly and without unreasonable difficulty."' Act" Ibis grant of authority therefore necessarily includes Title VI of the Communications Act in general,and Section 621(a)(1)in particular. Other provisions in the Act reinforce the Commission's 52. In sum,the current operation of the franchising process deters entry and thereby denies general rulemakiag authority. Section 303(r),for example,states that"the Commission from time to consumers choices."' Delays in the franchising process also hamper accelerated broadband deploment time,as public convenience,interest,or necessity requires shall...make such mks and regulations and and investment in broadband facilities in direct contravention of the goals of Section 706,'the prescribe such restrictions and conditions,not inconsistent with law,as maybe necessaryro� iwany arty,ut the President's competitive broadband objectives, and our established broadband goals."s In addition,the provision of this Aet...n10'Section 4(i)states that the Commission"may perform any and all acts,make economic effects of franchising delays can trickle down to manufacturing companies,which in some such rules and regulations,and issue such orders,not inconsistent with this Act,as may be necessary in cases have lost business because potential new entrants would not purchase equipment without certainties the execution of its functions."z'" that they could deploy their services."We discuss below our authority to address these problems. • 55. Section 2 of the Communications Act grants the Commission explicit jurisdiction over B. The Commission Sim Authority to Adopt Rules to Implement Section 6210)(1) "cable services?"' Moreover,as we explained in the Local Franchising NPRM,Congress specifically charged the Commission with the administration of the Cable Act,including Section 621..In addition, 53. In the Local Franchising NPRM,the Commission tentatively concluded that it has the federal courts have consistent) upheld the Commission's authority . authority to adopt rules implementing Tide VI of the Act,'"including Section 621(a)(1)."" The • Y Pryintbis area- Commission sought comment on whether it has the authority to adopt rules or whether it is limited to 56. Although several consmenters disagreed with our tentative conclusion, none has _providing guidance." Based on the record and governing legal principles,we affirm this tentative persuaded us that the Commission lacks the authority to adopt rules to implement Section 621(a)(1). conclusion and find that the Commission has the authority to adopt calm to implement Title VI and,more Incumbent cable operators and franchise authorities argue that the judicial review provisions in Sections specifically,Section 621(a)(1). 621 a 1 and 635' indicate that Congress ()() gr gave the courts'.naive jurisdiction to interpret and enforce 54. Congress delegated to the Commission the task of administering the Communications Act. As the Supreme Court has explained,the Commission serves"as the'single Government agency' m United Stater v.Southwestern Cable Co.,392 U.S.157,167-68(1968)(quotation omitted). with'unified jurisdiction.'and'regulatory power over all forms of electrical communication,whether by 10,United Telegraph Workers.AFL-CIO v.FCC,436 F.2d 920,923(D.C.Cir.1970)(citations and quotations °mined). '""Lena from Lawrence Slavonic.,President Phoenix Ca.for Advanced Legal and Econ.Pub.Policy Studies,to .47 U.S.C.§201(b)("The Commission may prescribe such miss and regulations as may be necessary in the Marlene Dortch Secretary,Federal Communications Commission,at Att.,Phoenix Center Policy Paper Number public interest to carry out the provisions of this Act."). 23: Impact of Video Service Regulation on the Construction of Broadband Networks to LowIncome a'AT&T Corp.v.Iowa Utilities Board,525 U.S.366,378(1999). Households,pg 23(March 13,2006)("Phoenix Center Redlining Paper"). its I)Ol Es Prate at 3-5 c"'See also 47 U.S.C.§151(the Commission"shall mecum and enforce the provisions of this Act). 10 FTTH Council Comments at 4. s0147 U.S.C.§I54(). c""47 U.S.C.§152("The provisions of this Act shall apply with.v,wvs to cable service,to all persons engaged "'AT&T Comments at 15. within the United States in providing such service,and to the facilities of cable operators which relate to such 'o'DOJEr Pate at 7-8. service,as provided in title VI."). "a Section 706 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996,47 U.S.C.§157 at a'Local Franchising NPRM,20 FCC Red at 18589. ''See The White House,A New Generation of American Innovation, 11-12(April 2004),available at hat See City of Chicago v.FCC•199 F.3d 424(7th Cir.1999)(fording that the FCC is charged by Congress with the hepl/www.whitehoaso.govlmfocusitechnology/economicyolicy200404/i eovation.pdf. administration of the Cable Act,including Section 621).See also City of New York v.FCC,486 U.S.57,70 n.6 'See Federal Communications Comnssion,Strategic Plan 2006-2On at 3(2005). (1988)(explaining that Section 303 gives the FCC edemaldag power with respect tothe Cable Act);Nat'l Cable Television Assn v.FCC,33 F.3d 66,70(D.C.Cir.1994)(upholding Commission finding that certain services are ""AT&T Reply at 9;Alcatel Commmu at 1;Letter from Danielle Jafari,Director and Legal Counsel of not subject to the franchise requirement in Section 621(b)(1));United Video Y.FCC,890 F2d 1173,1183(D.C.Cir. Government Affairs, Telecommunications Industry Association, to Marlene Dortch, Secretary, Federal 1989)(denying petitions to review the Commission's syndicated exclusivity cola);ACLU v.FCC,823 F.2d 1554 Communications Commission(Mach 9,2006). (D.C.Ca.1987)(upholding the Commission's interpretive odes regarding Section 621(a)(3)). 'iota/Franchisirig NPRM,20 FCC Red at 18589. eta 47 U.S.C.§541(a)(1)("[ajny applicant whose application for a second franchise has been dated by a final derision of the franchising authority may appeal such final decision pursuant to the provisions of section 635 for "47 U.S.C.§541(all1). failure to comply with this subsection". Section 635 sets forth the P Y ) specific procedures for such judicial 1°Locus/Franchising NPRM,20 FCC Rcd at 18589. proceedings.47 U.S.C.§555. 27 28 Federal Communications Commission FCC 06-180 Federal Communications Commission FCC 06-180 Section 621(aX1),including authority to decide what constitutes an unreasonable refusal to award a 58. We also reject the argument by some incumbent cable operators and franchise authorities competitive cable franchise.10 We find,however,that this argument reads far too much into the judicial that Section 621(a)(1)is unambiguous and contains no gaps in the statutory language that would give the x review provisions. The mere existence of a judicial review provision in the Communications Act does Commission authority to regulate the franchising process." We strongly disagree. Congress did not not,by itself,strip the Commission of its otherwise undeniable mlemaking authority.3° As a general define the term"unreasonably refuse,"and it is far from self-explanatory. The United States Court of man.,the fact that Congress provides a mechanism for judicial review to remedy a violation of a Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit has held that the term"unreasonable"is among the statutory provision does not deprive an agency of the authority to issue rules interpreting that statutory "ambiguous statutory terms"in the Communications Act,and that the"court owes substantial deference provision. Here,nothing in the statutory language or the legislative history suggests that by providing a to the interpretation the Commission accords themes We therefore find that Section 621(a)(1)'s judicial remedy,Congress untended to divest the Commission of the authority to adopt and enforce roles requirement that an LFA"may not unreasonably refuse to award an additional competitive franchise" implementing Section 621. In light of the Commission's broad mlemaking authority under Section 201 creates ambiguity that the Commission has the authority to resolve.°° The possibility that a court,in and other provisions in the Act,the absence of a specific grant of mlemaking authority in Section 621 is reviewing a particular matter,may determine whether an LFA"unreasonably"denied a second franchise "not peculiar' Other provisions in the Act demonstrate that when Congress intended to grant does not displace the Commission's authority to adopt rules generally interpreting what constitutes an etclusive jurisdiction,it said so in the legislation.' Here,however,neither Section 621(a)(1)nor Section "unreasonable refusal"under Section 621(a)(1).=° 635 includes an exclusivity provision,and we decline to read one into either provision. 59. Some incumbent cable operators and franchise authorities argue that Section 621(a)(1) 57. In addition,we note that the judicial review provisions at issue here on their face apply imposes no general duty of reasonableness on the LFA in connection with procedures for awarding a only to a final decision by the franchising authority.1t' They do not provide for review of unreasonable competitive franchise."r According to these commenters,the"unreasonably refuse to award"language in refusals to award an additional franchise by withholding a final decision or insisting on unreasonable the first sentence in Section 621(a)(1)must be read in conjunction with the second sentence,which relates terms that an applicant properly refuses to accept. Nor do the judicial review provisions say anything to the denial of a competitive franchise application'- Based on this, commenters claim that about the broader range of practices governed by Section 62l'. "unreasonably refuse to award"means"unreasonably deny"and,thus,Section 621(a)(1)is not applicable before a final decision is rendered-. We disagree.•By concluding that the language"unreasonably refuse to award"means the same thing as"unreasonably deny,"commenters violate the long-settled 110 See NCTA Reply,at 11-13(given the courts have cone mentjurisdiction to review many provisions of Tide VT, principle of statutory construction that each word in a statutory scheme must be given meaning.=' We Section 635(a)only has meaning if it is read to grant exclusive jurisdiction to the courts);Comoast Comments at 27- find that the better reading of the phrase"unreasonably refuse to award"is that Congress intended to 28 Con s provided no role for the Commission in the franchising 3K Sees Prove g process);Comcast Reply at 27-28(621(a)(1)'s cover LFA conduct beyond ultimate denials byfinal decision,such as situations where an LFA has 'unreasonably refuse'language and court review are inextricably linked and thus enforcement authority over Use y4 franchising approval process lies with the courts);NATOA Comments at 7-8(same). unreasonably refused to award an additional franchise by withholding a final decision or by insisting on unreasonable terms that an applicant refuses to accept'"While the judicial review provisions in Sections "See ACLU v.Taos,823 F.2d 1554,1574(D.C.Cir 1987)(recognizing that despite a reference to"court action" in Section 622(d),in the absence of more explicit guidance from Congress,the Commission has concurrent jurisdiction to take enforcement action with respect to fmmehise fee disputes). "'See Comcast Reply at 27. :°See BellSouth Reply at 35;USTelecom Reply us 14-16. 't Capital Nerwrk System.Inc.v.FCC.28 F.3d 201,204(D.C.Cir.1994)("Because'just,''unjust,''reuonnble; -"AT&T v.low Utilities Board.525 U.S.366,385(1999).In low Utilities Board,the Supreme Court reviewed and'unreasonable'are ambiguous statutory terms,this court owes substantial def ce to the interpretation the Commission rules implementing provisions of the Telecommuniatioas Act of 1996.In particular,states challenged Commission accords them"). Commission rules implementing Section 252(0(2),which provides,"a State commission shall...establish any rates .47 U.S.C.§541(a91)(emphasis added). for interconnection,services,or network elements."47 U.S.C.§252(e)(2).Although this and other provisions in the 1996 Act entrusted the states with certain tasks,the Supreme Court held that"these assignments...do not i0 See NCTA v.Brand X Internet Services,545 U.S.967,-,125 S.Ct 2688,2700-02(2005)(where stature a logically preclude the Commission's issuance of rules to guide the state-commission judgments."Iowa Utilities ambiguous,and implemneoti¢g agrcys construction is reasonable.Chevron requires federal noun to accept agency's Board,525 U.S.at 385.The same reasoning applies to the judicial review provisions in Sections 621(a)(1)and 635. construction of statute,even if agency's reading differs from prior judicial construction). "See,e.g.,47 U.S.C.§255(f)('The Comrmssion shall have exclusive jurisdiction with respect to any complaint .See NCTA Comments at 28-29;Comcast Reply at 31. under this section.').We do not find persuasive commenters'argument that the only way to give Section 635(a)any r'See NCTA Comments at 29;Comcast Replyt 32 meaning is to construe it as giving courts exclusive jurisdiction with regard to the three Title VI provisions a enumerated in Section 635(a),i.e.,Sections 621(a)(1),625,and 626.See NATOA Comments at 9.None of the "'See NATOA Comments at 30-31;NCTA Comments at 28-29;Burnsville/Eagan Comments at 31.32;Comast cases cited by commenters support this proposition. Rather,they suggest that in the absence of an exclusivity Reply at 32-33. provision is the statute,the Commission and courts share jurisdiction. See,eg,NATOA Comments at 9(slung ry See Bailey v.United States.516 U.S.137,143-45(1995)("We assume that Congress used two terms because it ACLU v.FCC,823 F2d 1554,1573.75(D.C.Cir.1987)). intended uch term to have a particular,nomvpertluous meaning'). to 47 U.S.C.§541(a)(1)("Any applicant whose application for a second franchise has been denied by a final •y decision of the franchising authority may appeal such final decision pursuant to the provisions of section 635 for --See,eg.,Tribune Co.vet FCC, re F.3d 6l,66(D.C.Cir.1998)(imposing an"inmlemble'"condition on.the grant failure to comply with this subsection')(emphasis added);47 U.S.C.§555(a)("Any able operator adversely of license application may be deemed a defacto denial of that license for purposes oldie appal provisions under§ any final a g authority der section 621(a)(1)"ma eommnnce an 402(b)of the Act,citing Mobile Communications Corp.of America v.FCC,77 F.3d 1399(D.C.Cir. pro.See affected by determination made byfrmchisin actin¢in Federal district court or State noun)(emphasis added). b wad. y also cableDO Ex Parse at 7(stating that build-out delays,demands for goods and services unrelated to the provision of services,and imposition of build-cut requirements are mommount to a"refusal"to award an additional "See USTelecom Reply at 14. competitive franchise). 29 30 Federal Communications Commission FCC 06-180 Federal Communications Commission FCC 06-180' 621(a)(I)and 635 refer to a"final decision"or"final determination,'"s the Commission's mlemaking legislative history to suggest that Congress intended to displace the Commission's explicit authority-to authority under Section 621 is not constrained in the same manner. Instead,the Commission bus the interpret and enforce provisions in Tide VI,including Section 621(a)(1). authority to address what constitutes an unreasonable refusal to award a franchise,and as stated above,a local franchising authority may unreasonably refuse to award a franchise through other routes than issuing 61. The pro-competitive rules and guidance we adopt in this Order are consistent with a final decision or determination denying a franchise application. For all of these reasons,we conclude Congressional intent. Section 601 states that Title VI is designed to"promote competition in cable that the Commission may exercise its statutory authority to establish federal standards identifying those communications."n'In a report to Congress prepared pursuant to the 1984 Cable Act,the Commission LFA-imposed terms and conditions that would violate Section 621(a)(1)of the Communications Act.' concluded that in order"(t]o encourage more robust competition in the local video marketplace;the Congress should ...forbid local franchising authorities from unreasonably denying a franchise to 60. Incumbent cable operators and local franchise authorities also maintain that the potential competitors who are ready and able to provide service"' In response,Congress revised legislative history of Section 621(a)(1)demonstrates that Congress reserved to LFAs the authority to Section 621(0)(1)to prohibit a franchising authority from unreasonably refusing to award an additional determine what constitutes"reasonable"grounds for franchise denials,with oversight by the courts,and competitive franchise."The regulations set forth herein give force to that restriction and vindicate the left no authority under Section 621(a)(I)for the Commission to issue rules or guidelines governing the national policy goal of promoting competition in the video marketplace. franchise approval process.'" Commenters point to the Conference Committee Report on the 1992 Amendments,'which adopted the Senate version of Section 621,'0 rather than the House version,which 62. Our authority to adopt rules implementing Section 621(a)(1)is further supported by "contained five examples of circumstances under which it is reasonable for a franchising authority to Section 706 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996,which directs the Commission to encourage deny a franchise."' We find commenters'reliance on the legislative history to be misplaced. While the broadband deployment by utilizing"measures that promote competition...or other regulating methods House may have initially considered adopting a categorical approach for determining what would that remove barriers to infrastructure investment' The D.C.Circuit has found that the Commission has constitute a"reasonable denial,"Congress ultimately decided to forgo that approach and prohibit the authority to consider the goals of Section 706 when formulating regulations under the Act"s The franchising authorities from unreasonably refusing to award as additional competitive franchise.' To be record here indicates that a provider's ability to offer video service and to deploy broadband networks are sure,commenters are correct to point out that Congress chose not to define in the Act the meaning of the linked intrinsically,and the federal goals of enhanced cable competition and rapid broadband deployment phrase"unreasonably refuse to award." However,commenters'assertion that Congress therefore are interrelated."Thus,if the franchising process were allowed to slow competition in the video service intended for this gap ha the statute to be filled in by only LFAs and courts lacks any basis in law or logic. market,that would decrease broadband infrastructure investment,which would not only affect video but Rather,we believe that it is far more reasonable to assume,consistent with settled principles of other broadband services as well." As the DOS points out,potential gains from competition,such as administrative law,that Coness intended that the Commissio0,which is charged by Congress with the administration of Tide VI,' to have the authority to do so. There is nothing in the statute or the "47 U.S.C.¢521(6). "h'See Compention,Rate Deregulation and the Commissions Policies Relating to the Provision of Cable Television ui 47 U.S.C.§§541(a),555.See also Puget Sound Energy,Ina v.U.S,310 F3d 613,624-25(9l h Cir.2002)(for Service.5 FCC Red 4962,4974(1990). purposes of determining when power administration's rate detemdnaton becomes a"final action"under statutory judicial review provision,court will turn for guidance to general doctrine of finality in administrative law,which"is "6 47 U.S.C.§541(a)(1). See also H.R.REP.No.302.628,at 47(1992)(noting the Corrunission's recommendation concerned with whether the initial decision-ranker has arrived at a definitive position on the issue that inflicts as that.is order to encourage competition,Congress should pmrn[LFAs from unreasonably denying a franchise to actual,concrete injury"). potential competitors);Implementation of Section 19 of the Cable Television ConsumerProtection and Competition r Act of 1992 Annual Assessment of the Status of Competition in the Market far the Delivery of Video Programming,9 See Quest Reply at 10-I1. FCC Red 7442,7469 1994(recognizing ( )( gnizing that"Congress incorporated the Commission's recommendation in the 'See NCTA Comments at 22-23:Florida Municipalities Comments at 9-10. 1992 Cable Act by amending§621(a)(1)of the Communications Act...").The legislative history explained that the sw purpose of this abridgement of local govemmeat authority was to promote greater cable competition.S.REP.No. H.R.REP.No.102-862,at 77-78(1992)(Conf.Rep.),as reprinted InI992 U.S.C.C.A.N.1231,1259-1260. 102-92,at 47(1991)(the prohibition on local franchising authorities from unreasonably refusing to grant second "0 S.Rep.No.102-92,at 185(1991)(explaining that"lilt shall not be considered unreasonable for purposes of this franchises is based on evidence in the record that there are benefits from competition between two cable systems and provision for local franchising authorities to deny the appliarion of a potential competitor if it is technically the Committees belief that LFAs should he encouraged to award second franchises). infeasible.However,the Committee does not intend technical infeasibility to be the only justification for denying an "'Section 706 of the Telecommanicatioas Act of 1996,47 U.S.C.§157 at. additional franchise'). . "s See USIA v.FCC,359 F.3d 554,580,583(D.C.Ca.2004);see also USTelecom Comments at 15;TIA H.R.REP.No.102.862,at 77-78(1992)(Conf.Rep.),as reprinted in I992 U.S.C.C.A.N.123I,1259-I260 Comments at 16. (listing five examples of reasonable denials identified in the House amendment to include:(I)technical infeasibility; car (2)failure of the applicant to assure the it will provide adequate public,educational,and governmental access See Alcatel Comments at 5.6;USTelecom Comments at 6(broadband growth is tied to bundled services;fvm's channel capacity,facilities,or financial support;(3)failu of the applicant to assure that it will pmvide smite perceived need to compere for"triple play"customers is the driving force for broadband investment);AT&T re throughout the entire franchise area within a reasonable period of time;(4)the award would interfere with the ability Comments at o9.40(the foal franchising process discourages broadband infrastructure investment that supports of the franchising authority to deny renewal of a franchise;and(5)failure to demonstrate financial,technical,or video along with other bmadband servicdemonstrate legal qualifications to provide cable service.');HR.REP.No.102-628,at 90(1992).See NCTA Comments at 22; "0 See Ad Hoc Telcom Manufacturer Coalition Comments at 1-3(the franchising process thrarens to slow down Florida Municipalities Comments at 9-10. incumbent LECs'-capital expenditures,thereby slowing competition in the video service market and reducing output "HR REP.No.102-862,at 77-78(1992)(Coot.Rep.),or reprinted in 1992 U.S.C.C.A.N.1231,1259.1260. throughout the high-tech manufacturing industry);AT&T Reply at 31-32(the lack of clear regulatory guidance is '°See C chilling invmtmeM because new caroms cannot gauge the cost of carry);BellSouth Comments at 20-22(the current City of v.FCC 199 F.3d at 428.See also AT&T Corp.v.Iowa Desires Board.525 U.S.at 377.380. franchising process impedes the deployment of BellSouth's broadband network). 31 32 a Federal Communications Commission FCC 06-180 Federal Communications Commission FCC 06-180 expedited broadband deployment, are more i likely to be realized without imposed restrictions or new entrants'obligations to provide support mandated by LFAs for PEG and I-Nets;and(5)facilities- conditions on entry in the franchising process. based Dew entrants'obligations to comply with local consumer protection and customer service standards when the same facilities are used to provide other regulated services,such as telephony.We discuss each 63. We reject the argument by incumbent cable operators and LFAs that any odes adopted measure below. under Section 621(a)(1)could adversely affect the franchising process." In particular,LFAs contend that cable service requirements must vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction because cable franchises need 1. Maximum Time Frame for Franchise Negotiations to be"tailored to the needs and interests of the local community."'"The Communications Act preserves 66. As explained above,1i°the record demonstrates that,although the average time that a role for local jurisdictions in the franchise process. We do not believe thathe cafes we adopt today will elapses between application and grant of a franchise varies from locality to locality,unreasonable delays hamper the franchising process. While local franchising authorities and and potential new entrants have in the franchising process are commonplace and have hindered,and in some cases thwarted entire) opposing viewpoints about the reasonableness of certain terms; we received comments from both Y, groups that agree that Commission guidance concerning factors that are"reasonable"will help to expedite attempts to deploy competitive video services. The record is replete with examples of unreasonable the franchising process."Therefore,we anticipate that our implementation of Section 621(a)(I)will aid delays in the franchising process,'"which can indefinitely delay competitive miry and leave an applicant without recourse in violation of Section 621(a)(])'s prohibition on unreasonable refusals to award a new entrants,incumbent cable operators,and LFAs in understanding the bounds of local authority in considering competitive franchise applications. competitive franchise. 64. In sum,we conclude that we have clear authority to interpret and implement the Cable 67. We find that unreasonable delays in the franchising process deprive consumers of Act,including the ambiguous phrase'Umeasotubly refuse to award"in Section 621(a)(l),to further the competitive video services,hamper accelerated broadband deployment,and can result in unreasonable congressional imperatives to promote competition and broadband deployment. As discussed above,this refusals to award competitive franchises. Thus,it is necessary to establish reasonable time limits for authority is reinforced by Section 4(i)of the Communications Act,which gives us broad power toLFAS to render a decision on a competitive applicant's franchise application." We define below the perform acts necessary to execute our functions, and the mandate in Section 706 of the boundaries of a reasonable time period in which an LFA must render a decision,and we ambush a Telecommunications Act of 1996 that we encourage broadband deployment through measures that remedy for applicants that do not receive a decision within the applicable time frame. We establish a promote competition....We adopt the rules and regulations in this Order pursuant to that authority.We maximum time frame of 90 days for entities with existing authority to access public rights-of--way,and find that Section 621(a)(1)prohibits not only an LFA's ultimate unreasonable denial of a competitive six months for entities that do oat have authority to access public rights-of-way. The deadline will be franchise application,but also LFA procedures and conduct that have the effect of unreasonably calculated from the date that the applicant files an application or other writing that includes the iuterfcri¢g with the ability of a would-be competitor to obtain a competitive franchise,whether by information described below. Failure of an LFA to act within the allotted time consrimtes an (I)creating unreasonable delays in the process,or(2)imposing unreasonable regulatory roadblocks,such unreasonable refusal to award the franchise under Section 62l(aj(1),and the LFA at that time is deemed that they effectively constitute an"unreasonable refusal to award an additional competitive franchise" to have granted the entity's application on an interim basis,pursuant to which the applicant may begin within the meaning of Section 621(a)(1)."' providing service. Thereafter,the LFA and applicant may continue to negotiate the terms of the franchise,consistent with the guidance and rulings in this Order. C. Steps to Ensure that the Local Franchising Process Does Not Unreasonably a Time Limit Interfere with Competitive Cable Entry and Rapid Broadband Deployment 65. Commenters in this proceeding identified several specific issues regarding problems with 68. The record shows that the franchising process in some localities can drag on for years. the current operation of the franchising process. These include: (1)failure by LFAs to grant or deny We are concerned that without a defined time limit,the extended delays will continue,depriving franchises within reasonable time frames;(2)LFA requirements that a facilities-based new entrant build consumers of cable competition and applicants of franchises. We thus consider the appropriate length of out its cable facilities beyond a reasonable service area;(3)certain LFA-¢undated costs,fees,and other time that should be afforded LFAs in reaching a final decision on a competitive franchise application. compensation and whether they must be counted toward the statutory 5 percent cap on franchise fees;(4) Commenters suggest a wide range of time frames that may be reasonable for an LFA's consideration of a competitive franchise application. TIA proposes that we adopt the time limit used in the Texas 'DOJ FS Pane at 4. franchising legislation,which would allow a new entrant to obtain a franchise within 17 days of submitting an application's' Other commenters propose time limits ranging from 30 days to six "•See,e.g.,Anne Arundel County et at Commend at 15(federal regulation would not allow each locality to tailor franchise tents to its specific needs);NCTA Comments at 23(universal rules and standards cannot be tailored well enough to define what is reasonable;reasonableness must be reviewed on a case-by-case basis). "t NATOA Commend at 27(quoting Section 601(2)of the Communications Act,47 U.S.C.§521(2)). nits See supra pans.1417,22. •"See.a g.,NATOA Reply at 43;Verizon Comments at 76-77(disagreeing about the reasonableness of level r^See Local Franchising NPRM,20 FCC Red at 18590(quoting 47 U.S.C.§541(a)(1)),FITH Council Comments playing fields). at 27,South Slope Commens at 13,Verizon Reply at 34-35. "See Manatee County Comments at 15;Verizon Reply at 35. "o See supra pans.22-30. ..a 47 U.S.C.§154(i),Section 706 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996,47 U.S.C.§157 nt. "47 U.S.C.§§541(a)(1),555. 2.,z ld 'tr See TIA Comments at 8,18. 33 34 Federal Communications Commission FCC 06-180 Federal Communications Commission FCC 06-180 months.'¢ While NATOA in its comments opposes any time limit,!"in February 2006 a NATOA convenience and necessity from a state,a facilities-based provider generally has demonstrated its legal, representative told the Commission that the six-month time limit that California law imposes is technical,and financial fitness to be a provider of telecommunications services. Thus,an LFA need not reasonable."' Some commenters have suggested that a franchise applicant that holds an existing spend a significant amount of time considering the fitness of such applicants to access public rights-of- authorimdon to access rights-of-way(e.g.,a I-EC)should be subject to a shorter time frame than other way.NATOA and its members concede that the authority to occupy the right-of-way has an effect on the applicants. These commenters reason that deployment of video services requires an upgrade to existing review of the financial,technical,and legal merits of the application,and eases right-of-way management facilities in the rights-of--way rather than construction of new facilities.and such applicants generally have burdeas."t We thus find that a time limit is particularly appropriate for an applicant that already demonstrated their fitness as a provider of communications services!' possesses authority to deploy telecommunications infrasnumve in the public rights-of-way. We further agree with AT&T that entities with existing authority to access rights-of-way should be entitled to 69. In certain states, an SFA is responsible for all franchising decisions(e.g.,Hawaii, an expedited process,and that lengthy consideration of franchise applications made by such entities Connecticut, Vermont, Texas, Indiana,Kansas, South Carolina, and beginning January 1, 2007, would be unreasonable.'" Specifically,we find that 90 days provides LFAs ample time to review and California and North Carolina),and the majority of these states have established rime frames within negotiate a franchise agreement with applicants that have access to righsof-way: which those SFAS must make franchising decisions.'''We are mindful,however,that states in which an LFA is the franchising authority,the LFA may be a small municipal entity with extremely limited 71. Based on our examination of the record,we believe that a time limit of 90 days for those resources-=" Thus,it may not always be feasible for an LFA to carry out legitimate local policy applicants that have access to tights-of-way strikes the appropriate balance between the goals of objectives pertained by the Act and appropriate state or local law within an extremely short time frame. facilitating competitive entry into the video marketplace and ensuring that franchising authorities have We therefore seek to establish a time limit that balances the reasonable needs of the LEA with the needs sufficient time to fulfill their responsibilities.In this vein,we note that 90 days is a considerably longer of the public for greater video service competition and broadband deployment As set out in detail below, time frame than that suggested by some commenters,such as TIA.."Additionally,we recognize that the we believe that it is appropriate to provide rules to guide LFAs that retain ultimate decision-making Communications Act gives an LFA 120 days to make a final decision on a cable operator's request to power over franchise decisions. modify a franchise." We believe that the record supports an even shorter time here because the costs associated with delay are much greater with respect to many. When an incumbent cable franchisee 70. As a preliminary matter,we fend that a franchise applicant that holds an existing requests a modification,consumers are not deprived of service while an LFA deliberates. Here,delay by authorization to access rights-of-way should be subject to a shorter time frame for review than other an individual LFA deprives consumers of the benefits of cable competition.•"'An LFA should be able to applicants. First,one of the primary justifications for cable franchising is the locality's need to regulate and receive compensation for the use of public rights-of-way..f.In considering an application for a cable (Continued from previous page) franchise by an entity that already has rights-of-way access,however,an LFA need not devote substantial to use the right-of-way without any application or negotiation requirement).See also South Slope Comments at 11 attention to issues of rights-of-way management" Second,in obtaining a certificate for public (duplicative local franchising requirements imposed on a competitor with existing authority to occupy the rights-of- way are unjustified and constitute an unreasonable barrier to competitive video entry). nn See AT&T Commend at 77,Cavalier Telephone Comments at 4(suggesting a 30-day time limit);BellSouth z"See NATOA Comments at 38.39.Although NATOA contends that an applicant's authority to occupy the rights- Comments at 36,MCA Commend at 9,OPASTCO Reply at 4(suggesting a 90-day time limit);Consumers for of-way would not affect the Iength of die negotiations regarding PEG requirements,franchise fees,or build-out,we Cable Choice Commend at 9,Vcrimo Comments at 38,PITH Council Comments at 60,State of Hawaii Reply at 3 clarify the law concerning those issues below to minimize further disputes and delays. (suggesting a 120-day time limit);Alliance for Public Technology Comments at 3(suggesting a 180day time limit); .sr Ad Hoc Telecom Manufacturers Comments at 6. Qwest Comments at 26-27. ssa NATOA Comment at 36-37,NATOA Reply at 21-23. sot AT&T argues that an entity authorized to occupy a right-of-way should simply complete a short-form application �n and agree to general cable franchise requirements such as franchise fees and PEG capacity,and that the right-of-way Transcript of FCC Agenda Meeting and Panel Discussion at 38(Feb.10,2006). holder should receive a franchise within one month of filing the short-form application.See AT&T Comments at :is See Local Franchising NPRM,20 FCC Red at 18591. 74. ''See BellSouth Comments at 36;Ada Township et at Comments at 23;LMC Comments at 18;Hawaiian rut See HAw.REv.Sur.§440G4(2006);CONN.Gat STAT.ANN.§16-331(West 2006);VT.STAT.ANN.tit 30,§ Telecom Comments at 7-8(recommending a time flame of 90 days from the filing of the application).Several ante 502(2006);TEx.Uric-CODE ANN.§66.003(West 2006);IND.CODE§8-1-34-16(2006);2006 KAN.SEas.Laws legislators agree that an applicant's existing authority to occupy the right-of-way lightens the administrative load, Ch 93(West 2006);S.C.CODE ANN.§58-12-05(2006):N.C.Ger STAT.ANN.§66-351;CAI_Pun.Urn"CODE§ and enacted or proposed similar measures to streamline the franchising process for entides that hold the authority. 401,et seq.We note that on artier does not affect these franchising decision. Sec VIRGNIA Cone ANN.§151.2108.21:11F-2647,2006 Sess.(Iowa 2006)(this proposed legislation would grant "n We note that a number of other states in addition to Texas have adopted or arc considering statewide franchising franchises to all telephone providers authorized to use the right-of-way without any application or negotiation in order to speed competitive entry.See,e.g.,IND.CODE§8-1.3416(2006);VA.CODE ANN.§15.2-2108.1:1 et requirement). We assume generally that state and local regulators are sufficiently empowered to deal with any seq.(2006);SB-816,2006 Sess.(Mo.2006).Nothing in our discussion here is intended to preempt the actions of public safety or aesthetic issues that may arise by virtue of deployment of new video-related equipment by any states. The time limit we adopt herein is a ceiling beyond which LFA delay an processing a franchise applicants already authorized to use the rights-of any. application becomes unreasonable.To the extent that states and/or municipalities wish to adopt shorter time limits, "t See TIA Comments at 8-9(a time frame of 17 business days,asset forth in the Texas statute,"provides ample they remain free to do so. time to negotiate an agreement reflecting the nequirenend of Section 62l");AT&T Comments at 75,78-79.See nt NATOA Comments at 38-39;Ada Township Commend at 11-14;TCCFUI Reply Commend at 18. a)so supra pares.17,27. c"Rmagnizing this distinction,some states have canted streamlined franchising procedures specifically tailored to2"See 47 U.S.C.§545. mtitia with existing access to public righdof.way.See.e.g.,Vtaeumitu CODE ANN.§15.2-2108.1:1 et seq.);HF- :n Verizon Commend at 36-37. 2647,2006 Sess.(Iowa 2006)(this proposed legislation would grant franchises to all telephone providers authorized (continued...) 35 36 1 Federal Communications Commission FCC 06-180 Federal Communications Commission FCC 06-180 negotiate a franchise with a familiar applicant that is already authorized to occupy the right-of-way in less the company advocates starting the clock when the applicant initiates negotiations with the LFA,"s which than 120 days. The list of legitimate issues to be negotiated is short,'"and we narrow those issues could be documented informally between the applicant and the LFA or with a formal Commission filing considerably in this Order. We therefore impose a de+dlime of 90 days for an LFA to reach a final for evidentiary purposes. decision on a competitive franchise application submitted by those applicants authorized to occupy rights- of-way within the franchise arm. 75. We will calculate the deadline from the date that the applicant first files certain requisite information in writing with the LFA. This filing must meet any applicable state or local requirements, 72. For other applicants,we believe that six months affords a reasonable amount of time to ' including any state or local laws that specify the contents of a franchise application and payment of a negotiate with an entity that is not already authorized to occupy the right-of-way,as an LFA will need to reasonable application fee in jurisdictions where such fee is required..This application,whether formal evaluate the entity's legal,financial,and technical capabilities in addition to generally considering the or informal,must at a minimum conmim(1)the applicant's name;(2)the names of the applicant's applicant's fitness to be a communications provider over the rights-of-way.Commenters have presented officers and directors;(3)the applicant's business address;(4)the name and contact information of the substantial evidence that six months provides LFAs sufficient time to review an applicant's proposal, applicant's contact;(5)a description of the geographic ara that the applicant proposes to serve;(6)the negotiate acceptable terms,and award or deny a competitive franchise.'"We are persuaded by the record applicant's proposed PEG channel capacity and capital support;(7)the requested term of the agreement; that a six-month period will allow sufficient time for review. Given that LFAs must act on modification (8)whether the applicant holds an existing authorization to access the community's public rights-of-way; applications within the 120-day limit set by the Communications Act,we believe affording an additional and(9)the amount of the franchise fee the applicant agrees to pay(consistent with the Communications two months-i.e.,a six-month review period-will provide LFAs ample time to conduct negotiations Act and the standards set forth herein). Any requirement the LFA imposes on the applicant to negotiate with an entity new to the franchise area. or engage in any regulatory or administrative processes before the applicant files the requisite information is per se unreasonable and preempted by this Order. Such a requirement would delay competitive entry 73. Failure of an LFA to act within these time frames is unreasonable and constitutes a by undermining the efficacy of the time limits adopted in this Order and would not serve any legitimate refusal to award a competitive franchise. Consistent with other time limits that the Communications Act purpose. At their discretion,applicants may choose to engage in informal negotiations before filing an and our rules impose,' a franchising authority and a competitive applicant may extend these limits if • application. These informal negotiations do not apply to the deadline,however;we will calculate the both parties agree to an extension of time. We further note that an LFA may engage in franchise review deadline from the date that the applicant first files is application with an LFA.For purposes of any activities that are not prohibited by the Communications Act or our tales,such as multiple levels of disputes that mayarise,the applicant will have the burden of proving that it filed the requisite information review or holding a public hearing,'"provided that a final decision is made within the time period or,where required,the application with the LFA by producing either a receipt-stamped copy of the filing established under this Order, or a certified mail return receipt indicating receipt of the required documentation We believe that adoption of a time limit with a specific starting point will ensure that the franchising prrv'ecs will not be b. Commencement of the Tame Period for Negotiations unduly delayed by pm-filing requirements,will increase applicants'incentive to begin negotiating in earnest at an earlier stage of the process,and will encourage both LFAs and applicants to reach agreement 74. The record demonstrates that there is no universally accepted event that"starts the within the specified time frame. We note that an LFA may toll the running of the 90-day or six-month clock"for purposes of calculating the length of franchise negotiations between LFAs and new entrants. time period if it has requested information from the franchise applicant and is waiting for such Accordingly,we find it necessary to delineate the point at which such calculation should begin. Few information.Once the information is received by the LFA,the time period would automatically begin to commenters offer specific suggestions on what event should open the time period for franchise • ram again. negotiations.Qwest contends that the period for negotiations should commence once an applicant files an application!" On the other hand,Verizon argues that the clock must start before an applicant files a c. Remedy for Failure to Negotiate a Franchise Within the Time Limit formal application because significant negotiations often take place before a formal filing. Specifically, 76. Finally,we consider what remedy or remedies may be appropriate in the event that an LFA and franchise applicant are unable to reach agreement within the 90-day or six-month time frame. :u Verizon Reply Comments at 43 n.69. Section 635 of the Communications Act provides a specific remedy for an applicant who believes that an es LFA unreasonably denied its application containing the requisite information within the applicable time : See Cablevision Comments at 10-12;GMTC Comments at 3,6-8;State of Hawaii Reply at 3;Mt.Hood Cable frame.Here,we establish a remedy in the event an LFA does not grant or deny a franchise application by Regulatory Commission Comments at 20;NIBPU Comments at 5;Southwest Suburban Cable Commission the deadline. In selecting this remedy,we seek to provide a meaningful incentive for local franchising Comments at 7.See also Fairfax County,Va.Comments at 4-7(formal negotiations began April I,2005,franchise authorities to abide by the deadlines contained in this Order while at the same time maintaining LFAs' granted Oct 1,2005). authority to manage tights-of-way,collect franchise fees,and address other legitimate franchise concerns. "See,e.g.,47 U.S.C.§537,47 C.F.R.§76.502(c). ni See Southwest Suburban Cable Commission Comments at 7. 77. In the event that an LFA fails to grant or deny an application by the deadline set by the Commission,Verizon urges the Commission to temporarily authorize the applicant to provide video rn See supra paas.14-17. s"See Qwest Reply at 2(establish a requirement that an LFA"must as on a franchise application within six months of filing"). - "' im See Vesn Reply at 37;Letter from Lama Hahstein,Executive Director,Federal Regulatory,Verizon to "s Id Marlene Dome',Secretary,Federal Communications Commission at I(April 21,2006). "6 See infra pares.99.104. 37 38 Federal Communications Commission FCC 06-180 Federal Communications Commission FCC 06-180 service."'In general,we agree with this proposed remedy.In order to encourage franchising authorities services.""As the Commission noted,"(ajlthough we have determined that local authorities ought to • to reach a final decision on a competitive application within the applicable time frame set forth in this have the widest scope in franchising cable operators,the final responsibility s ours.i°s' And the Order,a failure to abide by the Commission's deadline must bring with it meaningful consequences. Commission granted interim franchises for cable services in areas where there was no other franchising Additionally,we do not believe that a sufficient remedy for an LFA's inaction on an application is the authority.'" creation of a remedial process,such as arbitration,that will result in even further delay.We also decline to agree to NATOA's suggestion that an applicant should be awarded a franchise identical to that held by 80. We note that the deemed grant approach is consistent with other federal regulations the incumbent cable operator.This suggestion is impractical for the same reasons that we find local level- designed to address inaction on the part of a State decision maker.'"In addition,this approach dots not playing-field requirements are preempted"t Therefore,if an LFA has not made a final decision within raise any special legal concerns about impinging on state or local authority.The Act plainly gives federal the time limits we adopt in this Order,the LFA will be deemed to have granted the applicant an interim courts authority to review decisions made pursuant to Section 621(a)(1).xa As the Supreme Court franchise based on the terms proposed in the application. This interim franchise will remain in effect observed in fovea Utilities Board,"This is,at bottom,a debate not about whether the States will be only until the LFA takes final action on the application.We believe this approach is preferable to having allowed to do their own thing,but about whether it will be the FCC or the federal courts that draw the the Commission itself provide interim franchises to applicants because a"deemed grant"will begin the lines to which they must hew.To be sure,the FCC's lines an be even more restrictive than those drawn process of developing a working relationship between the competitive applicant and the franchising by the tours-but it is hard to spark a passionate'States'tights'debate over that demiL" authority,which will be helpful in the event that a negotiated franchise is ultimately approved. 81. We anticipate that a deemed grant will be the exception rather than the role because 78. The Commission has authority to deem a franchise application"granted"on an interim IFAs will generally comply with the Commission's rules and either accept or reject applications within basis. As noted above,the Commission has'broad authority to adopt rules to implement Title VI and, the applicable time frame. However,in the rare instance that a local franchising authority unreasonably specifically,Section 621(a)(1)of the Communications Act: As the Supreme Court has explained,the delays acting on an application and a deemed grant therefore occurs,we encourage the parties to continue Commission serves"as the'single Government agency'with'unified jurisdiction'and'regulatory power to negotiate and attempt to reach a franchise agreement following expiation of the formal time limit over all forms of electrical communication,whether by telephone,telegraph,cable,or radio."'"Section Each party will have a strong incentive to negotiate sincerely: LFAs will want to ensure that their 201(b)authorizes the Commission to"prescribe such rules and regulations as may be necessary in the constituents continue to receive the benefits of competition and cable providers will want to protect the public interest to carry out the provisions of this Act". "mhe grant in§201(b)means what it says: investments they have made in deploying their systems.If the LFA ultimately acts to deny the franchise The FCC has rnlemaking authority to carry out the'provisions of this Act'"'" Section 2 of the after the deadline, the applicant may appeal such denial pursuant to Section 635(a) of the Communications Act grants the Commission explicit jurisdiction over"cable services."'" Moreover, Communications Act. If,on the other hand,the LFA ultimately grants the franchise,the applicant's Congress specifically changed the Commission with the administration of the Cable Act,including operations will continue pursuant to the negotiated franchise,rather than the interim franchise. Section 621,and federal courts have consistently upheld the Commission's authority in this area." 2. Build-Out 79. The Commission has previously granted franchise applicants temporary authority to 82. As discussed above,build-out requiremcmts in many cases may constitute unreasonable operate is local areas. In the early 1970s,the Commission required every cable operator to obtain a barriers to entry into the MVPD market for facilities-based competitors." Accordingly,we limit LFAs' federal certificate of compliance from the Commission before it could"commence operations." In ability to impose certain build-out requirements pursuant to Section 621(a)(1). effect,the Commission acted as a co-franchising authority-requiring both an FCC certificate and a local franchise(granted pursuant to detailed Commission guidance and oversight)prior to the provision of "s The Commission ended the certificate requirement and ceded additional authority to sure and local governments in the late 1970s,bur only for pragmatic reasons.See,e.g.,Report and Order,66 F.C.0 24 380,99 33,37(1977); '"See Letterfrom Lena Hochsrriq Executive Director,Federal Regulatory,Verizon to Marlene Dom];Scuenry, Memorandum Opinion and Order and Further Nonce of Proposed Rudemaking,71 F.C.C.2d 569,9 7(1979) Federal Communications Commission at I(May 3,2006). (withdrawing aspects of Commission franchising participation,but only"as long as the actionstaken at the local level will not undermine important and overriding federal interests'). "See infra pares 138 If new mean were required to adopt the same franchises as incumbents,the new entrants would be famed to accept terms that violate Sermon 621(axl)'s prohibition on unreasonable refusals to grant r"Teleprompter Cable Sys,52 F.C.C.2d 1263,19(1975)(emphasis added). franchises.See Mercatus Comer at 39-40k Phoenix Curter Competition Paper at 7. 'n See,eg.,Cable Television Reconsideration Order,36 F.C.C.2d 326,1 116(1972);Sun Valley Cable t"See supra Section ill.B. Communications(Sun City.Arizona),39 F.C.C.2d 105(1973);Mehoning Valley Cablevision.Inc. (Liberty Townslnp,Ohio),39 F.C.C2d 939(1973). • s°Unfired Scorer v.Southwestern Cable Co.,392 U.S.157,167-68(1968)(citations omitted). °O See.e.g.,40 C.F.R.141.716(a)(watershed control plans than are submitted to a state and nor acted upon by the "'47 U.S.C.§201(b).See also 47 U.S.C.§§151,154(i),303(r). regulatory deadline are"considered approved"and the state subsequently withdraws such approval.);42 C.F.R. "AT&T Corp.v lawn Wiles Berard 525 U.S.366,378(1999). 438.56(e)(2)(an application to disenroll from a Medicaid managed care plan shall be"considered approved"if not tt'47 U.S.C. acted on by a stare agency within the regulatory deadline).See also 47 U.S.C.§160(e)(petition for forbearance §152. "deemed granted'if Commission fails to deny within the regulatory deadline). tar See supra note 208. J°See 47 U.S.C.§555. "s Amendment of Part 7e,Subpart K of the Commission's Bales and Regulations Relame to Community ":AT&T Corp.v.lowa Urils.Bd,525 U.S.366,378 a6(1999). Antenna Teevsion Systems,36 F.CC2d 143,1 178(1972). cv:See Section IILA.,supra,at pares.31-12. 39 40 Federal Communications Commission FCC 06-180 Federal Communications Commission FCC 06-180 a. Authority jurisdiction of the franchising authority."'" By declining to adopt this language,Congress made clear that it did not intend to impose uniform build-out requirements on all franchise applicants.'" 83. Proponents of build-out requirements do not offer any persuasive legal argument that the • Commission lacks authority to address this significant problem and conclude that certain build-out 86. LFAs and incumbent cable operators also rely on Section 621(a)(3) to support requirements for competitive entrants are unreasonable. Nothing in the Communications Act requires compulsory build-out. That Section provider:"In awarding a franchise or franchises,a franchising competitive franchise applicants to agree to build-out their networks in any particular fashion. authority shall assure that access to cable service is not denied to any group of potential residential cable Nevertheless,incumbent cable operators and LFAs contend that it is both lawful and appropriate,in all subscribers because of the income of the residents of the local area in which such group resides.'''We circumstances,to impose the same build-out requirements on competitive applicants that apply to therefore address below some commenters'concerns that limitations on build-out requirements will incumbents. We reject these arguments and find that Section 621(a)(1)prohibits LFAs from refusing contravene or render ineffective the statutory prohibition against discrimination on the basis of income to award a new franchise on the ground that the applicant will not agree to unreasonable build-out ("redlining.'')"But for present purposes,it bas already been established that Section 62 1(a)(3)does not requirements. mandate universal build-out As the Commission previou sly y has stated,"the intent of[Section 621(a)(3)) was to prevent the exclusion of cable service based on income"and"this section does not mandate that 84. The only provision in the Communications Act that even alludes to build-out is Section the franchising authority require the complete wiring of the franchise area in those circumstances where 621(aX4)(A),which provides that"a franchising authority...shall allow the applicant's cable system a such an exclusion is not based on the income status of the residents of the unwired area."'" The U.S. reasonable period of time to become capable of providing cable service to all households in the franchise Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit(the"D.C.Circuit")has upheld this interpretation in area.'" Far from a grant of authority,however,Section 62I(aX4)(A)is actually a limitation on LFAs' the face of an argument that universal build-out was required by Section 621(a)(3): authority. In circumstances when it is reasonable for LFAs to require cable operators to build out their networks in accordance with a specific plan,LFAs must give franchisees a reasonable period of time to The statute on its face prohibits discrimination on the basis of income;it manifestly does comply with those requirements. However,Section 621(a)(4)(A)does not address the central question not require universal[build-out]....[The provision requires]"wiring of all areas of the here:whether it may be unreasonable for LFAs to impose certain build-out requirements on competitive franchise"to prevent redlining. However,if 00 redlinitig is in evidence,it is likewise cable applicants.To answer that question,Section 621(a)(4)(A)must be read in conjunction with Section clear that wiring within the franchise area can be limited. 621(a)(1)'s prohibition on unreasonable refusals to award competitive franchises,and in light of the Act's twin goals of promoting competition and broadband deployment's b. Discussion 85. Our interpretation of Section 621(a)(4)(A)is consistent with relevant jurisprudence and 87. Given the current state of the MVPD marketplace,we find that an LFA's refusal to award the legislative history. The D.C.Circuit has squarely rejected the notion that Section 621(a)(4)(A) a competitive franchise because the applicant will not agree to speed build-out requirements can be authorizes LFAs to impose universal build-out requirements on all cable providers. The court has held unreasonable. Market conditions today are far different from when incumbent cable operators obtained that Section 621(a)(4)(A)does not require that cable operators extend service"throughout the franchise their franchises.Incumbent cable providers were frequently awarded community-wide monopolies."In area,"but instead is a limit on franchising authorities that seek to impose such obligations."' That that context,a requirement that the provider build out facilities to the entire community was eminently decision comports with the legislative history,which indicates that Congress explicitly rejected an sensible.The essential bargain was that the cable operator would provide service to an entire community approach that would have imposed affirmative build-out obligations on all cable providers. The House in exchange for its status as the only franchisee from whom customers in the community could purchase version of the bill provided that an LFA's"refusal to award a franchise shall not be unreasonable if,for example,such refusal is on the ground...of inadequate assurance that the cable operator will,within a reasonable period of time,provide universal smite throughout the entire franchise area under the it H.R.REP.No.102-628,at 9(1992). eer See Doe v.Chao,540 U.S.614,622-23(2004)(funding relevance in the fact that Congress had at out the very language in the bdl that would have achieved the result claimant urged). 'r See,a g,Comcust Reply Comments at 34;NCTA Reply Comments at 25-26;NATOA Reply Comments at 24; -s'47 U.S.C.§541(ax3) Southeast Michigan Municipalities Reply Comments at 4445. ran See.e.g.,Comeut Reply at 2(arguing that incumbent LECs are seeking Commission action on build-out 47 U.S.C.§54I(a)(4)(A). requirements in order to pursue their"high-value"customers while bypassing"low-value'ones). "'Americable Intern..Inc.v.Dep't of Navy,129 F.3d 1271,1274-75(D.C.Cr.1997). ill Implementing the Provisions of the Cable Communications Polity M Act of 1984,Report and Order,M Docket No.84-1296,58 Rad.Reg.2d(P&F)I,62-63(1985). BSPA Comments at 6("The most significant factors '96 Id. See also Americable Intern,Inc v.US.Dept.of Nary,931 F.Supp.1,2-3(D.D.C.1996)("Americable affecting where a wireline network will be built relate to cost of construction and the density of the population that argues fast that the Cable Act establishes a'requirement'that a franchise'provide universal service throughout the will be served.These factors have a much more significant impact on the network expansion plans than the specific franchise area.'Its authority for that position is 47 U.S.C.§541(a)(4XA),which requires that a franchising authority cusromc profile in a geographic area"). (here the Navy)allow an applicant's system'a reasonable period of time to become capable of providing cable r°r service to all households in the franchise area....'That language contains no requirement of universal service,of ACLU v.FCC,823 F.2d 1554,1580(D.C.Cir.1987)(emphasis in original). See also Consumers for Cable Choice Comments at 8;DOI Er Parte at 4. course. Amedcable's strained argument is at odds with the purpose of tha'Cable Act,which is to promote competition,and of the amendment in question,which protects the interests of new franchise applicants and not J0'See H.R.REP.No.102-862,at 77-78(1992)(Conf.Rep.),err reprinted in 1992 U.S.C.C.A.N.1231,1259.1260; incumbents Dee Americable'). Mercatus Centre Comments at 3940;Phoenix Center Competition Paper at 7. 41 42 Federal Communications Commission FCC 06-180 Federal Communications Commission FCC 06-180 service.Thus,a financial burden was placed upon the monopoly provider in exchange for the undeniable forestall competition by placing substantial demands on competitive entrants. benefit of being able to operate without competition.'"' 91. In sum,we find,based on the record as a whole,that build-out requirements imposed by 88. By contrast,new cable entrants must compete with entrenched cable operators and other LFAs can operate as unreasonable barriers to competitive entry. The Commission has broad authority video service providers A competing cable provider that seeks to offer service in a particular community under Section 621(a)(1)to determine whether particular LFA conditions on cony are unreasonable. ' cannot reasonably expect to capture more than a fraction of the total market"' Build-out requirements Exercising that authority,we find that Section 621(a)(1)prohibits LFAs from refusing to award a thus impose significant financial risks on competitive applicants,who must incur substantial construction competitive franchise because the applicant will not agree to unreasonable build-out requirements. costs to deploy facilities within the franchise area in exchange for the opportunity to capture a relatively small percentage of the market" In many instances,build-out requirements make entry so expensive c. Redlining that the prospective competitive provider withdraws its application and simply declines to serve any portion of the community."'Given the entry-deterring effect of build-out conditions,our construction of 92. The Communications Act forbids access to cable service from being denied to any group Section 621(a)(I)best serves the Act's purposes of promoting competition and broadband deployment'O° of potential residential cable subscribers because of neighborhood income. The statute is thus clear that no provider of cable services may deploy services with the intent to redline and"that access to cable 89. Accordingly,we find that it is unlawful for LFAs to refuse to grant a competitive service[may not be]denied to any group of potential residential cable subscribers because of the income franchise on the basis of unreasonable build-out mandates. For example,absent other factors,it would of the residents of the local area in which such group resides."'"Nothing in our action today is intended seem unreasonable to require a new competitive entrant to sane everyone in a franchise area before it has to limit LFAs'authority to appropriately enforce Section 621(a)(3)and to ensure that their constituents begun providing service to anyone. It also would seem unreasonable to require facilities-based entrants, are protected against discrimination.This includes an LFA's authority to deny a franchise that would run such as incumbent LECs,to build out beyond the footprint of their existing facilities before they have afoul of Section 621(a)(3). even begun providing cable service.''It also would seem unreasonable,absent other factors,to require more of a new entrant than an incumbent cable operator by,for instance,requiring the new entrant to 93. MMTC suggests than the Commission develop ants-redlining"best practices,"specifically build out its facilities in a shorter period of time than that originally afforded to the incumbent cable defining who is responsible for overseeing redlining issues,what constitutes redlining,and developing • operator,or requiring the new entreat to build out and provide service to areas of lower density than those substantial relief for those affected by redlining.'" MMTC suggests that an LFA could afford a new that the incumbent cable operator is required to build out to and sane."' We note,however,it would entrant means of obtaining pre clearance of its build-out plans,establishing a rebuttable presumption that seem reasonable for an LFA in establishing build-out requirements to consider the new entrant's market the new cannot will not redline(for example,proposing to replicate a successful anti-redlining program penetration. It would also seem reasonable for an LFA to consider benchmarks requiring the new entrant employed in another franchise area).'" Alternatively,an LFA could allow a new entrant to choose to increase its build-out after a reasonable period of time had passed after initiating service and taking into among regulatory options,any of which would be sufficient to allow for build-out to commence while the account its market success. granular details of anti-redlining reporting are finalized"'We note these suggestions but do not require them. 90. Some other practices that seem unreasonable include:requiring the new entrant to build our and provide service to buildings or developments to which the new entrant cannot obtain access on 3. Franchise Fees reasonable terms;requiring the new entrant to build out to certain areas or customers that the entrant 94. In response to questions in the Local Franchising NPfLW concerning existing practices cannot reach using standard technical solutions;and requiring the new entrant to build out and provide that may impede cable may,"'various pasties discussed unreasonable demands relating to franchise fees. service to areas where it cannot obtain reasonable access to and use of the public rights of way. Commenters have also indicated that unreasonable demands concerning fees or other consideration by Subjecting a competitive applicant to more stringent build-out requirements than the LFA placed on the some LFAs have created an unreasonable barrier to entry.16 Such matters include not only the universe incumbent cable operator is unreasonable in light of the greater economic challenges facing competitive applicants explained above. Moreover,build-out requirements may significantly deter entry and thus "'47 U.S.C.§541. 10'See FITH Council Comments at 32-33;BellSouth Comments at 34. sir MMTC Comments at 22,MMTC Reply at 15.MMTC urges that The State Regulators Council of the Advisory sat See,e.g.-AT&T Comments at 50;F17H Council Comments at 29-30. Commieee on Diversity for Communication in the Digital Age should be the oversight comminee for redlining "6See FTTH Council Comments at 32-35;DOS Er Parte at 12-15(May 10,2006);AT&T Reply Comments at 30. issuer.MMTC Comments at 24. 36;BellSouth Comments at 34-35;Veriran Comments at 39-40. "'MMTC Reply at 11. "See FTIH Council Comments at 35;BellSouth Comments at 17-19,35;USTA Comments at 22-25;Vernon "s MMTC Reply at 11(providing examples of"rapid buildout plan,""equal service verification plan,"rod Comments at 4042. "combined plan"). ills AT&T Comments at 62-64;BellSouth Comments at 32.33;Qwest Comments at 21-22;USTA Comments at 27; "°Local Franchising NM(20 FCC Red at 18588. Verizen Comments at 4446. "6 See,e.g.,AT&T Reply at Attachment Cat 5("Lynbrook,N.Y.has asked Verixon to provide cameras to film a "See supra press.3840. holiday visit from Santa Claus.Deputy Mayor Thomas Miccio said,'They know if they don't get this preens done "0 As we mdcrstand these franchising agreements are public documents,we find it reasonable to require the new they're going to be in big,big trouble,so we feel were in a very good position.'")(rising Dionne Seareey,As entrant to produce the incumbent's current agreement • peon Enters Cable Business,it Faces Local Static,WAIL ST.J.,Oct 28,2005,at Al),Verizon Comments at Attachment A at 14('Two LFAs in California required application Ceres of 525,000 and S20,000,respectively, (continued...) 43 44 Federal Communications Commission FCC 06-180 Federal Communications Commission FCC 06-180 of franchise-related costs imposed on providers that should or should not be included within the 5 percent to the cap. The legislative history of the 1984 Cable Act,which adopted the franchise fee limit, statutory franchise fee cap established in Section 622(b),s"but also the calculation of franchise fees(i.e., specifically provides that"lump sum grants not related to PEG access for municipal programs such as the revenue base from which the 5 percent is calculated). Accordingly,we will exercise our authority libraries,recreation departments,detention centers or other payments not related to PEG acmes would be " ender Section 621(a)(I)to address the unreasonable demands made by some LFAs. In particular,any subject to the 5 percent limitation.""' refusal to award an additional competitive franchise because of an applicant's refusal to accede to demands that are deemed impermissible below shall be considered to be unreasonable. The 97. Definition of the 5 percent fee rap revenue base-As a preliminary matter,we address Commission's jurisdiction over franchise fee policy is well established'.The general law with respect to the request of several parties to clarify which revenue-generating services should be included in the gross franchise fees should be relatively well known,but we believe it may be helpful to restate the basic fee figure from which the 5 percent calculation is drawn' The record indicates that in the franchise propositions here in effort to avoid misunderstandings that can lead to delay in the franchising process as application process,disputes that arise as to the propriety of particular fees can be a significant cause of well as unreasonable refusals to award competitive franchises.To the extent that our determinations are delay in the process and that some franchising authorities are making unreasonable demands in this relevant to incumbent cable operators as well,we would expect that discrepancies would be addressed at area." This issue is of particular concern where a prospective sew entrant for the provision of cable the next franchise renewal negotiation period,as noted in the FNPRM infra,which tentatively concludes services is a facilities-based incumbent or competitive provider of telecommunications and/or broadband that the findings in this Order should apply to cable operators that have existing franchise agreements as services. A number of controversies regarding which revenues are properly subject to application of the they negotiate renewal of those agreements with LFAs." franchise fee were resolved before the Supreme Court's decision in NCTA v.Brand X,"which settled issues concerning the proper regulatory classification of cable modem-based Internet access service. 95. We address below four significant issues relating to franchise fee payments. First,we Nevertheless,in some quarters,there has been considerable uncertainty over the application of franchise consider the franchise fee revenue base.Second,we examine the limitations on charges incidental to the fees to Internet access service revenues and other non-cable revenues.Thus,we believe it may assist the awarding or enforcing of a franchise. Third,we discuss the proper classification of in-kind payments franchise process and prevent unreasonable refusals to award competitive franchises to reiterate certain unrelated to the provision of cable service.Finally,we consider whether contributions in support of PEG conclusions that have been reached with respect to the franchise fee base. services and equipment should be considered within the franchise fee calculation. 98. We clarify that a cable operator is not required to pay franchise fees on revenues from 96. The fundamental franchise fee limitation is set forth in Section 622(b),which states that non-cable services."s Section 622(6)provides that the"franchise fees paid by a cable operator with "franchise fees paid by a cable operator with respect to any cable system shall not exceed 5 percent of respect to any cable system shall not exceed 5 percent of such cable operator's gross revenues derived in such cable operator's gross revenues derived in such period from the operation of the cable system to such period from the operation of the cable system to provide cable services."19 The term"cable service" provide cable services."'"Section 622(g)(1)broadly defines the term"franchise fee"to include"any tax, is explicitly defined in Section 602(6)to mean(i)"the one-way transmission to subscribes of video fee,or assessment of any kind imposed by a franchising authority or other governmental entity on a cable programming or other programming service,"and(t)"subscriber interaction,if any,which is required for operator or cable subscriber,or both,solely because of their status as such."' Section 622(g)(2)(c), the selection or use of such video programming or other programming service."10 The Commission however,excludes from the term"franchise fee"any"capital costs which are required by the franchise to determined in the Cable Modem Declaratory Ruling that a franchise authority may not assess franchise be incurred by the cable operator for public,educational,or governmental access facilities."' And fees on non-cable services,such as cable modem service,stating that"revenue from cable modem service Section 622(g)(2)(D)excludes from the term(and therefore from the 5 percent cap)"requirements or would not be included in the calculation of gross revenues from which the franchise fee ceiling is charges incidental to the awarding or enforcing of the franchise,including payments for bonds,security determined." Although this decision related specifically to Internet access service revenues,the same funds,letters of credit,insurance,indemnification,penalties,or liquidated damages."'" It has been established that certain types of"ie'kind"obligations,in addition to monetary payments,may be subject "'H.R.Rtr.No.98-934,at 65(1984),err reprinted in 1984 U.S.C.CAN.4655,4702. (Continued from previous page) '"Verizon Comments at 63-64;BellSouth Commeoa at 41-43. Another community in that state has requested an upfront application fee of 530,000 plus an agreement to pay "See supra pares.43-t5. additional mpeuses(Le.,attorneys fees)of up to an additional 520,000."). "'125 S.Cr.2658(2005).See infra note 331. "'47 U.S.C.§542(b). act Advertisin revenue and home shopping rat 8 ATng commissions have been included la in v FCC,operator's5 gross revenues6for See ACLU v.FCC,823 F2d 1554,1574(D.C.Cr.1987)("[TJt is Clear...that the ultimate responsibility for franchise fee calculation purposes.See T Coalman of Coles for Udliry Issues v.FCC,354 F.3d 802,806(Stu ensuring a'national policy'with respect to franchise fees lies with the federal agency responsible for administering Cir.2003)("A cable operator's gross revenue includes revenue from subscriptions and revenue from other sources. the Communications Act.")(emphasis in original). e.g.,advertising and commissions from home shopping networks.');City of Pasadena,California The City of rivSee infra pare 140 Nashville,Tennessee and The City of Virginia Beach,Virginia,l6 FCC Red 18192,2001 WI.1167612,par.15 (2001)("Them is no dispute among the parties to this proceeding,or in relevant precedent,that advertising revenue ''°47 U.S.C.§542(b)(emphasis added). F17H Council mppons an alternative cap based on the actual costs of and home shopping commissions can be considered ofan o toes partperm gross revenues for franchise fee calculation managing the use of public rights-of-way,but we need not address that argument because we do not have the purposes.'. disactioo to adopt a different limit than that set by Congress. ''''47 U.S.C.§542(b)(emphasis added). "47 U.S.C.§542(g)(I). rho 47 U.S.C.§522(6). m 47 U.S.C.)542(g)(2)(C). 'In re Inquiry Concerning Nigh Speed Access to the Internet Over Cable and Other Facilities 17 FCC Red 4798, "47 U.S.C.§542(gx2)(D). . 4851(2002)("Cable Modem Declaratory Ruling"),rev'd,BrandXlererner Services v.FCC,345 F.3d 1120(9'0 Ci:. (continued...) 45 46 Federal Communications Commission FCC 06180 Federal Communications Commission FCC 06-180 would be true for other"non-cable"service revenues." Thus,Internet access services,including that exceed the reasonable cost of processing an application,free or discounted service to an LFA,and broadband data services,and any other non-cable services are not subject to"cable services"fees. LFA attorney or consultant fees,should apply toward the franchise fee obligation." 99. Charges incidental to the awarding or enforcing of a franchise.Section 622(g)(2)(D) 102. Conversely,NATOA asserts that costs such as those enumerated above by AT&T fall excludes from the term"franchise fee""requirements or charges incidental to the awarding or enforcing within Section 622(gx2)(D)'s definition of charges"incidental"to granting the franchise.' NATOA of the franchise, including payments for bonds, security funds, letters of credit, insurance, contends that the word"incidental"does not refer to the amount of the charge,but rather the fact that a indemnification,penalties,or liquidated damages."'Such"incidental"requirements or charges may be charge is"naturally appertaining"to the grant of a franchise. Thus,NATOA argues,these costs are not assessed by a franchising authority without counting toward the 5 percent cap. A number of parties part of the franchise fee and therefore do not count toward the cap."' assert,and seek Commission clarification,that certain types of payments being requested in the franchise process are not incidental fees under Section 622(g)(2)(D)but instead must either be prohibited or 103. There is nothing in the text of the statute or the legislative history to suggest that mutated toward the cap."Furthermore,a number of parties report that disputes over such issues as well Congress intended the list of exceptions in Section 622(g)(2)(D)to include the myriad,additional as unreasonable demands being made by some franchising authorities in this regard may be leading to expenses that some LFAs argue are"incident""Given that the lack of clarity on this issue may hinder delays in the franchising process as well as unreasonable refusals to award competitive franchises. We competitive deployment and-lead to unreasonable refusals to award competitive franchises under Section therefore determine that non-incidental franchise-related costs required by LFAs must count toward the 5 621,we seek to provide guidance as to what is"incidental"for a new competitive application"'We find percent franchise fee cap and provide guidance as to what constitutes such non-incidental franchise- that the term"incidental"in Section 622(g)(2)(D)should be limited to the list of incidentals in the related costs. Under the Act,these costs combined with other franchise fees cannot exceed 5 percent of statutory provision,as well as other minor expenses,as described below. We find instructive a series of gross revenues for cable service, federal court decisions relating to this subsection of Section 622. These courts have indicated that(i) there are significant limits on what payments qualify as"incidental"and may be requested outside of the 100. BellSouth urges us to prohibit franchising authorities from assessing fees that the 5 percent fee limitation;and(ii)processing fees,consultant fees,and attorney fees are not necessarily to authorities claim are"incidental"if those fees are not specifically allowed under Section 622 of the Cable be regarded as"incidental"to the awarding of a franchise." In Robin Cable Systems v.City of Sierra Act"' BellSouth asserts that LFAs often seek fees beyond the 5 percent franchise fee allowed by the Vista,for example,the United States District Court for the District of Arizona held that"processing costs" statutory provision.The company therefore asks to to clarify that any costs that an LFA requires a cable of up to S30,000 required as part of the award of a franchise were not excluded under subsection provider to pay beyond the exceptions listed in Section 622-including generally applicable taxes,PEG (g)(2)(D)because they were not"incidental,"but rather"substantial"and therefore"inconsistent with the capital costs,and"incidental charges"-cocnt toward the 5 percent cap."OPASTCO asserts that higher Cable Act"""Additionally,in Time Warner Entertainment v.Briggs,the United States District Court for fees discourage investment and often will aced to be passed on to consumers.' Verizon also requests the District of Massachusetts decided that attorney fees and consultant fees fall within the definition of that we clarify that fees that exceed the cap are unreasonable.'" franchise fees,as defined in SCetion 622. Because the municipality in that case was already collecting 5 percent of the operator's gross revenues,the Court determined that a franchise provision requiring the 101. AT&T argues that we should find unreasonable any fees or contribution requirements cable operator to pay such fees above and beyond its 5 percent&toss revenues was preempted and that are not credited toward the franchise fee obli ation.19 AT&T also assess that anyfinancialunenforceable."' p p B therefore Finally,in Birmingham Cable Comm.v.City of Birmingham,the United obligation to the franchising authority that a provider undertakes,such as application or acceptance fees States District for the Northern District of Alabama stated that"it would be an aberrant construction of (Continued from previous page) 10 AT&T Comments at 65-67. 2003),rev'd,NCTA v.Brand X,545 U.S.967(2005). The Commission issued a notice of proposed mlemokiag 'NATOA Reply at 34-35. ("Cable Modem NPRM')concurrently with the Cable Modem Declaratory Ruling. Certain questions from the "h Cable Modem NPRM that arc relevant,but not directly related,to this discussion remain pending before the NATOA Reply at 35(citing Random House Dictionary of the English Language at 720). Commission.Cable Modem Declaratory Ruling at 4839.4854. 'See infra pains.105-108. ..'See NATOA Reply at 29(agreeing that non-cable services are not subject to franchise fees). "•NATOA ar es that the Commission is gat powerless to rewrite the meaning of the statute.NATOA Reply at 35. "'47 U.S.C.§542(g)(2)(D). Yet,Section 622(i)states"[allay Federal agencymay not regulate the amount of the franchise fees paid by a able h� operator,or regulate the use of funds derived from such fees,except as provided in Mir section."Therefore,we are '•AT&T Comments at 65.67;BellSouth Comments at 7,38-39. within our Congressionally mandated authoritytopmvide clan "'BellSouth Commence at 7. provision Soh y fY'°B guidance regarding the meaning of this "BellSouth Comments at 38-39. "'See Robin Cable Systems v.City rfSierra Vista 342 F.Sapp.380(D.Ariz 1993);Time Warner Enertainmeer err Co.v.Briggs,1993 WI.23710(D.Mass.Jan 14,1993);Birmtngham Cable Comm.v.City of Birmingham,1989 OPASTCO Reply at 5. WI.253850(N.D.Ala.1959). ''Veriaon Reply at 59. "Robin Cable at 381. 11 AT&T Comments at 64. "'Thee Warner at 23710•6. 47 . 48 • Federal Communications Commission FCC 06-180 Federal Communications Commission FCC 06-180 the phrase'incidental to the awarding... of the franchise,'in this context,to conclude that the phrase Council asserts that in San Antonio,Grande Communications was required to prepay El million in embraces consultant fees incurred solely by the City.""' franchise fees(which took the company five years to draw down)and to fund a S50,000 scholarship,with an additional$7,200 to be contributed each year. They assert that new entrants agree to these e 104. We find these decisions instructive and emphasize that LFA'must count such non- requirements banuse they have no alternative.'" The National Telecommunications Cooperative incidental franchise-related costs toward the cap. We agree with these judicial decisions that non- Association("NTCA")also asserts that its members have complained that LFA'require them to accept incidental costs include the items discussed above,such as attorney fees and consultant fees,but may franchise terms unrelated to the provision of video service.'" NTCA states that any incumbent cable include other items,as well. Examples of other items include application or processing fees that exceed operator that already abides by such a requirement has made the concession in exchange for an exclusive the reasonable cost of processing the application,acceptance fees,free or discounted services provided to franchise,but that new entrants,in coatrast,must fight for every subscriber and will not survive if forced an LFA,any requirement to lease or purchase equipment from an LFA at prices higher than market value, into expensive non-video related projects." and in-kind payments as discussed below. Accordingly,if LFA'continue to request the provision of such in-kind services and the reimbursement of franchise-related costs,the value of such costs and 107. AT&T refers to a press article orating that Verizon has faced myriad requests unrelated to services should count towards the provider's franchise fee payments." For future guidance,LFAs and the provision of cable service. These include: a S13 million"wish list"in Tampa,Florida;a request for video service providers may look to judicial cases to determine other costs that should be considered video hookup for a Christmas celebration and money for wildflower seeds in New York;and a request for "incidental." fiber on traffic lights to monitor traffic in Virginia" Verizon provides little additional information about these examples,but argues that any requests must be considered franchise-related costs subject to the 5 105. In-kind payments unrelated to provision of cable service.The record indicates that in percent franchise fee cap,as discussed above'" the context of some franchise negotiations,LFAs have demanded from new mounts payments or in-kind contributions that are unrelated to the provision of cable services. While many parties argue that 108. We clarify that any requests made by LFA'unrelated to the provision of cable services franchising authority requirements unrelated to the provision of cable services arc unreasonable,'"few by a new competitive entrant are subject to the statutory 5 perceat franchise fee cap,as discussed above. parties provided specific derails surrounding the in-kind payment demands of LFA'."' As discussed Municipal projects unrelated to the provision of cable service do not fall within any of the exempted further below,most parties generally discussed examples of concessions,but were unwilling to provide categories in Section 622(g)(2)of the Act and thus should be considered a"franchise fee"under Section details of specific instances,including the identity of the LFA requesting the unrelated services.' Even 622(g)(1).The legislative history of the 1984 Cable Act supports this finding,providing that"lump sum without specific details concerning the LFAs involved,however,the record adequately supports a fording grants not related to PEG access for municipal programs such as libraries,recreation departments, that LFA requests unrelated to the provision of cable services have a negative impact on the entry of new detention centers or other payments not related to PEG access would be subject to the 5 percent . cable competitors in terms of timing and costs and may lead to unreasonable refusals to award limitation.i1d0 Accordingly,any such requests for municipal projects will count towards the 5 percent competitive franchises.Accordingly,we clarify that any requests made by LFAs that are unrelated to the cap. provision of cable services by a new competitive entrant are subject to the statutory 5 percent franchise fee cap. 109. Contributions in support of PEG services and equipment.As further discussed in the Section below,we also consider the question of the proper treatment of LFA-mandated contributions in 106. The Broadband Service Providers Association states that an example of a municipal support of PEG services and equipment. The record reflects that disputes regarding such contributions capital requirement can include traffic light control systems."' FTTH Council states that non-video are impeding video deployment and may be leading to unreasonable refusals to award competitive requirementsraise the cost of entry for new entrants and should be prohibited.'"As an example,FTTH franchises." Section 622(g)(2)(C)excludes from the term"franchise fee"any"capital costs which are "'Birmingham at 253650. required by the franchise to be incurred by the cable operator for public,educational,or governmental 8 access facilities. Accordingly,payments of this type,if collected only for the cost of building PEG "'To the extent that an LFA requires franchise fee payments of less than 5 percent an offset may not be necessary. facilities,are not subject to the 5 percent limit.Capital costs refer to those costs incurred in or associated Such LFA'are able to request the reimbursement or provision of such costs up to the 5 percent statutory threshold '"Alcatel Comments at 10;FTTH Council Comments at 36;OPASTCO Reply at 4;USTelecom Cements at 48; 'Id at 38. • BPSA Comments at 8;NTCA Comments at 13;South Slope Comments at 15.See also DOS Ex Parte at II. "'Some LFAs argue that commenters'allegations about inappropriate fees fail to identify the LFA'in question.As "MCA Comments at 4. a consequence,they contend we should not rely on such unsubstantiated claims unless the particular LFA'in "MCA Comments at 13. question are given a chance to respond Communications Support Group Reply at 7;Anne Arundel County Reply at "AT&T Comments at 26(citing Dionne Seatcey,As Vernon Enters Cable Business.a Faces Local Static,WAIL 5.We need not resolve particular disputes between parties,however,in order to address this issue.Our clarification Si.S.,Oct 28,2005,at Al).See also City of Tampa Reply Comments at 5. that all LFA requests not related to cable services must be counted toward the 5 percent cap is a matter of statutory construction,and all commenters have had ample opportunity to address this issue. '"Verizon Comments at 54.See also USTelecom Cements at 48. "Broadband Service Providers Association Comments at 8;AT&T Comments at 26;Veizon Commons at 57.58. 'a0 RR RID.No.98-934,at 65(1984),err reprinted in 1984 U.S.C.C.A.N.4655,4702. Parties have indicated that they were unwilling to identify specific instances of unreasonable requests,since in many 'a'See,e.g.,FTTH Council Comments at 36(n0tmg how Knology declined to enter the Louisville market after the cases these parties are still eying to negotiate franchise agreements with the communities at issue Louisville LFA requested a PEG grant of 5266,000 at the time of franchise grant,with 51.9 million total due over 'Broadband Service Providers Association Comments at 8. the 15-year term). "a.FTTH Council Comments at 66. "'47 U.S.C.§542(g)(2)(C). 49 50 • Federal Communications Commission FCC 06-180 Federal Communications Commission FCC 06-180 with the construction of PEG access facilities."'These costs are distinct from payments in support of the that they are agreed to voluntarily by the cable operator.'"Verizon also asserts that the record confirms use of PEG access facilities. PEG support payments may include,but are not limited to,salaries and that LFA'often demand PEG support that exceeds statutory limits." training.Payments made in support of PEG access facilities are considered franchise fees and arc subject to the 5 percent cap.'s' While Section 622(g)(2)(B)excluded from the term franchise fee any such 112. Section 61](a)of the Communications Act operates as a restriction on the authority of the payments made in support of PEG facilities,it only applies to any franchise in effect on the date of franchising authority to establish channel capacity requirements for PEG.This Section provides that"[a) enaatr¢ent."Thus,for any franchise granted after 1984,this exemption from franchise fees no longer franchising authority may establish requirements in a franchise with respect to the designation or use of applies. channel capacity for public,educational,or governmental use only to the extent provided in this section."'"Section 611(b)allows a franchising authority to require that"channel capacity be designated 4. PEG/Institutional Networks for public,educational or governmental use,"but the extent of such channel capacity is not defined" 110. In the Local Franchising NPRM,we tentatively concluded that it is not unreasonable for Section 621(a)(4)(b)provides that a franchising authority may require"adequate assurance"that the cable an LEA,in awarding a franchise,to"require adequate assurance that the cable operator will provide operator will provide"adequate"PEG access charnel capacity,facilities,or financial support.^"a adequate public,educational and governmental access channel capacity,facilities,or financial support"" Because the statute don not define the term"adequate,"we have the authority to interpret what Congress because thispromotes important and public policy "r meant by"adequate PEG access channel capacity,facilities,and financial support,"and to prohibit rmpo statutory p goals. However,pursuant to Section excessive LFA demands in this area,if necessary. We note that the legislative history does not define 621(a)(1),we conclude that LFA'may not make unreasonable demands of competitive applicants for "adequate,"nor does it provide any guidance as to what Congress meant by the term." We therefore PEG and I-Net'a'and that conditioning the award of a competitive franchise on applicants agreeing to conclude that"adequate"should be given its plain meaning:the term does not mean significant but rather such unreasonable demands constitutes an unreasonable refusal to award a franchise. This finding is "satisfactory or sufficient."'"As discussed above,we have also accepted the tentative conclusion of the limited to competitive applicants under Section 621(a)(1). Yet,as this issue is also germane to existing franchisees,we ask for further comment on the applicability of this and other findings in the Further Local Franchising NPRM that Section 621( 1)prohibits not only the ultimare refusal to award ea Notice of Proposed Rulemo/dng attached hereto. The FNPRM tentatively concludes that the findings in competitive franchise,but also the establishment of procedures and other requirements that have the this Order should apply to cable operators that have existing franchise agreements as they negotiate effect sofe unreasonablyGien this interfering with the ability of a would-be competitor to obtain a competitive renewal of those agreements with LFA'. franchise.Given conclusion and our authority to interpret the term"adequate"m Section 621(00). we will provide guidance as to what constitutes"adequate"PEG support under that provision as subject to III. As an initial matter,we conclude that we have the authority to address issues relating to the constrains of the"reasonableness"requirement in Section 621(a)(1). PEG and I-Net support.'"Some commenters argue that Congress explicitly granted the responsibility for 113. AT&T asserts that we should shorten the period for franchise negotiations by adopting PEG and I-Net regulation to stare and local govemmens. For example,NATOA contends that we standard terms for PEG channels.'"We reject this suggestion and clarify that LFAs are free to establish cannot limit the in-kind or monetary support that LFA'may request for PEG access,because Sections their own requirements for PEG to the extent discussed herein,provided that the non-capital costs of such 624(a)and(b)allow an LFA to establish requirements"related to the establishment and operation of a cable system,"including facilities and equipment"'In response,Verizon claims that PEG requirements and the requirements are management from the cable quiremen franchise fee payments.This is consistent with the Act should extend only to channel capacity,and that LFAs can obtain other contributions only to the extent and the historic management of PEG rcquiremens by LFAs.10 114. Consumers for Cable Choice and Verizon argue that it is unreasonable for an LFA to request a number of PEG channels from a new entrant that is greater than the number of channels that the community is using at the time the new entrant submits its franchise application."' We find that it is 'n See H.R.RID.No.98.934,at 19(1984),as repented in 1984 US.C.CAN.4655,4656. "'See Cable 7VFund l4-A v.City of Naperville 1997 WL 433628(N.D.M.1997)at 13;City of Bowie.Maryland, '"Verizoa Reply at 60-61. 14 FCC Red 7675(Cable Service Bureau,1999);as c/fed 14 FCC Rod 9596(Cable Services Bureau,1999). "'Verizon Reply at 60(citing NATOA Comma). '47 U.S.C.§542(g)(2)(B). 17'47 U.S.C.§531(a). "a 47 U.S.C.§541(a)(4)03). "'Local Franchising NPRN,20 FCC Rcd at 18590. "47 U.S.C.§531(b). "a 47 US.C.§541(aX4XB). "An I-Ner is defined as"a communication network which is constructed or operated by the cable operator and which is generally available only to subscribers who are not residential customers."47 U.S.C.§531(f). '"See See RR REP.No.102-862,at 78(1992)(Conf.Rep.),at reprinted in 1992 U.S.C.CAN.1231,1260. "'See infra Section 13332. '"American Heritage Dicnonary,S4eood College Edition(1991). 10 NATOA Comments at 35;NATOA Reply at 30-31;Hawaii Reply at 2.3;Mmeatus Comments at 35;Cemain '"AT&T Reply at 15. . Florida Muaicipahties Comments at 17-18;Anne Arundel et al Comments at 35;City of New York Comments at 3- 'w See 47 U.S.C.§541(a)(4XB);Time Warner Cable of New York City v.Cary of New York,943 F.Supp.1357,1367 4. "'NATOA Reply t-0(quoting 47 U.S.C.§544(b)). 199D7N.Y 1996),�d cub nor.Time Warner Cable of New York City v.Bloomberg,LP.,118 F.id 917 pad Cm. epya•+ (9u 8 "'Consumers for Cable Choice Comments at 8;Verizos Comments at 71. 51 52 Federal Communications Commission FCC 06180 Federal Communications Commission FCC 06-180 unreasonable for an LFA to impose on a new entrant more burdensome PEG carriage obligations than it video provider operates in a community.]" New entrants seek a pro rata contribution rule based on has imposed upon the incumbent cable operator. practical constraints as well. AT&T asserts that,although incumbent cable operators can provide space for PEG in local headend buildings,LEC new entrants'facilities are not designed to accommodate those 115. Some commenters also asked whether certain requirements regarding construction or needs. Thus,if duplicative facilities are demanded,new entrants would have to build or rent facilities financial support of PEG facilities and I-Nets are unreasonable under Section 621(a)(1). Several parties solely for this purpose,which AT&T contends would be unreasonable under the statute.'" NATOA indicate that,as a general matter,PEG contributions should be limited to what is"reasonable"to support counters that AT&T's complaint regarding ace mischaracterizes PEG studio "adequate"facilities.'"We agree that PEG support required by an LFA in exchange for granting a new some franchises?" Specifically,NATOA claims that LFAs generally arc not concerned with existuirements that EG entreat a franchise should be both adequate and reasonable,as discussed above. In addressing each of studio's location,and that PEG studios are usually located near cable headends simply because those these concerns below,we seek to strike the necessary balance between the two statutory terms. locations reduce the cable operators'costs.''' 116. Ad Hoc Telecom Manufacturers argue that it is unreasonable to require the payment of 119. We agree with AT&T,FTTH Council,Verizon,and others that completely duplicative ongoing costs to operate PEG channels,because a requirement is unrelated to right-of-way management, PEG and I-Net requirements imposed by LFAs would be unreasonable.'" Such duplication generally the fundamental policy rationale for an LFA's franchising authority.'" In response,Cablevision asserts would be inefficient and would provide minimal additional benefits to the public,unless it was required to that exempting incumbent LECs from PEG support requirements would undermine the key localism address an LFA's particular concern regarding redundancy needed for,for example,public safety. We features of franchiserequirements,and could undermine the ability of incumbent cable operators to clarify that an I-Net requirement is not duplicative if it would provide additional capability or provide robust community access.'"We disagree with Ad Ha Telecom Manufacturers that it is per se functionality,beyond that provided by existing I-Net facilities.We note,however,that we would expect unreasonable for LFAs to require the payment of ongoing costs to support PEG. Such a ruling would be an LFA to consider whether a competitive franchisee can provide such additional functionality by contrary to Section 621(a)(4)(B)and public policy. We note,however,that any ongoing LFA-required providing financial support or actual equipment to supplement existing I-Net facilities,rather than by PEG support costs are subject to the franchise fee cap,as discussed above, constructing new I-Net facilities.Finally,we find that it is unreasonable for an LFA to refuse to award a competitive franchise unless the applicant agrees to pay the face value of an I-Net that will not be 117. FT'ITi Council,Verizon and AT&T ask us to affirm that PEG or I-Net requirements constructed.Payment for I-Nets that ultimately are not constructed are unreasonable as they do not serve imposed on a new entrant that are wholly duplicative of existing requirements imposed on the incumbent their intended purpose cable operator arc per se unreasonable. AT&T and Verizon argue that Section 621(a)(4)(B)requires adequate facilities,nor duplicative facilities.'t4 FTTH Council contends that if LFAs can require 120. While we prefer that LFAs and new entrants negotiate reasonable PEG obligations,we duplicative facilities,they can burden new entrants with inefficient obligations without increasing the find that under Section 621 it is unreasonable for an LFA to require a new entrant to provide PEG support benefit to the public. FTTH Council thus suggests that LFAs be precluded from imposing completely that is in excess of the incumbent cable operator's obligations.We also agree that a pro rata cost sharing duplicative requirements,and that we require new entrants to contribute a pro rata share of the incumbent approach is one reasonable means of meeting the statutory requirement of the provision of adequate PEG cable operator's PEG obligations. For example,if an incumbent cable operator funds a PEG studio,the facilities. To the extent that a new entrant agrees to share pro rata costs with the incumbent cable new entrant should be required to contribute a pro rata share of the ongoing financial obligation for such operator,such an arrangement is per se reasonable."' studio,based on the new entrant's number of subsrnbers.NB 118. In addition to advocating a pro rata contribution rule,FTTH Council requests that we require incumbents to permit new entrants to connect with the incumbent's pre-existing PEG channel J91 Communications Support Group,Inc.Reply at 12. feeds.'" FTTH Council proposes that the incumbent cable operator and new entrant decide how to sat AT&T Comments at 70. accomplish this connection,with LFA involvement if necessary,and that the costs of the comectroa should be deducted from the new entrant's PEG-related financial obligations to the LFA.u90 Others agree 391 NATOA Reply at 41-42. that PEG interconnection is necessary to maximize the value of local access channels when more than one 09 NATOA Reply at 42. 1"If a new entrant for technical financial,or other reasons,is unable to interconnect with the incumbent cable BellSouth Comments at 8;Vernon Comments at 71. operator's facilities,it would not be unreasonable for an LFA to requite the new entrant to assume the responsibility Ot0 Ad Hoc Telecom Manufacturer Coalition Cammmo at 4. of providing comparable facilities,subject to the limitations discussed herein. sex Cable vision Reply at 29-30, rsa To determine a new entrant's per se reasonable PEG support payment,the new encant should determine the incumbent cable operator's per esbsmber payment at the time the competitive appli000t applies fora franchise or its FTTH Council Comments at 66;Veri on Comments at 71;AT&T Comments at 67. submits its informational filing,and then calculate the proportionate fee based on its subsmber base.A new entrant arts AT&T Comments at 67-68;Vctizon Reply at 61. may agree to provide PEG support over and above the incumbent cable operator's existing obligations,but such un FTTH Council Comments at 67. support is at the entrant's discretion.If the new entrant agrees to share the pro rata costs with the incumbent cable operator,the PEG programming provider,be it the incumbent cable operator,the LFA,or a third-party progranrmer, rn Id must allow the new entrant to intereomect with the existing PEG feeds.The costs of such intereonnestion should be bome by the new entrant We note that we previously have required cost-sharing andmrerconnectioo for PEG un Id charnels and facilities in another context.Section 75.1505(d)of the Commission's rules requires that if an LFA and no Id OVS operator aamot reach an agreement on the OVS operator's PEG obligations.the operator is required to match the incumbent cable operator's PEG obligations and the incumbent cable operator is required to permit the OVS (continued...) 53 54 Federal Communications Commission FCC 06-180 Federal Communications Commission FCC 06-180 5. Regulation of Mixed-Use Networks prescheduled by the programming provider.'Ot We do not address at this time what particular services 121. We clarify that LFAs'jurisdiction applies only to the provision of cable services over may fall within the definition. cable systems. To the extent a cable operator provides own-cable services and/or operates facilities that 124. We note that this discussion does not address the regulatory classification of any do not qualify as a cable system,it is unreasonable for an LFA to refuse to award a franchise based on particular video services being offered. We do not address in this Order whether video services provided issues related to such services or facilities.For example,we find it unreasonable for an LFA to refuse to over Internet Protocol arc or are not"cable services."'" grant a cable franchise to an applicant for resisting an LFA's demands for regulatory control over non- D. Preemption of Local Laws,Regulations and Requirements cable services or facilities.10' Similarly,an LFA has no authority to insist on an entity obtaining a separate cable franchise in order to upgrade non-cable facilities.For example,assuming an entity(e.g.,a 125. Having established rules and guidance to implement Section 621(a)(I),we turn now to LEC)already possesses authority to access the public rights-of-way,an LFA may not require the LEC to obtain a franchise solely for the purpose of upgrading its network"' So long as there is a non-cable ther question a reasonableof local laws that may be iooforrelen[ provisionswith decision today. Because thea rules weau nable purpose associated with the network upgrade,the LEC is not required to obtain a franchise until and accommodation cco m[a interpretation policy relearns Congress in Title to as well as a reasonable nave unless it proposes to offer cable services. For example,if a LEC deploys fiber optic cable that can be preemptive effecton of the various policy interests that Congress entrusted the Commission,yre they have used for cable and son-cable servitor,this deployment alone does not trigger the obligation to obtain a preemptive pursuant to Section 636(c). Alternatively,local laws are plash dly preempted to the extent that they conflict with this Order or stand as an obstacle to the accomplishment and execution of cable franchise. The same is true for boxes housing infrastructure to be used for cable and non-cable the full purposes and objectives of Congress.'p1 services. 126. At that outset of this discussion,it is important to reiterate that we do not preempt state 122. We further clarify that an LFA may not use its video franchising authority to attempt to law or state level franchising decisions in this Order.•Instead,we preempt only local laws,regulations, regulate a LEC's entire network beyond the provision of cable services.We agree with Verizon that the practices,and requirements to the extent that.(1)provisions in those laws,regulations,practices,and "entirety of a telecommunications/data network is not automatically converted to a'cable system'once agreements conflict with the rules or guidance adopted in this Order,and(2)such provisions arc not subscribers start receiving video programming.rg99 For instance,we find that the provision of video specifically authorized by state law. As noted above,'p9 we conclude that the record before us does not services pursuant to a cable franchise does not provide a basis for customer service regulation by local provide sufficient information to make determinations with 1op.ct to franchising decisions where a state law or franchise agreement of a cable operator's entire network,or any services beyond cable services. is involved,issuing franchises at the state level or enacting laws governing specific aspects of the Local regulations that attempt to regulate any non-cable services offered by video providers are franchising process. We expressly limit our findings and regulations in this Order to actions or inactions preempted because such regulation is beyond the scope of local franchising authority and is inconsistent at the local level where a state has not circumscribed the LFA's authority. For example,in light of with the definition of"cable system in Section 602(7)(C).'Oh This provision explicitly states that a differences between the scope of franchises issued at the state level and those issued at the local level,it common carrier facility subject to Title II is considered a cable system"to the extent such facility is used may be necessary to use different criteria for determining what may be unreasonable with respect to the in the transmission of video programming.... -As discussed above,revenues from non-cable services key franchising issues addressed herein. We also recognize that many states only recently aveenacted are not included in the base for calculation of franchise fees. comprehensive franchise reform laws designed to facilitate competitive entry. In light of these facts,we 123. In response to requests that we address LFA authority to regulate"interactive on-demand lack a sufficient record to evaluate whether and how such state laws may lead to unreasonable refusals to services,"01 we note that Section 602(7)(C)excludes from the definition of"able system"a facility of a award additional competitive franchises. common carrier that is used solely to provide interactive on-demand services.'""Interactive on-demand 127. Section 636(c)of the Communications Act provides that"any provision of law of any services"are defined as"service[s]providing video programming to subscribers over switched networks State,political subdivision,or agency thereof,or franchising authority,or any provision of any franchise on an on-demand,point-to-point basis,but does not include services providing video programming granted by such authority,which is inconsistent with this Act shall be deemed to be preempted and superseded"i0 In the Local Franchising NPRM,the Commission tentatively concluded that,pursuant to the authority granted under Sections 621 and 636(c),and under the Supremacy Clause,'"the Commission (Continued from previous page) operator to connect with the existing PEG feeds,with such costs borne by the OVS operator. 47 C.P.R.§ 76.1505(d). i0147 U.S.C.§522(12). 09i Vernon Comments at 75. an See IP-Enabled Services,19 FCC Red 4863(2004);Petition of SBC Communications Inc.for a Declaratory "See Veri:na Comments at 21.See also South Slope Comments at I l;NCTA Comments at 12. Ruling,WC Docket No.04-36(filed Feb.5,2004);Letter from James C.Smith,Senior Vice President,SBC Services Inc.,to Marlene H Dartch,Secretary,Federal Communications Commission,WC Docket N.04-36(filed 1f9 Vernon Comments at 83. Sept 14,2005). Ve iacn Comments at 75. 'at Florida Lime and Avocado Growers v.Paul,373 U.S.132,14243(1963). '0147 U.S.C.§522(7)(C).See also Veriou Comments at 82.87. iOt See supra note 2. °r 47 U.S.C.§5222(7)(C). 4,Id. 'Os See BellSouth at 42;NATOA Reply at 27-28. '10 47 U.S.C.§556(c). 47 U.S.C.§522(7)(C). 'c U.S.Coast,Art.VI,e12. 55 56 Federal Communications Commission FCC O6-180 Federal Communications Commission FCC 06-180 ° may deem to be preempted any state or local law that stands as an obstacle to the accomplishment and 130. Alternatively,we fend that such local laws,regulations,and agreements are impliedly execution of the full purposes and objectives of Title VI.'u For example,we may deem preempted any preempted to the extent that they conflict with this Order or stand as an obstacle to the accomplishment local law that causes an unreasonable refusal to award a competitive franchise in violation of Section and execution of the full purposes and objectives of Congress.'"Among the stated purposes of Title VI 621(axl).'" Accordingly,the Commission sought comment on whether it would be appropriate to is to (1) "establish a national policy concerning cable communications,"(2)"establish franchise ' preempt state and local legislation to the extent we find that it serves as an unreasonable barrier to the procedures and standards which encourage the growth and development of cable systems and which grant of competitive franchises. assure that cable systems are responsive to the needs and interests of the local community,"and(3) 'promote competition in cable communications and minimize unnecessary regulation that would impose 128. The doctrine of federal preemption arises from the Supremacy Clause,which provides an undue economic burden on cable systems.'"The legislative history to both the 1984 and 1992 Cable that federal law is the"supreme Law of the Land""' Preemption analysis requires a statute-specific Acts identifies a national policy of encouraging competition in the multichannel video marketplace and inquiry. There are various avenues by which state law may be superseded by federal law. We focus on recognizes the national implications that the local franchising process can have on that policy."' The the two which are most relevant here. First,preemption can occur where Congress expressly preempts national policy of promoting a competitive multichannel video marketplace has been repeatedly state law.' When a federal statute contains an express preemption provision,the preemption analysis reemphasized by Congress,the Commission,and the courts."'The record here shows that the current consists of identifying the scope of the subject matter expressly preempted and determining if a state's operation of the franchising process at the local level conflicts with this national multichannel video law falls within its scope."' Second,preemption can be implied and can occur where federal law policy by imposing substantial delays on competitive entry and requiring unduly burdensome conditions conflicts with state law.' Courts have found implied"conflict preemption"where compliance with both that deter entry.'" And to the extent that local requirements result in LFAs unreasonably refusing to state and federal law is impossible or where state law"stands as an obstacle to the accomplishment and award competitive franchises,such mandates frustrate the policy goals underlying Title VL The rules we execution of the full purposes and objectives of Congress."'" adopt today,erg.,limits on the time period for LFA action on competitive franchise applications,'"limits on LFA's ability to impose build-out requirements,'"and limits on LFA collection of franchise fees,'" 129. Applying these principles to this proceeding,we find that local franchising laws, regulations,and agreements are preempted to the extent they conflict with the rules we adopt in this "'Florida Lime and Avocado Growers,373 U.S.at 142-43. Order. Section 636(c) expressly preempts state and local laws that are inconsistent with the "'47 U.S.C.§521(I),(2)&(6). Communications Act.'" This provision precludes states and localities from acting in a manner inconsistent with the Commission's interpretations of Title VI so long as those interpretations are valid!" Ott See RR_REP.No.98-934,at 19(1984),as reprinted in 1984 U.S.C.CAN.4655,4656;S.REP.No.97-518,at It is the Commission's job,in the first instance,to determine the scope of the subject matter expressly 14(1982)("free and open competition in the marketplace"and the"elimination and prevention of artificial barriers preempted by Section 636." As noted elsewhere,we adopt the rules in this Order pursuant to our to entry"are essential to the growth and developmmt of the cable industry);RR REP.No.102-862,at 77.78(1992) interpretation of Section 621(a)(1)and other relevant Title VI provisions in light of the twin congressional (Coat Rep.),as reprinted in 1992 U.S.C.CAN.1231,1259-60. goals of promoting competition in the multichannel video marketplace and promoting broadband ar"See.e.g..47 U.S.C.§521(6)(stating that one of the purposes of Title VI is"to promote competition in cable deployments These rules represent a reasonable interpretation of relevant provisions in Title VI as well communicatiom");FCC v.Beach Communications,Inc.,508 U.S.307,309(1993)(recognizing"(nine objective of as a reasonable accommodation of the various policy interests that Congress entrusted to the Commission the Cable Act was to set out'franchise procedures and standards which encourage the growth and development of They therefore have preemptive effect pursuant to Section 636(c). cable systems and which assure that cable systems are responsive to the needs and interests of the local commuoiry.'"(citing 47 U.S.C.§521(2))). "o See.e.g.,AT&T Reply at 6-7("today's nandardless franchising process,and the anticompetitive substantive 15'Local FranchisingNPRN,20 FCC Red at 18589. conditions demanded of new eat-ants by many LFA'...not only delay entry,but often prevent it altogether"); AT&T Comments at 43(listing several conditions commonly imposed in the local franchising process that raise the a"Id. cost of entry,deter broadband investment,and deny consumers the benefits of competition and choice);Verizon Comments at iv-vas(the franchising process is often marked by iaordioate delay and is often used by many LFAs"as"'U.S.Come Asa VI,cL 2.See also Hillsborough County.Florid v.Automated Med.Labs..Inc,471 U.S.707, 712.13(1985). an opportunity todemand all manner of additional concessions,mostly unrelated tothe provision of video services or the underlying purposes of franchise reequiremeatr,from the would-be competitor"); TIA Comments at 7-15 "Cipollone v.Liggett Group.Inc.,505 U.S.504,517(1992). (many LFA'unreasonably delay the grant of competitive franchises and demand excessive concessions from 'to!dal 517. potential en ran s);USTA Comments at 19.20("The single biggest obstacle to widespread competition in the video service market is the requitement that a provider obtain an individually negotiated local franchise in each area where 15'Flores Lane and Avocado Growers,373 U.S.at 142-43. it intends to provide service");FTIH Council Comments at 59-60("the fmnchisorg process as implemented by .at Id numerous LFAs across the country continues to suffer from numerous flaws that frustrate the twin Congressional objectives of promoting cable competition and fostering deployment of advanced services to all Americans"); "0 47 U.S.C.§556(c). Alcatel Comments at 19("(t]he regulatory obstacle of thousands of local video franchises potentially wielding their .:o authority Co adopt unreasonable'requirements will invariably impede deployment by competitors and negatively See,e.g.,Liberty Cablevision of Puerto Rico,Inc.v.Municipality of Caguas,417 F.3d 216(1st Cir.2005) impact investment in advanced technologies and services"). (finding municipal ordinances that imposed franchise fees on cable operators were preempted under Section 636(c) where inconsistent with Section 622 of the Communications Act). 11 See supra Section IILC.1. "t See Cipollone,505 U.S.at 517;Capital Cities Cable,467 U.S.691,699(1984). 1°See supra Section IR.C.2. 's See supra pares.2.4,61-64. '30 See supra Section m.C3. 57 58 • Federal Communications Commission FCC 06-180 Federal Communications Commission FCC 06-180 are designed to ensure efficiency and fairness in the local franchising process and to provide certainty to including Title VI,and the Commission has clear authority to adopt Hilts implementing provisions such prospective marketplace participants. This,in num,will allow us to effectuate Congress'twin goals of as Section 621."o Consequently,our mks preempt any contrary local regulations."" promoting cable competition and minimizing unnecessary and unduly burdensome regulation on cable systems. Thus,not only are Section 636(c)'s requirements for preemption satisfied,but preemption in 133. We also find no merit in incumbent cable operators'and local franchising authorities' these circumstances is proper pursuant to the Commission's judicially recognized ability,when acting argument that the scope of the Commission's preemption authority under Section 636(c)is limited by the pursuant to its delegated authority,to preempt local regulations that conflict with or stand as an obstacle terms of Section 636(a)of the Act!"Section 636(a)provides that nothing in Tide VI"shall be construed the accomplishment of federal objectives. ' to affect any authority of any State,political subdivision,or agency thereof,or franchising authority, regarding matters of public health,safety,and welfare,to the extent consistent with the express provisions 131. We reject the claim by incumbent cable operators and franchising authorities that the of this title.'" The very reason for preemption in these circumstances is that many local franchising Commission lacks authority to preempt local requirements because Congress has not explicitly granted laws and practices are at odds with the express provisions of Title VI,as interpreted in this Order. the Commission the authority to preempt.' These commenters suggest that because the Commission Consequently,Section 636(a)presents no obstacle to preemption here. We therefore need not decide seeks to preempt a power traditionally exercised by a state or local government(i.e.,local franchising), whether the state and local laws at issue relate to"matters of public health,safety,and welfare"within the under the Fifth Circuit's decision in C of Dallas,"the Commission can only preempt where it is given meaning of Section 636(a). express statutory authority to do so.' However,this argument ignores the plain language of Section 636(c),which states that"any provision of law of any State,political subdivision,or agency therefore,or 134. We also jeer the franchising authorities'argument that any attempt to preempt lawful franchising authority...which is inconsistent with this chapter shall be deemed to be preempted and local government control of public rights-of-way by interfering with local franchising requirements, superseded. " Moreover,Section 621 expressly limits the authority of franchising authorities by procedures and processes could constitute an unconstitutional taking under the Fifth Amendment of the prohibiting exclusive franchises and unreasonable refusals to award additional competitive franchises."" United States Constitution. The"takings"clause of the Fifth Amendment provides:"(Mot shall Congress could not have stated its intent to limit local franchising authority more clearly. These private property be taken for public use,without just compensation.""' We conclude that ore actions provisions therefore satisfy any express preemption requirement!" here do not run afoul of the Fifth Amendment for several reasons. To begin with,our actions do not result in a Fifth Amendment raking. Courts have held that municipalities generally do not have a 132. Furthermore,as long as the Commission acts within the scope of its delegated authority compensable"ownership"interest in public rights-of-way,'"but rather hold the public streets and in adopting rules that implement Title VI,including the prohibition of Section 621(a)(1),its rides have sidewalks in mat for the public." As one court explained,"municipalities generally possess no rights to preemptive effect. vs J1 Courts+ e'ss whether an agency acted within the scope of its authority"without profit from their streets unless specifically authorised by the state.''" Also, we note that any presumption one way or the other";there is no presumption against preemption in this context"As noted above,Congress charged the Commission with the task of administering the Communications Act, "o See supra pans.53-64. "t See,e.g.,Louisiana Public Service Commission v.FCC,476 U.S.355,369(1986). "t See Fidelity Federal Savings&Loan Assn.v.De la Cleve,458 U.S.141,153-58(1982);City of New York 486 U.S.at 64.See also AT&T Comments at 41.42. 'hh See Comeau Comments at 36-37;Comcast Reply at 35-37;Burnsville/Eagan Comments at 35.36. "'See Comcast Comments at 39(citing 47 U.S.C.§556(a)).See also Florida Municipalities Comments at 18-19 as,City of Dallas.165 Fad at 341. (the Cable Act provides for limited preemption of local regulatory efforts incertain specific areas,none of which y cover competitive franchises).Commenters funkier point to the legislative history far Section 636(a),which noted ' See Comcasr Comments at 37;Comcass Reply at 36;Bumsville/Eagao Comment at 35-36. that a state may"exercise authority over the whole range of cable activities,such as negotiations with cable "5 47 U.S.C.§556(c). operators;consumer protection;construction requirements;rate reguadon or deregulation;the assessment of �" financial qualifications;the provision of technical assistance with respect to cable;and other franchise-related issues ' 47 U.S.C.§541(a)(I). —as long as the meseise of that authority is consistent with Title VI."See Come st Comment at 39-40(citing RR. "See Liberty Cablevision of Paerra Rico v.Municipality of Caguas,417 F.3d 216,221(1st Cir.2005)(Section REP.No.98-934,at 94(1954),as reprinted UT 1984 U.S.C.CAN.4655,4731). 636(c)makes clear that Congress'Sahmistakably"intended to preempt state and local franchising decisions that are M3 47 U.S.C.§556(a)(emphasis added). inconsistmt with the Act,including Section 621);Qwest Broadband Services.Inc v.City of Boulder,151 F.Sapp. 2d 1236,1243(Cl.Colo.2001)(a franchise provision in the Boulder,Colorado charter was preempted by Section '"See Texas Coalition of Cities Comment at 29.35;Burnsville/Eugan Comment at 38.Butasvile/Eagan further 621(a)(1)bemuse it conflicted d'vecdy with that provision''mandate that the"franchising authority"be responsibleargues that Fifth Amendment concerns would arise if the Commission were to interfere with the terms under which for granting the franchise). a competitive franchise is granted,thereby forcing modifications to existing cable franchises,pursuantto state and "'See City of New York v.FCC,486 U.S.57,64(1988)("statutorily authorized tegnrlatians of an agency will to- local level-playing-field requirements,thus depriving LFA'of lawful and reasonable compensation they negotiated F with the incumbent cable operators for the use of public rights-of-way. empt any state or local law that conflicts with such regulations or frustrates the purposes thereof");Louisiana Public Se Carom act,476 U.S.at 369("a federal agency mg within the scope of its congressionally delegated authority "'US.Coast Amend.V.es. may precpr state regulation");Capital Cities Cable,Inc.v.Crisp.467 U.S.691,699(1964)(when a federal '"See Liberty Cablevscion,417 F.3d at 222. agency promulgates regulations intended to preempt sate law,court uphold preemption as long as the agency's choice"represents a reasonable accommodation of conflicting policies that were committed to the agency's care by "'SeeNewJersry Payphone Assn,Inc.v.Toes of West New York 130 F.Supp 24 631,638(D.NJ.2001);see afro the statute");Fidelity Federal Savings&Loan Assn,458 U.S.at 153("Federal regulations have no less pre-emptive Liberty Cablevisian 417 Fad a[222(recogmzirmg that it is"'a mistake to suppose...(that]the city a effect than federal statutes"), constimtioealy and necessarily rotted tocompensation'"for use of the city sweets). are New York v.FERC,53S U.S.I,18(2002). Y°See LibertyCablevtbn,417 F.3d at 222. 59 60 ti Federal Communications Commission FCC 06-180 Federal Communications Commission FCC 06.180 telcconunonications carriers that seek to offer video service already have an independent right under state that the Commission is improperly attempting to override local government's duty to"maximize the law to occupy rightsbEway.i' States have granted franchises to telecommunications carriers,pursuant value of local property for the greater good"by imposing a federal regulatory scheme onto the states e to which the carriers lawfully occupy public rights-of-way for the purpose of providing and/or local governments. Contrary to the local franchising authorities'claim,however,they have telecommunications service.' Because all municipal power is derived from the state,'"courts have held failed to demonstrate any violation of the Tenth Amendment' "If a power is delegated to Congress in that"a state can take public rights-of-way without compensating the municipality within which they are the Constitution,the Tenth Amendment expressly disclaims any reservation of that power to the located."' Given the municipality is not entitled to compensation when its interest in the streets are States.'"6 Thus,when Congress acts within the scope of its authority under the Commerce Clause,no taken pursuant to state law,it is difficult to see how the transmission of additional video signals along Tenth Amendment issue arises." Regulation of cable services is well within Congress'authority under those same lines results in any physical occupation of public tights-of-way beyond that already permitted the Commerce Clause." Thus,because our authority[a this area derives from a proper exercise of by the states." congressional power,the Tenth Amendment poses no obstacle to our preemption of state and local franchise law or practices.' Likewise, there is no merit to LFA commenters' suggestion that 135. Moreover,even if there was a taking,Congress provided for'just compensation"to the Commission regulation of the franchising process would constitute an improper"commandeering"of local franchising authorities." Section 622(h)(2)of the Act provides that a local franchising authority stategovernmental wer.'"The Supreme Court has recognized tan p nthat"where Cong"power has the at the may recover a franchise fee of up to 5 percent of a cable operator's annual gross revenue.'" Congress to regulate private activity under the Commerce Clause,"Congress has the"power to offer States the enacted the cable franchise fee as the consideration given in exchange for the right to use the public choice of regulating that activity according to federal standards or having state law preempted by federal ways' The implementing regulations we adopt today do not eviscerate the ability of local authorities to regulation ii6t And here,we ace simply requiring local franchising authorities to exercise their regulatory impose a franchise fee. Rather,our actions here simply ensure that the local franchising authority does authority according to federal standards,or else local requirements will be preempted For all of these not impose an excessive fee or other unreasonable costs in violation of the express statutory provisions reasons,our actions today do not offend the Tenth Amendment. and policy goals encompassed in Title VI.'°' 137. We do not purport to identify every local requirement that this Order preempts.Rather, 136. Finally,LFAs maintain that the Commission's preemption of local governmental powers in accordance with Section 636(c),we merely find that local laws,regulations and,agreements arc offends the Tenth Amendment of the U.S.Constitution' The Tenth Amendment provides that"[t]he preempted to the extent they conflict with this Order and the rules adopted herein. For example,local powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution,nor prohibited by it to the States,are laws would be preempted if they: (1)authorize a local franchising authority to take longer than 90 days reserved to the States respectively,or to the people.'" In support of their position,commenters argue to act on a competitive franchise application concerning entities with existing authority to access public rights-of-way,and six months concerning entities that do not have authority to access public rights-of- "'See Verizon Reply as 25. way;"(2)allow an LEA to impose unreasonable build-out requirements on competitive franchise applicants;"or(3)authorize or require a local franchising authority to collect franchise fees in excess of "6 See Verizon Reply at 25;South Slope Comments at 10.11;NCTA Comments at 12. the fees authorized by law.' "'Sen St.Louis v.Western Union Telegraph Co.,149 U.S.465,467(1893);Liberty Ceblevivron.417 Fad at 221. 'a See . &County 138. One specific example of the type of local laws that this Order preempts are so-called City ry of Deriver,IS Pad 7a8,761(Colo.2001). "level-playing-field"requirements that have been adopted by a number of local authorities.' We find 'sr See Verizon Reply at 25.26. See also C/R TV,Inc v.Slmnnood le,Inc,27 F3d 104,109(4th Cir.1994) (reasoning that the transmission of cable television signals"would not impose an additional burden on[a]servient "See Michigan Municipal Lague Comments at 25;Anne Arundel County Comments at 51. estate"on which telephone poles,power lines,and telephone wires had previously been installed). sir See Vrizon Reply at 27-29. "'See US v.Riverside Bayview Homes,474 U.S.121,128(1985)(the Fifth Amendment does not prohibit takings, only uncompensated ones). Because we find that the statute provides just compensation,we need not address ib3 SeeNew York v U.S.,505 U.S.144,156(1992). • whether the takings cause of the Fifth Amrndmmt encompasses the property interests of state and local a governments in the same way that it applies to the property interests of private persons. 1°See id at 157-58. 's'47 U.S.C.§542(h)(2). 1b1 See Crisp,467 U.S.at 700-701(holding that cable services are interstate services). "'In passing the 1984 Cable Act,Congress recognized local government's entitlement to"assess the cable operator "s See Overt Broadband Services,Inc.v.City of Boulder,151 F.Supp.2d 1236,1245("the inquiries under the a fee for thethe operator's Cseu ole pub ways,"and establisgnized od o athority of ra city a to coot a"assess franchise fee of up to Commerce Clause and the Tenth Amendment are mirror images,and a holding that a Congressional macenent does 5 percent of an operator's annual gross revenues." HR.REP.No.98-934,as 26(1984),as reprinted in 1984 not violate the Commerce Came is diapositive of a Replyas28.Amendment challenge)(citing United States v.Baer,235 U.S.C.CAN.4655,4663. F3d 561,563 n.6(10th Cir.2000).See also Verizon at 28. n reach "s See Michigan Municipal Lague Comments at 25;Anne Arundel County Comments at 51. ' For the reasons stated above,we need not the issue of whether a"taking"has occurred with respect to a competitive applicant providing cable service over the same network it uses to provide telephone service,for which "t See New York v.U.S.,505 U.S.at 167. it is already authorized by the local government to ere the public rights-of-way' "See supra at Section HI.C.I. "See Michigan Municipal League Comments at 24("[a]ny action by the Commission to mandate the granting of a s"See rupees at Section ULC2. franchise directly or by means of state actions in favor of any party over the objection of the local franchising authority offends the Tenth Amendment of the U.S.Constitution');Anne Arundel County Comments at 50(same). "See supra at Section III.C3. 's9 U.S.Cons/Amend X 'See,e.g..GMTC Comments at 15. 61 62 Federal Communications Commission FCC 06-180 Federal Communications Commission FCC 06-180 that these mandates unreasonably impede competitive entry into the multichannel video marketplace by conditions imposed on the incumbent cable operator may be unreasonable,and inconsistent with the requiring LFAs to grant franchises to competitors on substantially the same terms imposed on the "unreasonable refusal"prohibition of Section 621(a)(I). Accordingly,to the extent a locally-mandated incumbent cable operators!'As an initial miner,just because an incumbent cable operator may agree to level-playing-field requirement is inconsistent with the rules,guidance,and findings adopted in this franchise terms that are inconsistent with provision in Title VI,LFAs may not require new entrants to Order,such requirement is deemed preempted!" agree to such unlawful terms pursuant to level-playing-field mandates because any such requirement would conflict with Title VI. Moreover,the record demonstrates that aside from this specific scenario, IV. FURTHER NOTICE OF PROPOSED RULEMAKING level-playing-field mandates imposed at the local level deter competition in a more fundamental manner. The record indicates that in today's market,new entrants face"steep economic challenges"in an 139. As discussed above,this proceeding is limited to competitive applicants under Section "industry characterized by large fixed and sunk costs,"without the resulting benefits incumbent cable 621(a)(1)." Yet,some of the decisions in this Order also appear germane to existing franchisees. We operators enjoyed for years as monopolists in the video services marketplace.'" According to asked in the Local Franchising NPRM whether current procedures and requirements were appropriate for commenters,"a competitive video provider who enters the market today is in a fundamentally different any cable operator,including existing operators!' NCTA argues that if the Commission establishes situation"from that of the incumbent cable operator:"[w]hen incumbents installed their systems,they had franchising relief for new entrants,we should do the same for incumbent cable operators because a captive market,"whereas new entrants"have to'wan'every customer from the incumbent"and thus do imposing similar franchising requirements on new entrants and incumbent cable operators promotes not have"anywhere near the number of subscribers over which to spread the costs."' Commenters competition"Somewhat analogously,the BSPA argues that any new franchise regulatory relief should explain that"unlike the incumbents who were able to pay for any of the concession that they grant an extend to all current competitive operators and new entrants equally;otherwise,the inequities would LFA out of the supra-competitive revenue from their on-going operations,""new entrants have no assured effectively penalize existing competitive franchisees simply because they were the first to risk m market position.' s Based oo the record before us,we thus find that an LFAs refusal to award an competition with the incumbent cable operator."The record does not indicate any opposition by new additional competitive franchise unless the competitive applicant meets substantially all the terms and entrants to the idea that any relief afforded them also be afforded to incumbent cable operators."' Some incumbent cable operators discussed the potential impact of Commission action under Section 621 on "s See FTTH Council Comments at 28.31("there is substantial evidence that level playing field requirements have incumbent cable operators. For example,Charts argues that granting competitive cable providers entry harmed new entrants or simply scared off applicants in the first place");Verizon Comments at 76-80(level-playing- funds from local franchise requirements would affect Charter's ability to satisfy its existing obligation; field provisions are"protectionist requirements"for the benefit of the incumbent cable operator and are often cited Grads that Charter might use to respond to competition by investing in new facilities and services would as a basis for imposing all mama of additional costs and obligations,many of which are unreasonable and/or instead be tied up in franchise obligation not imposed on Charter's competitors,which would undermine unlawful,on a would-be new entrant into the market);USTA Reply at 23-26,32-34(level-playing-field laws the company's investment and render its franchise obligation commercially impracticable." AT&T intrinsically limit the ability of LFAs to award franchises);see also,GAO Report,Wire-Based Compentton Benqrired Consumers in Selected Markets(Feb.2004),GAO-04-241 Report at 21(noting that one local official . indicated that the level-playing-field law in his state was a factor in an interested competitive cable company's retracting a cable application);BSPA Comments at a5(level-playing-field mates are a superficial appeal to "6 We also find troubling the record evidence that suggests incumbent able operators use"level-playing-field" fairness bat masks the real intent to protect the incumbent's market position,and such requirements delay or limitrequi P� prey the growth of competition by negatively impacting the availability or use of capital);Letter from Lawrence Spiwak, comp emrns to frustrate negotiation between LFA'and competitive providers,causing delay and preventing President,Phoenix Ctr.For Advanced Legal and Econ.Pub.Policy Studies,to Marlene Dortch,Secretary,Federal competitive miry. See,e.g.,Letter from John Goodman,Broadband Service Providers Association,to Marlene Communications Commission at Attachment,Phoenix Center Policy Paper Number 21:Competition After Dortch,Secretary,Federal Communications Commission(March 3,2006)(explaining that the incumbent cable Unbundling:Entry,Industry Structure and Convergence,37("presence of a'first mover'advantage mean that operator used level-playing-field requirernms to bring litigation again'[the LFA which delayed the negotiation requiring a new entrant to bar an may cost simply because the incumbent cable operator has already borne it will Process and mode entry so expensive that esno longer became fcsstio for the new entrant);Taal Coalition of Cities have the effect of deterring entry substantially,even if such costs did not deter the incumbent cable operator from Comments at 13("Most delays in competitive franchise acgotiations result from the incumbent cable provider's offering service')(March 13,2006)("Phoenix Center Competition Paper');DOI Ez Parte at 16.But see Comr,e demands that competitive provides'franchises contain virtually identical terms.");Verizon Reply at 65-66 Comments at 40(maintaining that state level-playing-field smmtr area legitimate and well-established exercise of (om um misots over-C°4errr�m support these anticompetitive requirements further evidences the nand for the state and local regulatory authority and are not Inconsistent with the Communication Act);NATOA Reply at 43-44 Commission to remove this roadblock to competition'). (maintaining that there is h eke or no evidence to suggest that state level-playing-field laws have had anywhere near "See supra perms.I,113. the draconian effect on the granting of competitive franchises as the telephone industry alleges). "focal Franchising NPRM,20 FCC Red at I8588. "See USTA Reply at 24. See also.Verizon Reply at 65("In exchange for the costs they incurred to enter the 'A NCTA Comments at 13(quoting Appropriate f market,the incumbent cable operators generally received exclusive franchises and enjoyed all of the benefits of A ro riare Framework or Broadband Access to due Internet Over W'reline being monopoly providers for yeas,often decades.");Mercams Comments at 40('while a smond cable operatorFaeilinex,20 FCC Red 14853,14855-56,14864-65(2005)"[T]rodng like services alike promotes competition"by will have to nuke the same unrecoverable investment previously made by the incumbent,it will not have the benefit allowing the market to determine the betty operator rather than providing one operator"artificial regulatory of a monopoly over which to amortize it");FTIH Council Comments at 3("New entrants are highly unlikely to ever advantages').See also Cox Reply at 2-0. obtain and enjoy the fruits of market power.Consequently,the burden of the pre-existing franchising process from "a SOPA Comments at 2.3. • the perspective of these new entrants are not offset by the benefits that the monopolists enjoyed"). 'See.e.g.,BSPA Comments at 2.3(any new regulatory relief in franchising should apply to all current competitive "See ETU;Council Comments at 30(quoting Andy Serval Declaration,pain.7);Verizon Comments at 77(new operators and potential new manna).But see PITH Council Comments at 24(new entrants are not treated more entrants"[face]ubiquitous competition from strong and entrenched competitors,which in turn leads to lower market favorably than incumbents when they on burdened with the same requvemma as incumbents but do not have the share and lower profit margins"). same market power). "r See Miriam,Reply at 65.See also USTA Reply at 24. '°t Charter Comments at 3-0. 63 64 • Federal Communications Commission FCC 06-180 Federal Communications Commission FCC 06180 argues that competition will not harm incumbent cable operators:cable has handled the competition that 143. Section 632(d)(2)states that DBS presents,and analysts predict that the new wave of competition will not put them out of business.'® (n)othing in this Section shall be construed to preclude a franchising authority and a cable 140. We tentatively conclude that the findings in this Order should apply to cable operators operator' from agreeing to customer smite requirements that exceed the standards s that have existing franchise agreements as they negotiate renewal of those agreements with LFAs. We established by the Commission....Nothing in this Title shall be construed to prevent note that Section 611(a)states"A franchising authority may establish requirements in a franchise with the establishment and enforcement of any municipal law or regulation,or any State law, respect to the designation or use of channel capacity for public,educational,or governmental use"and concerning customer service that imposes customer service requirements that exceed the Section 622(a)provides"any cable operator may be required under the terms of any franchise to pay a standards set by the Commission under this section,or that addresses matters not franchise fee." These statutory provisions do not distinguish between incumbents and new entrants or addressed by the standards set by the Commission under this section.'" franchises issues to incumbents versus franchises issued to new entrants. We seek comment on our tentative conclusion. We also seek comment on our authority to implement this finding. We also seek Given this explicit statutory language,we tentatively conclude that we cannot preempt state or local comment on what effect,if any,the findings in this Order have on most favored nation clauses that may customer service laws that exceed the Commission's standards,nor can we prevent LFAs and cable be included in existing franchises. The Commission will conclude this rulemaking and release an order operators from agreeing to more stringent standards.We seek comment on this tentative conclusion. no later than six months after release of this Order. . V. PROCEDURAL MATTERS 141. In the Local Franchising NPRM,we also sought comment on whether customer service requirements should vary greatly from jurisdiction to jurisdiction.'' In response,AT&T urges us to 144. Ex Parse Rules. This is a permit-but-disclose notice and comment naiemnldng adopt roles to prevent LFAs from imposing various data collection and related requirements in exchange proceeding. Ex Pane presentations are permitted,except during the Sunshine Agenda period,provided for a franchise."'AT&T claims that LFAs have imposed obligations that franchisees collect,track,and that they are disclosed as provided in the Commission's rules. See generally 47 C.F.R.§§1.1202, report customer service performance data for individual franchise areas!" AT&T states that it operates 1.1203,and 1.1206(a). • its call centers and systems on a region-wide basis,and that it is not currently possible or economically 145. Comment Information. Pursuant to sections 1.415 and 1.419 of the Commission's roles, feasible for AT&T to comply with the various local customer service requirements on a franchise by - .n 47 CFR§§1.415,1.419,interested parties may file comments on or before 30 days after this Further franchise basis. AT&T also asks as to affirm that LFAs may not,absent the franchise applicant's Notice of Proposed Rulemaking is published in the Federal Register,and reply comments on or before 45 consent,impose any local service quality standards that go beyond the requirements of duly enacted laws days of publication. Comments may be filed using: (1)the Commission's Electronic Comment Filing and ordinances. Veriaon indicates that some localities have conditioned the grant of a franchise upon y (ECFS),(2) g ()by paper p the submission of Verizon's data services to local customer service regulation."' System ECFS, the Federal Government's a Proceedings, Portal,or 3 filingcopies. See Electronic Filing of Document in Rulemaking Proceedings,63 FR 24121(1998). 142. NATOA opposes AT&T's request for relief from local customer service standards,and •argues that the Act and the Commission's rules explicitly provide for local customer service regulation.'90 Electronic Filers: Comments may be filed electronicallyheusing the interact by accessing the Specifically,NATOA asserts that Section 632(d)(2)of the Cable Act allows for the establishment and ECFS: hum://www•fcc.¢ov/cgb/ecfs/ or the Federal eRulon theg Portal: enforcement of local customer service laws that go beyond the federal standards." Other parties assert hem://www.requlations.¢ov. Filers should follow the instructions provided on website for that customer service regulation is necessary to ensure that consumers have regulatory relief." submitting comments. • For ECFS filers,if multiple docket or rulemaking numbers appear in the caption of this s proceeding,filers must transmit one electronic copy of the comments for each docker or "AT&T Reply at 5. rainmaking number referenced in the caption.In completing the transmittal screen,filers Loral Franchising NPRM,20 FCC Red at 18588. should include their full name,U.S.Postal Service mailing address,and the applicable AT&T Comments at 72-73. docket or rulemaking number. Parties may also submit an electronic comment by .sec Id Internet a-mail.To get filing instructions,filers should send an e-mail to ecfsffcc.eov and include the following words in the body of the message,"get form."A sample form 'n Id As discussed in Section I11.C2 above,AT&T's existing cal center mgions do not mirror local franchise and directions will be sent in response. areas. One region me encompass multiple franchise areas,and impose a multitude of regulations upon a new entrant • Paper Filers: Parties who choose to file by paper must file an original and four copies of each '"AT&T Comments at 73. filing. If more than one docket or rulemaking number appears in the caption of this proceeding, s filers must submit two additional copies for each additional docket or rulemaking number. '1 Veimn Comments at 75. i90 NATOA Reply at 40-41.See also New York City Couoeents at 3(citing 47 U.S.C.§552). Filings can be sent by hand or messenger delivery,by commercial overnight courier,or by first- '"47 U.S.C.§552(d)(2).Accord 47 C.F.R_§76.309(6)(4), Se rvice or overnight U.S.Postal mail(although we continue to experience delays in "See.e.g..Alliance for Public Technology Comments or 2-3;American Association of People with Disabilities at 2;Cavalier Comments at 6. "47 U.S.C.§552(d)(2).Accord 47 C.F.R.§76.309(b)(4). 65 66 Federal Communications Commission FCC 06180 Federal Communications Commission FCC 06.180 receiving U.S.Postal Service mail).All filings must be addressed to the Commission's Secretary, 150. Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act,'"the Office of the Secretary.Federal Cemmo¢iearions Commission. Commission has prepared a Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis("FRFA")relating to this Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulerealing.The FRFA is set forth in Appendix D. • The Commission's contractor will receive hand-delivered or messenger-delivered paper filings for the Commission's Secretary at 236 Massachusetts Avenue,NE.,Suite 110, 151. Congressional Review Act.The Commission will send a copy of this Report and Order Washington,DC 20002.The filing hours at this location are 8:00 am to 7:00 p.m.All and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in a report to be sent to Congress and the Government hand deliveries must be held together with tubber bands or fasteners. Any envelopes Accountability Office pursuant to the Congressional Review Act,see 5 U.S.C.§801(a)(IXA). must be disposed of before entering the building. 152. Additional Information.For additional information on this proceeding,please contact • Commercial overnight mail(other than U.S.Postal Service Express Mail and Priority Holly Sourer,Media Bureau at(202)418-2120,or Brendan Murray,Policy Division,Media Bureau at Mail)must be sent to 9300 East Hampton Dive,Capitol Heights,MD 20743. (202)418-2120. • U.S.Postal Service first-class,Express,and Priority mail should be addressed to 445 12' VI. ORDERING CLAUSES Street,SW,Washington DC 20554. 153. IT IS ORDERED that,pursuant to the authority contained in Sections 1,2,4(i),303, 303r,403 and 405 of the Communications Act of 1934,47 U.S.0§§151,152,154(i),303,303(r),403, Purple with Disabilities: To request materials in accessible formats for people with disabilities(braille, this Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rvlemaking IS ADOPTED. large print,electronic files,audio format),send an e-mail to fcc5040fee.¢ov or tail the Consumer& Governmental Affairs Bureau at 202-418-0530(voice),202-418.0432(try). • 154. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that pursuant to the authority contained in Sections Sections 1,2,4(i),303,303a,303b,and 307 of the Communications Act of 1934,47 U.S.0§§151,152, 146. Initial Paperwork Reduction Act Analysis.This Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking 154(i),303,303a,303b,and 307,the Commission's rules ARE HEREBY AMENDED as set forth in does not contain proposed information collection(s)subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 Appendix B. It is our intention in adopting thme rule changes that,if any provision of the Hiles is held (PRA),Public Law 104-13. In addition,therefore,it does not contain any new or modified"information invalid by any court of competent jurisdiction,the remaining provisions shall remain in effect to the collection burden for small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees,"pursuant to the Small fullest extent permitted by law. Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002,Public Law 107-198,see 44 U.S.C.3506(c)(4). 155. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the rules contained herein SHALL BE EFFECTIVE 147. Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis.As required by the Regulatory Flexibility AK" 30 days after publication of the Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in the the Commission has prepared an Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis(IRFA)of the possible significant Federal Register,except for the mien that contain information collection requirements subject to the economic impact on a substantial number of small entities of the proposals addressed in this Further Paperwork Reduction Act,which shall become effective immediately upon announcement in the Federal Notice of Proposed Rulemaking. The IRFA is set forth in Appendix C. Written public comments are Register of OMB approval. requested on the IRFA. These comments must be filed in accordance with the same filing deadlines for comments on the Second Further Notice,and they should have a separate and distinct heading designating 156. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Commission's Consumer and Governmental them as responses to the IRFA. Affairs Bureau,Reference Information Center,SHALL SEND a copy of this Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking,including the Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis,to the Chief 148. Paperwork Reduction Act Analysis.This document contains new information collection Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration requirements subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995(PRA),Public Law 104-13.It will be submitted to the Office of Management and Budget(OMB)for review under Section 3507(d)of the PRA. 157. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Commission SHALL SEND a copy of this Report OMB,the general public,and other Federal agencies are invited to comment on the new information and Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in a report to be sent to Congress and the General collection requirements contained in this proceeding.In addition,we note that pursuant to the Small Accounting Office pursuant to the Congressional Review Act,see 5 V.S.C.§801(a)(1)(A). Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002,Public Law 107-198,see 44 U.S.C.3506(c)(4),we will seek specific comment on how the Commission might"further reduce the information collection burden for small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees." FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION 149. In this present document, we have asvevved the effects of the application filing requirements used to calculate the rime frame in which a local franchising authority shall make a decision, and find that those requirements will benefit companies with fewer than 25 employees by providing such Marlene H.Dosch companies with specific application requirements of a reasonable length. We anticipate this specificity Secretary will streamline this process for companies with fewer than 25 employees,and that these requirements will not burden those companies. ''See 5 U.S.C.§603. "'See 5 U.S.C.§604. 67 68 • Federal Communications Commission FCC 06180 Federal Communications Commission FCC 06-180 APPENDIX A 48. Blue Lake,CA 49. Bonita Springs,FL List of Commenters and Reply Commenters 50. Boston Community Access and Programming Foundation(BCAPF) 51. Boston,MA • 1. Abilene,TX 52. Bowie,MD 2. Access Channel 5,NY 53. Branford Commun.TV,CT 3. Access Fort Wayne,IN 54. Brea,CA 4. Access Sacramento,CA 55. Brisbane,CA 5. Ad Hoc Telecom Manufacturer Coalition 56. Broadband Service Providers Association 6. Ada Township,et al. 57. Brunswick,ME 7. Advance/Newhouse Communications 58. Bucks County Consortium of Communities,PA 8. AEI-Brookings Joint Center for Regulatory Studies 59. Burlington,NC 9. Alamance County,NC 60.'Butnsville/Eagan Telecommunications Commission;The City of Minneapolis,MN;The North 10. Albuquerque,NM Metro Telecommunications Commission;The North Suburban Communications Commission;and 11. Alcatel The South Washington County Telecommunications Commission("City of Minneapolis") 12. Alhambra,CA 61. Cable Access St.Paul,MN 13. Alliance for Public Technology 62. Cable Advisory Council of South Central CT 14. Alpina,MI 63. Coblevision Systems Corporation 15. American Association of Business Persons with Disabilities - 64. Cadillac,MI 16. American Association of People with Disabilities 65. Calabash,NC 17. American Cable Association 66. California Alliance for Consumer Protection 18. American Consumer Institute 67. California Farmers Union 19. American Corn Growers Association 68. California Small Business Association 20. American Homeowners Grassroots Alliance 69. California Small Business Roundtable 21. Anaheim,CA 70. Cambridge Public Access Corp,MA 22. Angels Camp,CA 71. Cambridge,MA 23. Anne Arundel County,Carroll County,Charles County,Howard County and Montgomery County 72. Campbell County Cable Board,KY 24. Apex,NC 73. Cape Coral,FL 25. Apple Valley,MN 74. Capital Community TV,OR 26. Appleton,WI 75. Carlsbad,CA 27. Archdale,NC 76. Cartboro,NC 28. Arlington Independent Media,VA 77. Cary,NC 29. Asheboro,NC 78. Castalia,NC 30. Ashland,KY 79. Caswell County,NC 31. Ashokie,NC 80. Cavalier Telephone,LLC/Cavalier IP TV,LLC 32. Association of Independent Programming Networks 81. Cedar Rapids,Iowa 33. AT&T Inc. 34. Atascadcro,CA 82. Center for Digital Democracy 35. Bailey,NC 83. Central St.Croix Valley Joint CableComm,MN 85. Certain Florida Municipalities 36. Barring,CA 85. Champaign,IL 37. Barrington,IL 86. Champaign-Urbana Cable TV and Telecomm Commission,IL 38. Bellefonte,PA 87. Chapel Hill,NC 39. Bellflower,CA 88. Charlotte,NC 40. BellSouth 89. Charter Communications,Inc. 41. Benson,NC 90. Chicago Access Corp,IL 42. Becks Community TV,PA 91. Chicago,IL 43. Beverly Hills,CA 92. Cincinnati Bell,Inc. 44. Biddeford,ME 93. Cincinnati,OH 45. Billerica Access TV,MA 94. Citizen's Community TV,CO 46. Billenca,MA 95. City and County of San Francisco,CA 47. Birmingham Area Cable Board,MI 96. City of Los Angeles 69 70 Federal Communications Commission FCC 06-180 Federal Communications Commission FCC 06180 97. City of Philadelphia 148.Ferguson,PA 98. City of St.Louis,Missouri 149.Ferndale,CA 99. City of Ventura,California 150.Fiber-to-the-Home Council 100.Clackamas County,OR 151.Floral Park,NY 101.Clark County,NV 152.Florence,Kentucky 102.Clay County,FL 153.Florence,KY 103.Clayton,NC 154.Fort Worth,TX 104.Clinton Township,MI 155.Fortuna,CA 105.Clovis,CA 156.Foster City,CA 106.College Twp,PA 157.Foxboro Cable Access,MA 107.Comcast Corporation 158.Franklin Lakes,NJ 108.Conununicadons Support Group,Inc. 159.Franklin,KY 109.Community Access TV,IL 160.Free Enterprise Fund 110.Community Programming Board of Forest Park et al,OH 161.Free Press(Reply) 111.Concord,CA 162.Free Press,Consumers Union,Consumer Federation of America 112.Concord NC 163.Freedomworks 113.Consumer Coalition of California 164.Ft.Lauderdale,FL 114.Consumer Electronics Association 165.Gainesville,FL 115.Consumers First 166.Garland,TX 116.Consumers for Cable Choice 167.Garner,NC 117.Coral Springs,Florida 168.Geneva,IL 118.Coralville,IA 169.Georgia Municipal Association(GMA) 119.Coronado,CA 170.Gibsonville,NC 120.Cox Communications,Inc. 171.Gilroy,CA 121.Cypress,CA 172.Glenview,IL 122.Daly City,CA 173.Graham,NC 123.Dare County,NC 174.Grand Rapids,MI 124.Darlington,SC 175.Granite Quarry,NC 125.Davis,CA 176.Great Neck/North Shore Cable Comm'a,NY 126.Del Mar,CA 177.Greater Metro Telecommunications Consortium,et al.(GMTC) 127.Delray Beach,FL 178.Green Spring,K 128.Democratic Processes Center 179.Greensboro,NC. 129.Discovery Instimte's Technology&Democracy Project 180.Greenville,NC 130.Dortches,NC 181.Guilford County,NC 131.Dublin,CA 182.Harnett County,NC 132.Durham,NC 183.Harris Township,PA 133.Eden,NC 184.Haw River,NC 134.El Cerrito,CA 185.Hawaii Consumers 135.Elk Grove,IL 186.Hawaii Telcom Communications,Inc. 136.Elou,NC• 187.Henderson County,NC 137.Enumclaw,WA 188.Henderson,NV 138.Escondido,CA 189.Hialeah,FL 139.Esopus,NY 190.Hibbing Public Access TV,MN 140.Evanston,IL 191.High Point,NC 141.Fairfax Cable Access,VA 192.High Tech Broadband Coalition 142.Fairfax County,Virginia 193.Highlands,NC 143.Fairfax,CA 194.Hillsborough,NC 144.Faith,NC 195.Holly Springs,NC 145.Fall River Community TV,MA 196.Huntsville,AL 146.Fargo,ND 197.Imperial Beach,CA 147.Farmington,MN 198.Independent Multi-Family Communications Council 71 72 t Federal Communications Commission FCC 06-180 Federal Communications Commission FCC 06-I80 199.Indianapolis,IN 250.Morton,NC 200.Institute for Policy Innovation 251.Mayodari,NC 201.Intergovernmental Cable Comm Auth,MI 252.Mayville,NY 202.Iowa City,IA 253.Maywood,CA ' 203.Irvine,CA 254.Mecklenburg County,NC 204.Irwindale,CA 255.Medford,OR 205.Itasca Comm TV,MN 256. Medford,OR 206.Jackson,CA 257.Media Action Mario,CA 207.Jamestown,NC 258.Media Bridges Cincinnati,OH 208.Jefferson County League of Cities Cable Common,Kentucky 259.Mereatus Center 209.Jenkins,KY 260.Metbeun Comm TV,MA 210.Jersey Access Group,NJ 261.Metropolitan Area Comm Comm'a,OR 211.Kansas City,Missouri 262.Metropolitan Educational Access Corp,TN 212.Kemersville,NC 263.Miami Valley Comm Council,OH 213.Killeen,TX 264.Miami-Dade County,Florida 214.King County,WA 265.Michigan Municipal League 215.Kitty Hawk,NC 266.Microsoft Corporation 216.Knightdale,NC 267.Middlesex,NC 217.La Puente,CA 268.Midland,TX 218.Lake Forest.CA 269.Milpitas,CA 219.Lake Lurie,NC 270.Minnesota Telecomm Alliance 220.Lake Mills,WI 271.Minority Media and Telecommunications Council,et al. 221.Lake Minnetonka Communications Comm,MN 272.Missouri Chapter-National Association of Telecommunications Officers and Advisors(MO- ,222.Lake Worth,FLNATOA) 223.Lakewood,CA 273.Mobile,AL 224.Las Vegas,NV 274.Momeyer,NC 225.LaVeme,CA 275.Monrovia,CA 226.League of Minnesota Cities(LMC) 276.Monterey Park,CA 227.League of United Latin American Citizens of the Northeast Region+ 277.Montrose,CO 228.Leavenworth,KS 278.Morrisville,NC 229.Lee County,FL 279.Mount Morris,MI 230.Leibowitz&Associates,P.A. 280.Mt.Hood Cable Regulatory Commission(MHCRC) 231.Lenexa,KS 281.Murfeesboro,TN 232.Lewisville,NC 282.Murfreesboro,NC 233.Lexington,NC 283.Murricta,CA 234.Lincoln,CA 284.National Association of Broadcasters 235.Lincoln,NE 285.National Black Chamber of Commerce 236.Long Beach,CA 286.National Cable&Telecommunications Association 237.Longmont,CO 287.National Caucus and Center on Black Aged 238.Loomis,CA 288.National Grange 239.Los Angeles Cable Television Access Corp.,CA 289.National Hispanic Council on Aging 240.Los Banos,CA 290.National Taxpayers Union 241.Lynwood,CA 291.National Telecommunications Cooperative Association 242.Madison lits,MI 292.NATOA,NLC,NACO,USCM,ACM,and ACD 243.Madison,NC 293.Naval Media Center,US 244.Madison,WI 294.New Jersey Board of Public Utilities(NJBPU) 245.Malveme,NY 295.New Jersey Division of the Ratepayer Advocate 246.Manatee County,Florida 296.New York City 247.Manhattan Community Access Corp.,NY 297.New York State Conference of Mayors(NYCOM) 248.Mann Telecomm Agency,CA 298.Newton Comm Access Cntr,MA 249.Martha's Vineyard Comm TV,MA 299.Norfolk VA 73 74 Federal Communications Commission FCC 06-180 Federal Communications Commission FCC 06-180 300.North Kansas City,MO 351.RCN Telecom Services,Inc. 301.North Liberty,IA 352.Red Oak NC 302.North Richland Hills,TX 353.Redding,CA 303.Northbrook 1L 354.Reidsville,NC 304.Northern Berkshire Comm TV Corp,MA - 355.Renton WA 305.Northern Dakota County Cable Comm Conan'm 356.Richmond,KY 306.Northwest Suburbs Cable Common Comm'n MN 357.River Bend,NC 307.Norwalk,CA 358.Rockingham County,NC 308.Oceanside Comm TV,CA 359.Rockwell,NC 309.Onslow Cnty,NC 360.Rolling Hills Estates,CA 310.Ontario,CA 361.Rowan County,NC 311.Orange County.FL 362.Sacramento Metro Cable TV Commission,CA 312.Organization for the Promotion and Advancement of Small Telecommunications Companies 363.Saint Charles.MO 313.Orion Neighborhood TV,MI 364.Salem,OR 314.Oxford,NC 365.Salt Lake City,UT 315.Pacific Research Institute 366.San Diego,CA 316.Pac-West Telecomm,Ine. 367.San Dimas,CA 317.Palmetto,FL 368.San Jose,CA 318.Palo Alto,CA(on behalf of Joint Powers) 369.San Juan Capistrano,CA 319.Pasadena,CA 370.San Marcos,CA 320.Patton PA 371.San Mateo County Telecomm Auth,CA 321.Peachtree City.GA 372.Sanford.NC 322.Pennsville,NJ 373.Santa Clara,CA 323.Penis,CA 374.Santa Clarita,CA 324.Philadelphia,PA 375.Santa Cruz County Community TV 325.Pike County,Kentucky 376.Santa Rosa,CA 326.Pike County,KY 377.Santee,CA 327.Pikeville,Kentucky 378.Saratoga Springs,NY 328.Pikeville,KY 379.Scotts Valley,CA 329.Pinerops,NC 380.Seattle,WA 330.Pittsboro,NC 381.Sebastopol,CA 331.Plainfield,MI 382.Self-Advocacy Association of New York Stara,Inc. 332.Pleasant Garden,NC 383.Stealer,PA 333.Pleasant}Ell,CA 384.Sierra Madre,CA 334.Plymouth,MA 385.Signal Hill,CA 335.Pocatello,ID 386.Siler City,NC 336.Post Falls,ID 387.Simi Valley,CA 337.Poway,CA 388.Sjoberg's,Inc. 338.Prince George's Community TV,Inc. 389.Skokie,IL 339.Prince George's County,MD 390.Smithfield,NC 340.Princeton Community TV,NJ 391.Solana Beach,CA 341.Public Cable Television Authority 392.South Orange Village,NJ 342.Public Utility Commission of Texas 393.South Portland,ME 343.Public,Educational and Government Access Oversight Comm of Metro Nashville 394.South San Francisco,CA 344.Queen Anne's County,MD 395.South Slope Cooperative Telephone Company 345.Quote Unquote,NM 396.Southeast Michigan Municipalities 346.Qwest Communications International Inc. 397.Southwest Suburban Cable Commission(SWSCC) 347.Ramsey/Washington Counties Suburban Cable Commun.Common,MN 398.Spring Hope,NC 348.Rancho Cordova,CA 399.Springfield,MO • 349.Rancho Santa Margarita,CA 400.St.Charles,IL 350.Randolph County,NC 401.St.Paul,MN. 75 76 Federal Communications Commission FCC 06-180 Federal Communications Commission FCC 06-180 402.St.Petersburg,FL 453.White Plains Cable Access TV,NY 403.Standish,ME 454.White,SD 404.State College Bourough,PA 455.Whittier,CA r 405.State of Hawaii 456.Wilbraham,MA 406.Statesville,NC 457.Wilson,NC 407.Sun Prairie Cable Access TV,WI 458.Winchester,KY&KY Regional Cable Comm. 408.Sunapee,NH• 459.Windham Community TV,NH 409.Sunnyvale,CA 460.Winston-Salem,NC 410.Susanville,CA 461.Wisconsin Avv iation of Public,Educational and Government Access Channels(WAPC) 411.Tabor City,NC 462.Women Impacting Public Policy 412.Tampa,FL 463.Worchester,MA 413.Taylor,MI 464.World Institute on Disability 414.Telco Retirees Association,Inc. 465.Yanceyville,NC 415.Telecommunications Industry Association 466.Yuma,AZ 416.Temecula,CA 467.Zebulon,NC 417.Texas Coalition of Cities for Utility Issues(TCCFUI) 468.Zeeland,MI 418.Texas Municipal League and the Texas City Attorneys Association 419.The Progress&Freedom Foundation 420.Time Warner Cable 421.Tobaccoville,NC • 422.Toppenish,WA 423.Torrance,CA 424.Truckee,CA 425.Tulsa,OK 426.Tuolumne,CA 427.Ukiah,CA 428.United States Internet Industry Association 429.United States Telecom Association 430.United States-Mexico Chamber of Commerce 431.URTV Asheville,NC 432.Valley Voters Organized Toward Empowerment 433.Vancouver Educational Telecommunications Consortium(VETC) 434.Vass,NC 435.Verizon 436.Vermont Public Service Board(VPSB) 437.Video Access Alliance 438.Villages of Larchmont&Mamaroneck NY 439.Virginia Cable Telecommunications Association(VCTA) 440.Vista,CA 441.Wake Forest,NC 442.Walnut Creek,CA 443.Walnut Creek,California • 444.Warrcaville,IL 445.Washington State Grange 446.Wayland,MA 447.Wendell,NC 448.West Allis,WI 449.West Palm Beach,FL • 450.Westport,WI 451.Wheaton,IL 452.Whitakers,NC 77 78 Federal Communications Commission FCC 06-180 Federal Communications Commission FCC 06-180 APPENDIX B e)If a franchising authority does not grant or denyapplication within the time limit an a pp specified in subsection(d),the competitive franchise applicant will be authorized to offer service pursuant to an Rule Changes interimbanchise in accordance with the terms of the application submitted under subsection(b). Part 76 of Tide 47 of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended as follows: f)If after expiration of the time limit specified in subsection(d)a franchising authority denies an Part 76-MULTICHANNEL VIDEO AND CABLE TELEVISION SERVICE application,the competitive franchise applicant must discontinue operating under the interim franchise specified in subsection(e)unless the franchising authority provides consent for the interim franchise to 1. Revise Subpart C title to read as follows: continue for a limited period of time,such as during the period when judicial review of the franchising authority's decision is pending.The competitive franchise applicant may seek judicial review of the Subpart C-Cable Franchise Applications denial under 47 U.S.C.§555. 2. Insert into new Subpart C the following: g)If after expiration of the time limit specified in subsection(d)a franchising authority and a competitive franchise applicant agree on the terms of a franchise,upon the effective date of that franchise,that §76.41 Franchise Application Process franchise will govern and the interim franchise will expire. (a)Definition Competitive Franchise Applicant.For the purpose of this section,an applicant for a cable franchise in an area currently served by another cable operator or cable operators in accordance with 47 U.S.C.§541(a)(1). (b)A competitive franchise applicant must include the following information in writing in its franchise application,in addition to any information required by applicable state and local laws: (1)the applicant's name; (2)the names of the applicant's officers and directors; (3)the business address of the applicant; (4)the name and contact information of a designated contact for the applicant; (5)a description of the geographic arm that the applicant proposes to serve; (6)the PEG channel capacity and capital support proposed by the applicant; (7)the term of the agreement proposed by the applicant; (8)whether the applicant holds an existing authorization to access the public rights-of-way in the subject franchise service area as described under subsection(6)(5); (9)the amount of the franchise fee the applicant offers to pay;and (10)any additional information required by applicable state or local laws. (c)A franchising authority may not require a competitive franchise applicant to negotiate or engage in any regulatory or administrative processes prior to the filing of the application. (d)When a competitive franchise applicant files a franchise application with a franchising authority and the applicant has existing authority to access public rights-of-way in the geographic area that the applicant proposes to serve,the franchising authority must grant or deny the application within 90 days of the date the application is received by the franchising authority.If a competitive franchise applicant does not have misting authority to access public rights-of-way in the geographic urea that the applicant proposes to serve,the franchising authority must grant or deny the application within 180 days of the date the application is received by the franchising authority. A franchising authority and a competitive franchise applicant may agree in writing to extend the 90-day or 180-day deadline,whichever is applicable. 79 80 Federal Communications Commission FCC 06-180 Federal Communications Commission FCC 06-180 APPENDIX C same meaning as the term"small business concern"under the Small Business Act.' A"small business concern"is one which: (1)is independently owned and operated;(2)is not dominant in its field of Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis operation;and(3)satisfies any additional criteria established by the Small Business Administration s ("SBA' ' 1. As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980,as amended(the"RFA"),'the 5. Small Businesses. Nationwide,there are a total of approximately 22.4 million small Commission has prepared this Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysts("IRFA")of the possible significant businesses,according to SBA data10 economic impact of the policies and rules proposed in the Further Notice of Proposed Ralemaking ("Further Notice")on a substantial number of small entities.'Written public comments are requested on 6. Small Organizations. Nationwide, there are approximately 1.6 million small this IRFA. Comments mutt be identified as responses to the IRFA and must be filed by the deadlines for organizations." comments on the Further Notice provided in paragraph 145 of the item. The Commission will send a 7. The Commission has determined that the group of small entities possibly directly affected copy of the Further Notice,including this IRFA,m the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small by the proposed rules herein,if adopted,consists of small governmental entities. A description of these Business Administration("SBA").'r In addition,the Further Notice and IRFA thereof)(or w aries ill entities is provided below. In addition the Commission voluntarily provides descriptions of a number of Reg be published in the Federal Register.' entities that may be merely indirectly affected by any roles that result from the Further Notice. A. Need for,and Objectives of,the Proposed Rules Small Governmental Jurisdictions 2. The Further Notice continues a process to implement Section 621(a)(1) of the Communications Act of 1934,as amended,in order to further the interrelated goals of enhanced cable 8. The term"small governmental jurisdiction"is defined as"governments of cities,towns, competition and accelerated broadband deployment as discussed in the Report and Order("Order"). townships,villages,school districts,or special districts,with a population of less than fifty thousand."' Specifically,the Further Notice solicits comment on whether the Commission should apply the rules and As of 1997,there were approximately 87,453 governmental jurisdictions in the United States.'r This guidelines adopted in the Order to cable operators that have existing franchise agreements,and if so, number includes 39,044 county governments, municipalities, and townships, of which 37,546 whether the Commission has authority to do so.The Further Notice also seeks comment on whether the (approximately 96.2 percent)have populations of fewer than 50,000,and of which 1,498 have populations Commission can preempt state or local customer service laws that exceed Commission standards. of 50,000 or more. Thus,we estimate the number of small governmental jurisdictions overall to be B. Legal Basis 84,098 or fewer. 3. The Further Notice tentatively concludes that the Commission has authority to apply the Miscellaneous Entities findings in the Order to cable operators with existing franchise agreements. In that regard,the Further 9. The entities described in this section are affected merely indirectly by our current action, Notice finds that neither Section 611(a)nor Section 622(a)distinguishes between incumbents and new and therefore are not formally a art of this RFA analysis.We have included them,however,to broaden P Y entrants or franchises issued to incumbents and franchises issued to new entrants.' the record in this proceeding and to alert them to our tentative conclusions. C. Description and Estimate of the Number of Small Entities to Which the Proposed Cable Operators Rules Will Apply 4. The RFA directs agencies to provide a description of,and where feasible,an estimate of 10. The"Cable and Other Program Distribution"census category includes cable systems the number of small entities that may be affected by the proposed rules,if adopted.'The RFA generally operators,closed circuit television services,direct broadcast satellite services,multipoin[distribution defines the term"small entity"as having the same meaning as the terms"small business,""small systems,satellite master antenna systems,and subscription television services. The SBA hat developed organization,"and"small governmental jurisdiction.'" In addition,the term"small business"has the small business size standard for this census category,which includes all such companies generating$13.0 million or less in revenue annually." According to Census Bureau data for 1997,there were a total of '5 U.S.C.§601(3)(incorporating by inference the definition of"small-business concern"in the Small Business 'The RFA,see 5 U.S.C.§§601-612,has been amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act,15 U.S.C.§632).Pursuant to 5 U.S.C.§601(3),the statutory definition of a small business applies'nless an Act of 1996("SBREFA"),Pub.L No.104-121,Title II,110 Stat.857(1996). agency,after consultation with the Office of Advocacy of the Small Business Administration and after opportunity See 5 U.S.C.§603. Although we are conducting an IRFA at this stage in the process,it is foreseeable that for public comment.establishes one or mom definitions of such term which are appropriate to the acnvttia of the ultimately we will certify this action pursuant tothe RFA,5 U.S.C.§605(b),because we anticipate at this time that agency and publishes such definitions)in the Federal Register." any rules adopted pursuant to this Notice will have no significant economic impact one substantial number of small '15 U.S.C.§632. entities. 'See 5 U.S.C.§603(a). 'a See SBA,Programs and Services,SBA Pamphlet No.CO-0028,at page 40(July 2002). "Independent Sector,The New Nonprofit Almanac 8 Desk Reference(2002). 'See 5 U.S.C.§603(a). "5 U.S.C.§601(5). s See 47 U.S.C.§§531(a),542(a). "U.S.Census Bureau,Statistical Abstract of the United States: 2000,Section 9,pages 299-300,Tables 490 and '5 U.S.C.§603(b)(3). 492. '5 U.S C.§601(6). "13 C.F.R.§121.201,North American Indu stry Classification System(NAICS)517510. 81 8Y • Federal Communications Commission FCC 06180 Federal Cammunientions Commission FCC 06180 1,311 firms in this category,total,that had operated for the entire year." Of this total,1,180 firms had Program Distribution." This standard provides that a small entity is one with$13.0 million or less in annual receipts of under 510 million and an additional 52 firms had receipts of SI0 million or more but annual receipts. The Commission has certified approximately 25 OVS operators to serve 75 areas,and less than$25 million. Consequently,the Commission estimates that the majority of providers in this some of these are currently providing service." Affiliates of Residential Communications Network,Inc. service category are small businesses that may be affected by the rules and policies adopted herein. (RCN)received approval to operate OVS systems in New York City,Boston,Washington,D.C.,and 11. Cable System Operators(Rate Regulation Standard).The Commission has developed its other areas. RCN has sufficient revenues to assure that they do not qualify as a small business entity. Li own small-business-size standard for cable system operators,for purposes of rate regulation. Under thLittle financial information is available for the other entities that are authorised to provide OVS and are not yet operational. Given that some entities authorized to provide OVS service have not yet begun to Commission's riles,a"small cable company"is one serving fewer than 400,000 subscribers nationwide." generate revenues,the Commission concludes that up to 24 OVS operators(those remaining)might The most recent estimates indicate that there were 1,439 cable operators who qualified assmall cable qualify as small businesses that may be affected by the rules and policies adopted herds. system operators at the end of 1995." Since then,some of those companies may have grown to serve over 400,000 subscribers,and others may have been involved in transactions that caused them to be D. Description of Projected Reporting, Recordkeeping and Other Compliance combined with other cable operators.Consequently,the Commission estimates that there are now fewer Requirements than 1,439 small entity cable system operators that may be affected by the rules and policies adopted 14. We anticipate that any rules that result from this action would have at most a de minima herein. impact on small governmental jurisdictions(e.g.,one-time proceedings to amend existing procedures 12. Cable System Operators(Telecom Act Standard).The Communications Act of 1934,as regarding the method of granting competitive franchises). Local franchising authorities("LFAs")today amended,also contains a size standard for small cable system operators,which is"a cable operator that, must review and decide upon competitive cable franchise applications,and will continue to perform that directly or through an affiliate,serves in the aggregate fewer than 1 percent of all subscribers in the role upon the conclusion of this proceeding;any rules that might be adopted pursuant to this Notice likely United States and is not affiliated with any entity or entities whose gross annual revenues in the aggregate would require at most only modifications to that process. exceed$250,000,000."" The Commission bens determined that there are 67,700,000 subscribers in the E. Steps Taken to Minimize Significant Economic Impact on Small Entities and United States." Therefore,an operator serving fewer than 677,000 subscribers shall be deemed a small Significant Alternatives Considered operator,if its annual revenues,when combined with the total annual revenues of all its affiliates,do not exceed S250 million in the aggregate." Based on available data,the Commission estimates that the 15. The RFA requires an agency to describe any significant,specifically small business, number of cable operators serving 677,000 subscribers or fewer,totals 1,450." The Commission neither alternatives that it has considered in reaching its proposed approach,which may include the following requests nor collects information on whether cable system operators are affiliated with entities whose four alternatives (among others): "(I)the establishment of differing compliance or reporting gross annual revenues exceed$250 million,=and therefore is unable,at this time,to estimate more requirements or timetables that take into account the resources available to small entities;(2)the accurately the number of cable system operators that would qualify as small cable operators under the size clarification,consolidation,or simplification of compliance and reporting requirements under the rule for standard contained in the Communications Act of 1934. such small entities;(3)the use of performance rather than design standards;and(4)an exemption from coverage of the rule,or any part thereof,for such small entities:a" 13. Open Video Services. Open Video Service("OVS")systems provide subscription services.¢ As noted above,the SBA has created a small business size standard for Cable and Other 16. As discussed in the Further Notice,Sections 611(a)and 622(a)do not distinguish between new entrants and cable operators with existing franchises." As discussed in the Order,the Commission has the authority to implement the mandate of Section 621(a)(1)to ensure that LFAs do not "U.S.Census Bureau,1997 Economic Census,Subject Series: Information,"Establishment and Firm Sire unreasonably refuse to award competitive franchises to new entrants,and adopts rules designed to ensure (Including Legal Farm of Organimtion),"Table 4,NAICS code 513220(issued October 2000). that the local franchising process does not create unreasonable barriers to competitive entry for new ""47 CF.A§76.901(e).The Commission developed this definition based on its determination that a small able entrants. Such mks consist of specific guidelines(e.g.,maximum timeframes for considering a system operator is one with animal revenues of 5100 million or less.See Implementation of Section"of the 1992 competitive franchise application)and general principle regarding franchise fen designed to provide Cable Act:Rate Regulation.Sark Report and Order and Eleventh Order on Reconsideration,IS FCC Red 7393 LFAs with the guidance accessary to conform their behavior to the directive of Section 621(a)(1). As (1995). noted above,applying these rules regarding the franchising process to cable operators with existing "Paul Kagan Associates,Inc.,Cable TV Investor,February 29,1996(baud on figures for December 30,1995). franchises likely would have at most a de minimis impact on small governmental jurisdictions. Even if that were not the case,however,we believe that the interest of fairness to those cable operators would "47 U.S.C.§543(m)(2). outweigh any impact on small entities. The alternative(i.e.,continuing to allow LFAs to follow "See FCC Announces New Subscriber Count for the Definition of Small Cable Operator,Public Notice DA 01-158 procedures that are unreasonable) would be unacceptable,as it would be incon.sittent with the (2001). Communications Act We seek comment on the impact that such roles might have on small entities,and on what effect alternative roles would have on those entities.We also invite comment on ways in which .47 C.F.R.§76.901(0. rat See FCC Announces New Subscriber Count for the Definition of Small Cable Operators,Public Notice,DA 01- h'13 C.F.R.§1212.01,NAICS code 517510. 0158(2001). The Commission does receive such information on a rase-by-cue bass if a cable operator appeals a local '' See hrtp://www.fec.gov/mb/ovs/aovscer.hrml (visited December 19, 2006), http//www.fec.gov/mb/ovs/ csovsarc.hmd(visited December 19,2006). franchise authority's finding that the operator does not qualify as a small cable operator pursuant to§76.901(0 of •the Commission's rules.See 47 C.FJt.§76.909(b). "5 U.S.C.§§603(e)(1)•(4). 'See 47 U.S.C.§573. ='47 U.S.C.§¢531(a),542(a). 83 84 a Federal Communications Commission FCC O6-180 Federal Communications Commission FCC 06-180 the Commission might implement the tentative conclusions while at the same time imposing lesser APPENDIX D burdens on small entities. Final Regulatory Flexibility Act Analysis F. Federal Rules that May Duplicate,Overlap,or Conflict with the Proposed Rules 17. None. 1. As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980,as amended("RFA")'an Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis("IRFA")was incorporated in the Notice of Proposed Rulema(ing ("NPRM')to this proceeding.'The Commission sought written public comment on the proposals in the NPRM,including comment on the IRFA.The Commission received one comment on the IRFA.This present Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis("FRFA")conforms to the RFA' A. Need for,and Objectives of,the Report and Order 2. This Report and Order("Order")adopts rules and provides guidance to implement Section 621 of the Communications Act of 1934,as amended(the"Communications Act'''Section 621 of the Communications Act prohibits franchising authorities from=reasonably refusing to award competitive franchises for the provision of cable services.'The Commission has found that the current franchising process constitutes an unreasonable barrier to entry for competitive entrants that impedes enhanced cable competition and accelerated broadband deployment. The Commission also has determined that it has authority to address this problem. To eliminate the unreasonable barriers to entry into the cable market,and to encourage investment in broadband facilities,in this Order the Commission (1)adopts maximum time frames within which local franchising authorities("CFAs")must grant or deny franchise applications(90 days for new entrants with existing access to rights-of-way and six months for those who do not);(2)prohibits LFAs from imposing unreasonable build-out requirements on new entrants;(3)identifies certain costs,fees,and other compensation which,if required by CFAs,must be counted toward the statutory 5 percent cap on franchise fees;(4)interprets new entrants'obligations to provide support for PEG channels and facilities and institutional networks("I-Nets");and(5)clarifies that LFA authority is limited to regulation of cable services,not mixed-use services. The Commission also preempts local laws,regulations,and franchise agreement requirements,including level-playing-field provisions,to the extent they impose greater restrictions on market entry for competitive entrants than what the Order allows. The rule and guidelines are adopted in order to further the interrelated goals of enhanced cable competition and accelerated broadband deployment.For the specific language of the rule adopted,see Appendix B. B. Summary of Significant Issues Raised by Public Comments in Response to the IRFA 3. Only one commenter,Sjoberg's,Inc.submitted a comment that specifically responded to the IRFA. Sjoberg's,Inc.contends that small cable operators are directly affected by the adoption of rules that treat competitive cable entrants more favorably than incumbents. Sjoberg's Inc.argues that small cable operators are not in a position to compete with large potential competitors.These arguments were considered and rejected as discussed below. 4. We disagree with Sjoberg's Inc.assertion that or rules will treat competitive cable entrants more favorably than incumbents. While the actions we take in the Order will serve to increase °See 5 U.S.C.§603.The RFA,see 5 U.S.C.§601 et seq.,has been amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996("SBREFA"),Pub.L.No.104-121,Tide II,110 Scat 847(1996).The SBREFA was enacted as Title II of the Contract With America Advancement Act of 1996("CWAAA'). 'Implementation of Section 621(o)(1)of the Cable Communications Policy Au of 1984 as amended by the Cable Television Consumer Protection and Competition Act of 1992,20 FCC Red 18581(2005)("NPRM"). 'See 5 U.S.C.§604. '47 U.S.C.§541(aXl). Id 85 86 Federal Communications Commission FCC O6.180 Federal Communications Commission FCC 06-180 competition in the multichannel video programming("MVPD")market,we do not believe that the rules Miscellaneous Entities we adopt in the Order will pat any incumbent provider at a competitive disadvantage.In fact,we believe 8. The entities described in this section are affected merely indirectly by our current action, that incumbent cable operators are at a competitive advantage in the MVPD market;incumbent cable and therefore are not formally a part of this RFA analysis.We have included them,however,to broaden operators have the competitive advantage of an existing customer base and significant brand recognition the record in this proceeding and to alert them to our conclusions. in their existing markets.Furthermore,we ask in the Further Notice of Proposed Rulereaking whether the findings adopted in the Order should apply to existing cable operators and tentatively conclude that they Cable Operators should 9. The"Cable and Other Program Distribution"census category includes cable systems C. Description and Estimate of the Number of Small Entities to Which the Proposed operators,closed circuit television services,direct broadcast satellite services,multipoint distribution Rules Will Apply systems,satellite master antenna systems,and subscription television services.The SBA has developed small business size standard for this census category,which includes all such companies generating$13.0 Entities Directly Affected By Proposed Rules million or less in revenue annually.' According to Census Bureau data for 1997,there were a total of 5. The RFA directs the Commission to provide a description of and,where feasible,an 1,311 firms in this category,total,that had operated for the entire year.' Of this total,1,180 firms had estimate of the number of small entities that will be affected by the rules adopted herein.° The RFA annual receipts of under SIO million and an additional 52 firms had receipts of$10 million or more but generally defines the term"small entity"as having the same meaning as the terms"small business," less than S25 million.Consequently,the Commission estimates that the majority of providers in this "small organization,"and"small government jurisdiction."' In addition,the term"small business"has service category are small businesses that may be affected by the rules and policies adopted herein. the same meaning as the term"small business concern"under the Small Business Act.'A small business 10. Cable System Operators(Rate Regulation Standard).The Commission has developed its concern is one which:(1)is independently owned and operated;(2)is not dominant in its field of own small-business-size standard for cable system operators,for purposes of rate regulation.Under the operation;and(3)satisfies any additional criteria established by the Small Business Administration Commission's rules,a"small cable company"is one serving fewer than 400,000 subscribers nationwide." (SBA).' The most recent estimates indicate that there were 1,439 cable operators who qualified as small cable 6. The tales adopted by this Order will streamline the local franchising process by adopting system operators at the end of 1995." Since then,some of those companies may have grown to serve rules that provide guidance as to what constitutes an unreasonable refusal to grant a cable franchise.The over 400,000 subscribers,and others may have been involved in transactions that caused them to be Commission has determined that the group of small entities directly affected by the rules adopted herein combined with other cable operators.Consequently,the Commission estimates that there are now fewer consists of small governmental entities(which,in some cases,may be represented in the local franchising than 1,439 small entity cable system operators that may be affected by the rules and policies adopted process by not-for-profit enterprises).Therefore,in this FRFA,we consider the impact of the rules on herein. small governmental entities.A description of such small entities,as well as an estimate of the number of 11. Cable System Operators(Telecom Act Standard).The Communications Act of 1934,as such small entities,is provided below. amended,also contains a size standard for small cable system operators,which is"a cable operator that, 7. Small governmental jurisdictions.Small governmental jurisdictions are"governments of directly or through an affiliate,serves in the aggregate fewer than 1 percent of all subscribers in the cities,towns,townships,villages,school districts,or special districts,with a population of less than fifty United States and is not affiliated with any entity or entities whose gross annual revenues in the aggregate thousand."' As of 1997,there were approximately 87,453 governmental jurisdictions in the United exceed$250,000,000."'" The Commission has determined that there are 67,700,000 subscribers in in the States." This number includes 39,044 county governments,municipalities,and townships,of which United States.' Therefore,an operator serving fewer than 677,000 subscribers shall be deemed a small 37,546(approximately 96.2 percent)have populations of fewer than 50,000,and of which 1,498 have operator,if its annual revenues,when combined with the total annual revenues of all its affiliates,do not populations of 50,000 or more.Thus,we estimate the number of small governmental jurisdictions overall exceed$250 million in the aggregate.a Based on available data,the Commission estimates that the to be 84,098 or fewer. `5 U.S.C.§603(bX3). "13 CF.R§121.201,North American Industry Classification System(NAICS)code 517510. 'Id.§601(6). "U.S.Census Bureau, 1997 Economic Census,Subject Series:Information,-Establishment and Firm Size 'Id.§601(3)(incorporating by reference the definition of"small business concern"in 15 U.S.C.§632).Pursuant (Including Legal Form of Organization);Table 4,NAICS code 513220(issued October 2000). to 5 U.S.C.§601(3),the statutory definition of a small business applies'unless an agency,after consultation with "47 C.F.R.§76.901(e).The Commission developed this definition based on its determination that a small cable the Office of Advocacy of the Small Business Administration and aft r opportunity for public comment,establish= system operator is one with annual revenues of S100 million or less.See Implementation of Secsom of the 1992 one or more definitions of such term which are appropriate to the activities of the agency and publishes such Cable Act:Rate Regulation.Sixth Report and Order and Eleventh Order on Reconsideration,10 FCC Red 7393 def ition(s)in the Federal Register."5 U.S.C.§601(3). (1995). 15 U.S.C.§632.Application of the statutory criteria of dominance in its field of operation and independence are "Paul Kagan Associates,Inc.,Cable TV Investor,Feb sometimes difficult to apply in the context of broadcast television. Accordingly,the Commission's statistical nary>_9,1996(based on figures for December 30,1995). account of television stations may be over-inclusive. "47 U.S.C.§543(m)(2). 1c 5 U.S.C.§601(5). "See FCC Announces New Subscriber Count for the Definition of Small Cable Operator,Public Notice DA 01-158 U.S.Census Bureau,Statistical Abstract of the United Sates:2000,Section 9,pages 299.300,Tables 490 and (2001). 492. "47 C.F.R.§76.901(1). 87 88 Federal Communications Commission FCC 06-180 Federal Communications Commission FCC 06-180 number of cable operators serving 677,000 subscribers or fewer,totals 1,450?The Commission neither Commission data,•1,303 carriers have reported that they are engaged in the provision of incumbent local requests nor collects information on whether cable system operators are affiliated with entities whose exchange services.Of these 1,303 carriers,an estimated 1,020 have 1,500 or fewer employees and 283 gross annual revenues exceed$250 million,'and therefore is unable,at this time,to estimate more have more than 1,500 employees.Consequently,the Commission estimates that most providers of accurately the number of cable system operators that would qualify as small cable operators under the size incumbent local exchange service are small businesses that may be affected by our action.In addition, standard contained in the Communications Act of 1934. limited preliminary census data for 2002 indicate that the total number of wired communications carriers 12. Open Video Services. Open Video Service ("OVS")systems provide subscription increased approximately 34 percent from 1997 to 2002.' services.' As noted above,the SBA has created a small business size standard for Cable and Other 15. Competitive Local Exchange Carriers,Competitive Access Providers(CAPS),"Shared- Program Distribution.' This standard provides that a small entity is one with S13.0 million or less in Tenant Service Providers,"and"Other Local Service Providers."Neither the Commission nor the SBA annual receipts.The Commission has certified approximately 25 OVS operators to serve 75 areas,and has developed a small business size standard specifically for these service providers.The appropriate size some of these are currently providing service."Affiliates of Residential Communications Network,Inc. standard under SBA rules is for the category Wired Telecommunications Carriers.Under that size (RCN)received approval to operate OVS systems in New York City,Boston,Washington,D.C.,and standard,such a business is small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees?According to Commission data,' other areas.RCN has sufficient revenues to assure that they do not qualify as a small business entity. 769 carriers have reported that they are engaged in the provision of either competitive access provider Little financial information is available for the other entities that are authorized to provide OVS and are services or competitive local exchange carrier services.'Of these 769 carriers,an estimated 676 have not yet operational.Given that some entities authorized to provide OVS service have not yet begun to 1,500 or fewer employees and 93 have more than 1,500 employees.In addition,12 carriers have reported generate revenues,the Commission concludes that up to 24 OVS operators(those remaining)might that they are'Shared-Tenant Service Providers,"and all 12 are estimated to have 1,500 or fewer qualify as small businesses that may be affected by the rules and policies adopted herein. employees.In addition,39 carriers have reported that they are"Other Local Service Providers."Of the Telecommunications Service Entities 39, an estimated 38 have 1,500 or fewer employees and one has more than 1,500 employees. Consequendy,the Commission estimates that most providers of competitive local exchange service, 13. As noted above,a"small business"under the RFA is one that,inter alia,meets the competitive access providers,"Shared-Tenant Service Providers,"and"Other Local Service Providers" • pertinent small business size standard(e.g.,a telephone communications business having 1,500 or fewer are small entities that maybe affected by our action.In addition,limited preliminary census data for 2002 employees),and"is not dominant in its field of operation."' The SBA's Office of Advocacy contends indicate that the total number of wired communications carriers increased approximately 34 percent from that,for RFA purposes,small incumbent local exchange carriers are not dominant in their field of 1997 to 2002" operation because any such dominance is not"national"in scope.' We have therefore included small D. Description of Projected Reporting, Record Keeping and other Compliance incumbent local exchange carriers in this RFA analysis,although we emphasize that this RFA action has Requirements no effect on Commission analyses and determinations in other,non-RFA contexts. 14. Incumbent Local Exchange Carriers("LECs').Neither the Commission nor the SBA has 16. The tole and guidance adopted in the Order will require de minim.additional reporting, developed a small business size standard specifically for incumbent local exchange services.The record keeping,and other compliance requirements. The most significant change requires potential appropriate size standard under SBA riles is for the category Wired Telecommunications Carriers.Under franchisees to file an application to mark the beginning of the franchise negotiation process. This filing requires minimal information,and we estimate that the average burden on applicants to complete this that size standard,such a business is small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees.' According to application is one hour.The franchising authority will review this application in the normal course of its franchising procedures.The role will not require any additional special skills beyond any already needed in the cable franchising context 'See FCC Announces New Subscriber Count for the Definition of Small Cable Operators,Public Notice,DA 01- E. Steps Taken to Minimize Significant Impact on Small Entities,and Significant 0158(2001). Alternatives Considered The Commission does receive such information on a ease-by-eau basis if a cable operator appeals a local 17. The RFA requires an agency to describe any significant alternatives that it has considered franchise authoritys finding that the operator does not qualify as a small cable operator pursuant to§76.901(f)of the Commissions rules.See 47 C.F.R.§76.909(b). FCC,Wireline Competition Bureau,Industry Analysis and Technology Division,"Trends in Telephone Service" "See 47 U.S.C.§573. at Table 5.3,page 5-5(June 2005)("Trends in Telephone Service").This source uses data that are current as of 13 C.FJL§121.201,NAICS code 517510. October 1,2004. •See hspi/www.fce.gav/mbtovs/csovscer.html(visited Demmber 19,2006), . 'See U.S.Census Bureau,2002 Economic Census,Industry Series:"Information."Table 2,Comparative Statistics htryl/wunv.fcc.gov/mb/ovs/aovsam.hnnl(visited December 19,2006). for the United States(1997 NAICS Basis):2002 and 1997,NAICS code 513310(issued Nov.2004).The "IS U.S.C.§632. preliminary data indicate that the total number of"establishments"increased from 20,815 to 27,891.In this context, the number of establishments is a less helpful indicator of small business prevalence than is the number of"ferns," Lena from Jere W.Glover,Chief Counsel for Advocacy,SBA,to William E.Kennard,Chairman,FCC(May 27, because the latter number takes into account the concept of common ownership or control.The more helpful 2002 1999).The Small Business Act contains a definition of'small-business concern,"which the RFA incorporate into census data on firms,including employment and receipts numbers,will be issued in late 2005. its own definition of"small business."See 15 U.S.C.§632(a)(Small Business Act);5 U.S.C.§601(3)(RFA).SBA "13 C.F.R.§121.201,NAICS code 517110. regulations interpret"small business concern"to include the concept of dominance on a national basis.See 13 C.F.R.§121.102(b). '"Trends in Telephone Service"at Table 5.3. 13 C.F.R§121.201,NAICS code 517110(changed from 513310 in Oct 2002). ''See supra note 28. 89 90 Federal Communications Commission FCC 06-180 Federal Communications Commission FCC 06-180 in reaching its proposed approach,which may include the following four alternatives(among others):(1) the establishment of differing compliance or reporting requirements or timetables that take into account STATEMENT OF the resources available to small entities; (2) the clarification, consolidation, or simplification of CHAIRMAN KEVIN J.MARTIN compliance or reporting requirements under the rule for small entities;(3)the use of performance,rather than design,standards;and(4)an exemption from coverage of the nile,or any part thereof,for small Re:Implementation of Section 621(a)(1)of the Cable Communications Policy Act of 1984 as amended by entities." the Cable Television Consumer Protection and Competition Act of 1992(MB Docket No.05-311) 18. In the NPRM,the Commission sought comment on the impact that roles interpreting Section 621(a)(1)might have on small entities,and on what effect alternative lutes would have on those Greater competition in the market for the delivery for multichannel video programming is a entities.The Commission also invited comment on ways in which the Commission might implement primary and long-standing goal of federal communications policy.In passing the 1992 Cable Act, Section 621(a)(1)while at the same time impose lesser burdens on small entities.The Commission Congress recognized that competition between multiple cable systems would be beneficial,would help tentatively concluded that any rules likely would have most a de minimts impact on small governmental lower cable rates,and specifically encouraged local franchising authorities to award competitive jurisdictions,and that the interrelated,high-priority federal communications policy goals of enhanced franchises.Section 621 of the statute reads,"A franchising authority may not grant an exclusive franchise cable competition and accelerated broadband deployment necessitated the establishment of specific and may not unreasonably refuse to award an additional competitive franchise." guidelines for LFAs with respect to the process by which they grant competitive cable franchises. We agree with those tentative conclusions.and we believe that the Hiles adopted in the Order will not impose Telephone companies are investingbillions of dollars to a significant impact on any small entity. P P upgrade their networks to provide video. As new providers began actively seeking miry into video markets,we began to hear that some local 19. In the Order,we provide that LFAs should reasonably review franchise applications authorities were making the process of getting franchises unreasonably difficult,despite clear statutory within 90 days for entities existing authority to access rights-of way,and within six months for entities language.The record collected by the Commission in this proceeding cited instances where LFAs sat on that do not have such authority.This will result in decreasing the regulatory burdens on cable operators. applications for more than a year or required extraordinary in kind contributions such as the building of We declined to adopt shorter deadlines that commenters proposed(e.g.,17 days,one month)in order to public swimming pools and recreation centers. provide small entities more flexibility in scheduling their franchise negotiation sessions.In the Order,we also provide guidance on whether an LFA may reasonably refuse to award a competitive franchise based Such unreasonable requirements are especially troubling because competition is desperately on certain franchise requirements,such as build-out requirements and franchise fees. As an alternative, needed in the video market. As we just found,from 1995 to 2005,cable rates have risen 93%.In 1995 we considered providing no guidance on any franchising terms. We conclude that the guidance we cable cost S22.37 per month.Last year,cable cost S43.04 per month. Today's Communications Daily provide minimizes any adverse impact on small entities because it clarifies the terms within which parties reports that prices for expanded basic are now about S50 per month. The trend in pricing of cable must negotiate,and should prevent small entities from facing costly litigation over those terms. services is of particular importance to consumers. Since 1996 the prices of every other communications service have declined while cable rates have risen year after year after year. F. Report to Congress 20. The Commission will send a copy of the Order,including this FRFA,in a report to be This item appropriately removes such regulatory barriers by giving meaning to the words sent to Congress pursuant to the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Faimess Act of 1996.. In Congress wrote in section 621 of the Cable Act Specifically,the Commission finds that an LFA is addition,the Commission will send a copy Of the Order,including the FRFA,to the Chief Counsel for utrreasouably refusing to grant a competitive fianebise when it does not act on an application within a Advocacy of the Small Business Administration.A copy of the Order and FRFA(or summaries thereof) reasonable time period,imposes taxes on non-cable services such as broadband,requires a new entrant to will also be published in the Federal Register." provide unrelated services or imposes unreasonable build-out requirements. The widespread deployment of broadband remains my top priority as Chairman and a major Commission objective.During my tenure as Chairman,the Commission has worked hard to create a regulatory environment that promotes broadband deployment We have removed legacy regulations,like tariffs and price controls,that discourage carriers from investing in their broadband networks,and we worked to create a regulatory level playing-field among broadband platforms.And we have begun to see some success as a result of the Commission's policies. High-speed connections to the Internet have grown over 400%since I became Commissioner in July 200. The ability to deploy broadband networks rapidly however,is intrinsically linked to the ability to offer video to consumers.As the Commission stated in the Notice in this proceeding: "The construction of modern telecommunications facilities requires substantial capital investment and such networks,once completed,are capable of providing not only voice and data,but video as well. As a consequence,the "5 U.S.C.§603(cxl)-(c)(4) ability to offer video offers the promise of an additional revenue stream from which deployment costs can be recovered" "See 5 U.S.C.§80 Hall'xA). "See id.§6040). Similarly,in a 2005 Policy Paper,the Phoenix Center found that video is "is now the key driver for new fiber deployment in the residential market"The Phoenix Center went onto say that: "If a new 91 92 • + Federal Communications Commission FCC 06180 Federal Communications Commission FCC 06-180 entrant cannot readily provide consumers multichannel video over an advanced network,then the • DISSENTING STATEMENT OF prospects for success will be diminished substantially due to a reduction in the entrant's potential COMMISSIONER MICHAEL J.COPPS revenues.Quite simply,the ability to sell video services over these fiber networks may be a crucial factor in getting those fiber networks deployed."By enhancing the ability of new entrants to provide video -Re:Implementation of Section 621(a)(1)of the Cable Communications Policy Act of 1984 at amended by services then we are advancing our goal of universal affordable broadband access for Americans,as well the Coble Television Consumer Protection and Competition Act of 1992(MB Docket No.05.3I1) as our goal of increased video competition. I am also committed to seeing that consumers are able to realize the benefits of competition in the I think that all of my colleagues and I can agree on the central importance of encouraging video forms of better services and lower prices.In recent years however,consumers have had limited choice competition. It is abundantly clear that cable rates are rising faster than inflation and that wireline cable among video services providers and ever increasing prices for those services. But as was just competition can be helpful in bringing those rates down. Consumers deserve rules that will bring such demonstrated in our annual price survey,cable competition can impact cable bills.Again,it found that competition to their doorsteps because consumers are not being well-served by the lack of competition only in areas where there was competition from a second cable operator did average price for cable today. service decrease.I am pleased that the steps taken by the Commission today will expressly further this type of competition and help ensure that lower prices ate available to as many Americans as possible as I think my colleagues and I can also agree on the central importance of broadband deployment quickly as possible. As I have often pointed out,our nation is falling behind in the international broadband race.Encouraging new entrants into the video market could at least assist in the challenge of building out broadband Addressing build-out requirements was particularly difficult.This item seeks to strike a balance infrastructure,although it doesn't represent anything near the totality of what a real broadband strategy between encouraging as widespread deployment of broadband as possible while not deterring entry would look like. altogether.I believed it would have been appropriate to provide examples of build-out requirements that would be reasonable in addition to illustrating those that could not be.' But agreeing on the many benefits of video competition is hardly the same thing as coming up with rules that will actually encourage honest-to-goodness competition within the framework of the statutes that Congress has given as.The item before us today doesn't get us there and I cannot support it as written. In recent days we had discussions attempting to waft an item with which I would feel more • comfortable. Chairman Martin engaged in those discussions in good faith and I thank him for that. My goal was to encourage an item that preserves a local authority's statutory tight to seek specific and far- reaching build-out requirements,protects each community's ability to negotiate for PEG and I-NET facilities,and maintains truly meaningful local ability to deal with the huge companies that are coming into our cities and towns to build important infrastructure. Throughout the consideration of this item and even as we discussed ways to improve it in recent days,I have been troubled at the lack of a granular record that would demonstrate that the present franchising system is irretrievably broken and that traditional federal-state-local relationships have to be so thoroughly upended. If we are going to preempt and upend the balances inherent in long-standing federal-state-local jurisdictional authorities,we should have a record clearly demonstrating that those local authorities are not up to the task of handling this infrastructure build-out and that competition can be introduced only by preempting and upsetting these long-standing principles of federalism.My colleagues may recall that when we launched the NPRM on this item,I made it very clear how important the compilation of a compelling granular record would be in my consideration of this proceeding..I do not believe that either today's item or the record behind it makes such a showing. The various examples of "unreasonable"franchise requirements that the item enumerates are not closely or carefully supported by the record and often fail to rise beyond isolated episodes or anecdotal evidence. Many people questioned and continue to question,the Commission's legal authority to do what it For example,I would have been willing to find that it would seem reasonable for an LFA to require that,beginning is doing today. It is clear that those questions remain and that the Commission has been asked by those five years after the effective date of a new entrant's franchise and every 3 years thereafter,if in the portion of the with oversight powers to more conclusively demonstrate our authority to undertake the actions we initiate franchise area where the new entrant has chosen to offer cable service at least 15 percent of the households subscribe today. I believe it is the better course of wisdom in 5o far-caching a proceeding,in light of the concern to such service,the new entrant increase by 20 percent the households in the franchise area to which the new entrant being expressed by those with oversight responsibilities of this Commission,to thoroughly answer those offers cable service by the beginning of the next 3-year interval,until the new entrant is capable of providing cable questions,to lay out the basis of our claimed legal authority,and to explain what legal risks this action service to all households in the franchise area. entails before taking action.Under the circumstances,proceeding on such a controversial decision today 93 94 Federal Communications Commission FCC 06-I80 Federal Communications Commission FCC 06-180 does not put an end to this issue.It only invites more delay,more confusion,and more possibility of legal challenge. DISSENTING STATEMENT OF COMMISSIONER JONATHAN S.ADELSTEIN As we face the challenge of providing ubiquitous high-speed broadband to all our citizens,we need the certainty of a national strategy to get the job done. Right now this nation is hobbled because it Re:Implementation of Section 621(a)(1)of the Cable Communications Policy Act of 1984 as amended by has no such strategy,no plan for the infrastructure build-out our people need to be productive and the Cable Television Consumer Protection and Competition Art of 1992(MB Docket No.05-311) competitive citizens of the world. The United States is ranked number twenty-one in the International Telecommunications Union's Digital Opportunity Index.It is difficult to take much comfort from being The policy goals of this Order, to promote competitive video offerings and broadband twenty-first in the Twenty-first century.The kind of broadband strategy I am talking about demands a deployment,are laudable. But while I support these goals,today's item goes out on a limb in asserting level of consensus and national buy-in by the many diverse interests and entities that would be federal authority to preempt local governments,and then saws off the limb with a highly dubious legal responsible for implementing it. While I have never equated franchise reform as anything remotely scheme.It substitutes our judgment as to what is reasonable-or unreasonable-for that of local officials equivalent to a national broadband strategy,I do believe a properly-crafted and legally-certain franchising -all in violation of the franchising framework established in the Communications Act reform could facilitate some level of broadband build-out That is what I attempted to work toward here. But if our decision is only going to increase concern,increase the questions and increase the risk,then I Today's Order is certain to offend many y in Congress,who worked long and hard on this think we should pause,take a deep breath,answer the questions and reach out for more consensus. I important issue,only to have a Commission decision rushed through with little consultation. The result don't say unanimity,of course,but at least a level of comfort that builds an environment wherein the next will be heavy oversight after-the-fact,and a likely rejection by the courts. It will solve nothing,create few years can see the job actually getting done rather than spent in contentious debate or court challenge much confusion,and provide little certainty or progress on our shared goal of promoting real video because our reasoning was deemed inadequate. competition and universal broadband deployment So I thank my colleagues,and especially the Chairman,for the discussions we have had— This outcome is disappointing because I believe we must do everything we can to encourage discussions that were both in good faith and substantive—but in light of the concerns I have just competitive video offerings. As I was driving to work this morning,I saw a line of Verizoa trucks discussed I cannot support this afternoon's outcome. Unlike so many other proceedings coming before installing FIGS in my neighborhood I must admit,I am very excited about this new service,and plan to the Commssion,I was nowhere near certain as I came to work this morning how the vote on this item subscribe.FiOS is now available because our local county officials approved a franchise for Verizon.If would go.I actually thought that perhaps we would take the short time needed,answer the questions that they had not,I imagine many of my neighbors would have complained loudly. Maybe that is why had been posed,and then reassess where we were as to proceeding with an item.That was my preference. Verizoa has repeatedly told Wall Street investors,"Hann in those states where we don't have the whole Instead it appears a majority will proceed to approve an item that,as drafted right now,is without state,places like perosylvania,we have become very successful now in getting franchising.So we don't important enhancements I have been advocating and without sufficient buy-in from the world beyond the see that as an issue going forward."' I am pleased with their efforts and their success,and want to FCC to assure its effectiveness.I must therefore respectfully dissent. 'encourage their continued investment. As I said in the underlying Notice of Proposed Rule Making,"Congress clearly sought to promote competitive cable offerings and to facilitate the approval of competitive cable franchises in the Cable Act of 1992."'I agree the Commission should do what it can within the current legal framework to facilitate increased video competition because it benefits American consumers,promotes U.S.deployment of broadband networks and services,and enhances the free exchange of ideas in our democratic society. Notwithstanding these worthy goals,I,unfortunately,cannot support this Order because the FCC is a regulatory agency,not a legislative body. In my years working on Capitol Hill,I learned enough to know that today's Order is legislation disguised as regulation.The courts will likely reverse such action because the Commission cannot act when it"does not really define specific statutory terms,but rather takes off from those terns and devises a comprehensive regulatory regimen....This extensive quasi- legislative effort to implement the statute does not strike[me]as merely a construction of statutory phrases."' Final Transcript.Thomson StreetEveaa,VZ-Verizoo at UBS 34'Annual Global Media Conference,Dec.6,2006, at page 7,available at,http:/rmvestor.verimacae4oews/2006120620061206 transaipt.pdt Statement of Commissioner Jonathan S.Adelstein,Implementation of Section 621(a)(1) of the Cable Communications Policy Act of 1984.at amended by the Cable Television Consumer Protection and Co anion Act of 1992,MB Docket No.05-311,Notice of Proposed Rulemaking,FCC 05.180(rel.Nov.18,2005)("Local Franchising NPRM'). Kelley v.E.P.A.,15 F.3d 1100,1108(DC.Cir.1994). While the Commission contends that"[d]espite the parameters established by the Communications Act....operation of the franchising process has proven far more 95 96 (continued...) Federal Communications Commission FCC 06.180 Federal Communications Commission FCC 06-180 ' approach is antithetical to clear congressional intent that cable systems be"responsive to needs and Today's Order is disappointing Mra,rse while there is bipartisan agreement that the current video intense of local community.e franchising framework should be refined to better reflect marketplace realities, technological t advancement,and consumer demands,the decision skips the fine-tuning and performs an extreme To be sure,the franchising process is not perfect and,by definition,negotiations may result in makeover. The majority accomplishes today what the elected representatives of the American people some delay. But Congress,after much deliberation,created this process to achieve certain stated policy have tried to do through the legislative process.In doing so,the Commission not only disregards current objectives,which are clearly set out in the Act.10 Regardless of bow commenters now feel about this law and exceeds its authority,but it also usurps congressional prerogatives and ignores the plain meaning carefully calibrated and negotiated balance,Congress delegated authority to state and local governments of Title VI,the cannons of statutory construction,and the judicial remedy Congress already provided for to make certain decisions and to determine the merit of granting cable franchises in their respective • unreasonable refusals.In crafting a broadly aggressive and legally tenuous solution,the majority attempts communities.It then set forth a judicial remedy if a party is aggrieved by a denial of franchising."While the legal equivalent of triple axe's and quadruple toe loops that would only impress an Olympic judge Congress has the power to revisit this scheme,and has strongly considered doing so,until then this who is willing to overlook slips,stumbles,and falls. Commission must adhere to the law as written. We might keep in mind former President Ronald Reagan's views on federalism and the role of Yet today,the Commission is federalizing the franchising process,taking it upon itself to decide, local governments.In his fast State of the Union Address,President Reagan exhorted Americans to give in every local dispute,what is"unreasonable,"without actually looking at specific,local examples to power back to local governments: determine the real situation'Instead of acknowledging the vast dispute in the record as to whether there are actually any unreasonable refusals being made today,the majority simply accepts in every case that Together,after 50 years of taking power away from the bands of the people in their states the phone companies are right and the local governments are wrong,all without bothering to examine the and local communities we have started returning power and resources to them....Some facts behind these competing claims,or conduct any independent fact-fording.This is breathtaking in its will also say our states and local communities arc not up to the challenge of a new and disrespect of our local and state government parmers and in its utter disregard for agency action based on creative parmership.Well,that might have been true 20 years ago....It's no longer nue a sound record. today.This Administration has faith in state and local governments and the constitutional balance envisioned by the Founding Fathers.' Today's Order also displays a fundamental misunderstanding about the commitment of franchising authorities to bring competition to their citizens. By law,a franchise under Title 6 confers a More recently,President George W.Bush echoed this trust in local government,asserting that right of access to people's property."Unlike members of this Commission,many state and local officials "government closest to the people is more responsive and accountable.'While the Commission has long are elected and directly accountable to their citizens. Our knee-jerk embrace of everything interested viewed the cable franchising process as"a deliberately structured dualism,n°today's decision is a clear companies say while discounting local elected officials on a matter grounded in local property rights rebuke of this storied relationship with local government certainly does not inspire a great deal of confidence in the Commission's ability on the federal level to arbitrate every local dispute in the country and fairly decide who is unreasonable and who is not.Even if Congressional action in 1984,1992,and 1996 re-affirmed further that it is Congress'intent that the Commission had such power,there is no mechanism outlined in this Order to establish how that "the franchise process takes]place at the local level where city officials have the best understanding of process would work. Consequently,the end result will likely be litigation,confusion,abuse of the local communities'needs and can require cable operators to tailor the cable system to meet those needs."' process,and a certain amount of chaos. It is sadly ironic that this agency,which has been recently in . This is clearly set forth in the purposes of Title 6,wherein Congress made clear that Title 6 would violation of one of its own 90 day statutory deadlines,is telling localities to do as I say,not as l do." establish the proper local,state and federal roles.'Congress established a framework whereby state and local authorities,within certain federal limits,are primarily responsible for the administration of the franchising process. That process is inherently local and fact-specific. Indeed,a one-size-fits-all , °47 U.S.C.§521(2). 'One of the principal purposes of Title VI is to"establish franchise procedures and standards which encourage the (Continued from previous page) growth and development of cable systems and which assure that cable systems are responsive to the needs and complex and time consuming than it should be"(Order,9 3),the proper inquiry is whether the franchising process interests of the local community."47 U.S.C.§521(2). um is operating as Congress(mended. Today's Order ignores this important question.In so doing,the Commission "47 U.S.C.§555. disregards the parameters established in the Cable Act and imposes its view of how the franchising process should be "See Loom from David L.Smith,CityAttorney,Cityof Tampa,to Kevin Martin,Chairman,FCC,dated January 5,2007(stating"[h]ow disappointing it was to learn that...the FCC would embrace as nuth an allegation in a 'President Ronald Reagan,State of the Union Address,January 26,1982,available at, ruleteaking that has such far-reaching implications to so many,without doing any follow-up with the jurisdiction httpl/www reagan.utexas.eddarchivesisoeeehes/1 91d2/1 2 6 8 2e.htm named to confirm it accuracy."). 'George W.Bush,"What the Congress Can Do For America"WArs,Sr.J.,January 3,2007,at A13. "See 47 U.S.C.§541(a)(2). °Cable Television Report and Order,36 F.C.C.2d 143,2071177,moon,36 F.C.C.2d 326(1972). "See,e.g.,In the Matter of Commas Corporation's Request for Waiver of 47 C.F.R.§76.I20(a)(1),CSR-7017-Z, 'HA .Na.934,98°Con CS Docket No 97-80,DA-06.2543,CS Docket No 97-80,fled 4/19/06(waiver proceeding placed on public notice Rry gress,2d Sess.at 24. 5/17/06 and decided 1/102007.well past the statutory"shot clock");47 U.S.C.§549(c)('the Commission shall '47 U.S.C.§521(3). grant any such waiver request within 90 days of any application filed under this subsection."). 97 98 Federal Communications Commission FCC 06-180 Federal Communications Commission FCC 06.180 Over the past two years,Congress held nearly two dozen hearings on franchising,and sought to Association,Qwest,and Bell South about new entrants accepting franchise tams that they considered amend the Cable Act in an effort to reform the current franchising process and"stake the right balance unreasonable in order to avoid further delay in obtaining the franchise,or,in one case,filing a"friendly between national standards and local oversight""Yet,the Commission has finalized in the dark of night lawsuit." what Congress was unable to resolve in two years of intensive public deliberations. In contrast to the Senate where 1 used to work,one might call the FCC the world's least deliberative body. And the final These examples,based on my review of the record evidence,represent the extent to which product shows it. competitive video providers argue that LFAs are delaying in acting on franchise applications. However, considering the current franchising process has been in place nearly-15 years and there are over 30,000 Congress would not have expended effort on a major piece of legislation had its members LFAs,I find these sporadic examples,individually and collectively,wholly insufficient to justify the believed it was not necessary to grant the Commission explicit authority to do what the majority now Commission's quasi-legislative attempt to federalize the local franchising process. These sparse contends the Commission can do under existing law. The House bill proposed a national cable allegations and anecdotal evidence do not rise to a level that warrants today's drastic,substantive franchising regime,while the Senate bill proposed an expedited competitive franchise process which measures. The Commission's blind acceptance of a few alleged instances as illustrative of a much would have required local authorities to issue franchises pursuant to a standard application drafted by the broader problem is a poor and unfortunate reflection of the disregard for proper agency process. The Commission.Today's Order turns federalism on its head by putting the Commission in the role of sole Commission neither attempted to conduct any independent fact-finding or due diligence,nor verify the arbiter of what is a"reasonable'or"unreasonable"LFA practice and short-circuiting the franchising allegations made by parties who have a vested interest in the outcome of this proceeding." Even more process if an arbitrary shot clock has expired. shocking,the Commission and the commenters fail to cite to a single actual,present day problem pending with any specific LFA` While Congress worked to change federal law to create a role for the Commission in the franchising process,there was and continues to be considerable state and local activity to reform the local Notwithstanding the scant record evidence to justify agency preemption and the creation of a franchising process. To date,nearly half of all stares have adopted state-wide franchise reform or national,unified franchising process in contravention of federal law,the Commission conjures its mandatory state franchise terms,or have engaged in a democratic process to enact meaningful franchise authority to reinterpret and,in certain respects,rewrite section 621 and Title VI of the Communications reform legislation.' Hundreds of other localities have approved new franchises,and many more are in Act,on just two words in section 621(a)(I)"-"nreasonably refuse."The Commission ignores the verb the works. that follows:"to award."A plain reading section 621(a)(1)does not provide a wholesale"unreasonable" test for all LFA action.Rather,the statutory language focuses on the act of awarding a franchise.While I When we launched this proceeding,the central question was"whether the local franchising agree that the Commission has authority to interpret and implement the Communications Act,including process truly is a hindrance to the deployment of alternative video networks,as some new entrants Title VI,"the Commission does not have authority to ignore the plain meaning,structure and legislative assen[ed]."' Indeed,the Local Franchising NPRM explicitly solicited"empirical data"and"concrete history of section 621,and judicial precedent'' examples"regarding problems in the franchising process that FCC could resolve.In response,the record evidence provides scant,dated,isolated,and unverified examples that fall far short of demonstrating a "Local Franchising NPRM,91("potential competitors seeking to enter the multichannel video programming systematic failure of state and local governments to negotiate in good faith and in a reasonable fashion. distributor('MVPD")marketplace have alleged that in many areas the current operation of the local franchising process serves as a battier to envy.Accordingly,this Notice is designed to solicit comment on implementation of According to the Telecommunications Industry Association,"same recent examples of overly- Section 621(a)(l)'s directive that LFAs not unreasonably refuse to award competitive franchises.") burdensome,and...'unseasonable,'extraneous obligations""included:(I)Merton Group's two year "During the Commission's Agenda Meeting in Keller,Texas,on February 10,2006,one Verizon official identified negotiations with Hanover,New Hampshire,which concluded in December,2004;(2)Knology's Montgomery County,Maryland as an obstinate LFA that was insisting upon unreasonable illegal demand and negotiations with Louisville,Kentucky in early 2000;(3)Knology's franchise negotiations with the delaying negotiations. Since that meeting,Veriaon has in fact obtained a franchise in Montgomery County. See greater Nashville,Tennessee area in March 2000;and(4)Grande Communication's negotiations with San Press Release,Montgomery Country,Md.,County Negotiates Cable Franchise Agreement with Verson;Agreement Antonio and Corpus Christi,Texas in 2002. Additionally,Fiber-To-The-Home Council cites the efforts Resolves Litigation, Provides Increased Competition for Cable Service (Sept. 13, 2006) (available at of Guadalupe Valley Telephone Cooperative to seek a franchise in the City of Bulverde,Texas in 2004, lsepP/wwwmoetgomerycounrymdgov/apps/News(preu/pR deans.asp?Pell?-2582). In fact,this Order blatantly The Order itself relics on anconfirmed allegations by Venison and AT&T about unreasonable demands ignores public statements that significantly anderrnlae representations some proponents of this decision have made and negotiations being drawn out over an extended period of time;and complaints by U.S.Telecom to the Commission.For example,AT&T his publicly sated that Project Lightspxd will be available to 90%of its "high-value"customers,but to less than 5%of its"low value"neighborhoods,but today the Commission undermines a locality's ability to ensure all residents are served Leslie Cawley.Cable.Phone Companies Duke it "H.R REP.No.109-170,at 3(2006). out for Customers,USA Today,May 22,2005,available at.httpl/www.usatoday.com/monry/media2005-05,22. " While the Order «edl refrains from explicitly preempting statewide franchising decisions"and only telco-rv-cover-taint-zbnn?esp"34(last viewed 1220/06). As Vmiiron s CEO of one major new entrant recently purp0 y y P p 8 8 y noted,"Any place it's come to a vote,we win."Dionne Seueey,As Verimn Enters Cable Business,It Facet Local address."decisions trade by[instrumentalities of the state,such as]county-or municipal level franchising Static Telecom Giant Gets Demands As Jr Negonatm TY Deals,Wall St J.,Oct.28,2005,at At. Yet in today's authorities,"this dubious distinction has a questionable legal basis. Under Tide 6,LFAs derive their power by Order,the Commission somehow determines that there is widespread bad faith only on the part of the LFAs,not the virtue of state law,so such distinctions are not for the FCC to make.Moreover,the Commission's contention that it new entrants,in order to justify this sweeping federal preemption. does not have sufficient information in the record to consider the effect of franchising by states(some of which have had laws in place fora decade),but has sufficient record evidence to preempt 33,000 LFAs,is facially preposterous. "47 U.S.C.§541(ax1). "Adelstein Statement Local Francb¢ingNPRM -' Admittedly,however,read together,sections 621(a)(l)and 635(a),clearly vest the coons,not the FCC,with exclosive jurisdiction over the determination of what constitutes"unreasonably refuse." In light of the fact that "Lents from Grant Sad iee,to Jonathan S.Adelstein,Commissioner,FCC,MB Docket No.05-311(dated these two provisions were amended simultaneously in 1992,this is the only rational interpretation. As NATOA December II,2006). pointed out in its Comments,lilt is ludicrous to suggest that Congress,having provided that only"Coral"decisions (continued...) 99 100 I Federal Communications Commission FCC 06-180 Federal Communications Commission FCC 06-180 While the Commission purports to limit its action today to interpreting"unreasonably refuse"the Even if I were able to move beyond this Orders facially defective reading of 621(a)(1),the Order stretches section 621 well beyond the meaning that the statute can bear and,consequentially, Commission's selection of 90 days as the only reasonable time frame for an LFA to consider the franchise o changes the franchising process in fundamental ways.There are certain salient features of today's Oder application of a competitive provider that already has rights-of-way access before it is"deemed granted" that raise serious legal and policy implications,requiring careful scrutiny. Most notably,the Order.(1) is demonstrably inconsistent with the overall framework of Title VI,unsupported by the record evidence, imposes a 90-day shot clock on LFAs to render a decision on the franchise application of a competitive and quite arbitrary- applicant with misting rights-of-way;(2)deems a competitive entrant's franchise application granted after 90-days;(3)prohibits the denial of a competitive entrant's application based upon the entrant's The franchising framework established in Title VI does not support the Commission's decision to refusal to comply with any build-out obligations;(4)prohibits the denial of a competitive entrant's select 90 days as the deadline for a default grant-another Commission creation-to become effective." application based upon the entrant's refusal to build and support PEG and 1-net;and(5)authorizes a new Throughout Part III(Franchising and Regulation)of Title VI,when Congress specifically decided to entrant to refrain from obtaining a franchise when it is upgrading"mixed use"facilities that will be used impose a deadline for LFAs to consider sales of cable systems,modification of franchise obligations,and for the delivery of video content, renewals of misting franchises,in all three instances,Congress chose 120 days."In other sections of the Act,the prevalent time frame Congress imposed on LFAs and the Commission is 180 days?Today,the The Order finds that franchising negotiations that extend beyond the time frames created today Commission,without authority,cannot take the place of Congress and impose a tighter time frame than by the Commission amount to an unreasonable refusal to award a competitive franchise within the Congress ever contemplated to impose on LFAs in the franchising process. This is well beyond meaning of 621(a)(1). This fording ignores the plain reading of the first sentence of section 621(a)(1), Commission"line-drawing"authority,which requires the Commission to operate within the established which provides that a franchising authority"may not unreasonably refuse to award an additional framework of the authorizing legislation. competitive franchise,"" On its face,Section 621(a)(1)does not impose a time limitation on an LFA's authority to consider,award,or deny a competitive franchise. The second and final sentence of section While a 90-day deadline arguably could be considered"reasonable,"that is not the statutory 621(axl)provides judicial relief with no Commission involvement contemplated,when the competitive standard the Commission is purporting to Use as the basis of its authority. We can only define franchise has been"denied by a fatal decision of the franchising authority."'There is no ambiguity here: "unreasonable"refusal,1°which could be"foot-dragging"or"stonewalling"that amounts to a defeat, Congress simply did not impose a time limit on franchise negotiations,as it did on other parrs of Title VI denial of a franchise application.This is not the same as establishing an arbitrary,inflexible 90-day time (see discussion infra). Hence,whether you read the fast sentence alone or in context of the entire frame,which overlooks the fact that 120 or 180 days may be reasonable render certain circumstances. statutory provision or title, its plain and unambiguous meaning is contrary to the Commission's While the Commission has line-drawing authority in some cases,the position taken in the Order is interpretation. Section 621(a)(1)provides an expressed limitation on the nature,not the tuning,of the untenable on its face,given that Congress set a 120-day deadline for franchise transfers,which tend to be refusal to award a competitive franchise.Sa simpler than awarding new franchises, unless one is willing to assert that Congress itself was unreasonable. The aggressive schedule set here,while understandable and even desirable from a policy (Continued from previous page) perspective,is evidence of the legislative nature of the Order. of the"denial"of a franchise application maybe appealed,somehow intended,sub sientio,to have its owe language gutted by allowing parties to bypass the last sentence of§621(a)(l)entirely and go directly to the FCC,"NATOA Comments at 28. 's The Smote Report of the 1992 Cable Act concluded that,"[biased on the evidence in the record taken as a whole, (Continued from previous page) it is clear that there are benefits from competition between two able systems.Thus,the Committee believes that the applicant's cable system a reasonable period of time to become capable of providing able service to all local franchising authorities should be encouraged(not reguaedj to award second franchises. Accordingly,[the households in the franchise area"In that case,Congress explicitly qualified timing,not the scope of buildout As 1992 Cable Act]as reported,prohibits local franchising authorities from unreasonably refusing to grant second demonstrated in the Order,the Commission's attempt to super-inflate the meaning of'unreasonably refuse"in franchises."S.Rep.No.102-92,at 47(1991)(ernphasis supplied).Thus,an LFA's decision to not grant a franchise 621(ax1),and diminish the significance of"unreasonable period of time"in section 621(ax4)(A)is transparently need only not be unreasonable. inconsistent aid blatantly self-serving. As one federal district court observed: • "The Order imposts a time limit of 90 days on LFA'to decide franchise applications from eatinm that already The House version contained a specific list of"reasonable"grounds for denial.H.R.Coof.Rep. have access to public rights-of-way and a time limit of six months fora applicants that am not alread y dy authorizedto No.102-862,at 166469(1992).The Senate version,on the other hand,listed"technically occupy the rights-of-way.way. Such a distinction doesnot exist in Title 6,notwthstanding the fact that Congress infeasible"and left other reasonable grounds undefmcd By choosing not to adopt a federally specifically contemplated phone companies-entities that already have access to public righuof-way-obtaining mandated list of reasonable grounds for denial in favor of an open-ended definition,Congress franchises to provide video service. intended to leave states with the power to determine the baser for granting or denyingfranchius. "47 U.S.C.§537(providing LFAs 120 daysrequest for approval of sale or transfer on able with the only caveat being that a denial must be"reasonable." 47 to act upon'� on systems); 47 U.S.C.§545(providing LFA'120 days to modify franchise obligations);and 47 U.S.C.§546(providing LFA'a Knology,Inc.v.Insight Communications Co.,LP.,2001 WI,1750839 at•2(W.D.Ky.March 20,2001)(citation "4-month period"to"renew the franchise or,issue a preliminary assessment that the franchise should not be omitted)(emphasis supplied). renewed"). "47 U.S.C,§541(a)(1)(emphasis added). "See,eg.,47 U.S.C.§543(authorizing the Commission to"ensure that the rota for the basis service tier are 'Id(emphasis added). . reasonable"and requiring the Commission to develop regulations in 180 days). 30 47 U.S.C.§541(a)(l). Today's Order specifically adopts rules that prohibit franchising authorities from - Congressional intent to qualify the nature of an LFA's refusal,not the timing of the refusal,is clear when you unreasonably refusing"to award competitive franchises.Order ell. consider another provision of Section 621(a). Section 621(aX4XA)provides that"franchising authority shall allow (continued...) 101 102 Federal Communications Commission FCC 06-180 Federal Communications Commission FCC 06-180 To make matters worse,the Commission-created 90-day shot clock seems to function more like a franchising law,but yet is prepared to step into the shoes of an LFA-an instrumentality of the state-to waiting period,during which time the new entrant has little incentive to engage in meaningful grant a franchise application with all the anendant rights-of-way privileges." negotiations. An objective review of the evidence shows that there is sufficient blame on both sides of the negotiation table. Sometimes,there are good reasons for delay;and at other times,one side might The Commission rejected an approach that would have deemed an application"denied"once the stall so gain leverage." While the majority is certainly aware of these tactics,they fail to even mention shot clock expired without LFA action. This approach,I maintain,would have expedited the judicial the need for LFAs and new entrants to abide by,or so much as to have,reciprocal good faith negotiation review that was Congress'chosen remedy,and is infinitely mote consistent with the letter and spirit of the obligations. The majority also has ignored the apparent need to develop a complaint or grievance Communications Act,Title VI,and specifically sections 621(a)(I)and 635. Nowhere in the Act is the mechanism for the parties to ensure compliance. Perhaps Congress might consider imposing on the Commission granted the authority to force localities to grant franchises. Simply put,the Commission's Commission a binding deadline to resolve complaints,which would inject an incentive for both sides to "deemed granted"approach in the Order is not a justifiable choice to fill the perceived gap lefr open by negotiate,meaningfully and in good faith." Congress when it did not provide a specific remedy against LFA action that is short of an outright denial of a franchise application. While it is generally proper for the Commission to exercise its"predictive Without anything other than the asserted authority to interpret"unreasonably refuse,"the judgment,"that is only when the Commission has the requisite authority to act within a certain arca and it Commission creates a regulatory reprimand for an LFA's failure to render a final decision within the stays within its authority.Neither exists in this case. Commission-created time limits. The consequences of the failure to reach agreement within 90 days is that the LFA will be deemed to have granted the competitive entrant an interim franchise based on the In terms of build-out,the Commission seems to make a deliberate effort to overlook the plain terms proposed in the entrant's franchise application.In practicality,this will confer rights-of-way access meaning of the statute and to substitute its policy judgment for that of Congress. The Commission over local property. In selecting this remedy,the Commission purportedly"seeks to provide a concludes that it is unlawful for LFAs to refuse to grant a competitive franchise on the basis of an meaningful incentive for local franchising authority to abide by the deadlines contained in the Order."" applicants'refusal to agree to any build-out obligations. The Commission's analysis in this regard is While the policy goal is understandable and arguably consistent with congressional intent to encourage anemic and facially inadequate. the award of competitive cable franchises,we do nor have legal authority to establish punitive,one-sided consequences,in order to create an"incentive."Moreover,the Commission ignores that by establishing a Section 621(a)(4XA)provides that"[i]n awarding a franchise the franchising authority shall default grant of franchise applications effectively confers local property rights unilaterally and without allow the applicant's cable system a reasonable period of time to become capable of providing cable regard for inherent local police powers and public health,safety and welfare. service to all households in the franchise area." Absent express statutory authority,the Commission cannot declare it unreasonable for LFAs to require build-out to all households in the franchise area over a The Commission cites no credible authority that empowers it to deem a new entrant's franchise reasonable period of time. The Commission's argument in this regard is particularly spurious in light of application grated by the LFA and thus confer local property rights.' When construing a statute, the stated objective of this Order to promote broadband deployment and our common goal of promoting principles of construction caution against any interpretation that may contravene existing law or U.S. affordable broadband to all Americans. In the end,this is less about fiber to the home and more about Constitution. In this case,I am wary of a federal agency,which purports not to preempt any state-based fiber to the McMansioa The Commission is correct on one point that Becton 621(a)(4)(A)is actually a limitation on LFA authority. However,consistent with plain reading of the provision and its legislative history,Section 621(a)(4)(A)surely is not a gram of authority to the Commission and does not impose a limitation on the "As the July 11,2006,filing of the Greater Metro Telecommunications Consortium,the Rainer Communications scope of a competitive provider's build-out obligations-Indeed,section 621(3)(4)(A)explicitly limits the Commission and the City of Tacoma,Washington explained:"[IX is an oversimplification to believe that "period of time"to build-out but an LFA is tmrestrained to impose full,partial,or no build-out compendve entry into video programming an be facilitated by requiring a local government to act on a franchise obligations on all cable service providers.As long as an LFA gives a competitive provider"a reasonable application within a specific period of time.What the Commission may consider a delay is often a reasonable time period of time to become capable of providing cable service to all households in the franchise arc," for consideration,and indeed,the internal bureaucracies widen many large companies often times dwarf the internal section 621(a)(4)(A)essentially shields build-out requirement from constituting an"unreasonable refusal" processes within local government so that any rule the Commission might deem appropriate to apply regarding time to grant a competitive franchise.While this policyCongress could be changed by to facilitate competitive titive to respond,must also be imposed upon the other parry tonegotiations" pe entry,that is not the current state of the law.An LFA cannot be prohibited from requiring build-out to all "The Commission purposefully stops short of crating reciprocal good faith obligations because that would households in the franchise area if an LFA allows"a reasonable period of time"to do so. The authorize the parties to file a complaint with the Commission when negotiations fall apart Such a complaint process Commission has not been ordained with a legislative"blue pencil"to rewrite law. Congress specifically would effectively serve as an enforcement mechanism,which would only increase this Order's litigation exposure directed LFAs-not the FCC-to allow a reasonable period of time for build-out As much as the as quasi-legislative document Nevertheless,today's Order aanot be reasonably viewed as mere guidance to LFA' Commission would like it be its role,Congress gave the role to LFAs,and it is Congress'purview to or a clarification of the tam"unreasonablye refuse"in section 621(a)(1).There is a real,punitive consequence if the modify that explicit delegation of authority. LFA does not follow the Commission's dictates-a"deemed granted"franchise,which incurably alters the dynamics of franchise negotiations. • 'Order at']76. • "The Commission's reliance on ancillary authority it exercised in the early 1970s,well before congressional 'See generally,Charter Communications v.Covet of Santa Cruz 304 Fad 927(9'Cir.2002) (holding that enactments in 1984,1992 and 1996,is unavailing.In faet such reliance reveals the Commission's need to make too deference is accorded to legislative action of local government),especially in light of fact that the Commission does large a reach to Justify it actions.See Lener from James L.Casserly,Counsel for Comcast Corporation,to Marlene not have clear congressionally delegated authority in this case;and local regulations,in this case,are likely Dorsch,Federal Communications Commission,MB Docket No.05-311(filed December 13,2006). explicitly sanctioned by the Cable Act and consistent with the mpress provisions of the Act,see 47 U.S.C.§556(a). 103 104 Federal Communications Commission FCC 06.180 Federal Communications Commission FCC 06-180 J Assuredly, Section 621(a)(4)(A) does not impose "universal" or "uniform" build-out requirements on franchise applicants. This may be a reflection of congressional intent to focus on the PEG facilities and access provide an important resource to thousands of communities across this needs of the locality.J6 However,it does tot prohibit LFAs from requiring build-out obligations as a country. Equally important,redundancy or even duplicative I-Net provides invaluable homeland security t condition of franchise approval,so long as the competitive applicant is given a reasonable period of time. and public health,safety and welfare functions in towns,cities,and municipalities across America It is my hope that today's decision does not undermine these and other important community media resource The rapid deployment of broadband has been a goal of mine since I joined this Commission. needs. Wireline competition in the video market,particularly,is critical as a means to constrain prices,which in itself is a worthy goal after year upon year of price hikes.It is also critical to the future of our democracy While my objections to today's Order are numerous and substantial.that should not overlook the that Americans have access to as many forms of video content as possible so they can make up their own real need I believe there is for franchise reform. Indeed,there is bipartisan support for reform in minds about the issues of the day and not remain subject to a limited number of gatekeepers who decide Congress,and most LFAs throughout this country are committed to bring video competition to their what deserves airing based on their own financial or ideological interests. But,in order for the jurisdictions. My fundamental concern with this Order is that it is based on such paper-thin jurisdiction, Commission to promote these goals effectively,we must operate within our legal authority. but it is truly broad in scope. It ignores the plain reading of the section 621,usurps congressional prerogative and pre-empts LFAs in certain important respects that directly contradict the Am. Perhaps the majority has failed to consider the real life consequences of today's Order. For instance,in New York City,competitive entrants could file the Commission-mandated informational The sum total here is an arrogant case of federal power riding roughshod over local governments. filing that proposes to serve only Broadway,Madison,or Park Avenue. Under today's Order,the New It turns federalism on is head While I can support certain efforts to streamline the process and preclude York City franchising authority would be forbidden from denying the competitive franchise based solely local authorities from engaging in unreasonable practices,this item blatantly and unnecessarily tempts the on the fact that the new entrant refuses to certain build-out requirements. The LFA is placed in the federal courts to overturn this clearly excessive exercise of the limited role afforded to us by the law.The difficult position of either denying outright the franchise and absorb the costs and fees for the ensuing likely outcome of being reversed in Federal Court could have pernicious and unintended consequences in litigation,or agree to a franchise that is not responsive to needs and interests of local community. limiting our flexibility to exercise our discretion in future worthy endeavors. How can the majority declare build-out to be on impediment to entry when one of the major Accordingly,I dissent. incumbent phone companies,AT&T,claims that it does not need a franchise to operate its video service, and the other,Verizon,has agreed to different,but favorable,build-out obligations with various stares and localities?Under the federalist scheme of the Act,different jurisdictions can choose models that best suit their specific needs.For example,in New Jersey,the state-wide franchise reform law correlates build-out principally to population density,while build-out obligations in Virginia principally track the entrant's misting wireline facilities. And in New York City,Verizon and the LFA were actively negotiating universal build-out over a period of a few years. The broad pen with which the majority writes today's Order does not stop with build-out.The Order also uses the Commission's alleged authority under Section 621(a)(1)to determine that any LFA refusal to award a competitive franchise because of a new entrant's refusal to support PEG or I-Net is per se unreasonable. Although the Order purports to provide clarification with respect to which franchise fees are permissible under the Act,it muddles the regime and leaves communities and new entrants with conflicting views about funding PEG and I-Net. Indeed,Congress provided explicit direction on what constitutes or does not constitute a franchise fee,with a remedy to the courts for aggrieved parties. Today's Order should make clear that,while any requests made by an LFA unrelated to the provision of cable service and unrelated to PEG or I-NET are subject to the statutory five percent franchise fee cap,these arc not the type of costs excluded from the term"franchise fee"by section 622(g)(2)(C). That provision excludes from the term"franchise fee"any"capital costs that arc required by the franchise to be incurred by the cable operator for public,educational,or governmental access facilities."The legislative history of the 1984 Cable Act clearly indicates that"any franchise requirement for the provision of services,facilities or equipment is not included as a'fee.'"" sa See 47 U.S.C.§52I(2)(suting that the one of the central purposes of Tide 6 is to"assure that cable systems are responsive to the needs and interests of the local community.")See also 47 U.S.C.§521(3)(stariog that another (Continued from previous page) central purpose of Tide 6 is to establish clear federal,state and local roles). the provision of services,facilities or equipment.As regards PEG access in new franchises,payments for capital tr costs required by the franchise to be made by the franchise to be made by the cable operator arc not defined as fees The legislative history of 1984 Cable Act provides"in general,(section 2'C)]defines as franchise fee under this provision."H.R REP.No.98-934,at 65 recanted in 1984 U.S.C.CAN.4702. only monetary payments made by thesa o'fe e cable operator"and does not include as a'fee'my ftanchiu requirement quirement for (continued...) 105 106 Federal Communications Commission FCC O6-180 Federal Communications Commission FCC 06-180 STATEMENT OF STATEMENT OF COMMISSIONER DEBORAH TAYLOR TATE COMMISSIONER ROBERT M.MCDOWELL Re: Implementation of Section 621(a)(1)of the Cable Commnmications Policy Act of 1984 as amended by the Cable Television Consumer Protection and Competition Act of 1992(MB Docket Re: In the matter of Implementation of Section 621(a,)(1)of the Cable Communications Policy Act of No.05-311) 1984 as amended by the Cable Television Consumer Protection and Competition Act of 1992 (MB Docket Na.05-311) Today's item,like most we address as an expert agency,is full of sophisticated technical,legal, and policy arguments.At a high level,however,I view this as a continuation down a path of deregulatory I have long advocated the Commission doing all that it can to open new opportunities for policies designed to encourage new market entry,innovation,and investment. Indeed,"encoursg[ing] entrepreneurs to have the freedom to construct new delivery platforms for innovative new services.More more robust competition in the video marketplace"by limiting franchising requirements has long been a delivery platforms mean more competition.More competition means consumers can choose among more stated goal of the Commission as well as a driving force behind stannory terms we interpret today. innovative offerings. As consumers become more empowered,prices fall and, as a result, new technologies become more available to help improve the lives of all Americans. In short,creating a de- Section 621(a)(1)of the Communications Act of 1934,as amended(the"Act"),states that regulatory environment where competition is given the chance to flourish kicks off a virtuous cycle of franchising authorities("LFAs")may not"unreasonably refuse to award"a competitive franchise to hope,investment,growth and oppornmity. provide cable services. I agree with our conclusion that we have the jurisdictional authority to interpret this section of the Act and adopt riles to implement it. In amending Section 621(a)(1)to include the Today,the Commission is taking a step forward in what I hope will be a noble quest to spur more phrase"unreasonably refuse to award,"Congress explicitly limited the authority of LFAs.However,if an competition across many delivery platforms and,where appropriate,within delivery platforms.While we LEA does not make a final decision for months on end,or perhaps even years as the record indicates,new already have some competition in the video market,American consumers are demanding even more entrants are given no recourse. Also,unreasonable demands,similar to long delays,serve as a further competition. And that's the goal of our action today:more competition through deregulation.Perhaps barrier to competitive entry. It is nonsensical to contend that,despite the limitation on LFA authority in President Ronald Reagan foresaw an issue like this one when he said,"We have a healthy skepticism of the Act,LFAs remain the sole arbiters of whether their actions in the franchise approval process are government,checking its excesses at the same time we're willing to harness its energy when it helps reasonable. Since the section's judicial review provision applies only to final decisions by LFAs,absent improve the lives of our citizens."That is precisely what we are doing today:checking any government Commission action to identify"unreasonable"terms and conditions,franchise applicants would have no excesses at the local level to unleash free markets which will help improve the lives of all Amenans. avenue for redress. I conclude that our broad and well-recognized authority as the federal agency responsible for administering the Act,including Title VI,permits us to identify such terms and This order strikes a careful balance between establishing a de-regulatory national framework to conditions,and I support our exercise of that authority. clear unnecessary regulatory underbrush,while also preserving local control over local issues. It guards against localities making unreasonable demands of new entrants,while still allowing those same localities • As with most orders,we explored numerous ways to achieve our goals. I ultimately support to be able to protect important local interests through meaningful negotiations with aspiring video service today's item,because I believe that,by streamlining timeframes for action and providing practical providers.Local franchising authorities are still free to deny deficient applications on their own schedule, guidelines for both LFAs and new entrants,the item encourages the development of competition in the but we are imposing a"shot clock"to guard against unreasonable delay.After the shot clock runs out,if video marketplace and speeds the deployment of broadband across the country in a platform-neutral the locality has not wanted or denied the application,an interim or temporary authority will be granted to manner.These beneficial policy results should not be underestimated.Our annual reports to Congress on give the parries more time to reach a consensus. If the LFA feels as though it cannot grant a franchise cable prices,including the report we adopt today,consistently show that prices are lower where wireline during this period,they are free to deny the application. And unhappy applicants still have the liberty to competition is present And,of course,broadband deployment enhances our ability to educate our go to court,as codified under federal law. children for the jobs of tomorrow and ensures that the United States remains competitive in this global communications age. Additionally,should communications companies decide to upgrade their existing non-cable services networks,localities may not require them to obtain a franchise. However,this order does not Additionally,I am pleased that we recognize—and do not preempt—the actions of those states address whether video service providers can avoid local or federal jurisdiction over those video services that have reformed their franchise rules.Their efforts to streamline the process for competitive entry are berevve those services are carried over differing protocols,such as Internet protocol.That question is laudable. explicitly left for another docket. Finally,it is critical that as we advance pro-competitive policies,we ensure that our policies do In the same spirit of deference to localities,we are gra pre-empting recently enacted state laws not unreasonably create asymmetry in the marketplace.Accordingly,I am encouraged that we resolve to that make it easier for new video service providers to enter the market.Those important frameworks will address open issues regarding existing franchise agreements on an expedited basis. I encourage all remain intact.Similarly,on the important issue of build-out requirements,we preserve local flexibility to interested parties to use your energies toward assisting us as we seek a way to apply more broadly our implement important public policy objectives,but we don't allow localities to require new entrants to conclusions across all companies. serve everybody before they serve anybody. Many commenting parties,Members of Congress,and two of my distinguished colleagues,have legitimately raised questions regarding the Commission's authority to implement many of these initiatives. I have raised similar questions. However,as the draft of this item has evolved and,I think, improved,my concerns have been assuaged,for the most part. The Commission has ample general and 107 108 Federal Communications Commission FCC 06-180 specific authority to issue these rules under several sections including,but not limited to,sections:151, 201,706,621,622,and many others. Furthermore,a careful reading of applicable case law shows that the courts have consistently given the Commission broad discretion in this arena.While I understand the concerns of others,after additional study,I feel as though we are now on safe legal Bound.But 1 know that reasonable minds will differ on this point and that appellate lawyers are already on their way to the court house.That is the American way,I suppose. This order is not perfect. If it were,it would say that all of the de-regulatory benefits we are providing to new entrants we are also providing to all video providers,be they incumbent cable providers, over-builders or others.I want to ensure that no governmental entities,including those of us at the FCC, have any thumb on the scale to give a regulatory advantage to any competitor. But the record in this proceeding does not allow us to create a regulatory parity framework just yet. That's why I am pleased that today's order and further notice contain the tentative conclusion that the relief we are granting to new entrants will apply to all video service providers once they renew their franchises. Also,I have consistently maintained during my time here that if shot clocks are good for others then they are good for the FCC itself Accordingly,I am pleased that the Chairman has agreed to release an order as a result of the further notice no later than six months from the release date of this order,and regardless of the appellate posture of this matter. Resolving these important questions soon will give much-needed regulatory certainty to all market players,spark investment,speed competition on its way, and make America a stronger player in the global economy. By the same token,it is no secret that I would also like to see the Commission act more quickly on petitions filed by any individual or industry group,especially if those petitions may help spur competition in any market,be it video,voice,data, wireless,or countless others.We should never let government inaction create market distortions. I thank my entire staff,especially Cristina Fenzel,for their long hours,dedication and insight regarding this order. I also thank the tireless Media Bureau and the General Counsel's office for their tremendous efforts on this important matter.Lastly,I would like to thank Chairman Martin for his strong leadership on this issue. 109 ArentFoc ATTORNEYS AT LAW D. Jacques Smith 202/857-6154 April 3, 2007 smith.jacques@arentfox.com HAND DELIVERED Alan G. Fishel 202/857-6450 fishela@arentfox.com Leonard Green, Clerk Office of the Clerk United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit 202/72715 Rummel -8479 540 Potter Stewart U.S.Courthouse rummelj@arentfox.com 100 E. Fifth Street Cincinnati, Ohio 45202-3988 Re: Petition for Review4111 Mr. Green: Transmitted herewith on behalf of the Alliance for Community Media(ACM) are an original plus four paper copies of ACM's Petition for Review of the Report and Order of the Federal ,Communications Commission in MB Docket No. 05-311 released March 5, 2007, 72 Fed. Reg. 13189 (March 21, 2007). In addition, enclosed is a check in the amount of Four Hundred Fifty Dollars ($450.00) as payment of the required filing fees. An additional copy of the Petition for Review is being presented by the courier submitting this filing. Please date-stamp the additional copy of the Petition for Review and provide the date- stamped copy to the courier as proof of filing. Should any questions arise with respect to this matter, please communicate directly with this office. Respectfully submi;ed, D. Jac.- es Smith Alan G. ishel Jeffrey E. ' •. •• Attorneys for Petitioner Arent Fox PLLC • WASHINGTON,DC NEW YORK 1050 Connecticut Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20036.5339 202.857.6000 PHN 202.857.6395 FAX www.arentfox.com i IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT ) ALLIANCE FOR COMMUNITY MEDIA ) ) Petitioner ) ) v. . ) No. ) FEDERAL'COMMUNICATIONS ) COMMISSION and the UNITED STATES ) OF AMERICA ) ) Respondents ) PETITION FOR REVIEW Pursuant to 47 U.S.C. § 402(a), 28 U.S.C. §§ 2342-2344, and Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 15(a),the Alliance for Community Media("ACM") hereby respectfully petitions the court for review of the Federal Communications Commission's ("FCC") Report and Order, In the Matter of Implementation of Section 621(a)(1) of the Cable Communications Policy Act of 1984 as amended by the Cable Television Consumer Protection and Competition Act of 1992, FCC 06-180, MB Docket No. 05-311, which was adopted December 20, 2006, and released March 5, 2007 ("Order"). A summary of the Order was published in the Federal Register on March 21, 2007. 72 Fed. Reg. 13189 (March 21, 2007). A copy of the Order is attached as Exhibit A. This Petition for Review .has been filed within ten days of the issuance of the Order, and thus is subject to the procedures established under 28 U.S.C. §2112(a), should other qualified Petitions for Review be filed in different Courts of Appeals. Venue is proper under 28 U.S.C. §2343 because ACM is a non-profit corporation organized under the laws of the State of Ohio. r ACM is a nonprofit, national membership organization that represents.3,000 public, educational and governmental cable television access organizations and community media centers across the nation, and is therefore associated with the use of public, educational, and governmental (PEG) access channels provided by cable operators pursuant to local franchises under Section 611 of the Cable Act, 47 U.S.C. §531. ACM filed comments in the FCC • proceeding leading up to the Order on review. In the Order,the FCC adopted rules and policies addressing issues concerning the award of competitive franchises by local franchising authorities. ACM seeks review of the Order on the grounds that it exceeds the FCC's statutory authority, is arbitrary and capricious, an abuse of discretion, unsupported by substantial evidence, in violation of the United States Constitution, including, without limitation,the Fifth and Tenth Amendments, and is otherwise contrary to law. The Order also violates both the Communications Act and Administrative Procedure Act's public notice requirements. r ACM respectfully requests that this Court hold unlawful,vacate, enjoin, and set aside the Order. ACM also requests that this Court grant such other relief as it may deem appropriate. Respectfully s .m'. D. Ja ;y ues S 'R Alan . ish-- Jeffrey E. 'ummel Arent Fox LLP 1050 Connecticut Avenue,NW Washington, DC 20036 Telephone: (202) 857-6154 Facsimile: (202) 857-6395 Attorneys for Petitioner April 3, 2007 r CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE ON RESPONDENTS I, D. Jacques Smith, certify that on this 3rd day of April, 2007, I served copies of the foregoing Petition for Review by causing them to be delivered by U.S. mail and by e-mail (as indicated)to the following Respondents: Sam Feder Alberto R. Gonzalez General Counsel Attorney General of the United States Federal Communications Commission United States Department of Justice 445 12`h Street, SW 950 Pennsylvania Avenue,NW Washington, D.C. 20554 Washington, P 21 .30 (By First Class Mail and Email) (By First Cla .. ►,%`ai ) 14. - D. Ja ith s r CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE ON COMMENTERS I, D. Jacques Smith, certify that on this 3rd day of April, 2007, I served copies of the foregoing Petition for Review by causing them to be delivered by U.S. mail to the commenters in the underlying FCC rulemaking proceeding who are listed on the pages that follow. D.' cques • ith V List of Commenters Larry D. Gilley City Manager City of Abilene, Texas 555 Walnut Street Abilene, TX 79601 Access Channel 5 PO Box 188 Mayville,NY 14757 -0188 Erik Mollberg Access Fort Wayne 200 East Berry Street P.O. Box 2270 Fort Wayne, IN 46801 Access Sacramento 4623 T Street Sacramento, CA 95819 Ad Hoc Telecom Manufacturer Coalition Rodney L Joyce Joyce &Associates 10 Laurel Parkway Chevy Chase, MD 20815 Ada Township 7330 Thomapple River Drive P.O. Box 370 Ada MI 49301 Advance/Newhouse Communications Hogan& Hartson L.L.P. Gardner F. Gillespie 555 Thirteenth Street,N.W. Washington, DC 20004 -1109 Bob Hahn AEI-Brookings Joint Center for Regulatory Studies 1150 17th Street,N.W. Washington, DC 20554 1 i Alamance County Office Building 124 West Elm Street Graham,NC 27253 Carolyn Fudge City of Albuquerque 1 Civic Plaza NW P.O. Box 2248 Albuquerque,NM 87103 Alcatel Paul Kenefick 919 18th Street,NW. Washington,DC 20006 Alhambra, CA 111 South First Street Alhambra, CA 91801 Daniel B. Phythyon Alliance for Public Technology 919 18th Street,N.W. Washington,DC 20006 Alpena, MI City Hall 208 North First Avenue Alpena,MI 49707 American Association of Business Persons with Disabilities 2 Wood Hollow Irvine, CA 92604 -3229 Andrew J. Imparato President and CEO American Association of People with Disabilities 1629 K Street,N.W., Suite 503 Washington, DC 20006 American Cable Association Cinnamon Mueller Christopher Cinnamon 307 N. Michigan Avenue, Suite 1020 Chicago, IL 60601 2 V Stephen Pociask The American Consumer Institute P.O. Box 2161 Reston, VA 20171 The American Corn Growers Association P.O. Box 18157 Washington, DC 20036 American Homeowners Grassroots Alliance 6776 Little Falls Rd Arlington,VA 22213 -1213 • City of Anaheim, California 200 S. Anaheim Blvd. Suite 733 Anaheim, CA 92805 City of Angels Camp William Hutchinson 584 S. Main Angels Camp, CA 95222 Anne Arundel County, Carroll County, Charles County, Howard County and Montgomery County Nicholas Miller Miller&Van Eaton 1155 Connecticut Avenue N.W. Washington, DC 20036 Town of Apex,North Carolina P.O. Box 250 73 Hunter Street Apex,NC 27502 -3305 Thomas Lawell, City Administrator City of Apple Valley • Apple Valley Municipal Center 7100 - 147th Street West Apple Valley,MN 55124 Ellen Totzke City of Appleton 100 North Appleton Street Appleton, WI 54911 3 Archdale, NC 307 Balfour Drive P.O. Box 14068 Archdale,NC 27263 Arlington Independent Media, VA 2701-C Wilson Blvd. Arlington, VA 22201 Asheboro,NC 146 N Church Street Asheboro NC 27203 City of Ashland Michelle R. Merchant P.O. Box 1839 Ashland, KY 41105 -1839 Mayor Linda L. Blackburn Town of Ahoskie 201 Main Street W Ahoskie,NC 27910 -0767 Association of Independent Programming Networks Kathleen Wallman 9332 Ramey Lane Great Falls, VA 22066 AT&T Thomas F. Hughes 1120 20th Street,N.W., Suite 1000 Washington, DC 20036 City of Atascadero 6907 El Camino Real Atascadero, CA 93422 Town of Bailey P.O. Box 40 6260 Main Street Bailey,NC 27807 -0040 City of Banning 176. E. Lincoln Banning, CA 92220 4 Village of Barrington, Illinois 200 S. Hough Street Barrington, IL 60010 -4322 Borough of Bellefonte 236 West Lamb Street Bellefonte, PA 16823 Kevin M. Chun, City of Bellflower, CA 16600 Civic Center Drive Bellflower, CA 90706 BellSouth Bennett L. Ross 1133 21st Street,N.W., Suite 900 Washington,DC 20036 Mayor Jerry McLamb Town of Benson 303 E Church Street Benson,NC 27504 Ann Sheehan Berks Community Television 645 Penn Street Reading, PA 19601 -3543 Northern Berkshire Community Television Corp. Heritage State Park Building#6 North Adams, MA 01247 City of Beverly Hills Cable Television Office do Mark Geddes 455 N. Rexford Drive Beverly Hills, CA 90210 City Council of the City of Biddeford, Maine John D.Bubier 205 Main Street Biddeford, ME 04005 Billerica Access TV, MA 430 Boston Road Billerica,MA 01821 5 Billerica, MA Sam Schauerman 430 Boston Road Billerica, MA 01821 Birmingham Area Cable Board Michael Salhaney Beier Howlett, P.C. 200 E. Long Lake Road, Suite 110 Bloomfield Hills, MI 48316 City of Blue Lake P.O. Box 458 Blue Lake, CA 95525 City of Bonita Springs Audrey E. Vance 9101 Bonita Beach Road Bonita Springs, FL 34135 Curtis Henderson Jr./ Boston Community Access & Programming Foundation Boston Neighborhood Network 8 Park Plaza, Suite 2240 Boston, MA 02458 Boston Cable Office 43 Hawkins Street Boston,MA 02114 City of Bowie, Maryland David Deutsch Bowie City Hall 2614 Kenhill Drive Bowie, MD 20715 Ali Abulugma Pres. Branford Community Television, Inc. Box 1019 Branford, CT 06405 City of Brea 1 Civic Center Circle Brea, CA 92821 -5732 6 City of Brisbane Attn: City Manager 50 Park Place Brisbane, CA 94005 Broadband Service Providers Association 1735 New York Avenue N.W., Suite 500 Washington, DC 20006 Town of Brunswick Maine •28 Federal Street, Suite 2 Brunswick, ME 04011 Bucks County Consortium of Communities Frederick A. Polner Polner Law Office 4018 Mt. Royal Boulevard Allison Park, PA 15101 Burlington,NC 425 S. Lexington Avenue Burlington,NC 27215 Burnsville/Eagan Telecommunications Commission et al Stephen J. Gnz7etta Bradley& Guzzetta, LLC 444 Cedar Street Saint Paul, MN 55101 Mike Wassenaar Cable Access St Paul d/b/a Saint Paul Neighborhood Network 375 Jackson Street, Suite 250 Saint Paul, MN 55101 Susan Adele Huizenga Cable Advisory Council of South Central CT, Inc. 36 Surrey Drive Wallingford, CT 06492 Cablevision Systems Corp. Howard J. Symons Mintz Levin Cohn Ferris Glovsky and Popeo,'PC 701 Pennsylvania Avenue,N.W., Suite 900 Washington, DC 20004 7 ti City of Cadillac 200 N. Lake St. Cadillac,MI 49601 Donna H. Prince To of Calabash P.O. Box 4967 Calabash,NC 28467 California Alliance for Consumer Protection 37 Derow Court Sacramento, CA 95833 California Farmers Union 2881 Geer Road Suite D Turlock, CA 95382 California Small Business Association& California Small Business Roundtable 6101 W. Centinela Avenue, Suite 342 Culver City, CA 90230 Susan Fleischmann Cambridge Public Access Corporation 675 Massachusetts Avenue Cambridge MA 02139 Robert W. Healy City Manager City of Cambridge Cambridge City Hall 795 Massachusetts Avenue Cambridge, MA. 02139 Campbell County Cable Board 10 Hilltop Drive Highland Heights, KY 41076 -5023 City of Cape Coral Eleni C. Pantaridis Leibowitz&Associates 1 S.E. 3rd Avenue Suite 1450 Miami, FL 33131 8 Capital Community Television CCTV P.O. Box 2342 Salem, OR 97308 -2342 Carlsbad, CA Office of City Attorney Paul Edmonson 1200 Carlsbad Village Drive Carlsbad, CA 92008 -1949 Town of Carrboro,North Carolina 301 W. Main Street Carrboro,NC 27510 -2029 Cary,NC Town of Cary P.O. Box 8005 Cary,NC 27512 -8005 Town of Castalia P.O. Box 237 9507 Main Street. Hwy 58 Castalia,NC 27816 -0237 Caswell County,NC Chair, Board of Commissioners, Caswell County,NC County Courthouse P.O. Box 98 Yanceyville, NC 27379 Cavalier Telephone LLC John K. Shumate, Jr. 2134 West Laburnum Avenue Richmond, VA 23227 City of Cedar Rapids, Iowa James H. Flitz City Attorney's Office City Hall - 7th Floor Cedar Rapids, IA 52401 -1225 Center for Digital Democracy 1718 Connecticut Avenue,N.W., Suite 200 Washington, DC 20009 9 Jack Doerr Central St. Croix Valley Joint Cable Communications Commission 1492 Frontage Road West Stillwater, MN 55082 Certain Florida Municipalities Gary I. Resnick, Esq. Weiss Serota Helfman, et al. 3107 Stirling Road, Suite 300 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33312 Champaign, IL City of Champaign 102 N Neil Street Champaign, IL 61820 Champaign-Urbana Cable TV and Telecom Commission, IL Richard L. Atterberry C-U Cable TV and Telecom Commission 705 W. Washington Street Champaign, IL 61820 Town of Chapel Hill,North Carolina 405 Martin Luther King Jr. Blvd. Chapel Hill,NC 27516 -2124 Charlotte-Mecklenburg Office of Cable and Franchise Management 600 East Fourth Street- 9th Floor Charlotte,NC 28202 -2816 Charter Communications T. Scott Thompson Cole, Raywid&Braverman, L.L.P. 1919 Pennsylvania Avenue,N.W., Second Floor Washington,DC 20006 Barbara Popovic, Executive Director Chicago Access Corporation- CAN TV 322 S. Green Street Chicago, IL 60607 City Of Chicago 30 N. La Salle Street, Suite 900 Chicago, IL 60602 10 Jouett Kinney Cincinnati Bell Inc. 201 E. Fourth Street, 103-1280 Cincinnati, OH 45202 City of Cincinnati Deborah C. Holston City of Cincinnati 801 Plum Street, Suite 104 Cincinnati, OH 45202 Peter Stewart for Citizens Community Television 1132 Jefferson Ave. PO Box 581 Louisville, CO 80027 City and County of San Francisco Thomas Long City Attorney's Office City Hall, 1 Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett Place, Rm 234 San Francisco, CA 94102 -4682 City of Los Angeles Nicholas Miller Miller&Van Eaton 1155 Connecticut Avenue N.W. Washington, DC 20036 Joseph James, Deputy Commissioner Dept. of Public Property City of Philadelphia City Hall,Room 732 Philadelphia, PA 19107 Susan Littlefield Communications Manager, City of St. Louis Communications Div. 4971 Oakland Avenue St. Louis, MO 63110 11 City of Ventura, CA Joseph Van Eaton Miller&Van Eaton, P.L.L.C. Suite 1000 1155 Connecticut Avenue N.W. Washington, DC 20036 Clackamas County (#100) 2051 Kaen Road Oregon City, OR 97045 Clark County (#101) County Clerk's Office 200 Lewis Avenue Fifth Floor Las Vegas,NV 89101 Clay County Leibowitz&Associates Eleni C. Pantaridis 1 SE 3rd Avenue Suite 1450 Miami, FL 33131 Clayton,NC PO Box 879 111 E. 2nd St. Clayton,NC 27528 -0879 Clinton Township Communications Department 40700 Romeo Plank Road Clinton Township, MI 48044 City of Clovis/John Holt 1033 Fifth Street Clovis, CA 93612 College Township, Pennsylvania 1481 E. College Avenue State College, PA 16801 Communications Support Group 505 Scenic Avenue Piedmont, CA 94611 12 Community Programming Board of Forest Park, Greenhills, and Springfield Township 2086 Waycross Road Forest Park, OH 45240 -2717 Comcast Corporation Willkie Farr& Gallagher LLP James L. Casserly 1875 K Street NW Washington, DC 20006 Consumer Coalition of California 11304 Jack Rabbit Trail Austin, TX 78750 Consumer Electronics Association 2500 Wilson Blvd Arlington, VA 22201 Consumers for Cable Choice P.O. Box 329 Greenwood, IN 46142 Consumers First, Inc. 33 Southwood Drive Orinda, CA 94563 City of Coral Springs, FL City Law Dept. 9551 West Sample Road Coral Springs, FL 33065 Cox Communications Dow Lohnes PLLC Gary S.Lutzker 1200 New Hampshire Avenue N.W. Suite 800 Washington, DC 20036 13 City of Delray Beach, Florida Leibowitz&Associates Eleni C. Pantaridis 1 SE 3rd Avenue Suite 1450 Miami, FL 33131 Democratic Processes Center, Inc. P.O. Box 329 Greenwood, IN 46142 Susan Bonilla, Mayor do Peter Dragovich Dir. of CM 1950 Parkside Drive, MS/01 Concord, CA 94519 Concord NC (#112) P.O. Box 308 26 Union Street Concord,NC 28026 -0308 City of Coralville 1512 7th Street PO Box 5127 Coralville, IA 52241 -1708 Tom Smisek City of Coronado 1825 Strand Way Coronado, CA 92118 -3005 City of Cypress 5275 Orange Avenue Cypress, CA 90630 City of Daly City 333- 90th Street • Daly City, CA 94015 County of Dare,North Carolina do Sharp Michael Outten and Graham Bobby Outten P.O..Drawer 1027 Kitty Hawk,NC 27949 -1027 14 County Administrator Office 1 Public Square, Room 210 Darlington, SC 29532 City of Davis, California 23 Russell Blvd. Davis, Ca. 95616 City of Del Mar 1050 Camino del Mar Del Mar, CA 92014 -2604 Discovery Institute Hance Haney 1015 15th Street,N.W. Ste 900 Washington, DC 20005 Town of Dortches 3057 Town Hall Rd Rocky Mount,NC 27804 -9186 City of Dublin 100 Civic Plaza Dublin, CA 94568 City of Eden Honorable John E. Grogan, Mayor 308 East Stadium Drive Eden,NC 27288 City of El Cerrito 10890 San Pabloe Avenue El Cerrito, CA 94530 Village of Elk Grove Village, Illinois 901 Wellington Avenue Elk Grove Village, IL 60007 Mayor 104 South Williamson St. Elon,NC 27244 15 Jon Funfar City of Enumclaw 1339 Griffin Ave. Enumclaw, WA 98022 Clay Phillips, City Manager City of Escondido 201 N. Broadway Escondido, CA 92025 Town of Esopus PO Box 700 Port Ewen,NY 12466 City of Evanston David Cook 2100 Ridge Suite 1450 Evanston, IL 60201 -1495 Fairfax Cable Access Corporation 2929 Eskridge Road, Suite S Fairfax, VA 22031 Fairfax County Department of Cable Communications & Consumer Protection 12000 Government Center Parkway, Suite 433 Fairfax, VA 22035 -0048 Town of Fairfax, California Law Office of Lawrence Bragman 142 Bolinas Road Fairfax, CA 94930 William H. Johnson, Jr. Mayor 100 N. Main Street Faith,NC 28041 -0037 Bristol Community College/Fall River Community Television 777 Elsbree Street Fall River, MA 02720 -7307 16 Pat Zavoral City Administrator City of Fargo,North Dakota The Bailer Herbst Law Group, P.C. Adrian E. Herbst 377N Grain Exchange Building 301 Fourth.Avenue South Minneapolis, MN 55415 -1015 City of Farmington 325 Oak Street Farmington, MN 55024 City of Durham,NC Theodore L. Voorhees Assistant City Manager 101 City Hall Plaza Durham,NC 27701 Fiber-to-the-Home Council Kelley Drye & Warren LLP Thomas Cohen 3050 K Street, NW Suite 400 Washington, DC 20007 City of Florence, Kentucky Diane Whalen 8100 Ewing Boulevard Florence, KY 41042 -7588 City of Foster City, California Linda Koelling 610 Foster City Boulevard Foster, CA 94404 City of Franklin, KY W. Scott Crabtree 212 South College Street P.O.Box 615 Franklin, KY 42135 -0615 17 Free Enterprise Fund 'E. O'Brien Murray 1850 M Street,NW Suite 800 Washington, DC 20036 Free Press Institute for Public Representation Angela J. Campbell 600 New Jersey Avenue,N.W. Suite 312 Washington,DC 20001 Township of Ferguson Mark A Kunkle 3147 Research Drive State College, PA 16801 City of Ferndale Michael Powers City Manager PO Box 1095 Ferndale, CA 95536 Village of Floral Park One Floral Boulevard Floral Park,NY 11001 City of Fort Worth 401 W. 2nd Street Fort Worth, TX 76101 City of Fortuna 621 11th Street PO Box 545 Fortuna, CA 95540 Foxboro Cable Access, Inc. PO Box 524 Foxboro, MA 02035 18 G. Thomas Donch Borough of Franklin Lakes DeKorte Drive Franklin Lakes,New Jersey 07417 Free Press Institute for Public Representation Angela J. Campbell 600 New Jersey Avenue,N.W. Suite 312 Washington, DC 20001 Free Press, Consumers.Union, Consumer Federation of America 1801 18th St., NW Suite 9 Washington, DC 20009 FreedomWorks 1775 Pennsylvania Avenue,NW Eleventh Floor Washington, DC 20006 City of Fort Lauderdale, FL 100 N Andrews Ave Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 City of Gainsville, Florida • Russ Blackburn P.O. Box 490 Gainsville, FL 32602 -0490 City of Garland Texas William E. Dollar 200 N. 5th Street Garland, TX 75040 Town of Gamer Judy Bass Post Office Box 446 Garner,NC 27529 Mayor Kevin R. Burns 22 South First Street Geneva, IL 60134 19 Georgia Municipal Association Ed Rutter 201 Pryor Street SW Atlanta, GA 30303 -3606 Hawaiian Telcom Communications, Inc. Latham&Watkins LLP Elizabeth Park 555 Eleventh Street,NW Suite 1000 Washington, DC 20004 -1304 Hawaii Consumers P.O. Box 179375 Honolulu,HI 96817 Office of the County Attorney Henderson County,North Carolina Charles Russell Burrell 100 North King Street Hendersonville,NC 28792 Mayor 129 West Main Street Gibsonville,NC 27249 City of Gilroy HCD 7351 Rosanna Street Gilroy, CA 95020 Village of Glenview Glenview Televison 1225 Waukegan Road Glenview, IL 60025 Mayor 201 South Main St. Graham,NC 27253 City of Grand Rapids Jon Koeze 300 Monroe,NW Grand Rapids, MI 49503 20 Mayor, Town of Granite Quarry 143 N. Salisbury Street Granite Quarry,NC 28072 Great Neck/North Shore Cable Commission et al 1505 Kellym Place Mineola,NY 11501 Greater Metro Telecommunications Consortium Ken Fellman 3 773 Cherry Creek North Drive Ptarmigan Place, Suite 900 Denver, CO 80209 Green Spring, KY William M. Huff 7103 Green Spring Drive Louisville, KY 40241 City of Greenboro City Attorney's Office P.O. Box 3136 Greensboro,NC 27402 -3136 City of Greenville David A. Holec P.O. Box 7207 Greenville,NC 27835 -7207 Chairwoman Guilford County Board of Commissioners 301 W. Market Street Greensboro,NC 27402 Chairman Board of Commissioners Harnett County PO Box 759 Lillington,NC 27546 21 Harris Township 224 East Main Street P.O. Box 20 Boalsburg, PA 16827 City of Henderson Mark Backus 240 Water Street P.O. Box 95050 Henderson,NV 89005 -5050 City of Hialeah, Florida Leibowitz&Associates Eleni C. Pantaridis 1 SE 3rd Avenue Suite 1450 Miami, FL 33131 Hibbing Public Access Television P.O. Box 712 Hibbing, MN 55746 Becky Smothers Mayor, City of High Point 211 S. Hamilton Street High point,NC 27261 High Tech Broadband Coalition Derek Khlopin/TIA 1300 Pennsylvania Avenue,NW, Suite 350 Washington, DC 20004 • Town of Hillsborough,North Carolina PO Box 429 111 E. 2nd St. Hillsborough,NC 27278 -0429 22 Town of Holly Springs,North Carolina PO Box 8 128 S. Main St. Holly Springs,NC 27540 -0008 City of Huntsville, Alabama Mayor Loretta Spencer Claudia Anderson P. 0. Box 308 Huntsville, AL 35804 City of Imperial Beach, California James P. Lough City Hall 825 Imperial Beach Blvd Imperial Beach, CA 91932 Independent Multi-Family Communications Council William J. Burhop 3004 Oregon Knolls Drive NW Washington, DC 20015 City of Indianapolis Rick Maultra 2501 City-County Building 200 E. Washington Street Indianapolis, Indiana 46204 Institute for Policy Innovation Thomas A. Giovanetti 1660 S. Stemmons Freeway Suite 475 Lewisville, TX 75067 Mayor 403 East Main St. Haw River,NC 27258 23 Mayor 210 North Fourth Street Highlands,NC 28741 -0460 Institute for Policy Innovation do Thomas A. Giovanetti 1660 S. Stemmons Freeway Suite 475 Lewisville, TX 75067 Intergovernmental Cable Communications Authority do Timothy J. Currier, Esquire 200 E. Long Lake Road, Suite#110 Bloomfield Hills, MI 48304 -2361 City of Irwindale 5050 North Irwindale Avenue Irwindale, CA 91706 City of Irvine 1 Civic Center • Irvine, CA 92623 Itasca Community Television Executive Director Beth George 724 Conifer Drive Grand Rapids MN 55744-2475 City of Iowa City do Steve Atkins, City Manager Iowa City, IA Jefferson County League of Cities Cable Commission do Linda K. Ain 4725 Inman Drive Lexington, KY 40513 24 City of Jenkins, Kentucky do Robert Shubert P.O. Box 568 Jenkins, KY 41537 -0568 City of Kansas City, Missouri do William D. Geary, Assistant Ci 28th Floor City Hall 414 East 12th Street Kansas City, MO 64106 -2796 City of Killeen do Traci Briggs P.O. Box 1329 Killeen, TX 76540 -1329 King County, Washington do David Martinez Chief Information Office 700 5th Avenue, Suite 2300 Seattle, WA 98104 Town of Kitty Hawk Mayor PO Box 549 Kitty Hawk,NC 27947 Town of Knightdale,North Carolina do Mayor Doug Boyd 950 Steeple Square Ct. Knightdale,NC 27545 City of La Puente do Hal Ledford, City Manager 15900 E. Main Street La Puente, CA 91744 Lake Minnetonka Communications Commission do Sally Koenecke 4071 Sunset Drive Spring Park, MN 55384 25 • City of Lake Worth Leibowitz&Associates Eleni C. Pantaridis 1 SE 3rd Avenue Suite 1450 Miami,FL 33131 City Of Las Vegas,Nevada c/o Larry G. Bettis 400 Stewart Avenue,Ninth Floor Las Vegas,NV 89101 -2986 City of La Verne do Bob Russi 3660 D Street La Verne, CA 91750 League of Minnesota Cities and MN Assoc. of Community Telecom Administrators 145 University Avenue West St. Paul, MN 55103 -2044 LEAGUE OF UNITED LATIN AMERICAN CITIZENS OF THE NORTHEAST REGION 41 Eden Street FRAMINGHAM, MA 01702 -6320 Gary Ortiz, City of Leavenworth, Kansas City Hall • 100 North 5th Street Leavenworth, KS 66048 -1970 Lee County, Florida Leibowitz&Associates Eleni C. Pantaridis 1 SE 3rd Avenue Suite 1450 Miami,FL 33131 Leibowitz&Associates Matthew L. Leibowitz 1 SE 3rd Ave Suite 1450 Miami,FL 33131 • 26 City of Lenexa, Kansas do Rebecca A. Yocham 12350 W. 87th Street Parkway Lenexa, KS 66215 City of Lincoln,Nebraska do City Attorney's Office Steven Huggenberger 575 South 10th Street Room 4201 Lincoln,NE 68508 City of Lincoln do Gerald F. Johnson 640 Fifth Street Lincoln, CA 95648 City of Long Beach do Gerald R. Miller, City Manager, 333 West Ocean Boulevard Long Beach, CA 90802 City of Longmont, Colorado do Jim Wall • 350 Kimbark Street Longmont, CO 80503 Town of Loomis, Placer County, California do Rhonda Morillas 6140 Horseshoe Bar Rd., Suite K Loomis, CA 95650 City of Los Banos, California 520 J Street Los Banos, CA 93635 City of Lynwood 11330 Bullis Road Lynwood, CA 90262 27 City of Madison Heights Jon Austin, City Manager 300 W. 13 Mile Road • Madison Heights, MI 48071 -1899 Incorporated Village of Malverne N.Y. do Anthony J. Panzarella 99 Church Street Malveme,NY 11565 Manatee County do Manatee County Attorney's Office Robert Michael Eschenfelder 1112 Manatee Avenue West Ste. 969 Bradenton, FL 34205 Marin Telecommunications Agency do Richards, Watson& Gershon Gregory W. Stepanicich Richards, Watson&Gershon 44 Montgomery Street, Suite 3800 San Francisco, CA 94104 -4811 City of St. Petersburg, Florida do Muslim A. Gadiwalla One 4th Street North St. Petersburg, FL 33705 City of St. Petersburg, FL ICS Dept. One Forth Street North St. Petersburg, FL 33701 -3804 State of Hawaii do Squire, Sanders &Dempsey LLP Bruce A. Olcott 1201 Pennsylvania Avenue NW Washington, DC 20004 28 Town of Sunapee,New Hampshire do Douglas Munro, Chairman Sunapee Electronic Communications Board of Selectmen P.O. Box 717 Sunapee,NH 03782 -0717 City of Sunnyvale, California do Amy Chan 456 West Olive Avenue Sunnyvale, CA 94086 City of Susanville do Rodney E. DeBoer 66 North Lassen Street Susanville, CA 96130 -3904 City of Tampa, Florida c/o Miller&Van Eaton Nicholas P. Miller Suite 1000 1155 Connecticut Avenue,N.W. Washington, DC 20036 TelCo Retirees Associations, Inc 6168 Capri Dive San Diego, CA 92120 Telecommunications Industry Association 2500 Wilson Boulevard Suite 300 Arlington, VA 22201 City of Temecula do Richards, Watson and Gershon William Rudell 43200 Business Park Drive P.O. Box 9033 Temecula, CA 92589 -9033 • 29 Texas Coalition of Cities on Franchised Utility Issues.TCCFUI. do Clarence A. West 707 West Avenue Suite 207 Austin, TX 78701 Texas Coalition of Cities For Franchised Utility Issues.TCCFUI do Clarence A. West 1201 Rio Grande Suite 200 Austin, TX 78701 Texas Municipal League/Texas City Attorneys Association c/o Scott Houston 1821 Rutherford Lane Suite 400 Austin, TX 78754 Time Warner Cable c/o Fleischman and Walsh, L.L.P. Seth Davidson 1919 Pennsylvania Avenue,NW Suite 600 Washington,DC 20006 Town of Truckee 10183 Truckee Airport Road, Truckee, CA 96161 Truckee, CA 96161 City of Tulsa, Oklahoma c/o Tulsa City Attorney's Office Patrick T. Boulden City Hall, Suite 300 200 Civic Center Tulsa, OK 74103 -3833 Tuolumne County, California c/o Elizabeth E. Bass 2 South Green Street Sonora, CA 95370 30 City of Ukiah do Rapport and Marston David J. Rapport Ukiah Civic Center 300 Seminary Ave. Ukiah, CA 95482 UNITED STATES TELECOM ASSOCIATION do JAMES W. OLSON 607 14th Street,NW Suite 400 Washington, DC 20005 -2164 United States Telecom Association do Jeffrey S Lanning 607 14th Street,NW Suite 400 Washington, DC 20005 -2150 U.S.-Mexico Chamber of Commerce 1300 Pennsylvania Ave.,N.W. Ste. G-0003 Washington, DC 20004 -3021 VALLEY VOTERS ORGANIZED TOWARD EMPOWERMENT-VALLEY VOTE 14622 Ventura Blvd #424 Sherman Oaks, CA 91403 Verizon • do Dee May 1300 I Street,NW Suite 400 West Washington, DC 20005 Vermont Public Service Board do John Bentley 112 State Street Montpelier, VT 05620 -2701 Vermont Public Service Board and Vermont Department of Public Service c/o Leslie A. Cadwell 112 State Street, Drawer 20 Montpelier, VT 05620 -2601 31 • Video Access Alliance c/o Julia Johnson PO Box 14917 Tallahassee, FL 32317 Villages of Larchmont and Mamaroneck, Town of Mamaroneck,New York do Miller& Van Eaton Joseph Van Eaton Suite 1000 1155 Connecticut Avenue,N.W. Washington, DC 20036 Virginia Cable Telecommunications Association c/o Christian&Barton, LLP Peter E. Broadbent, Jr., Esqui 909 East Main Street, Suite 1200 Richmond, VA 23219 -3095 City of Vista, California 600 Eucalyptus Avenue Vista, CA 92084 Town of Wake Forest,North Carolina 401 Elm Ave. Wake Forest,NC 27587 -2932 City of Walnut Creek c/o Paul M. Valle-Riestra 1666 N. Main St. P.O. Box 8039 Walnut Creek, CA 94596 WASHINGTON STATE GRANGE 924 Capitol Way South Olympia, WA 98501 -1210 Town of Wendell,North Carolina PO Box 828 15 E. Fourth St. Wendell,NC 27591 -0828 West Allis Community Center Media Center c/o Mary Shanahan-Spanic 7210 W. Greenfield Avenue West Allis, WI 53214 32 City of West Palm Beach, Florida do Leibowitz &Associates Eleni C. Pantaridis 1 SE 3rd Avenue Suite 1450 Miami, FL 33131 Thomas G. Wilson, Town of Westport Attorney/Administrator/Clerk-Treasurer Town of Westport 5387 Mary Lake Road, Waunakee, WI 53597 City of Wheaton do Gary White 303 W Wesley Wheaton, IL 60189 -0727 City of Whittier c/o Stephen W. Helvey, City Manage 13230 Penn Street Whittier, CA 90602 City of Wilson,North Carolina P.O. Box 10 Wilson,NC 27894 Dodd D. Dixon, Attorney at Law Executive Director Kentucky Regional Cable Commission Mayor, City of Winchester Winchester, Kentucky Windham Cable Advisory Board do Leo A. Hart 3 North Lowell Road Windham,NH 03087 City of Winston-Salem PO Box 2511 Attn Information Systems Winston-Salem,NC 27102 33 Wisconsin Association of Public, Education, and Government Access Channels -WAPC do Mary Bennin Cardona, Executive Director 4209 Bagley Parkway Madison, WI 53705 Women Impacting Public Policy 48 San Antonio Place San Francisco, CA 94133 The World Institute on Disability do Kathy Martinez, Executive Director 510 16th Street, Suite 100 Oakland, CA 94612 City of Yuma c/o Gregory Dean Huland One City Plaza Post Office Box 13014 Yuma, AZ 85366 -3014 Town of Zebulon,North Carolina 100 N. Arendell Ave. Zebulon, NC 27597 -2837 Zeeland Charter Township do Bradley Slagh 6582 Byron Road Zeeland, MI 49464 • 34 Town of Standish do Gordon Billington 175 Northeast Road Standish, ME 04804 State College Borough do Thomas J. Fountain II 243 South Allen Street State College, PA 16801 City of Statesville do Rob Hites 301 South Center Street Statesville,NC 28687 -1111 Sun Prairie Cable Access do Pam Steitz-Executive Director 1350 Linnerud Drive- Suite 2 Sun Prairie, WI 53590 Mayor, Town of Tabor City do Marion S. Baxter PO Drawer Tabor City,NC 28463 City of Taylor, City Clerk's Office do Mary Ann Rilley 23555 Goddard Road Taylor, MI 48180 The Progress and Freedom Foundation do Garland T. McCoy Jr. and 1444 Eye Street,NW Suite 500 Washington, DC 20005 Village of Tobaccoville c/o Mayor Keith P. Snow P.O. Box 332 Tobaccoville,NC 27050 City of Toppenish Scott Staples 21 West First Avenue Toppenish,WA 98948 35 City of Torrance Michael D. Smith 3350 Civic Center Drive Torrance, CA 90503 United States Internet Industry Association James Anderson, Counsel 1800 Diagonal Road Suite 600 Alexandria, VA 22314 URTV 31 College Place Ste 20 A Asheville,NC 28801 Vancouver Educational Telecommunications Association(VETC) 2500 NE 65th Avenue Vancouver, WA 98661 Mayor,Town of Vass do Henry E. Callahan PO Box 487 Vass,NC 28394 City of Warrenville do Jennifer McMahon 28W701 Stafford Place Warrenville, IL 60555 Chair, Cable TV Advisory Committee do Maurice H. Stauffer Town of Wayland Wayland, MA 01778 36 Town of Whitaker,NC PO Box 727 302 NW Railroad St. Whitakers,NC 27891 White Plains Cable Access TV do James D. Kenny 4 Martine Ave. White Plains,NY,NY 10606 City of White c/o Mayor Randy Brown PO Box 682 White SD 57276-0682 Town of Wilbraham do Richard Scott 4 Chapel Street Wilbraham, MA 01095 City of Worcester do David M. Moore - City Solicitor City Hall Room 301 455 Main Street Worcester, MA 01608 Town of Yanceyville do Daniel G. Printz, Jr. -Mayor Daniel G. Printz, Jr. -Mayor P 0 Box 727 Yanceyville,NC 27379 Jeffrey Bullins Mayor Town of Mayodan 210 W. Main Street Mayodan,NC 27027 Charles L. Kelsey Village Clerk Village of Mayville PO Box 188 • Mayville,NY 14757 -0188 37 Thomas Martin Mayor City of Maywood 4319 Slauson Avenue Maywood, CA 90270 Mecklenburg County Doris J. Boris Charlotte-Mecklenburg Office of Cable and Franchise Management 600 East Fourth Street- 9th Floor Charlotte,NC 28202 -2816 City of Medford Gary Wheeler,Mayor John Huttel 411 W. 8th Street Medford, OR 97501 Peter Franck do Media Action Marin Franck Law Offices 1115 Irwin Suite 101 San Rafael, CA 94901 -3321 Media Bridges Cincinnati, Inc. 1100 Race Street Cincinnati, OH 45202 -7219 Mercatus Center do Jerry Brito and Jerry Ellig 3301 N. Fairfax Drive #450 Arlington, VA 22201 . Methuen Community Television 13 Branch Street Methuen,MA 01844 38 Metropolitan Area Communications Commission Bruce Crest 1815 NW 169th Place Suite 6020 Beaverton, OR 97006 Metropolitan Educational Access Corp. Elliott Mitchell 120 White Bridge Road MS 46 Nashville, TN 37209 Miami Valley Comm. Council Glenn Alexander 1195 East Alex-Bell Road Centerville, OH 45459 Miami Dade County, Florida Cathy Grimes-Peel Director, Consumer Services Department 140 West Flagler Street, Suite 90 Miami, FL 33130 Michigan Municipal League Gerald L. Lederer Miller&Van Eaton 1155 Connecticut Avenue N.W. Suite 1000 Washington, DC 20036 Microsoft Corp. Gerald Waldron and David Fagan Covington and Burling 1201 Pennsylvania Avenue,N.W. Washington, DC 20004 Microsoft Corp. do Scott Blake Harris Harris Wiltshire 1200 18th Street,NW 12th Floor Washington, DC 20036 39 Town of Middlesex P.O. Box 69 Middlesex,NC 27557-0069 Rick Menchaca City of Midland PO Box 1152 Midland, TX 79702 Jose Esteves Milipitas, CA 455 E. Calaveras Blvd Milpitas, CA 95035 Minnesota Telecom Alliance Stephen J. Guz7etta Bradley and Guzzetta, LLC 444 Cedar Street Saint Paul, MN 55101 Minority Media Telecom Council David Honig 3636 16th Street N.W. Suite B-366 Washington,DC 20010 Mobile,Alabama Mobile County Commission 205 Government St., Mobile,AL 36644 Missouri NATOA Miller&Van Eaton Frederick E. Ellrod III 1155 Connecticut Avenue,N.W. Suite 1000 Washington,DC 20036 40 Town of Momeyer 4868 Momeyer Way Nashville,NC 27856 -9091 Richard Singer Monrovia, CA 415 S. Ivy Avenue Monrovia, CA 91016 Chris Jeffers, City Manager Monterey Park City Hall Monterey Park, CA 91754 Russell D. Duree Montrose, CO City Attorney's Office P.O. Box 790 Montrose, CO 81402 -0790 Town of Morrisville,North Carolina PO Box 166 100 Town Hall Dr. Morrisville,NC 27560 -0166 Robert D. Slattery Mount Morris, MI 116 49 N. Saginaw Street Mt. Morris, MI 48458 Mt. Hood Cable Regulatory Commission—MHCRC 1120 SW 5th Ave.,Rm 1305 Portland, OR 97204 Alan Bozeman 111 West Vine Street Murfreesboro, TN 37130 41 Lynn Johnson, Mayor Town of Murfreesboro P.O. Box 6 Murfreesboro,NC 27855 -0006 City of Murrieta 26442 Beckman Court Murrieta, CA 92562 National Association of Broadcasters Jerianne Timmerman 1771 N Street NW Washington, DC 20036 National Black Chamber of Commerce, Inc 1350 Connecticut Ave. NW Suite 405 Washington, DC 20036 National Cable &Telecommunications Association 25 Massachusetts Avenue,N.W. Suite 100 Washington, DC 20001 -1431 National Caucus and Center on Black Aged 1220 L Street NW Suite 800 Washington DC 20005 National Grange Leroy Watson, Legislative Dir. 1616HSt.NW Washington,DC 20006 National Hispanic Council on Aging 1341 Connecticut Avenue,N.W. Suite 4.2 Washington,DC 20036 42 National Taxpayers Union 108 N. Alfred Street Alexandria, VA 22314 National Telecommunications Cooperative Association Daniel Mitchell 4121 Wilson Blvd., 10th Floor Arlington, VA 22203 NATOA,NLC,NACO, USCM, ACM&ACD Spiegel &McDiarmid Tillman L. Lay 1333 New Hampshire Avenue,N.W. 2nd Floor Washington, DC 20036 Naval Media Center 2713 Mitscher Road, SW, Bldg. 168 Anacostia Annex, DC 20373-5819 New Jersey Board of.Public Utilities State of New Jersey, Division of Law 124 Halsey Street, 5th Floor P.O. Box 45029 Newark,NJ 07101 New Jersey Division of the Ratepayer Advocate 31 Clinton Street, l lth Floor P.O. Box 46005 Newark,NJ 07101 Radhika Karmarkar New York City Department of Information Technology and Telecommunications 75 Park Place New York,NY 10007 43 New York State Conference of Mayors 119 Washington Ave. Albany,NY 12210 Newton Communications Access Center, Inc do P.O. Box 610192, 90 Lincoln Street Newton, MA 02461 -0192 Norfolk, VA Department of Law, City Attorney's Office Martha P. McGann, Deputy City 900 City Hall Building, 810 Union Street Norfolk,VA 23510 City of North Kansas City Thomas E. Barzee, Jr. 2010 Howell North Kansas City,MO 64116 Chris Hoffman- City of North Liberty Telecommunications Commission 5 E. Cherry Street POBox77 North Liberty, IA 52317 -0077 City of North Richland Hills P.O. Box 820609 North Richland Hills, TX 76812 -0609 Village of Northbrook John Novinson 1225 Cedar Lane Northbrook, IL 60015 Northern Berkshire Community Television Corp Heritage State Park Building#6 North Adams, MA 0124 44 Northern Dakota County Cable Communications Commission,NDC4 Jodie Miller, Executive Director 5845 Blaine Avenue Inver Grove Heights, MN 55076 -1401 Northwest Suburbs Cable Commun. Comm'n Coralie Wilson CTV 15/North Suburban Access Corp. 950 Woodhill Drive Roseville, MN 55113 City of Norwalk 12700 Norwalk Blvd Norwalk, CA 90650 Oceanside Community Television(KOCT) 3038 Industry Street, Suite 101, Oceanside, CA 92054 Delma Collins Chair, Board of Commissioners, Onslow County • 118 Old Bridge Road Jacksonville,NC 27540 City of Ontario, CA Mayhook Law, PLLC Jeffrey Mayhook 34808 NE 14th Avenue La Center, WA 98629 Orange County Government 201 S. Rosalind Ave. 3rd Floor Orlando, FL 32801 OPASTCO 21 Dupont Circle,NW Suite 700 Washington, DC 20036 45 Orion Neighborhood Television Diane Griffiths 698 South Lapeer Road Lake Orion, MI 48362 City of Oxford,North Carolina PO Box 130 300 Williamsboro St Oxford,NC 27565 -1307 Pacific Research Institute 755 Sansome Street Suite 450 San Francisco, CA 94111 Pac-West Telecomm, Inc. Swidler Berlin LLP Patrick J. Donovan 3000 K Street,NW Suite 300 Washington, DC, DC 20007 -5116 City of Palo Alto Office of City Attorney Grant Kolling 250 Hamilton Avenue, 8th Floor Palo Alto, CA 94301 -2531 City of Palmetto 516 8th Ave W Palmetto, FL 34221 -1209 City of Pasadena, California 117 E. Colorado Blvd, 3rd Floor Pasadena, CA 91105 46 Patton Township Elliot Abrams 100 Patton Plaza • State College, PA 16803 Harold K. Logsdon, Mayor Peachtree City 151 Willowbend Road Peachtree City, Georgia 30269 Peachtree City, GA 30269 -3104 Township of Pennsville Thomas H. Strong, Sr., Mayor 90 North Broadway Pennsville,NJ 08070 City of Perris - Michael McDermott 101 N 'D' Street Penis, CA 92570 -1998 City of Philadelphia PA Joseph James, Deputy Commissioner Public Property City Hall, Room 732 Philadelphia, PA 19107 Pike County, KY William M. Deskins 146 Main Street Pikeville, KY 41501 -1180 City of Pikeville KY Frank Justice 118 College Street Pikeville, KY 41501 -1786 47 Town of Pinetops J. Vines Cobb, Jr. Post Office Drawer C Pinetops,NC 27864 Town of Pittsboro,North Carolina c/o PO Box 759 635 East St Pittsboro,NC 27312 -0759 Plainfield Charter Township 6161 Belmont Avenue Belmont, MI 49306 -9609 Rick Wallace Mayor Town of Pleasant Garden PO Box 307 Pleasant Garden,North Carolina 27309 February 1, 2006 City of Pleasant Hill Debra Margolis 100 Gregory Lane Pleasant Hill, CA 94523 Plymouth Area Community Access Television By: Nancy L. Richard Executive Director PACTV 130 Court Street, Plymouth MA 02360 Kathy Obom,Video Service Director City of Pocatello PO Box 4169 Pocatello, ID 83205 -4169 48 Clay Larkin, Mayor City of Post Falls Mayor Clay Larkin, City of Post Falls 408 N. Spokane Street Post Falls, ID 83854 City of Poway City Manager's Office PO Box 789 Poway, CA 92074 -0789 Princeton Community TV 369 Witherspoon St. Princeton,NJ 08540 Public Cable Television Authority 10200 Slater Avenue Fountain Valley, CA 92708 Public Utility Commission of Texas Rosemary McMahill 1701 N. Congress Avenue P.O. Box 13326 Austin, TX 78711 -3326 Public, Educational and Governmental (PEG) Access Oversight Committee of Nashville, Davidson County, Tennessee Alan D. Johnson, Chair 215 Second Avenue North Nashville, TN 37201 49 Qwest Communications International Inc. Melissa E.Newman Suite 950 607 14th Street,N.W. Washington, DC 20005 Quote...Unquote,Inc 415 Tijeras N.W. Albuquerque,NM 87102 • Queen Anne's County Paul W. Comfort 107 N. Liberty Street Centreville, MD 21617 Prince George's County Community Television McCollum&Associates James E. McCollum,Jr College Park, MD 20741 -1717 Prince George's County, Maryland Funk& Bolton, , PA Ernest A. Crofoot 315 High Street Suite 202 Chestertown,MD 21620 -0000 Ramsey/Washington Counties Cable Communications Commission 2460 East County Road White Bear Lake,MN 55110 City of Rancho Cordova-Robert J. McGarvey,Mayor 2729 Prospect Park Drive Rancho Cordova, CA 95670 • 50 City of Rancho Santa Margarita Steven E. Hayman 22112 El Paseo Rancho Snata Margarita, CA 92688 Harold Holmes Chair, Board of Commissioners Randolph County 725 McDowell Road Asheboro,North Carolina 27204 RCN Telecom Services, Inc. Swidler Berlin LLP Katie Besha 3000 K Street NW Suite 300 Washington, DC 20007 Town of Red Oak,NC PO Box A Red Oak Blvd Red Oak,NC 27868 -0016 Richard Duvernay& Gerry Kersten on behalf of the City of Redding City of Redding 777 Cypress Avenue Redding, CA 96001 Mayor James K. Festerman 230 W. Morehead Street Reidsville,NC 27320 Bonnie Walton 1055 S. Grady Way Renton, WA 98055 51 City of Richmond, KY Connie Lawson 239 W Main Street Richmond, KY 40476 -0250 John Kirkland Mayor Town of River Bend 45 Shoreline Drive New Bern,North Carolina 28562 N. Jerry Owens Chair, Board of Commissioners Rockingham County 371 NC 65, Suite 206 Wentworth,North Carolina 27375 Town of Rockwell Mayor Beauford Taylor PO Box 506 Rockwell,NC 28138 -0506 Douglas R. Prichard, City Manager City of Rolling Hills Estates 4045 Palos Verdes Drive North Rolling Hills Estates, CA 90274 Gus Andres Chair, Board of Commissioners Rowan County 130 W. nines Street Salisbury,North Carolina 28144 City of Rolling Hills Estates 4045 Palos Verdes Drive North Rolling Hills Estates, CA 90274 52 Sacramento Metropolitan Cable Television Commission McDonough, Holland & alien, PC Harriet A. Steiner 555 Capitol Mall, 9th floor Sacramento, CA 95814 City of Saint Charles, Missouri Saint Charles City Hall 200 North Second Street Saint Charles, MO 63301 Linda Berman 555 Liberty Street ST, Room 220 Salem, OR 97301 • Chris Bramhall 451 South State Street, Suite 505A Salt Lake City, UT 84111 County of San Diego 1600 Pacific Highway Room 208 San Diego, CA 92101 Rey Arellano City of San Diego 202 C Street, MS-9B San Diego, CA 92101 Curtis W. Morris 245 East Bonita Avenue San Dimas, CA 91773 City Attorney's Office/City of San Jose William H. Hughe 200 E. Santa Clara St., 16th Floor San Jose, CA 95113 City of San Juan Capistrano 32400 Paseo Adelanto San Juan Capistrano, CA 92675 53 City of San Marcos 1 Civic Center Drive San Marcos, CA 92069 -2918 San Mateo County Telecommunications Authority—SAMCAT Greg Rubens, Attorney at Law 600 Elm Street San Carlos, CA 94070 -3018 City of Sanford,North Carolina PO Box 3729 225 E. Weatherspoon St Sanford,NC 27331 -3729 City of Santa Clara 1500 Warburton Avenue Santa Clara, CA 95050 -3713 City of Santa Clarita 23920 Valencia Blvd Santa Clarita, CA 91355 Maryanne Rehberg on behalf of Community television of Santa Cruz County 816 Pacific Ave. Santa Cruz„ CA 95062 City of Santa Rosa, California Jane Bender City Hall, Room#8 100 Santa Rosa Avenue Santa Rosa, CA 95404 54 City of Santee Attn: Keith Till, City Manager 10601 Magnolia Avenue Santee, CA 92071 -1266 City of Saratoga Springs Valene Keehn City Hall, Suite 6 474 Broadway Saratoga Springs,NY 12866 Charles A. Comstock, City Manager, City of Scotts Valley Kirsten Powell, City Attorney City of Scotts Valley One Civic Center Drive Scotts Valley, CA 95066 City of Seattle Tony Perez 700 5th Avenue, Suite 2700 P.O. Box 94709 Seattle, WA 98124 -4709 City of Sebastopol, California 7120 Bodega Ave. Sebastopol, CA 95472 Self Advocacy Association of New York State 75 Morton St# 1 New York,NY 10014 Township of Shaler Timothy J. Rogers 300 Wetzel Road Timothy J. Rogers Glenshaw,PA 15116 -2288 55 City of Sierra Madre 232 W. Sierra Madre Blvd Sierra Madre, CA 91024 City of Signal Hill 2175 Cherry Avenue Signal Hill, CA 90755 Town of Siler City Charles L. Turner 311 N 2nd Ave Siler,NC 27344 -0769 City of Simi Valley 2929 Tapo Canyon Road Simi Valley, CA 93063 Sjoberg's Inc. 315 N. Main Avenue Thief River Falls, MN 56701 • Village of Skokie Albert J. Rigoni 5127 Oakton Street Skokie, IL 60077 Town of Smithfield,North Carolina PO Box 761 350 E. Market St. Smithfield,NC 27577 -0761 City of Solana Beach, California James P. Lough 635 S. HWY 101 Solana Beach, CA 92075 56 Township of South Orange Village Marjorie 0. Smith 101 South Orange Avenue South Orange,NJ 07079 City of South Portland Tony Vigue P.O. Box 9422 Portland, ME 04116 City and County of San Francisco City Attorney's Office Thomas Long City Hall, 1 Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett Place, Rm 234 San Francisco, CA 94102 -4682 South Slope Cooperative Telephone Company Davis, Brown, Koehn, Shors &Roberts, P.C. John C. Pietila 2500 The Financial Center 666 Walnut Des Moines, IA 50309 -3993 Southeastern Michigan Municipalities Neil J. Lehto 4035 Iverness Lane West Bloomfield, MI 48323 -1714 . Southwest Suburban Cable Commission Moss &Barnett Brian T. Grogan 4800 Wells Fargo Center 90 South Seventh Street Minneapolis, MN 55402 -4129 Town of Spring Hope,NC POBOX87 118 W. Railroad St. Spring Hope,NC 27882 -0087 57 City of Springfield 840 Boonville Ave P.O. Box 8368 Springfield, MO 65801-8368 City of St. Charles 2 E. Main Street St. Charles, IL 60174 Mayor Chris Coleman 390 City Hall 15 West Kellogg Boulevard Saint Paul, MN 55102 City of Jackson c/o Alfred A. Nunes 33 Broadway Jackson, CA 95642 -2301 Town of Jamestown William G. Ragsdale, III PO Box 848 Jamestown,NC 27282 JerseyAccess Group P c/o Rich Desimone 500 Main Street Metuchen,NJ 08840 City of Kernersville c/o Curtis L. Swisher, Mayor 134 East Mountain Street Kernersville,NC 27284 City of Lake Forest do Scott C. Smith, City Attorney • Lake Forest City Hall 25550 Commercentre Drive, Suite 100 • Lake Forest, CA 92630 58 Town of Lake Lure Don Mullen, Mayor 2948 Memorial Hwy Lake Lure,NC 28746 -0255 Town of Lake Mills James A. Heinz, Chairperson N7041 Faville Road Lake Mills, WI 53551 City of Lakewood do Lisa Novotny 5050 Clark Ave Lakewood, CA 90712 City of Lewisville Mayor Thomas J. Lawson PO Box 547 Lewisville,NC 27023 City of Lexington Mayor Richard L. Thomas 28 West Center Street Lexington,NC 27292 Los Angeles Cable Television Access Corp do Herb Isaacs, Corporate Secretary LA36 108 West 2nd Street Unit 108, Los Angeles, Ca 90012 Town of Madison Kenneth Y. Hawkins, Mayor 120 N Market St Madison,NC 27025 Bob Chemow City of Madison 215 Martin Luther King Jr. Blvd. Madison, WI 53710 -0002 59 Manhattan Community Access Corp do Manhattan Neighborhood Network Daniel Coughlin- Executive Director 537 West 59th Street, New York,NY 10019 Martha's Vineyard Plum TV c/o MacDara Bohan, General Manager 9 Main St. Vineyard Haven, MA 02568 City of Maxton Mayor Lillie McKoy 201 McCaskill Ave Maxton,NC 28364 Community Access Television Inc. 1126 West 17th Street Davenport, IA 52804 -3714 60 . , EXHIBIT A Federal Communications Commission FCC 06-180 Before the • Federal Communications Commission Washington,D.C.20554 In the Matter of ) Implementation of Section 621(a)(1) of the Cable ) MB Docket No.05-311 Communications Policy Act of 1984 as amended ) by the Cable Television Consumer Protection and ) Competition Act of 1992 ) REPORT AND ORDER AND FURTHER NOTICE OF PROPOSED RULEMAKING Adopted: December 20,2006 Released: March 5,2007 Comment Date: [30 days after date of publication in the Federal Register] Reply Comment Date: [45 days after date of publication in the Federal Register] By the Commission: Chairman Martin,Commissioners Tate and McDowell issuing separate statements; Commissioners Copps and Adelstein dissenting and issuing separate statements. TABLE OF CONTENTS Paragraph I. INTRODUCTION 1 II. BACKGROUND 6 III. DISCUSSION 18 A. The Current Operation of the Franchising Process Unreasonably Interferes With Competitive Entry 19 B. The Commission Has Authority to Adopt Rules Pursuant to Section 621(a)(1) 53 C. Steps to Ensure that the Local Franchising Process Does Not Unreasonably Interfere with Competitive Cable Entry and Rapid Broadband Deployment 65 1. Time Limit for Franchise Negotiations 66 2. Build-Out 82 3. Franchise Fees 94 4. PEG/Institutional Networks 110 5. Regulation of Mixed-Use Networks 121 D. Preemption of Local Laws,Regulations and Requirements 125 IV. FURTHER NOTICE OF PROPOSED RULEMAKING 139 V. PROCEDURAL MATTERS 144 VI. ORDERING CLAUSES 153 APPENDIX A—List of Commenters and Reply Commenters APPENDIX B—Rule Changes APPENDIX C—Initial Regulatory Flexibility Act Analysis APPENDIX D—Final Regulatory Flexibility Act Analysis Federal Communications Commission FCC 06-180 I. INTRODUCTION 1. In this Report and Order ("Order"), we adopt rules and provide guidance to implement Section 621(a)(1) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended(the "Communications Act"), which prohibits franchising authorities from unreasonably refusing to award competitive franchises for the provision of cable services.' We find that the current operation of the local franchising process in many jurisdictions constitutes an unreasonable barrier to entry that impedes the achievement of the interrelated federal goals of enhanced cable competition and accelerated broadband deployment.' We further find that Commission action to address this problem is both authorized and necessary. Accordingly, we adopt measures to address a variety of means by which local franchising authorities, i.e., county-or municipal- level franchising authorities ("LFAs"), are unreasonably refusing to award competitive franchises. We anticipate that the rules and guidance we adopt today will facilitate and expedite entry of new cable competitors into the market for the delivery of video programming,3 and accelerate broadband deployment consistent with our statutory responsibilities. 47 U.S.C. §541(a)(1). 2 While there is a sufficient record before us to generally determine what constitutes an "unreasonable refusal to award an additional competitive franchise" at the local level under Section 621(a)(1), we do not have sufficient information to make such determinations with respect to franchising decisions where a state is involved, either by issuing franchises at the state level or enacting laws governing specific aspects of the franchising process. We therefore expressly limit our findings and regulations in this Order to actions or inactions at the local level where a state has not specifically circumscribed the LFA's authority. In light of the differences between the scope of franchises issued at the state level and those issued at the local level, we do not address the reasonableness of demands made by state level franchising authorities, such as Hawaii,which may need to be evaluated by different criteria than those applied to the demands of local franchising authorities. Additionally, what constitutes an unreasonable period of time for a state level franchising authority to take to review an application may differ from what constitutes an unreasonable period of time at the local level. Moreover,as discussed infra,many states have enacted comprehensive franchise reform laws designed to facilitate competitive entry. Some of these laws allow competitive entrants to obtain statewide franchises while others establish a comprehensive set of statewide parameters that cabin the discretion of LFAs. Compare TEx.UTIL.CODE ANN. §§ 66.001-66.017 with VA. CODE ANN. §§ 15.2-2108.19 et seq. In light of the fact that many of these laws have only been in effect for a short period of time,and we do not have an adequate record from those relatively few states that have had statewide franchising for a longer period of time to draw general conclusions with respect to the operation of the franchising process where there is state involvement,we lack a sufficient record to evaluate whether and how such state laws may lead to unreasonable refusals to award additional competitive franchises. As a result, our Order today only addresses decisions made by county-or municipal-level franchising authorities. See U.S. Cellular Corp. v.FCC,254 F.3d 78, 86 (D.C. Cir. 2001)("agencies need not address all problems in one fell swoop") (citations and internal quotation marks omitted);Personal Watercraft Industry Assoc. v.Dept.of Commerce,48 F.3d 540,544(D.C.Cir. 1995)("An agency does not have to'make progress on every front before it can make progress on any front.')(quoting United States v.Edge Broadcasting Co.,509 U.S.418,434(1993));National Association of Broadcasters v.FCC, 740 F.2d 1190, 1207(D.C.Cir. 1984)("[A]gencies,while entitled to less deference than Congress,nonetheless need not deal in one fell swoop with the entire breadth of a novel development;instead, `reform may take place one step at a time, addressing itself to the phase of the problem which seems most acute to the [regulatory] mind."') (citations and internal quotation marks omitted, alteration in original). Moreover, it does not address any aspect of an LFA's decision-making to the extent that such aspect is specifically addressed by state law. For example, the state of Massachusetts provides LFAs with 12 months from the date of their decision to begin the licensing process to approve or deny a franchise application. 207 Mass. Code Regs. 3.02(2006). These laws are not addressed by this decision. Consequently, unless otherwise stated, references herein to "the franchising process" or "franchising" refer solely to processes controlled by county-or municipal-level franchising authorities,including but not limited to the ultimate decision to award a franchise. 3 References throughout this Order to"video programming"or"video services"are intended to mean cable services. 2 Federal Communications Commission FCC 06-180 2. New competitors are entering markets for the delivery of services historically offered by monopolists: traditional phone companies are primed to enter the cable market, while traditional cable companies are competing in the telephony market. Ultimately,both types of companies are projected to offer customers a "triple play" of voice, high-speed Internet access, and video services over their respective networks. We believe this competition for delivery of bundled services will benefit consumers by driving down prices and improving the quality of service offerings. We are concerned,however, that traditional phone companies seeking to enter the video market face unreasonable regulatory obstacles, to the detriment of competition generally and cable subscribers in particular. 3. The Communications Act sets forth the basic rules concerning what franchising authorities may and may not do in evaluating applications for competitive franchises. Despite the parameters established by the Communications Act, however, operation of the franchising process has proven far more complex and time consuming than it should be, particularly with respect to facilities- based telecommunications and broadband providers that already have access to rights-of-way. New entrants have demonstrated that they are willing and able to upgrade their networks to provide video services,but the current operation of the franchising process at the local level unreasonably delays and,in some cases, derails these efforts due to LFAs' unreasonable demands on competitive applicants. These delays discourage investment in the fiber-based infrastructure necessary for the provision of advanced broadband services,because franchise applicants do not have the promise of revenues from video services to offset the costs of such deployment. Thus, the current operation of the franchising process often not only contravenes the statutory imperative to foster competition in the multichannel video programming distribution ("MVPD") market, but also defeats the congressional goal of encouraging broadband deployment. 4. In light of the problems with the current operation of the franchising process,we believe that it is now appropriate for the Commission to exercise its authority and take steps to prevent LFAs from unreasonably refusing to award competitive franchises. We have broad rulemaking authority to implement the provisions of the Communications Act,including Title VI generally and Section 621(a)(1) in particular. In addition, Section 706 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 directs the Commission to encourage broadband deployment by removing barriers to infrastructure investment,and the U.S.Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit has held that the Commission may fashion its rules to fulfill the goals of Section 706.4 5. To eliminate the unreasonable barriers to entry into the cable market, and to encourage investment in broadband facilities,we: (1)fmd that an LFA's failure to issue a decision on a competitive application within the time frames specified herein constitutes an unreasonable refusal to award a competitive franchise within the meaning of Section 621(a)(1); (2) fmd that an LFA's refusal to grant a competitive franchise because of an applicant's unwillingness to agree to unreasonable build-out mandates constitutes an unreasonable refusal to award a competitive franchise within the meaning of Section 621(a)(1); (3) fmd that unless certain specified costs, fees, and other compensation required by LFAs are counted toward the statutory 5 percent cap on franchise fees,demanding them could result in an unreasonable refusal to award a competitive franchise; (4)find that it would be an unreasonable refusal to award a competitive franchise if the LFA denied an application based upon a new entrant's refusal to undertake certain obligations relating to public, educational, and government ("PEG") and institutional networks ("I-Nets") and (5) find that it is unreasonable under Section 621(a)(1) for an LFA to refuse to grant a franchise based on issues related to non-cable services or facilities. Furthermore, we preempt local laws, regulations, and requirements, including level-playing-field provisions, to the extent they permit LFAs to impose greater restrictions on market entry than the rules adopted herein. We also adopt 4 See USTA v.FCC,359 F.3d 554,579-80(D.C.Cir.2004). 3 Federal Communications Commission FCC 06-180 a Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking ("FNPRM") seeking comment on how our findings in this Order should affect existing franchisees. In addition, the FNPRM asks for comment on local consumer protection and customer service standards as applied to new entrants. IL BACKGROUND 6. Section 621. Any new entrant seeking to offer "cable services5 as a "cable operators6 becomes subject to the requirements of Title VI. Section 621 of Title VI sets forth general cable franchise requirements. Subsection(b)(1)of Section 621 prohibits a cable operator from providing cable service in a particular area without first obtaining a cable franchise,' and subsection (a)(1) grants to franchising authorities the power to award such franchises.8 7. The initial purpose of Section 621(a)(1),which was added to the Communications Act by the Cable Communications Policy Act of 1984(the"1984 Cable Act"),9 was to delineate the role of LFAs in the franchising process.'6 As originally enacted, Section 621(a)(1) simply stated that"[a] franchising authority may award, in accordance with the provisions of this title, 1 or more franchises within its jurisdiction." A few years later, however, the Commission prepared a report to Congress on the cable industry pursuant to the requirements of the 1984 Cable Act.12 In that Report,the Commission concluded 5 Section 602(6) of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. §522(6) (defining "cable service" as "(A)the one-way transmission to subscribers of (i)video programming, or (ii)other programming service, and (B)subscriber interaction, if any, which is required for the selection or use of such video programming or other programming service"). 6 Section 602(5)of the Communications Act,47 U.S.C.§522(5)(defining"cable operator"as"any person or group of persons(A)who provides cable service over a cable system and directly or through one or more affiliates owns a significant interest in a cable system,or(B)who otherwise controls or is responsible for,through any arrangement, the management and operation of such a cable system"). 47 U.S.C. §541(b)(1)("Except to the extent provided in paragraph(2)and subsection(f),a cable operator may not provide cable service without a franchise."). 8 47 U.S.C. §541(a)(1)(stating that"[a]franchising authority may award,in accordance with the provisions of this title, 1 or more franchises within its jurisdiction"). A"franchising authority"is defined to mean"any governmental entity empowered by Federal,State,or local law to grant a franchise." Section 602(10)of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. §522(10). As noted above,references herein to"local franchising authorities"or"LFAs"mean only the county or municipal governmental entities empowered to grant franchises. 9 Cable Communications Policy Act of 1984,Pub.L No.98-549,98 Stat.2779. 1°See, e.g.,H.R.REP.No. 98-934, at 19 (1984)("[The 1984 Cable Act] establishes a national policy that clarifies the current system of local, state and federal regulation of cable television. This policy continues reliance on the local franchising process as the primary means of cable television regulation, while defining and limiting the authority that a franchising authority may exercise through the franchise process. ... [This legislation]will preserve the critical role of municipal governments in the franchise process, while providing appropriate deregulation in certain respects to the provision of cable service.");id.at 24("It is the Committee's intent that the franchise process take place at the local level where city officials have the best understanding of local communications needs and can require cable operators to tailor the cable system to meet those needs. However, if that process is to further the purposes of this legislation, the provisions of these franchises, and the authority of the municipal governments to enforce these provisions, must be based on certain important uniform federal standards that are not continually altered by Federal,state and local regulation."). 11 Cable Communications Policy Act of 1984,Pub.L.No.98-549,98 Stat.2779,§621 (1984). 12 See generally Competition, Rate Deregulation and the Commission's Policies Relating to the Provision of Cable Television Service,5 FCC Rcd 4962(1990)("Report"). 4 Federal Communications Commission FCC 06-180 • that in order"[t]o encourage more robust competition in the local video marketplace,the Congress should ... forbid local franchising authorities from unreasonably denying a franchise to potential competitors who are ready and able to provide service.s13 8. In response,14 Congress revised Section 621(a)(1) through the Cable Television Consumer Protection and Competition Act of 1992 (the "1992 Cable Act")15 to read as follows: "A franchising authority may award, in accordance with the provisions of this title, 1 or more franchises within its jurisdiction; except that a franchising authority may not grant an exclusive franchise and may not unreasonably refuse to award an additional competitive franchise.s16 In the Conference Report on the legislation,Congress found that competition in the cable industry was sorely lacking: For a variety of reasons,including local franchising requirements and the extraordinary expense of constructing more than one cable television system to serve a particular geographic area, most cable television subscribers have no opportunity to select between competing cable systems. Without the presence of another multichannel video programming distributor,a cable system faces no local competition. The result is undue market power for the cable operator as compared to that of consumers and video programmers." To address this problem, Congress abridged local government authority over the franchising process to promote greater cable competition:. Based on the evidence in the record taken as a whole,it is clear that there are benefits from competition between two cable systems. Thus, the Committee believes that local franchising authorities should be encouraged to award second franchises. Accordingly, [the 1992 Cable Act] as reported, prohibits local franchising authorities from unreasonably refusing to grant second franchises.18 131d.at 4974;see also id.at 5012("This Commission is convinced that the most effective method of promoting the interests of viewers or consumers is through the free play of competitive market forces."). The Report also recommended that Congress "prohibit franchising rules whose intent or effect is to create unreasonable barriers to the entry of potential competing multichannel video providers,""limit local franchising requirements to appropriate governmental interests (e.g., public health and safety, repair and good condition of public rights-of-way, and the posting of an appropriate construction bond),"and"permit competitors to enter a market pursuant to an initial,time- limited suspension of any`universal[build-out]'obligation." Id. 14 See H.R.REP.No. 102-628,at 47(1992) ("The Commission recommended that Congress,in order to encourage more robust competition in the local video marketplace, prevent local franchising authorities from unreasonably denying a franchise to potential competitors who are ready and able to provide service."). The Commission has previously recognized that"Congress incorporated the Commission's recommendations in the 1992 Cable Act by amending §621(a)(1) of the Communications Act." Implementation of Section 19 of the Cable Television Consumer Protection and Competition Act of 1992(Annual Assessment of the Status of Competition in the Market for the Delivery of Video Programming),9 FCC Rcd 7442,7469(1994). 15 Cable Television Consumer Protection and Competition Act of 1992,Pub.L.No. 102-385, 106 Stat. 1460. 16 47 U.S.C.§541(a)(1)(emphasis added). "H.R.CoNF.REP.No. 102-862,at 1231 (1992). 18 S.REP.No. 102-92,at 47(1991). 5 Federal Communications Commission FCC 06-180 As revised, Section 621(a)(1) establishes a clear, federal-level limitation on the authority of LFAs in the franchising process in order to "promote the availability to the public of a diversity of views and information through cable television and other video distribution media,"and to"rely on the marketplace, to the maximum extent feasible, to achieve that availability.s19 Congress further recognized that increased competition in the video programming industry would curb excessive rate increases and enhance customer service, two areas in particular which Congress found had deteriorated because of the monopoly power of cable operators brought about,at least in part,by the local franchising process.20 9. In 1992, Congress also revised Section 621(a)(1) to provide that"[a]ny applicant whose application for a second franchise has been denied by a fmal decision of the franchising authority may appeal such final decision pursuant to the provisions of section 635."21 Section 635, in turn, states that "[a]ny cable operator adversely affected by any final determination made by a franchising authority under section 621(a)(1) ... may commence an action within 120 days after receiving notice of such determination" in federal court or a state court of general jurisdiction.22 Congress did not, however, provide an explicit judicial remedy for other forms of unreasonable refusals to award competitive franchises, such as an LFA's refusal to act on a pending franchise application within a reasonable time period. 10. The Local Franchising NPRM. Notwithstanding the limitation imposed on LFAs by Section 621(a)(1), prior to commencement of this proceeding, the Commission had seen indications that the current operation of the franchising process still serves as an unreasonable barrier'to entry23 for potential new cable entrants into the MVPD market.24 In November 2005, the Commission issued a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking ("Local Franchising NPRAT) to determine whether LFAs are unreasonably refusing to award competitive franchises and thereby impeding achievement of the statute's goals of increasing competition in the delivery of video programming and accelerating broadband deployment. 11. The Commission sought comment on the current environment in which new cable entrants attempt to obtain competitive cable franchises. For example,the Commission requested input on 19 1d 20 S.REP.No. 102-92,at 9(quoting members of the cable industry who acknowledged that"because the franchise limits the customers to a single provider in the market, other `customer-oriented' intangibles relating to the expectation of future patronage do not exist for a cable system. There is a goodwill in a monopoly. Customers return,not because of any sense of satisfaction with the monopolist,but rather because they have no other choices"); see also id.at 3-9, 13-14,20-21. 2147 U.S.C.§541(a)(1). 22 47 U.S.C.§555(a). 23 See Implementation of Section 621(a)(1) of the Cable Communications Policy Act of 1984 as amended by the Cable Television Consumer Protection and Competition Act of 1992, 20 FCC Rcd 18581, 18584 (2005) ("Local Franchising NPRM')(citing comments of Alcatel,BellSouth,Broadcast Service Providers Assoc.,and Consumers for Cable Choice,filed in MB Docket No.05-255). 24 We refer herein to "new entrants," "new cable entrants," and "new cable competitors" interchangeably. Specifically, we intend these terms to describe entities that opt to offer "cable service" over a "cable system" utilizing public rights-of-way, and thus are uefined under the Communications Act as"cable operator[s]"that must obtain a franchise. Although we recognize that there are numerous other ways to enter the MVPD market (e.g., direct broadcast satellite ("DBS"), wireless cable, private cable), our actions in this proceeding relate to our authority under Section 621(a)(1)of the Communications Act,and thus are limited to competitive entrants seeking to obtain cable franchises. 6 Federal Communications Commission FCC 06-180 the number of: (a)LFAs in the United States; (b) competitive franchise applications filed to date;25 and (c) ongoing franchise negotiations.26 To determine whether the current operation of the franchising process discourages competition and broadband deployment, the Commission also sought information regarding,among other things: • how much time, on average, elapses between the date a franchise application is filed and the date an LFA acts on the application,and during that period,how much time is spent in active negotiations;27 • whether to establish a maximum time frame for an LFA to act on an application for a competitive franchise;28 • whether"level-playing-field"mandates,which impose on new entrants terms and conditions identical to those in the incumbent cable operator's franchise,constitute unreasonable barriers to entry;29 • whether build-out requirements (Le., requirements that a franchisee deploy cable service to parts or all of the franchise area within a specified period of time) are creating unreasonable barriers to competitive entry;3° • specific examples of any monetary or in-kind LFA demands unrelated to cable services that could be adversely affecting new entrants'ability to obtain franchises;3' and • whether current procedures or requirements are appropriate for any cable operator, including incumbent cable operators.32 12. In the Local Franchising NPRM, we tentatively concluded that Section 621(a)(1) empowers the Commission to adopt rules to ensure that the franchising process does not unduly interfere with the ability of potential competitors to provide video programming to consumers.33 Accordingly,the Commission sought comment on how it could best remedy any problems with the current franchising process.34 25 Local Franchising NPRM,20 FCC Rcd at 18588. 26 Id. 27 Id 28 Id.at 18591. 29Id at 18588. 330Id at 18592. 31 Id. See also Comments of Verizon, MB Docket No. 05-255 at 12 (filed Sept. 19, 2005) (arguing that"[m]any local franchising authorities unfortunately view the franchising process as an opportunity to gamer from a potential new video entrant concessions that are in no way related to video services or to the rationales for requiring franchises"). See Appendix A for a list of all commenters and reply commenters. 32 Local Franchising NPRM,20 FCC Rcd at 18592. 33 Id.at 18590. 34 Id at 18581. Federal Communications Commission FCC 06-180 13. The Commission also asked whether Section 706 provides a basis for the Commission to address barriers faced by would-be entrants to the video market.' Section 706 directs the Commission to encourage broadband deployment by utilizing"measures that promote competition ... or other regulating methods that remove barriers to infrastructure investment."36 Competitive entrants in the video market are, in large part, deploying new fiber-based facilities that allow companies to offer the"triple play" of voice, data, and video services. New entrants' video offerings thus directly affect their roll-out of new broadband services. Revenues from cable services are, in fact, a driver for broadband deployment. In light of that relationship, the Commission sought comment on whether it could take remedial action pursuant to Section 706.37 14. The Franchising Process. The record in this proceeding demonstrates that the franchising process differs significantly from locality to locality. In most states,franchising is conducted at the local level, affording counties and municipalities broad discretion in deciding whether to grant a franchise.38 Some counties and municipalities have cable ordinances that govern the structure of negotiations, while others may proceed on an applicant-by-applicant basis.39 Where franchising negotiations are focused at the local level, some LFAs create formal or informal consortia to pool their resources and expedite competitive entry.40 15. To provide video services over a geographic area that encompasses more than one LFA,a prospective entrant must become familiar with all applicable regulations. This is a time-consuming and expensive process that has a chilling effect on competitors.'" Verizon estimates, for example,that it will need 2,500-3,000 franchises in order to provide video services throughout its service area.42 AT&T states 35 Id.at 18590. 36 Section 706 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996,47 U.S.C.§ 157 nt. 37 See USTA v. FCC, 359 F.3d 554, 580, 583 (D.C. Cir. 2004). See also USTelecom Comments at 15; TIA Comments at 16-17. 38 See, e.g.,MD.ANN.CODE art.23A§2(b)(13); OR.CONST.ART.I, § 21 (2005);COLO.REV.STAT.ANN.§30-35- 201 (West 2005). We also note that several states have adopted statutes governing the franchising process. For example, some states require public hearings or special elections. See League of Minnesota Cities ("LMC") Comments at 6-8, South Slope Comments at 6. Other states have laws limiting the range of issues that can be negotiated in a franchise. See Cablevision Comments at 12, LMC Comments at 15. As we discuss below, certain states have adopted new franchising laws that allow providers to apply for franchises through state franchising authorities("SFAs"),and we note that lawmakers in those states adopted these new franchising laws to address the needs of the current marketplace. Furthermore,certain states have traditionally considered franchise applications at the state level. See, e.g., HAW. REV. STAT. §440G-4(2006),CoNN.GEN. STAT.ANN. § 16-331 (West 2006), VT. STAT.ANN.tit.30,§502(2006). The record indicates that state level franchising may provide a practical solution to the problems that facilities-based entrants face when seeking to provide competitive services on a broader basis than county or municipal boundaries and seek to provide service in a significant number of franchise areas. See, e.g., AT&T Reply at 21,37,NTCA Comments at 10. 39 See, e.g., Mobile, Ala. Comments at 2 (discussing its Master Cable Services Regulatory Ordinance that was created to ensure all potential entrants were treated in a uniform manner);Ontario,Cal.Comments at 5-6(discussing draft master ordinance that will ensure a"fair and equitable application process"for all new entrants). 4o See, e.g.,MO-NATOA Comments at 8("some localities work together to franchise and manage rights-of-way"); MHRC Comments at 1 (MHRC is a consolidated regulatory authority for six Oregon localities). 41 See, e.g.,Verizon Comments at 27,Att.A,para. 10,59-75;BellSouth Comments at 2, 11;Letter from Jeffrey S. Laming, Associate General Counsel, USTelecom, to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, Federal Communications Commission at 17-18(July 28,2006)("USTelecom Ex Parte"). 42 Verizon Comments at 27,Att.A,para. 10. 8 Federal Communications Commission FCC 06-180 that its Project Lightspeed deployment is projected to cover a geographic area that would encompass as many as 2,000 local franchise areas.43 BellSouth estimates that there are approximately 1,500 LFAs within its service area.44 Qwest's in-region territory covers a potential 5,389 LFAs.45 While other companies are also considering competitive entry," these estimates amply demonstrate the regulatory burden faced by competitors that seek to enter the market on a wide scale,a burden that is amplified when individual LFAs unreasonably refuse to grant competitive franchises. 16. A few states and municipalities recently have recognized the need for reform and have established expedited franchising processes for new entrants. Although these processes also vary greatly and thus are of limited help to new cable providers seeking to quickly enter the marketplace on a regional basis,they do provide more uniformity in the franchising process on an intrastate basis. These state level reforms appear to offer promise in assisting new entrants to more quickly begin offering consumers a competitive choice among cable providers. In 2005, the Texas legislature designated the Texas Public Utility Commission ("PUC") as the franchising authority for state-issued franchises, and required the PUC to issue a franchise within 17 business days after receipt of a completed application from an eligible applicant.47 In 2006, Indiana, Kansas, South Carolina, New Jersey, North Carolina, and California also passed legislation to streamline the franchising process by providing for expedited, state level grants of franchises 48 Virginia, by contrast, did not establish statewide franchises but mandated uniform time frames for negotiations,public hearings,and ultimate franchise approval at the local level. In particular,a "certificated provider of telecommunications service"with existing authority to use public rights-of-way is authorized to provide video service within 75 days of filing a request to negotiate with.each individual LFA.49 Similarly,Michigan recently enacted legislation that streamlines the franchise application process, establishes a 30-day timeframe within which an LFA must make a decision, and eliminates build-out requirements.5° 17. In some states, however, franchise reform efforts launched in recent months have failed. For example, in Florida, bills that would have allowed competitive providers to enter the market with a permit from the Office of the Secretary of State,and contained no build-out or service delivery schedules, died in committee.51 In Louisiana, the Governor vetoed a bill that would have created a state franchise 43 AT&T Comments at 17. 44 BellSouth Comments at 11. 45 Qwest Comments at 14. 46 See BSPA Comments at 1-2; Cavalier Telephone Comments at 2; South Slope Comments at 2; Cincinnati Bell Comments at 1; Hawaiian Telcom Comments at 1; Minnesota Telecom Alliance Comments at 2. In addition to video services,many of these new entrants also intend to provide broadband services. See, e.g.,Verizon Comments at i;BSPA Comments at 1;Cavalier Telephone Comments at 2. 47 TEX.UTIL.CODE ANN. §§ 66.001,66.003. Holders of these franchises are required to pay franchise fees,comply with customer service standards,and provide the capacity for PEG access channels that a municipality has activated under the incumbent cable operator's franchise agreement. Id. at §§ 66.005, 66.006, 66.008, 66.009, 66.014. Franchisees are not required to comply with any build-out requirements, but they are prohibited from denying service to any area based on the income level of that area. Id.at§66.007. 48 IND. CODE§ 8-1-34-16 (2006); 2006 Kan. Sess. Laws 93 (codified at KAN. STAT.ANN. § 17-1902); S.C.CODE ANN. § 58-12-310 et seq. (2006);Assemb.,No. 804,212th Leg. (N.J.2006); 2006 N.C. Sessions Laws 151 (to be codified 1/1/2007 at N.C.GEN STAT.ANN.§66-351 (West 2006);CAL.PUB.UTIL.CODE§401,et seq.;. 49 VA.CODE ANN.§ 15.2-2108.1:1 et seq. 5°2006 Mich.Pub.Acts 480. 51 S 1984,2006 Sess.(Fla.2006),HB 1199,2006 Sess.(Fla.2006). 9 Federal Communications Commission FCC 06-180 structure, provided for automatic grant of an application 45 days after filing, and contained no build-out requirements.52 In Maine, a bill that would have replaced municipal franchises with state franchises was withdrawn 53 Finally, a Missouri bill that would have given the Public Service Commission the authority to grant franchises and would have prohibited local franchising died in committee.54 III. DISCUSSION 18. Based on the voluminous record in this proceeding, which includes comments filed by new entrants, incumbent cable operators, LFAs, consumer groups, and others, we conclude that the current operation of the franchising process can constitute an unreasonable barrier to entry for potential cable competitors, and thus justifies Commission action. We find that we have authority under Section 621(a)(1)to address this problem by establishing limits on LFAs' ability to delay,condition,or otherwise "unreasonably refuse to award" competitive franchises. We fmd that we also have the authority to consider the goals of Section 706 in addressing this problem under Section 621(a)(1). We believe that, absent Commission action,deployment of competitive video services by new cable entrants will continue to be unreasonably delayed or, at worst, derailed. Accordingly,we adopt incremental measures directed to LFA-controlled franchising processes, as described in detail below. We anticipate that the rules and guidance we adopt today will facilitate and expedite entry of new cable competitors into the market for the delivery of multichannel video programming and thus encourage broadband deployment. A. The Current Operation of the Franchising Process Unreasonably Interferes With Competitive Entry 19. Most communities in the United States lack cable competition,which would reduce cable rates and increase innovation and quality of service.55 Although LFAs adduced evidence that they have granted some competitive franchises,56 and competitors acknowledge that they have obtained some franchises,57 the record includes only a few hundred examples of competitive franchises, many of which were obtained after months of unnecessary delay. In the vast majority of communities,cable competition simply does not exist. 52 HB 699,2006 Reg.Sess.(La.2006). 53 LR 2800,2006 Leg.,2d.Reg.Sess.(Me.2005). 54 SB 816,2006 Sess.(Mo.2006). 55 See Local Franchising NPRM,20 FCC Rcd at 18588. 56 For example, in Michigan, a number of LFAs have granted competitive franchises to local telecommunications companies. See Ada Township, et al., Comments at 18-26. Vermont has granted franchises to competitive operators in Burlington,Newport,Berlin,Duxbury,Stowe,and Moretown.VPSB Comments at 5. Mt.Hood Cable Regulatory Commission ("MHRC"), a consolidated regulatory authority for six Oregon localities, has negotiated franchises with cable overbuilders, although those companies ultimately were unable to deploy service. MHRC Comments at 20-21. Similarly, the City of Los Angeles has granted two competitive franchises,but each of the competitors went out of business shortly after negotiating the franchise. City of Los Angeles Comments at 15;see also San Diego County,Cal.Comments at 4. Miami-Dade has granted 11 franchises to six providers,and currently is considering the application of another potential entrant. Miami-Dade Comments at 1-2. New Jersey has granted five competitive franchises,but only two ultimately provided service to customers. NJBPU Comments at 3. See also, e.g., AT&T Reply Comments at 11-13; Chicago, Ill. Comments at 2-3; City of Charlotte and Mecklenburg County,N.C.Comments at 12-13;Henderson,Nev.Comments at 5. 57 For example, Verizon has obtained franchises covering approximately 200 franchise areas. See http://newscenter.verizon.com/press-releases/verizon/2006/verizon-to-bring-westem.html. 10 Federal Communications Commission FCC 06-180 20. The dearth of competition is due,at least in part,to the franchising process.58 The record demonstrates that the current operation of the franchising process unreasonably prevents or, at a minimum, unduly delays potential cable competitors from entering the MVPD market.59 Numerous commenters have adduced evidence that the current operation of the franchising process constitutes an unreasonable barrier to entry. Regulatory restrictions and conditions on entry shield incumbents from competition and are associated with various economic inefficiencies, such as reduced innovation and distorted consumer choices.60 We recognize that some LFAs have made reasonable efforts to facilitate competitive entry into the video programming market. We also recognize that recent state level reforms have the potential to streamline the process to a noteworthy degree. We find, though, that the current operation of the local franchising process often is a roadblock to achievement of the statutory goals of enhancing cable competition and broadband deployment. 21. Commenters have identified six factors that stand in the way of competitive entry. They are: (1) unreasonable delays by LFAs in acting on franchise applications; (2) unreasonable build-out requirements imposed by LFAs; (3) LFA demands unrelated to the franchising process; (4) confusion concerning the meaning and scope of franchise fee obligations; (5)unreasonable LFA demands for PEG channel capacity and construction of I-Nets; and (6) level-playing-field requirements set by LFAs. We address each factor below. 22. LFA Delays in Acting on Franchise Applications. The record demonstrates that unreasonable delays in the franchising process have obstructed and, in some cases, completely derailed attempts to deploy competitive video services. Many new entrants have been subjected to lengthy,costly, drawn-out negotiations that, in many cases, are still ongoing. The FTTH Council cited a report by an investment firm that, on average, the franchising process, as it currently operates, delays entry by 8-16 months.61 The record generally supports that estimate. For example, Verizon had 113 franchise negotiations underway as of the end of March 2005. By the end of March 2006, LFAs had granted only 10 of those franchises. In other words,more than 90%of the negotiations were not completed within one year.62 Verizon noted that delays are often caused by mandatory waiting periods.63 BellSouth explained that negotiations took an average of 10 months for each of its 20 cable franchise agreements,64 and that in one case,the negotiations took nearly three years 65 AT&T claims that anti-competitive conditions, such as level-playing-field constraints and LFA demands regarding build-out, not only delay entry but can prevent it altogether.66 BellSouth notes that absent such demands (in Georgia, for example), the 58 Qwest Reply at 13-14;USTelecom Ex Parte at 17-18. 59 Verizon Comments at 31-34;AT&T Reply at 22-23;BellSouth Comments at 10;Cavalier Telephone Comments at 1. See also Mercatus Center Comments at 39-43. 6°See, e.g., DOJ Ex Parte at 3 61 FTTH Council Comments at 26. 62 Verizon Reply Comments at 35. These figures do not include Verizon's franchise applications in Texas,which now authorizes statewide franchises. See supra para. 16. 63 Verizon Comments at 31-32. 64 BellSouth Comments at 2. 65 BellSouth Comments at 11. BellSouth's franchise in Cobb County,Ga.took approximately 32 months to obtain; its franchises in Davie, Fla. and Orange County, Fla. took 29 and 28 months, respectively. BellSouth Comments Decl.of Thompson T.Rawls,II,Exh.A. 66 AT&T Reply at 6. 11 Federal Communications Commission FCC 06-180 company's applications were granted quickly.67 Most of Ameritech's franchise negotiations likewise took a number of years 68 New entrants other than the large incumbent local exchange carriers("LECs")69 also have experienced delays in the franchising process. NTCA provided an example of a small, competitive IPTV provider that is in ongoing negotiations that began more than one year ago.70 23. These delays are particularly unreasonable when, as is often the case, the applicant already has access to rights-of-way. One of the primary justifications for cable franchising is the LFA's need to regulate and receive compensation for the use of public rights-of-way.71 However, when considering a franchise application from an entity that already has rights-of-way access, such as an incumbent LEC, an LFA need not and should not devote substantial attention to issues of rights-of-way management.' Moreover, in obtaining a certificate for public convenience and necessity from a state, a facilities-based provider generally has demonstrated its legal, technical, and financial fitness to be a provider of telecommunications services. Thus, an LFA need not spend a significant amount of time considering the fitness of such applicants to access public rights-of-way. 24. Delays in acting on franchise applications are especially onerous because franchise applications are rarely denied outright,73 which would enable applicants to seek judicial review under Section 635.74 Rather, negotiations are often drawn out over an extended period of time.75 As a result, 67 BellSouth Reply at 7. 68 AT&T Reply at 24. 69 The term "local exchange carrier" means any person that is engaged in the provision of telephone exchange service or exchange access. 47 U.S.C.§ 153(26). For the purposes of Section 251 of the Communications Act,"the teen `incumbent local exchange carrier' means,with respect to an area,the local exchange carrier that(A) on the date of enactment of the Telecommunications Act of 1996,provided telephone exchange service in such area; and (B)(i)on such date of enactment,was deemed to be a member of the exchange carrier association...;or(B)(ii)is a person or entity that,on or after such date of enactment,became a successor or assign of a member[of the exchange carrier association]." 47 U.S.C. §251(h)(1)." A competitive LEC is any LEC other than an incumbent LEC. A LEC will be treated as an ILEC if "(A) such carrier occupies a position in the market for telephone exchange service within an area that is comparable to the position occupied by a carrier described in paragraph[251(h)](1); (B)such carrier has substantially replaced an incumbent local exchange carrier described in paragraph[251(h)](1); and(C) such treatment is consistent with the public interest, convenience, and necessity and the purposes of this section." 47 U.S.C.§251(h)(2). 70 NTCA Comments at 4, 10. 71 We note that certain franchising authorities may have existing authority to regulate LECs through state and local rights-of-way statutes and ordinances. 72 Recognizing this distinction, some states have enacted or proposed streamlined franchising procedures specifically tailored to entities with existing access to public rights-of-way. See, e.g.,VIRGINIA CODE ANN. § 15.2- 2108.1:1 et seq.); HF-2647, 2006 Sess. (Iowa 2006) (this proposed legislation would grant franchises to all telephone providers authorized to use the right-of-way without any application or negotiation requirement). See also South Slope Comments at 11 (duplicative local franchising requirements imposed on a competitor with existing authority to occupy the rights-of-way are unjustified and constitute an unreasonable barrier to competitive video entry). 73 See Northwest Suburbs Cable Communications Commission Comments at 5-6 (rare instance of competitive franchise denial). 74 See 47 U.S.C.§§541(a)(1),555(a). 75 See Verizon Comments at 30-34; Verizon Reply Comments at 2, 34-37; AT&T Reply Comments at 24; NTCA Comments at 4, 10. 12 Federal Communications Commission FCC 06-180 the record shows that numerous new entrants have accepted franchise terms they considered unreasonable in order to avoid further delay.76 Others have filed lawsuits seeking a court order compelling the LFA to act, which entails additional delay, legal uncertainty, and great expense.77 Alternatively, some prospective entrants have walked away from unduly prolonged negotiations.78 Moreover, delays provide the incumbent cable operator the.opportunity to launch targeted marketing campaigns before the competitor's rollout,thus undermining a competitor's prospects for success.79 25. Despite this evidence, incumbent cable operators and LFAs nevertheless assert that new entrants can obtain and are obtaining franchises in a timely fashion,80 and that delays are largely due to unreasonable behavior on the part of franchise applicants, not LFAs.81 For example, Minnesota LFAs claim that they can grant a franchise in as little as eight weeks.B2 The record, however, shows that expeditious grants of competitive franchises are atypical. Most LFAs lack any temporal limits for 76 See, e.g., USTelecom Ex Parte at 20(Grand Rapids,Minnesota insisted that Paul Bunyan Telephone Cooperative provide fiber connections to every municipal building in the City, including a water treatment plant); Qwest Ex Parte at 7 (initially agreed to mandatory build-out provisions in certain situations); BellSouth Comments at 15-16 (in Dekalb County, Georgia, BellSouth makes PEG payments and I-Net support payments that drive total fees significantly above 5 percent of gross revenue). 77 For example, in Maryland, Verizon filed suit against Montgomery County, seeking to invalidate some of the County's franchise rules, and requesting that the County be required to negotiate a franchise agreement, after the parties unsuccessfully attempted to negotiate a franchise beginning in May 2005. See Complaint,. Verizon Maryland, Inc. v. Montgomery County, Md., No. 06-01663-MJG (N.D. Md. June 29, 2006). The court denied Verizon's Motion for Preliminary Injunction in August, and ordered the parties to mediation. See Verizon Maryland,Inc.v.Montgomery County,Md.,Order,No.06-01663-MJG(N.D.Md.August 8,2006). Since then,the parties have negotiated a franchise agreement and the County held a public hearing on the draft franchise agreement. See Press Release, Montgomery County, Md., County Negotiates Cable Franchise Agreement with Verizon; Agreement Resolves Litigation, Provides Increased Competition for Cable Service (Sept. 13, 2006) available at http://www.montgomervcountvmd.gov/apps/News/nress/PR details.asn?PrID=2582. The County Council granted the negotiated franchise on November 28,2006. Neil Adler,Montgomery officials approve Verizon cable franchise, WASHINGTON BUSINESS JOURNAL, Nov. 28, .2006, available at http://washington.bizjournals.com/ washington/stories/2006/11/27/daily23.html. Qwest's experience with the City of Colorado Springs, Colorado is a particularly onerous example. See Letter from Melissa E.Newman,Vice President,Federal Regulatory, Qwest,to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, Federal Communications Commission (June 13, 2006), Letter from Kenneth L. Fellman, Counsel to Colorado Springs, Colorado, to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, Federal Communications Commission(July 26,2006). The city charter in Colorado Springs requires that a franchise agreement be approved by voters rather than a franchising authority. Despite the fact that the Communications Act and federal case law deem this approach unlawful, the Colorado Springs City Counsel would not grant a franchise absent a vote, and invited Qwest to file a"friendly lawsuit"(presumably at Qwest's expense)to invalidate that provision of the city charter. 47 U.S.C. §§ 522(10), 541, Qwest Broadband Services, Inc. v. City of Boulder, 151 F.Supp.2d 1236 (D. Colo. 2001), Letter from Melissa E. Newman, Vice President, Federal Regulatory, Qwest, to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary,Federal Communications Commission at 2(June 13,2006). 78 See Qwest Comments at 9. 79 See, e.g.,South Slope Comments at 7. 80 Cablevision Reply at 5; Orange County Comments at 5; Palm Beach County Comments at 3. See Comcast Comments at 8-9. 81 Comcast Comments at 16; Cablevision Reply at 2. The incumbent cable operators accuse Verizon of making unreasonable demands through its model franchise. Verizon asserts that it submits a model franchise to begin negotiations because uniformity is necessary for its nationwide service deployment. Verizon Reply at 40. Verizon states that it is willing to negotiate and tailor the model franchise to each locality's needs. Id. 82 LMC Comments at 18. 13 Federal Communications Commission FCC 06-180 franchises in a timely manner.98 Charter claims that it secured franchises and upgraded its systems in a highly competitive market and that the incumbent LECs possess sufficient resources to do the same.99 BellSouth notes,however,that Charter does not indicate a single instance in which it obtained a franchise through an initial negotiation, rather than a transfer.10° Comcast argues that it faces competition from cable overbuilders in several markets.101 The record is scant and inconsistent, however, with respect to overbuilder experiences in obtaining franchises, and thus does not provide reliable evidence. BellSouth also claims that,despite RCN's claims that the franchising process has worked in other proceedings,RCN previously has painted a less positive picture of the process and has called it a high barrier to entry.102 Given these facts, we do not believe that the experiences cited by incumbent cable operators shed any significant light on the current operation of the franchising process with respect to competitive entrants. 31. Impact of Build-Out Requirements. The record shows that build-out issues are one of the most contentious between LFAs and prospective new entrants, and that build-out requirements can greatly hinder the deployment of new video and broadband services. New and potential entrants commented extensively on the adverse impact of build-out requirements on their deployment plans.103 Large incumbent LECs,104 small and mid-sized incumbent LECs,105 competitive LECs106 and others view build-out requirements as the most significant obstacle to their plans to deploy competitive video and broadband services. Similarly, consumer groups and the U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division, (Continued from previous page) Competition Act of 1992, Statistical Report on Average Prices for Basic Service, Cable Programming Services, and Equipment,20 FCC Rcd 2718,2719 n.6(2005). 98 Cablevision Reply at 6. Comcast states that the overbuilder industry as a whole has more than 16 million households under active franchise and two million households under franchise in anticipation of future network build-outs. Comcast Comments at 5-6(citing Broadband Service Providers Association Comments,MB Docket No. 05-255,at 7(filed Sept. 19,2005)). 99 Charter Comments at 4. Specifically, Charter states that it entered the cable market in earnest in the late 1990s and has spent the last five years investing billions of dollars to upgrade its cable systems and deploy advanced broadband services in more than 4,000 communities. Charter Comments at 2. During Charter's peak period of growth,it secured over 2,000 franchise transfers with LFAs and invested several billion dollars to upgrade systems, all while subject to significant competition from DBS. Charter Comments at 5. 100 BellSouth Reply at 11. 1°1 Comcast Comments at 4-5. 102 BellSouth Reply at 13(citing RCN's petition to deny the AT&T/Comcast merger application). 103 See, e.g., Qwest Comments at 2; Cincinnati Bell Comments at 10-11; South Slope Comments at 7-9; NTCA Comments at 6-7; Cavalier Telephone Comments at 5; BSPA Comments at 6. See also Letter from Lawrence Spiwak,President,Phoenix Ctr. for Advanced Legal and Econ. Pub.Policy Studies,to Marlene Dortch, Secretary, Federal Communications Commission, at Att., Phoenix Center Policy Paper Number 22: The Consumer Welfare Cost of Cable "Build-out"Rules,at 3("build-out requirements are,on average,counterproductive and serve to slow down deployment of communications networks")(March 13,2006)("Phoenix Center Build-Out Paper"). 104 Qwest Comments at 2. 105 Cincinnati Bell Comments at 10-11; South Slope Comments at 7-9;NTCA Comments at 6-7(because the risk is great,the service provided by the new entrants must be guided by sound business principles; forcing a new entrant to build out an entire area before such action is financially justified is tantamount to forcing that entrant out of the video business);USTelecom Ex Parte at 8-11. 106 Cavalier Telephone Comments at 5; BSPA Comments at 6 (a number of competitive franchises have been renegotiated or converted to OVS because the operator could not comply with unreasonable and uneconomic build- out requirements). 16 • • Federal Communications Commission FCC 06-180 urge the Commission to address this aspect of the current franchising process in order to speed competitive entry.107 32. The record demonstrates that build-out requirements can substantially reduce competitive entry.mg Numerous commenters urge the Commission to prohibit LFAs from imposing any build-out requirements, and particularly universal build-out requirements.109 They argue that imposition of such mandates, rather than resulting in the increased service throughout the franchise area that LFAs desire, will cause potential new entrants to simply refrain from entering the market at al1.110 They argue that even build-out provisions that do not require deployment throughout an entire franchise area may prevent a prospective new entrant from offering service.l 11 33. The record contains numerous examples of build-out requirements at the local level that resulted in delayed entry, no entry, or failed entry. A consortium of California communities demanded that Verizon build out to every household in each community before Verizon would be allowed to offer service to any community, even though large parts of the communities fell outside of Verizon's telephone service area.112 Furthermore, Qwest has withdrawn franchise applications in eight communities due to build-out requirements.113 In each case, Qwest determined that entering into a franchise agreement that mandates universal build-out would not be economically feasible.14 1°7 See MMTC Comments at 13-24; Consumers for Cable Choice Comments at 8; DOJ Ex Parte at 12-13, 15 (stating that build-out requirements lead to abandonment of entry,less efficient competition,or higher prices). 1°8 See, e.g., USTelecom Comments at 24 (citing example of Shenandoah Telecommunications, which cannot provide service to an entire county, and thus cannot provide service at all). See also Phoenix Center Build-Out Paper at 1,3;DOJ Ex Parte at 12-13, 15. 1°9 See, e.g.,Alcatel Comments at 10-11;AT&T Comments at 44;BellSouth Reply at 6;NTCA Comments at 6. "°See, e.g.,AT&T Comments at 44;Qwest Comments at 2;Ad Hoc Telecom Manufacturer Coalition Comments at 5;DOJ Ex Parte at 12-13, 15. 111 Not all new entrants to the video market with existing telecommunications facilities are engaging in the upgrades to which Verizon and AT&T have committed. Cavalier Telephone, for example, is delivering IPTV over copper lines. Such delivery is limited,however,by ADSL-2 technology. Cavalier Telephone argues that it is unreasonable to require that it become capable of providing service to all households in a franchise area, which would require Cavalier Telephone to dig up rights-of-way and install duplicative facilities,which it has specifically sought to avoid doing by virtue of relying on the unbundled local loop. Cavalier Telephone Comments at 5. Similarly,Guadalupe Valley Telephone Cooperative (GVTC) could not deploy service in the face of differing build-out requirements across jurisdictions. See AT&T Reply at 37. Once Texas's new statewide franchising law went into effect, however, deployment became economically feasible for GVTC. See id. See also Phoenix Center Build-out Paper at 1, 3, 4 (build-out rules can significantly increase the costs of a new video entrant, and are actually counter- productive, serving primarily to deter new video entry and slow down deployment of communications networks); Phoenix Center Redlining Paper at 3 (even when build-out requirements are applied to new entrants altruistically, the requirements can be self-defeating and often erect insurmountable barriers to entry for new firms);BSPA at 4 (When a new network operator is forced to comply with a build-out that is equal to the existing incumbent cable footprint,it is forced to a build on a timeframe and in geographic areas where the cost to build and customer density will likely produce an economic loss for both network operators.), DOJ Ex Parte at 12-13, 15. 112 Verizon Comments at 41-42. Before the new statewide legislation, a Texas community had made the same request. 13 See Qwest Comments at 9. "4 Id.at 10. 17 Federal Communications Commission FCC 06-180 34. In many instances, level-playing-field provisions in local laws or franchise agreements compel LFAs to impose on competitors the same build-out requirements that apply to the incumbent cable operator.15 Cable operators use threatened or actual litigation against LFAs to enforce level- playing-field requirements and have successfully delayed entry or driven would-be competitors out of town.16 Even in the absence of level-playing-field requirements,incumbent cable operators demand that LFAs impose comparable build-out requirements on competitors to increase the financial burden and risk for the new entrant."7 35. Build-out requirements can deter market entry because a new entrant generally must take customers from the incumbent cable operator,and thus must focus its efforts in areas where the take-rate will be sufficiently high to make economic sense. Because the second provider realistically cannot count on acquiring a share of the market similar to the incumbent's share, the second entrant cannot justify a large initial deployment.'" Rather, a new entrant must begin offering service within a smaller area to determine whether it can reasonably ensure a return on its investment before expanding.19 For example, Verizon has expressed significant concerns about deploying service in areas heavily populated with MDUs already under exclusive contract with another MVPD.120 Due to the risk associated with entering the video market, forcing new entrants to agree up front to build out an entire franchise area too quickly may be tantamount to forcing them out of—or precluding their entry into—the business.121 36. In many cases, build-out requirements also adversely affect consumer welfare. DOJ noted that imposing uneconomical build-out requirements results in less efficient competition and.the potential for higher prices.122 Non-profit research organizations the Mercatus Center and the Phoenix Center argue that build-out requirements reduce consumer welfare.123 Each conclude that build-out 15 See, e.g., GMTC Comments at 15; Philadelphia Reply at 2; FTTH Council at 33-34; US Telecom at 30-31; TCCFUI Comments at 11, 15. 116 BSPA Comments at 5-6; BellSouth Comments at 44; Verizon Comments at 33-34(noting that some LFAs are requesting indemnification from competitive applicants). For example, Insight Communications filed suit against the City of Louisville and Knology. Although the LFA and Knology ultimately won,the delay resulted in Knology declining to enter that market. BSPA Comments at 5-6. 117 See AT&T Comments at 51. 118 Qwest Comments at 8. 19 FTTH Council Comments at 33-34. Ito Verizon Reply at 70-71. 121 NTCA Comments at 7. See also DOJ Ex Parte at 12-13, 15; FTTH Council Comments at 29 (competitive entrants face a riskier investment than incumbents faced when they entered;moreover,incumbent firms have market power in the video market, their customers have little choice, and their costs can be spread over a large base, whereas new entrants do not have this same advantage). Although it is sometimes possible to renegotiate a build-out requirement if the new entrant cannot meet it, in many cases the LFA imposes substantial penalties for failure to meet a build-out requirement. See Anne Arundel County et al. Comments at 4,FTTH Council Comments at 34 (citing Grande Communications franchise agreement establishing penalty of$2,000 per day);Letter from Melissa E. Newman, Vice President-Federal Regulatory, Qwest, to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, Federal Communications Commission,(Apr.26,2006),Attachment at 7 ("Qwest Ex Parte"). 122 Id at 13. 123 Mercatus Center Comments at 39-41; Phoenix Center Build-Out Paper at 1; Letter from Stephen Pociask, President, American Consumer Institute, to Marlene Dortch, Secretary, Federal Communications Commission (March 3,2006). 18 Federal Communications Commission FCC 06-180 requirements imposed on competitive cable entrants only benefit an incumbent cable operator.124 The Mercatus Center, citing data from the FCC and GAO indicating that customers with a choice of cable providers enjoy lower rates, argues that, to the extent that build-out requirements deter entry,they result in fewer customers having a choice of providers and a resulting reduction in rates.125 The Phoenix Center study contends that build-out requirements deter entry and conflict with federal, state, and local government goals of rapid broadband deployment.126 Another research organization, the American Consumer Institute (ACI), concluded that build-out requirements are inefficient: if a cable competitor initially serves only one neighborhood in a community,and a few consumers in this neighborhood benefit from the competition, total welfare in the community improves because no consumer was made worse and some consumers (those who can subscribe to the competitive service) were made better.127 In comparison,requirements that deter competitive entry may make some consumers(those who would have been able to subscribe to the competitive service) worse off.128 In many instances, placing build-out conditions on competitive entrants harms consumers and competition because it increases the cost of cable service.129 Qwest commented that, in those communities it has not entered due to build-out requirements, consumers have been deprived of the likely benefit of lower prices as the result of competition from a second cable provider.130 This claim is supported by the Commission's 2005 annual cable price survey, in which the Commission observed that average monthly cable rates varied markedly depending on the presence — and type — of MVPD competition in the local market. The greatest difference occurred where there was wireline overbuild competition, where average monthly cable rates were 20.6 percent lower than the average for markets deemed noncompetitive.131 37. For these reasons,we disagree with LFAs and incumbent cable operators who argue that unlimited local flexibility to impose build-out requirements, including universal build-out of a franchise area, is essential to promote competition in the delivery of video programming and ensure a choice in 124 See id. 125 Mercatus Center Comments at 41. The Mercatus Center bases this assertion on the evidence that cable rate regulation does not affect cable rates significantly, which suggests that cable providers are not subsidizing less- profitable areas with the returns from more-profitable areas. Id 126 Phoenix Center Build-Out Paper at 1. 127 ACI Comments at 7. 128 AT&T Comments at 48 (citing Thomas Hazlett & George Ford, The Fallacy of Regulatory Symmetry: An Economic Analysis of the "Level Playing Field"in Cable TV Franchising Statutes,3 BUSINESS AND POLITICS issue 1,at 25-26(2001)). 129 AT&T Comments at 48 (citing Thomas Hazlett & George Ford, The Fallacy of Regulatory Symmetry: An Economic Analysis of the "Level Playing Field"in Cable TV Franchising Statutes,3 BUSINESS AND POLITICS issue 1,at 25-26(2001)). 130 Qwest Comments at 10. 13' Implementation of Section 3 of the Cable Television Consumer Protection and Competition Act of 1992: Statistical Report on Average Rates for Basic Service, Cable Programming Service, and Equipment,MM Docket. No.92-266,FCC 06-179,para. 12(rel.Dec.27,2006)("2005 Cable Price Survey"). See also Annual Assessment of the Status of Competition in the Market for the Delivery of Video Programming,20 FCC Rcd 2755,2772-73 (2005) ("2005 Video Competition Report"). 19 Federal Communications Commission FCC 06-180 providers for every household.132 In many cases,build-out requirements may have precisely the opposite effects—they deter competition and deny consumers a choice. 38. Although incumbent LECs already have telecommunications facilities deployed over large areas, build-out requirements may nonetheless be a formidable barrier to entry for them for two reasons. First,incumbent LECs must upgrade their existing plant to enable the provision of video service, which often costs billions of dollars. Second, as the Commission stated in the Local Franchising NPRM, the boundaries of the areas served by facilities-based providers of telephone and/or broadband services frequently do not coincide with the boundaries of the areas under the jurisdiction of the relevant LFAs.'33 In some cases,a potential new entrant's service area comprises only a portion of the area under the LFA's jurisdiction.'34 When LECs are required to build out where they have no existing plant,the business case for market entry is significantly weakened because their deployment costs are substantially increased. 135 In other cases, a potential new entrant's facilities may already cover most or all of the franchise area,but certain economic realities prevent or deter the provider from upgrading certain"wire center service areas" within its overall service area.136 For example, some wire center service areas may encompass a disproportionate level of business locations or multi-dwelling units ("MDUs") with MVPD exclusive contracts.137 New entrants argue that the imposition of build-out requirements in either circumstance creates a disincentive for them to enter the marketplace.13S 132 State of Hawaii Reply Comments at 4-5; Ada Township, et al Comments at 8-9; Manatee County, Fla. Comments at 19; Burnsville/Eagan Reply Comments at 19-20; New Jersey Board of Public Utilities Comments at 11-12. 133 Local Franchising NPRM,20 FCC Rcd at para.618595. 134 See NTCA Comments at 15; South Slope Comments at 8-9 (mandatory build-out of entire franchise areas unreasonably impedes competitive entry where entrants' proposed service area is not located entirely within an LFA-defined local franchise area). 135 See, e.g.,FTTH Council Comments at 33-34;South Slope Comments at 8-9;NTCA Comments at 15;BellSouth Reply at 25. BellSouth has a franchise to serve unincorporated Cherokee County, Ga., but the geographic area of this franchise is much larger than the boundaries of BellSouth's wire center. Id. BellSouth faces a similar issue in Orange County, Fla. Id. See also Linda Haugsted,Franchise War in Texas, MULTICHANNEL NEWS, May 2, 2005 (noting that, although Verizon had negotiated successfully a cable franchise with the City of Keller,Texas,"it will not build out all of Keller: It only has telephone plant in 80% of the community. SBC serves the rest of the locality."). NTCA states that theoretically the incumbent LEC could extend its facilities,but to do so within another provider's incumbent LEC territory would require an incumbent LEC to make a financially significant business decision,solely for purposes of providing video programming. See NTCA Comments at 15. 136 See Letter from Leora Hochstein, Executive Director, Federal Regulatory, Verizon, to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary,FCC,MB Docket No.05-311 at 3(filed May 3,2006).In this Order we use"wire center service area"to mean the geographic area served by a wire center as defined in Part 51 of the Commission's rules, except wire centers that have no line-side functionality, such as switching units that exclusively interconnect trunks. See 47 C.F.R. § 51.5. See also Unbundled Access to Network Elements: Review of the Section 251 Unbundling Obligations of Incumbent Local Exchange Carriers, 20 FCC Rcd 2533, 2586 (2005), para. 87 n.251 ("Triennial Review Remand Order") ("By 'wire center,' we mean any incumbent LEC switching office that terminates and aggregates loop facilities"). The Commission's rules defme "wire center"to mean"the location of an incumbent LEC local switching facility containing one or more central offices as defined in Part 36 [of the Commission's rules]. The wire center boundaries define the area in which all customers served by a given wire center are located." 47 C.F.R. §51.5. The term"wire center"is often used interchangeably with the term"central office." Technically, the wire center is the location where a LEC terminates subscriber local loops, along with the facilities necessary to maintain them. 137 New entrants also point out that some wire center service areas are low in population density (measured by homes per cable plant mile). The record suggests,however, that LFAs generally have not required franchisees to (continued...) 20 Federal Communications Commission FCC 06-180 39. Incumbent cable operators assert that new entrants' claims are exaggerated, and that, in most cases,LEC facilities are coterminous with municipal boundaries.139 The evidence submitted by new entrants, however, convincingly shows that inconsistencies between the geographic boundaries of municipalities and the network footprints of telephone companies are commonplace.140 The cable industry has adduced no contrary evidence. The fact that few LFAs argued that non-coterminous boundaries are a problem141 is not sufficient to contradict the incumbent LECs' evidence.'42 40. Based on the record as a whole, we find that build-out requirements imposed by LFAs can constitute unreasonable barriers to entry for competitive applicants. Indeed,the record indicates that because potential competitive entrants to the cable market may not be able to economically justify build- out of an entire local franchising area immediately,143 these requirements can have the effect of granting de facto exclusive franchises,in direct contravention of Section 621(a)(1)'s prohibition of exclusive cable franchises.'44 41. Besides thwarting potential new entrants' deployment of video services and depriving consumers of reduced prices and increased choice,145 build-out mandates imposed by LFAs also may directly contravene the goals of Section 706 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996,which requires the Commission to "remov[e] barriers to infrastructure investment" to encourage the deployment of broadband services "on a reasonable and timely basis.s146 We agree with AT&T that Section 706, in (Continued from previous page) provide service in low-density areas. See, e.g., Madison, WI Comments at 4(limiting build-out to areas with 40 dwelling units per cable mile);Renton,WA Comments at 3(limiting build-out to 35 dwelling units per mile);West Palm Beach, Fla. Comments at 11 (limiting build-out to areas with 20 homes per mile). Nevertheless, density is likely to be of greater concern to a new entrant than to an incumbent cable operator,because the new entrant has to lure customers from the incumbent cable operator,and therefore cannot count on serving as many of the customers in a cable plant mile. 138 BSPA Comments at 5(when the footprint of an existing system does not match the territory of an LFA,build-out requirements restrict the growth of competition that could be created by incremental expansion of existing networks into adjacent territories because the operator must have the financial means to build out the entire adjacent franchise area before commencing any build-out);NTCA Comments at 15 (requiring small,rural incumbent LECs to deploy service beyond their existing telephone service areas would prohibit some carriers from offering video services to any community,thereby preventing competition). See also DOJ Ex Parte at 12-13,15. 139 See Cablevision Reply at 16-17;Charter Reply at 8. '4°See BSPA Comments at 5;South Slope Comments at 8-9;NTCA Comments at 15. 141 Comcast Reply at 21 (citing comments of NATOA and Torrance,Cal.). 142 Compare Tele Atlas Wire Center Premium v10.1 (April 2006) Maps for Bergen County, NJ and Los Angeles, Ca. and surrounding areas with The BRIDGE Data Group CableBounds Maps for Bergen County, NJ and Los Angeles, Ca. and surrounding areas (filed by the Media Bureau), available at http://gullfoss2.fcc.gov/prod/ecfs/retrieve.cgi?native or_pdf-pdf&iddocument-6518618170, http://gullfoss2.fcc.gov/prod/ecfs/retrieve.cgi?native_or_pdf=pdf&id_document=6518618171. 143 See FTTH Council Comments at 32;NTCA Comments at 7;Qwest Comments at'2,8;Verizon Comments at 39- 40. 144 47 U.S.C.§544(a)(1). 145 See Annual Assessment of the Status of Competition in the Market for the Delivery of Video Programming,MB Docket No. 05-255, Twelfth Annual Report, FCC 06-11, at If41 (rel. Mar. 3, 2006) (noting that overbuild competition,when present,often leads to lower cable rates and higher quality service). 146 Section 706 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996,47 U.S.C. § 157 nt. 21 Federal Communications Commission FCC 06-180 conjunction with Section 621(a)(1),requires us to prevent LFAs from adversely affecting the deployment of broadband services through cable regulation.147 42. We do not find persuasive incumbent cable operators' claims that build-out should necessarily be required for new entrants into the video market because of certain obligations faced by cable operators in their deployment of voice services. To the extent cable operators believe they face undue regulatory obstacles to providing voice services,they should make that point in other proceedings, not here. In any event, commenters generally agree that the record indicates that the investment that a competitive cable provider must make to deploy video in a particular geographic area far outweighs the cost of the additional facilities that a cable operator must install to deploy voice service.148 43. LFA Demands Unrelated to the Provision of Video Services. Many commenters recounted franchise negotiation experiences in which LFAs made unreasonable demands unrelated to the provision of video services. Verizon, for example, described several communities that made unreasonable requests, such as the purchase of street lights, wiring for all houses of worship, the installation of cell phone towers, cell phone subsidies for town employees, library parking at Verizon's facilities, connection of 220 traffic signals with fiber optics, and provision of free wireless broadband service in an area in which Verizon's subsidiary does not offer such service.'49 In Maryland, some localities conditioned a franchise upon Verizon's agreement to make its data services subject to local customer service regulation.150 AT&T provided examples of impediments that Ameritech New Media faced when it entered the market, including a request for a new recreation center and poo1.151 FTTH 147 AT&T Comments at 45. See also infra para.63. '48 See NTCA Comments at 7;Verizon Reply at 54-55;American Consumer Institute Comments at 7;Review of the Section 251 Unbundling Obligations of Incumbent Local Exchange Carriers, 18 FCC Rcd 16978, 17142-17143 (2003) ("Triennial Review Order"); See also High Tech Broadband Coalition Comments at 4-5 (fiber-to-the-home deployment increased 5300 percent since the Triennial Review Order,due in large part to the elimination of barriers to entry in that Order). 149 Verizon Comments at 57 &Attachment A at 16-17. The Wall Street Journal reported"[Tampa, Florida] City officials presented [Verizon] with a $13 million wish list, including money for an emergency communications network, digital editing equipment and video cameras to film a math-tutoring program for kids." Another community presented Verizon with "requests for seed money for wildflowers and a video hookup for Christmas celebrations."Dionne Searcey,As Verizon Enters Cable Business, it Faces Local Static,WALL ST.J.,Oct.28,2005, at Al. But see Verizon Comments at 65,filed February 13,2006(stating that"one franchising authority in Florida demanded that Verizon meet the incumbent cable operator's cumulative payments for PEG,which would exceed$6 million over 15 years of Verizon's proposed franchise term. When Verizon rejected this demand,the LFA doubled its request, asking for a fee in excess of$13 million that it said would be used for both PEG support and the construction of a redundant institutional network."); Verizon Revised Comments, filed March 6, 2006 at 65 (amending the second sentence of their comments above,in response to a request from the City of Tampa,to state that "[w]hen Verizon rejected this demand and asked for an explanation, the LFA provided a summary `needs assessment' in excess of$13 million for both PEG support."); Tampa Reply at 3-4 (noting that Verizon's errata "clarified that the City of Tampa has not demanded Verizon provide$13.5 million dollars as a condition of granting a cable television franchise,"and calling the Wall Street Journal article assertions an"urban legend");John Dunbar, FCC's Cable TV Ruling Criticized,ASSOCIATED PRESS,Jan.29,2007(stating that"[The Tampa City Attorney]said Tampa gave Verizon a$13 million`needs assessment'that was required by law in order to obtain contributions for equipment for public access and government channels"and also quoting the City Attorney saying that"it is possible the `needs assessment' included video cameras to film shows such as the math class, but that there was never 'a specific quid pro quo.'Nor was anything like that mentioned in the franchise agreement."). 'So Verizon Comments at 75. 151 AT&T Comments at 24. 22 Federal Communications Commission FCC 06-180 Council highlighted Grande Communications' experience in San Antonio, which required that Grande Communications make an up-front,$1 million franchise fee payment and fund a$50,000 scholarship with additional annual contributions of$7,200.152 The record demonstrates that LFA demands unrelated to cable service typically are not counted toward the statutory 5 percent cap on franchise fees, but rather imposed on franchisees in addition to assessed franchise fees.153 Based on this record evidence, we are convinced that LFA requests for unreasonable concessions are not isolated,and that these requests impose undue burdens upon potential cable providers. 44. Assessment of Franchise Fees. The record establishes that unreasonable demands over franchise fee issues also contribute to delay in franchise negotiations at the local level and hinder competitive entry.154 Fee issues include not only which franchise-related costs imposed on providers should be included within the 5 percent statutory franchise fee cap established in Section 622(b),155 but also the proper calculation of franchise fees(i.e.,the revenue base from which the 5 percent is calculated). In Virginia,municipalities have requested large"acceptance fees"upon grant of a franchise,in addition to franchise fees.156 Other LFAs have requested consultant and attorneys' fees.157 Several Pennsylvania localities have requested franchise fees based on cable and non-cable revenues.158 Some commenters assert that an obligation to provide anything of value, including PEG costs, should apply toward the franchise fee obligation.'59 45. The parties indicate that the lack of clarity with respect to assessment of franchise fees impedes deployment of new video programming facilities and services for three reasons. First, some LFAs make unreasonable demands regarding franchise fees as a condition of awarding a competitive franchise. Second, new entrants cannot reasonably determine the costs of entry in any particular community. Accordingly, they may delay or refrain from entering a market because the cost of entry is unclear and market viability cannot be projected.'6° Third,a new entrant must negotiate these terms prior to obtaining a franchise,which can take a considerable amount of time. Thus,unreasonable demands by some LFAs effectively creates an unreasonable barrier to entry. 46. PEG and I-Net Requirements. Negotiations over PEG and I-Nets also contribute to delays in the franchising process. In response to the Local Franchising NPRM, we received numerous comments asking for clarification of what requirements LFAs reasonably may impose on franchisees to 152 FTTH Council Comments at 38. 153 BSPA Comments at 8. BSPA argues that under the current franchising process, LFAs are able to bargain for capital payments to use on infrastructure needs when LFAs should use the capital to benefit consumers. BSPA. claims that LFAs use the capital to build and maintain I-Nets, city broadcasting facilities, and traffic light control systems. Id. '54 See, e.g.,AT&T Comments at 64-67;BellSouth Comments at 38-40;Cavalier Telephone Comments at 7;FTTH Council Comments at 38-40. But see NATOA Reply at 27-35. 155 47 U.S.C.§542(b). 156 Verizon Comments at 59. 157 Id.at 59-60. 158 Id.at 63. '59 AT&T Comments at 65-67;BellSouth Comments at 39. 16°AT&T Reply at 31-32. 23 Federal Communications Commission FCC 06-180 sufficient to undermine the business plan for profitable entry in a given community,thereby undercutting the possibility of competition.18' 50. Benefits of Cable Competition. We further agree with new entrants that reform of the operation of the franchise process is necessary and appropriate to achieve increased video competition and broadband deployment.182 The record demonstrates that new cable competition reduces rates far more than competition from DBS. Specifically, the presence of a second cable operator in a market results in rates approximately 15 percent lower than in areas without competition—about$5 per month.183 The magnitude of the rate decreases caused by wireline cable competition is corroborated by the rates charged in Keller, Texas, where the price for Verizon's"Everything"package is 13 percent below that of the incumbent cable operator, and in Pinellas County,Florida, where Knology is the overbuilder and the incumbent cable operator's rates are $10-15 lower than in neighboring areas where it faces no competition.'" 51. We also conclude that broadband deployment and video entry are"inextricably linked" 85 and that,because the current operation of the franchising process often presents an unreasonable bather to entry for the provision of video services, it necessarily hampers deployment of broadband services.'86 The record demonstrates that broadband deployment is not profitable without the ability to compete with the bundled services that cable companies provide.187 As the Phoenix Center explains, "the more potential revenues that the network can generate in a household,the more likely it is the network will be 181 Mercatus Comments at 46. 182 Verizon Reply at 5-8. See also DOJ Ex Parte at 1,3. 183 FTTH Council Comments at 13. See also U.S.General Accountability Office,Subscriber Rates and Competition in the Cable Television Industry,GAO-04-262T(Mar. 2004)("[S]ubscribers in areas with a wire-based competitor had monthly cable rates about $5 lower, on average, than subscribers in similar areas without a wire-based competitor. Our interviews with cable operators also revealed that these companies generally lower rates and/or improve customer service where a wire-based competitor is present");U.S.General Accounting Office,GAO-04-8, Issues Related to Competition and Subscriber Rates in the Cable Television Industry, Report to the Chairman, Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation,U.S. Senate(2003) ("2003 GAO Report")at 3 (noting that cable rates are about 15 percent lower in markets where wireline competition is present),and at 10(estimating that with an average monthly cable rate of approximately $34 that year, subscribers in areas with a wire-based competitor had monthly cable rates about$5 lower,on average,than subscribers in areas without such a competitor); U.S. General Accounting Office,GAO-03-130,Issues in Providing Cable and Satellite Television Services,Report to the Subcommittee on Antitrust, Competition, and Business and Consumer Rights, Committee on the Judiciary, U.S. Senate (2002) ("2002 GAO Report') at 9 (noting that in franchise areas with a second cable provider, cable prices are approximately 17 percent lower than in comparable areas without a second cable provider). See also Annual Assessment of the Status of Competition in the Market for the Delivery of Video Programming,MB Docket No. 05-255, Twelfth Annual Report, FCC 06-11, at para. 41 (rel. Mar. 3, 2006) and 2005 Cable Price Survey at paras. 2, 14 (noting that cable prices are 17 percent lower and decrease substantially when wireline cable competition is present). 1S4 FTTH Council Comments at 15-16,including chart and declaration. 185 AT&T Comments at 12. See also BSPA Comments at 7; Freedomworks Comments at 15; Mercatus Center Comments at 34-35. 186 Technology and Democracy Project Comments at 4. 187 AT&T Comments at 12.The Government Accountability Office reached this same conclusion in its review of the video service market.See Issues in Providing Cable and Satellite Television Services,GAO 03-130 at 2(2002). 26 Federal Communications Commission FCC 06-180 built to that household."188 DOJ's comments underscore that additional video competition will likely speed deployment of advanced broadband services to consumers.189 Thus, although LFAs only oversee the provision of wireline-based video services,their regulatory actions can directly affect the provision of voice and data services, not just cable.190 We find reasonable AT&T's assertion that carriers will not invest billions of dollars in network upgrades unless they are confident that LFAs will grant permission to offer video services quickly and without unreasonable difficulty.191 52. In sum, the current operation of the franchising process deters entry and thereby denies consumers choices.192 Delays in the franchising process also hamper accelerated broadband deployment and investment in broadband facilities in direct contravention of the goals of Section 706,193 the President's competitive broadband objectives,194 and our established broadband goals.195 In addition, the economic effects of franchising delays can trickle down to manufacturing companies, which in some cases have lost business because potential new entrants would not purchase equipment without certainties that they could deploy their services.196 We discuss below our authority to address these problems. B. The Commission Has Authority to Adopt Rules to Implement Section 621(a)(1) 53. In the Local Franchising NPRM, the Commission tentatively concluded that it has the authority to adopt rules implementing Title VI of the Act,197 including Section 621(a)(1).'98 The Commission sought comment on whether it has the authority to adopt rules or whether it is limited to providing guidance.199 Based on the record and governing legal principles, we affirm this tentative conclusion and find that the Commission has the authority to adopt rules to implement Title VI and,more specifically, Section 621(a)(1). 54.. Congress delegated to the Commission the task of administering the Communications Act. As the Supreme Court has explained, the Commission serves "as the `single Government agency' with `unified jurisdiction' and `regulatory power over all forms of electrical communication, whether by 188 Letter from Lawrence Spiwak, President, Phoenix Ctr. for Advanced Legal and Econ. Pub. Policy Studies, to Marlene Dortch, Secretary, Federal Communications Commission, at Att.,Phoenix Center Policy Paper Number 23: The Impact of Video Service Regulation on the Construction of Broadband Networks to Low-Income Households,pg 23(March 13,2006)("Phoenix Center Redlining Paper"). 189 DOJ Ex Parte at 3-4. 190 FTT'H Council Comments at 4. 191 AT&T Comments at 15. 192 DOJ Ex Parte at 7-8. 193 Section 706 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996,47 U.S.C.§ 157 nt. 194 See The White House, A New Generation of American Innovation, 11-12 (April 2004), available at http://www.whitehouse.gov/infocus/technology/economic_policy200404/innovation.pdf. '95 See Federal Communications Commission,Strategic Plan 2006-2011 at 3(2005). 196 AT&T Reply at 9; Alcatel Comments at 1; Letter from Danielle Jafari, Director and Legal Counsel of Government Affairs, Telecommunications Industry Association, to Marlene Dortch, Secretary, Federal Communications Commission(March 9,2006). 197 Local Franchising NPRM,20 FCC Rcd at 18589. 198 47 U.S.C.§541(a)(1). '99 Local Franchising NPRM,20 FCC Rcd at 18589. 27 Federal Communications Commission FCC 06-180 telephone, telegraph, cable, or radio."i200 To that end, "[t]he Act grants the Commission broad responsibility to forge a rapid and efficient communications system, and broad authority to implement that responsibility.i2 ' Section 201(b)authorizes the Commission to"prescribe such rules and regulations as may be necessary in the public interest to carry out the provisions of this Act.s202 "[T]he grant in §201(b) means what it says: The FCC has rulemaking authority to carry out the `provisions of this Act.si203 This grant of authority therefore necessarily includes Title VI of the Communications Act in general, and Section 621(a)(1) in particular. Other provisions in the Act reinforce the Commission's general rulemaking authority. Section 303(r), for example, states that "the Commission from time to time, as public convenience, interest, or necessity requires shall ... make such rules and regulations and prescribe such restrictions and conditions,not inconsistent with law, as may be necessary to carry out the provisions of this Act....s204 Section 4(i)states that the Commission"may perform any and all acts,make such rules and regulations, and issue such orders, not inconsistent with this Act, as may be necessary in the execution of its functions."205 55. Section 2 of the Communications Act grants the Commission explicit jurisdiction over "cable services.s206 Moreover, as we explained in the Local Franchising NPRM, Congress specifically charged the Commission with the administration of the Cable Act,including Section 621.207 In addition, federal courts have consistently upheld the Commission's authority in this area 20s 56. Although several commenters disagreed with our tentative conclusion, none has persuaded us that the Commission lacks the authority to adopt rules to implement Section 621(a)(1). Incumbent cable operators and franchise authorities argue that the judicial review provisions in Sections 621(a)(1)and 635209 indicate that Congress gave the courts exclusive jurisdiction to interpret and enforce 200 United States v.Southwestern Cable Co.,392 U.S. 157, 167-68(1968)(quotation omitted). 201 United Telegraph Workers, AFL-CIO v. FCC, 436 F.2d 920, 923 (D.C. Cir. 1970) (citations and quotations omitted). 2°2 47 U.S.C. § 201(b) ("The Commission may prescribe such rules and regulations as may be necessary in the public interest to carry out the provisions of this Act."). 203 AT&T Corp.v.Iowa Utilities Board,525 U.S.366,378(1999). 204 See also 47 U.S.C.§ 151 (the Commission"shall execute and enforce the provisions of this Act"). 2°5 47 U.S.C. § 154(i). • 206 47 U.S.C. § 152 ("The provisions of this Act shall apply with respect to cable service, to all persons engaged within the United States in providing such service, and to the facilities of cable operators which relate to such service,as provided in title VI"). 207 Local Franchising NPRM,20 FCC Rcd at 18589. 2°8 See City of Chicago v.FCC, 199 F.3d 424(7th Cir. 1999)(finding that the FCC is charged by Congress with the administration of the Cable Act, including Section 621). See also City of New York v. FCC,486 U.S. 57, 70 n.6 (1988) (explaining that Section 303 gives the FCC rulemaking power with respect to the Cable Act);Nat'1 Cable Television Ass'n v.FCC,33 F.3d 66,70(D.C. Cir. 1994)(upholding Commission fmding that certain services are not subject to the franchise requirement in Section 621(b)(1)); United Video v.FCC,890 F.2d 1173, 1183(D.C.Cir. 1989) (denying petitions to review the Commission's syndicated exclusivity rules);ACLU v. FCC, 823 F.2d 1554 (D.C.Cir. 1987)(upholding the Commission's interpretive rules regarding Section 621(a)(3)). 209 47 U.S.C. § 541(a)(1) ("[a]ny applicant whose application for a second franchise has been denied by a final decision of the franchising authority may appeal such final decision pursuant to the provisions of section 635 for failure to comply with this subsection"). Section 635 sets forth the specific procedures for such judicial proceedings. 47 U.S.C.§555. 28 • Federal Communications Commission FCC 06-180 Section 621(a)(1), including authority to decide what constitutes an unreasonable refusal to award a competitive cable franchise.21° We fmd,however,that this argument reads far too much into the judicial review provisions. The mere existence of a judicial review provision in the Communications Act does not, by itself, strip the Commission of its otherwise undeniable rulemaking authority.211 As a general matter, the fact that Congress provides a mechanism for judicial review to remedy a violation of a statutory provision does not deprive an agency of the authority to issue rules interpreting that statutory provision. Here,nothing in the statutory language or the legislative history suggests that by providing a judicial remedy, Congress intended to divest the Commission of the authority to adopt and enforce rules implementing Section 621.212 In light of the Commission's broad rulemaking authority under Section 201 and other provisions in the Act, the absence of a specific grant of rulemaking authority in Section 621 is "not peculiar."213 Other provisions in the Act demonstrate that when Congress intended to grant exclusive jurisdiction,it said so in the legislation.214 Here,however,neither Section 621(a)(1)nor Section 635 includes an exclusivity provision,and we decline to read one into either provision. 57. In addition, we note that the judicial review provisions at issue here on their face apply only to a fmal decision by the franchising authority.215 They do not provide for review of unreasonable refusals to award an additional franchise by withholding a final decision or insisting on unreasonable terms that an applicant properly refuses to accept. Nor do the judicial review provisions say anything about the broader range of practices governed by Section 621216 21°See NCTA Reply,at 11-13(given the courts have concurrent jurisdiction to review many provisions of Title VI, Section 635(a)only has meaning if it is read to grant exclusive jurisdiction to the courts);Comcast Comments at 27- 28(Congress provided no role for the Commission in the franchising process);Comcast Reply at 27-28(621(a)(1)'s "unreasonably refuse" language and court review are inextricably linked and thus enforcement authority over the franchising approval process lies with the courts);NATOA Comments at 7-8(same). 211 See ACLU v. Texas,823 F.2d 1554, 1574(D.C.Cir 1987)(recognizing that despite a reference to"court action" in Section 622(d), in the absence of more explicit guidance from Congress, the Commission has concurrent jurisdiction to take enforcement action with respect to franchise fee disputes). 212 See BellSouth Reply at 35;USTelecom Reply at 14-16. 213 AT&T v.Iowa Utilities Board, 525 U.S.366,385(1999). In Iowa Utilities Board,the Supreme Court reviewed Commission rules implementing provisions of the Telecommunications Act of 1996. In particular,states challenged Commission rules implementing Section 252(c)(2),which provides,"a State commission shall ...establish any rates for interconnection, services, or network elements." 47 U.S.C. §252(c)(2). Although this and other provisions in the 1996 Act entrusted the states with certain tasks, the Supreme Court held that "these assignments ... do not logically preclude the Commission's issuance of rules to guide the state-commission judgments." Iowa Utilities Board,525 U.S.at 385. The same reasoning applies to the judicial review provisions in Sections 621(a)(1)and 635. 214 See, e.g.,47 U.S.C. § 255(f)("The Commission shall have exclusive jurisdiction with respect to any complaint under this section."). We do not find persuasive commenters'argument that the only way to give Section 635(a)any meaning is to construe it as giving courts exclusive jurisdiction with regard to the three Title VI provisions enumerated in Section 635(a), i.e., Sections 621(a)(1), 625, and 626. See NATOA Comments at 9. None of the cases cited by commenters support this proposition. Rather, they suggest that in the absence of an exclusivity provision in the statute, the Commission and courts share jurisdiction. See, e.g., NATOA Comments at 9 (citing ACLU v.FCC, 823 F.2d 1554, 1573-75(D.C.Cir. 1987)). 215 47 U.S.C. § 541(a)(1) ("Any applicant whose application for a second franchise has been denied by a final decision of the franchising authority may appeal such final decision pursuant to the provisions of section 635 for failure to comply with this subsection") (emphasis added); 47 U.S.C. §555(a) ("Any cable operator adversely affected by any final determination made by a franchising authority under section 621(a)(1)" may commence an action in federal district court or State court)(emphasis added). 216 See USTelecom Reply at 14. 29 Federal Communications Commission FCC 06-180 • 58. We also reject the argument by some incumbent cable operators and franchise authorities that Section 621(a)(1)is unambiguous and contains no gaps in the statutory language that would give the Commission authority to regulate the franchising process.217 We strongly disagree. Congress did not define the term "unreasonably refuse," and it is far from self-explanatory. The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit has held that the term "unreasonable" is among the "ambiguous statutory terms" in the Communications Act, and that the "court owes substantial deference to the interpretation the Commission accords them."218 We therefore find that Section 621(a)(1)'s requirement that an LFA "may not unreasonably refuse to award an additional competitive franchise" creates ambiguity that the Commission has the authority to resolve.219 The possibility that a court, in reviewing a particular matter,may determine whether an LFA"unreasonably"denied a second franchise does not displace the Commission's authority to adopt rules generally interpreting what constitutes an "unreasonable refusal"under Section 621(a)(1).220 59. Some incumbent cable operators and franchise authorities argue that Section 621(a)(1) imposes no general duty of reasonableness on the LFA in connection with procedures for awarding a competitive franchise.221 According to these commenters,the"unreasonably refuse to award"language in the first sentence in Section 621(a)(1)must be read in conjunction with the second sentence,which relates to the denial of a competitive franchise application.222 Based on this, commenters claim that "unreasonably refuse to award"means"unreasonably deny"and,thus, Section 621(a)(1)is not applicable before a fmal decision is rendered.223 We disagree. By concluding that the language "unreasonably refuse to award" means the same thing as "unreasonably deny," commenters violate the long-settled principle of statutory construction that each word in a statutory scheme must be given meaning. We find that the better reading of the phrase "unreasonably refuse to award" is that Congress intended to cover LFA conduct beyond ultimate denials by final decision, such as situations where an LFA has unreasonably refused to award an additional franchise by withholding a final decision or by insisting on unreasonable terms that an applicant refuses to accept.225 While the judicial review provisions in Sections 217 See Comcast Reply at 27. 218 Capital Network System,Inc. v. FCC, 28 F.3d 201,204(D.C.Cir. 1994)("Because`just,' `unjust,' `reasonable,' and `unreasonable' are ambiguous statutory terms, this court owes substantial deference to the interpretation the Commission accords them."). 219 47 U.S.C.§541(a)(1)(emphasis added). 22° See NCTA v. Brand X Internet Services, 545 U.S. 967, --, 125 S. Ct. 2688, 2700-02 (2005) (where statute is ambiguous,and implementing agency's construction is reasonable,Chevron requires federal court to accept agency's construction of statute,even if agency's reading differs from prior judicial construction). 221 See NCTA Comments at 28-29;Comcast Reply at 31. 222 See NCTA Comments at 29;Comcast Reply at 32. 223 See NATOA Comments at 30-31;NCTA Comments at 28-29; Burnsville/Eagan Comments at 31-32; Comcast Reply at 32-33. 224 See Bailey v. United States, 516 U.S. 137, 143-45 (1995)("We assume that Congress used two terms because it intended each term to have a particular,nonsuperfluous meaning."). 225 See, e.g., Tribune Co.v.FCC, 133 F.3d 61,66(D.C.Cir. 1998)(imposing an"intolerable"condition on the grant of a license application maybe deemed a de facto denial of that license for purposes of the appeal provisions under§ 402(b) of the Act, citing Mobile Communications Corp. of America v.FCC, 77 F.3d 1399 (D.C. Cir. 1996)). See also DOJ Ex Parte at 7(stating that unnecessary delays,demands for goods and services unrelated to the provision of cable services, and imposition of build-out requirements are tantamount to a "refusal" to award an additional competitive franchise). 30 Federal Communications Commission FCC 06-180 621(a)(1) and 635 refer to a "fmal decision" or "final determination,s726 the Commission's rulemaking authority under Section 621 is not constrained in the same manner. Instead, the Commission has the authority to address what constitutes an unreasonable refusal to award a franchise, and as stated above, a local franchising authority may unreasonably refuse to award a franchise through other routes than issuing a final decision or determination denying a franchise application. For all of these reasons, we conclude that the Commission may exercise its statutory authority to establish federal standards identifying those LFA-imposed terms and conditions that would violate Section 621(a)(1)of the Communications Act.127 60. Incumbent cable operators and local franchise authorities also maintain that the legislative history of Section 621(a)(1) demonstrates that Congress reserved to LFAs the authority to determine what constitutes "reasonable" grounds for franchise denials,with oversight by the courts, and left no authority under Section 621(a)(1) for the Commission to issue rules or guidelines governing the franchise approval process.728 Commenters point to the Conference Committee Report on the 1992 Amendments,729 which adopted the Senate version of Section 621,230 rather than the House version,which "contained five examples of circumstances under which it is reasonable for a franchising authority to deny a franchise."231 We find commenters' reliance on the legislative history to be misplaced. While the House may have initially considered adopting a categorical approach for determining what would constitute a "reasonable denial," Congress ultimately decided to forgo that approach and prohibit franchising authorities from unreasonably refusing to award an additional competitive franchise.232 To be sure, commenters are correct to point out that Congress chose not to define in the Act the meaning of the phrase "unreasonably refuse to award." However, commenters' assertion that Congress therefore intended for this gap in the statute to be filled in by only LFAs and courts lacks any basis in law or logic. Rather, we believe that it is far more reasonable to assume, consistent with settled principles of administrative law, that Congress intended that the Commission, which is charged by Congress with the administration of Title V1,233 to have the authority to do so. There is nothing in the statute or the 226 47 U.S.C. §§541(a),555. See also Puget Sound Energy,Inc. v. U.S., 310 F.3d 613,624-25(9th Cir.2002)(for purposes of determining when power administration's rate determination becomes a"fmal action"under statutory judicial review provision,court will turn for guidance to general doctrine of finality in administrative law,which"is concerned with whether the initial decision-maker has arrived at a definitive position on the issue that inflicts an actual,concrete injury"). 227 See Qwest Reply at 10-11. 228 See NCTA Comments at 22-23;Florida Municipalities Comments at 9-10. 229.H.R.REP.No. 102-862,at 77-78(1992)(Conf.Rep.),as reprinted in 1992 U.S.C.C.A.N. 1231, 1259-1260. 230 S.REP.No. 102-92,at 185(1991)(explaining that"[i]t shall not be considered unreasonable for purposes of this provision for local franchising authorities to deny the application of a potential competitor if it is technically infeasible. However,the Committee does not intend technical infeasibility to be the only justification for denying an additional franchise"). 231 H.R. REP. No. 102-862, at 77-78 (1992) (Conf. Rep.), as reprinted in 1992 U.S.C.C.A.N. 1231, 1259-1260 (listing five examples of reasonable denials identified in the House amendment to include:(1)technical infeasibility; (2) failure of the applicant to assure that it will provide adequate public, educational, and governmental access channel capacity, facilities, or financial support; (3) failure of the applicant to assure that it will provide service throughout the entire franchise area within a reasonable period of time;(4)the award would interfere with the ability of the franchising authority to deny renewal of a franchise; and (5) failure to demonstrate financial, technical, or legal qualifications to provide cable service.");F..R.REP.No. 102-628,at 90(1992).See NCTA Comments at 22; Florida Municipalities Comments at 9-10. 232 H.R.REP.No. 102-862,at 77-78(1992)(Conf.Rep.),as reprinted in 1992 U.S.C.C.A.N. 1231, 1259-1260. 233 See City of Chicago v.FCC, 199 F.3d at 428. See also AT&T Corp. v.Iowa Utilities Board, 525 U.S.at 377-380. 31 Federal Communications Commission FCC 06-180 legislative history to suggest that Congress intended to displace the Commission's explicit authority to interpret and enforce provisions in Title VI,including Section 621(a)(1). 61. The pro-competitive rules and guidance we adopt in this Order are consistent with Congressional intent. Section 601 states that Title VI is designed to "promote competition in cable communications."234 In a report to Congress prepared pursuant to the 1984 Cable Act, the Commission concluded that.in order "[t]o encourage more robust competition in the local video marketplace, the Congress should ... forbid local franchising authorities from unreasonably denying a franchise to potential competitors who are ready and able to provide service.s735 In response, Congress revised Section 621(a)(1) to prohibit a franchising authority from unreasonably refusing to award an additional competitive franchise.736 The regulations set forth herein give force to that restriction and vindicate the national policy goal of promoting competition in the video marketplace. 62. Our authority to adopt rules implementing Section 621(a)(1) is further supported by Section 706 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, which directs the Commission to encourage broadband deployment by utilizing "measures that promote competition ... or other regulating methods that remove barriers to infrastructure investment.s237 The D.C.Circuit has found that the Commission has the authority to consider the goals of Section 706 when formulating regulations under the Act.738 The record here indicates that a provider's ability to offer video service and to deploy broadband networks are linked intrinsically, and the federal goals of enhanced cable competition and rapid broadband deployment are interrelated.239 Thus,if the franchising process were allowed to slow competition in the video service market, that would decrease broadband infrastructure investment, which would not only affect video but other broadband services as we11.240 As the DOJ points out, potential gains from competition, such as 234 47 U.S.C. §521(6). 235 See Competition,Rate Deregulation and the Commission's Policies Relating to the Provision of Cable Television Service, 5 FCC Rcd 4962,4974(1990). 236 47 U.S.C. §541(a)(1). See also H.R.REP.No. 102-628,at 47(1992)(noting the Commission's recommendation that, in order to encourage competition, Congress should prevent LFAs from unreasonably denying a franchise to potential competitors);Implementation of Section 19 of the Cable Television Consumer Protection and Competition Act of 1992 Annual Assessment of the Status of Competition in the Market for the Delivery of Video Programming,9 FCC Rcd 7442, 7469 (1994) (recognizing that"Congress incorporated the Commission's recommendation in the 1992 Cable Act by amending§621(a)(1)of the Communications Act..."). The legislative history explained that the purpose of this abridgement of local government authority was to promote greater cable competition. S.REP.No. 102-92, at 47 (1991) (the prohibition on local franchising authorities from unreasonably refusing to grant second franchises is based on evidence in the record that there are benefits from competition between two cable systems and the Committee's belief that LFAs should be encouraged to award second franchises). 237 Section 706 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996,47 U.S.C.§ 157 nt. 239 See USTA v. FCC, 359 F.3d 554, 580, 583 (D.C. Cir. 2004); see also USTelecom Comments at 15; TIA Comments at 16. 239 See Alcatel Comments at 5-6;USTelecom Comments at 6(broadband growth is tied to bundled services;firm's perceived need to compete for "triple play" customers is the driving force for broadband investment); AT&T Comments at 39-40 (the local franchising process discourages broadband infrastructure investment that supports video along with other broadband services). 240 See Ad Hoc Telcom Manufacturer Coalition Comments at 1-3 (the franchising process threatens to slow down incumbent LECs'capital expenditures,thereby slowing competition in the video service market and reducing output throughout the high-tech manufacturing industry); AT&T Reply at 31-32 (the lack of clear regulatory guidance is chilling investment because new entrants cannot gauge the cost of entry);BellSouth Comments at 20-22(the current franchising process impedes the deployment of BellSouth's broadband network). 32 Federal Communications Commission FCC 06-180 expedited broadband deployment, are more likely to be realized without imposed restrictions or conditions on entry in the franchising process.24' 63. We reject the argument by incumbent cable operators and LFAs that any rules adopted under Section 621(a)(1) could adversely affect the franchising process.242 In particular, LFAs contend that cable service requirements must vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction because cable franchises need to be"tailored to the needs and interests of the local community."243 The Communications Act preserves a role for local jurisdictions in the franchise process. We do not believe that the rules we adopt today will hamper the franchising process. While local franchising authorities and potential new entrants have opposing viewpoints about the reasonableness of certain terms,244 we received comments from both groups that agree that Commission guidance concerning factors that are"reasonable"will help to expedite the franchising process.245 Therefore,we anticipate that our implementation of Section 621(a)(1)will aid new entrants, incumbent cable operators, and LFAs in understanding the bounds of local authority in considering competitive franchise applications. 64. In sum, we conclude that we have clear authority to interpret and implement the Cable Act, including the ambiguous phrase "unreasonably refuse to award" in Section 621(a)(1), to further the congressional imperatives to promote competition and broadband deployment. As discussed above, this authority is reinforced by Section 4(i) of the Communications Act, which gives us broad power to perform acts necessary to execute our functions, and the mandate in Section 706 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 that we encourage broadband deployment through measures that promote competition.246 We adopt the rules and regulations in this Order pursuant to that authority. We fmd that Section 621(a)(1) prohibits not only an LFA's ultimate unreasonable denial of a competitive franchise application, but also LFA procedures and conduct that have the effect of unreasonably interfering with the ability of a would-be competitor to obtain a competitive franchise, whether by (1)creating unreasonable delays in the process, or(2)imposing unreasonable regulatory roadblocks,such that they effectively constitute an "unreasonable refusal to award an additional competitive franchise" within the meaning of Section 621(a)(1)?A7 C. Steps to Ensure that the Local Franchising Process Does Not Unreasonably Interfere with Competitive Cable Entry and Rapid Broadband Deployment 65. Commenters in this proceeding identified several specific issues regarding problems with the current operation of the franchising process. These include: (1) failure by LFAs to grant or deny franchises within reasonable time frames; (2) LFA requirements that a facilities-based new entrant build out its cable facilities beyond a reasonable service area; (3) certain LFA-mandated costs, fees, and other compensation and whether they must be counted toward the statutory 5 percent cap on franchise fees; (4) 241 DOJ Ex Parte at 4. 242 See, e.g.,Anne Arundel County et al. Comments at 15 (federal regulation would not allow each locality to tailor franchise terms to its specific needs);NCTA Comments at 23 (universal rules and standards cannot be tailored well enough to define what is reasonable;reasonableness must be reviewed on a case-by-case basis). 243 NATOA Comments at 27(quoting Section 601(2)of the Communications Act,47 U.S.C. §521(2)). 244 See, e.g., NATOA Reply at 43; Verizon Comments at 76-77 (disagreeing about the reasonableness of level playing fields). 245 See Manatee County Comments at 15;Verizon Reply at 35. 24647 U.S.C.§ 154(i),Section 706 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996,47 U.S.C.§ 157 nt. 247 Id 33 Federal Communications Commission FCC 06-180 • new entrants' obligations to provide support mandated by LFAs for PEG and I-Nets; and (5) facilities- based new entrants' obligations to comply with local consumer protection and customer service standards when the same facilities are used to provide other regulated services,such as telephony. We discuss each measure below. 1. Maximum Time Frame for Franchise Negotiations 66. As explained above,245 the record demonstrates that, although the average time that elapses between application and grant of a franchise varies from locality to locality,unreasonable delays in the franchising process are commonplace and have hindered, and in some cases thwarted entirely, attempts to deploy competitive video services. The record is replete with examples of unreasonable delays in the franchising process,249 which can indefmitely delay competitive entry and leave an applicant without recourse in violation of Section 621(a)(1)'s prohibition on unreasonable refusals to award a competitive franchise.25° 67. We fmd that unreasonable delays in the franchising process deprive consumers of competitive video services, hamper accelerated broadband deployment, and can result in unreasonable refusals to award competitive franchises. Thus, it is necessary to establish reasonable time limits for LFAs to render a decision on a competitive applicant's franchise application.251 We define below the boundaries of a reasonable time period in which an LFA must render a decision, and we establish a remedy for applicants that do not receive a decision within the applicable time frame. We establish a maximum time frame of 90 days for entities with existing authority to access public rights-of-way, and six months for entities that do not have authority to access public rights-of-way. The deadline will be calculated from the date that the applicant files an application or other writing that includes the information described below. Failure of an LFA to act within the allotted time constitutes an unreasonable refusal to award the franchise under Section 621(a)(1), and the LFA at that time is deemed to have granted the entity's application on an interim basis, pursuant to which the applicant may begin providing service. Thereafter, the LFA and applicant may continue to negotiate the terms of the franchise,consistent with the guidance and rulings in this Order. a. Time Limit 68. The record shows that the franchising process in some localities can drag on for years. We are concerned that without a defined time limit, the extended delays will continue, depriving consumers of cable competition and applicants of franchises. We thus consider the appropriate length of time that should be afforded LFAs in reaching a fmal decision on a competitive franchise application. Commenters suggest a wide range of time frames that may be reasonable for an LFA's consideration of a competitive franchise application. TIA proposes that we adopt the time limit used in the Texas franchising legislation, which would allow a new entrant to obtain a franchise within 17 days of submitting an application.? Other commenters propose time limits ranging from 30 days to six 248 See supra paras. 14-17,22. 249 See Local Franchising NPRM, 20 FCC Rcd at 18590(quoting 47 U.S.C. §541(a)(1)),FTTH Council Comments at 27,South Slope Comments at 13,Verizon Reply at 34-35. 25°See supra paras.22-30. 251 47 U.S.C.§§541(a)(1),555. 252 See TIA Comments at 8, 18. 34 • • Federal Communications Commission FCC 06-180 months.253 While NATOA in its comments opposes any time limit,254 in February 2006 a NATOA representative told the Commission that the six-month time limit that California law imposes is reasonable.255 Some.commenters have suggested that a franchise applicant that holds an existing authorization to access rights-of-way (e.g., a LEC) should be subject to a shorter time frame than other applicants. These commenters reason that deployment of video services requires an upgrade to existing facilities in the rights-of-way rather than construction of new facilities,and such applicants generally have demonstrated their fitness as a provider of communications services 256 69. In certain states, an SFA is responsible for all franchising decisions (e.g., Hawaii, Connecticut, Vermont, Texas, Indiana, Kansas, South Carolina, and beginning January 1, 2007, California and North Carolina), and the majority of these states have established time frames within which those SFAs must make franchising decisions.257 We are mindful,however,that states in which an LFA is the franchising authority, the LFA may be a small municipal entity with extremely limited resources. 258 Thus, it may not always be feasible for an LFA to carry out legitimate local policy objectives permitted by the Act and appropriate state'or local law within an extremely short time frame. We therefore seek to establish a time limit that balances the reasonable needs of the LFA with the needs of the public for greater video service competition and broadband deployment. As set out in detail below, we believe that it is appropriate to provide rules to guide LFAs that retain ultimate decision-making power over franchise decisions. 70. As a preliminary matter, we find that a franchise applicant that holds an existing authorization to access rights-of-way should be subject to a shorter time frame for review than other applicants. First, one of the primary justifications for cable franchising is the locality's need to regulate and receive compensation for the use of public rights-of-way.259 In considering an application for a cable franchise by an entity that already has rights-of-way access,however,an LFA need not devote substantial attention to issues of rights-of-way management.260 Second, in obtaining a certificate for public 253 See AT&T Comments at 77, Cavalier Telephone Comments at 4 (suggesting a 30-day time limit); BellSouth Comments at 36,NTCA Comments at 9, OPASTCO Reply at 4 (suggesting a 90-day time limit); Consumers for Cable Choice Comments at 9,Verizon Comments at 38,FTTH Council Comments at 60,State of Hawaii Reply at 3 (suggesting a 120-day time limit);Alliance for Public Technology Comments at 3(suggesting a 180-day time limit); Qwest Comments at 26-27. 254 NATOA Comments at 36-37,NATOA Reply at 21-23. 255 Transcript of FCC Agenda Meeting and Panel Discussion at 38(Feb. 10,2006). 256 See Local Franchising NPRM,20 FCC Rcd at 18591. 257 See HAW.REV.STAT. §440G-4(2006);CONN.GEN.STAT.ANN. § 16-331 (West 2006);VT.STAT.ANN.tit.30,§ 502(2006); TEx.UTIL.CODE ANN. § 66.003(West 2006);IND.CODE§ 8-1-34-16(2006);2006 KAN.SESS.LAWS Ch.93 (West 2006); S.C.CODE ANN. § 58-12-05(2006);N.C.GEN STAT.ANN. § 66-351;CAL.Pun.UTIL.CODE§ 401,et seq. We note that our Order does not affect these franchising decisions. 258 We note that a number of other states in addition to Texas have adopted or are considering statewide franchising in order to speed competitive entry. See, e.g., IND. CODE§ 8-1-34-16 (2006); VA. CODE ANN. § 15.2-2108.1:1 et seq. (2006); SB-816,2006 Sess.(Mo.2006). Nothing in our discussion here is intended to preempt the actions of any states. The time limit we adopt herein is a ceiling beyond which LFA delay in processing a franchise application becomes unreasonable. To the extent that states and/or municipalities wish to adopt shorter time limits, they remain free to do so. 259 NATOA Comments at 38-39;Ada Township Comments at 11-14;TCCFUI Reply Comments at 18. 26°Recognizing this distinction,some states have created streamlined franchising procedures specifically tailored to entities with existing access to public rights-of-way. See, e.g., VIRGINIA CODE ANN. § 15.2-2108.1:1 et seq.); HF- 2647,2006 Sess.(Iowa 2006)(this proposed legislation would grant franchises to all telephone providers authorized (continued...) 35 Federal Communications Commission FCC 06-180 convenience and necessity from a state, a facilities-based provider generally has demonstrated its legal, technical, and financial fitness to be a provider of telecommunications services. Thus, an LFA need not spend a significant amount of time considering the fitness of such applicants to access public rights-of- way. NATOA and its members concede that the authority to occupy the right-of-way has an effect on the review of the fmancial,technical,and legal merits of the application,and eases right-of-way management , burdens.261 We thus fmd that a time limit is particularly appropriate for an applicant that already possesses authority to deploy telecommunications infrastructure in the public rights-of-way.262 We further agree with AT&T that entities with existing authority to access rights-of-way should be entitled to an expedited process, and that lengthy consideration of franchise applications made by such entities would be unreasonable.263 Specifically, we find that 90 days provides LFAs ample time to review and negotiate a franchise agreement with applicants that have access to rights-of-way.2 71. Based on our examination of the record,we believe that a time limit of 90 days for those applicants that have access to rights-of-way strikes the appropriate balance between the goals of facilitating competitive entry into the video marketplace and ensuring that franchising authorities have sufficient time to fulfill their responsibilities. In this vein, we note that 90 days is a considerably longer time frame than that suggested by some commenters, such as TIA.265 Additionally,we recognize that the Communications Act gives an LFA 120 days to make a final decision on a cable operator's request to modify a franchise.266 We believe that the record supports an even shorter time here because the costs associated with delay are much greater with respect to entry. When an incumbent cable franchisee requests a modification, consumers are not deprived of service while an LFA deliberates. Here, delay by an individual LFA deprives consumers of the benefits of cable competition.267 An LFA should be able to (Continued from previous page) to use the right-of-way without any application or negotiation requirement). See also South Slope Comments at 11 (duplicative local franchising requirements imposed on a competitor with existing authority to occupy the rights-of- way are unjustified and constitute an unreasonable barrier to competitive video entry). 261 See NATOA Comments at 38-39. Although NATOA contends that an applicant's authority to occupy the rights- of-way would not affect the length of the negotiations regarding PEG requirements,franchise fees,or build-out,we clarify the law concerning those issues below to minimize further disputes and delays. 262 Ad Hoc Telecom Manufacturers Comments at 6. 263 AT&T argues that an entity authorized to occupy a right-of-way should simply complete a short-form application and agree to general cable franchise requirements such as franchise fees and PEG capacity,and that the right-of-way holder should receive a franchise within one month of filing the short-form application. See AT&T Comments at 74. 264 See BellSouth Comments at 36; Ada Township, et al. Comments at 23; LMC Comments at 18; Hawaiian Telecom Comments at 7-8(recommending a time frame of 90 days from the filing of the application). Several state legislators agree that an applicant's existing authority to occupy the right-of-way lightens the administrative load, and enacted or proposed similar measures to streamline the franchising process for entities that hold the authority. See VIRGINIA CODE ANN. § 15.2-2108.21;HF-2647,2006 Sess. (Iowa 2006)(this proposed legislation would grant franchises to all telephone providers authorized to use the right-of-way without any application or negotiation requirement). We assume generally that state and.local regulators are sufficiently empowered to deal with any public safety or aesthetic issues that may arise by virtue of deployment of new video-related equipment by applicants already authorized to use the rights-of way. 265 See TIA Comments at 8-9(a time frame of 17 business days,as set forth in the Texas statute,"provides ample time to negotiate an agreement reflecting the requirements of Section 621"); AT&T Comments at 75, 78-79. See also supra paras. 17,27. 266 See 47 U.S.C.§545. 267 Verizon Comments at 36-37. 36 • Federal Communications Commission FCC 06-180 negotiate a franchise with a familiar applicant that is already authorized to occupy the right-of-way in less than 120 days. The list of legitimate issues to be negotiated is short,268 and we narrow those issues considerably in this Order. We therefore impose a deadline of 90 days for an LFA to reach a fmal decision on a competitive franchise application submitted by those applicants authorized to occupy rights- of-way within the franchise area. 72. For other applicants, we believe that six months affords a reasonable amount of time to negotiate with an entity that is not already authorized to occupy the right-of-way, as an LFA will need to evaluate the entity's legal, financial, and technical capabilities in addition to generally considering the applicant's fitness to be a communications provider over the rights-of-way: Commenters have presented substantial evidence that six months provides LFAs sufficient time to review an applicant's proposal, negotiate acceptable terms,and award or deny a competitive franchise.269 We are persuaded by the record that a six-month period will allow sufficient time for review. Given that LFAs must act on modification applications within the 120-day limit set by the Communications Act, we believe affording an additional two months — i.e., a six-month review period— will provide LFAs ample time to conduct negotiations with an entity new to the franchise area. 73. Failure of.an LFA to act within these time frames is unreasonable and constitutes a refusal to award a competitive franchise. Consistent with other time limits that the Communications Act and our rules impose,270 a franchising authority and a competitive applicant may extend these limits if both parties agree to an extension of time. We further note that an LFA may engage in franchise review activities that are not prohibited by the Communications Act or our rules, such as multiple levels of review or holding a public hearing,271 provided that a final decision is made within the time period established wider this Order. b. Commencement of the Time Period for Negotiations 74. The record demonstrates that there is no universally accepted event that "starts the clock"for purposes of calculating the length of franchise negotiations between LFAs and new entrants.272 Accordingly, we find it necessary to delineate the point at which such calculation should begin. Few commenters. offer specific suggestions on what event should open the time period for franchise negotiations. Qwest contends that the period for negotiations should commence once an applicant files an application.273 On the other hand, Verizon argues that the clock must start before an applicant files a formal application because significant negotiations often take place before a formal filing.274 Specifically, 268 Verizon Reply Comments at 43 n.69. 269 See Cablevision Comments at 10-12; GMTC Comments at 3, 6-8; State of Hawaii Reply at 3;Mt. Hood Cable Regulatory Commission Comments at 20; NJBPU Comments at 5; Southwest Suburban Cable Commission Comments at 7. See also Fairfax County,Va.Comments at 4-7(formal negotiations began April I,2005,franchise granted Oct. 1,2005). 27°See, e.g.,47 U.S.C. §537,47 C.F.R. §76.502(c). 271 See Southwest Suburban Cable Commission Comments at 7. 272 See supra paras. 14-17. 273 See Qwest Reply at 2(establish a requirement that an LFA"must act on a franchise application within six months of filing"). 274 See Verizon Reply at 37; Letter from Leora Hochstein, Executive Director, Federal Regulatory, Verizon, to Marlene Dortch,Secretary,Federal Communications Commission at 1 (April 21,2006). 37 Federal Communications Commission FCC 06-180 • the company advocates starting the clock when the applicant initiates negotiations with the LFA,275 which could be documented informally between the applicant and the LFA or with a formal Commission filing for evidentiary purposes. 75. We will calculate the deadline from the date that the applicant first files certain requisite information in writing with the LFA. This filing must meet any applicable state or local requirements, including any state or local laws that specify the contents of a franchise application and payment of a reasonable application fee in jurisdictions where such fee is required.276 This application,whether formal or informal, must at a minimum contain: (1) the applicant's name; (2) the names of the applicant's officers and directors; (3) the applicant's business address; (4) the name and contact information of the applicant's contact; (5) a description of the geographic area that the applicant proposes to serve; (6) the applicant's proposed PEG channel capacity and capital support; (7)the requested term of the agreement; (8)whether the applicant holds an existing authorization to access the community's public rights-of-way; and (9) the amount of the franchise fee the applicant agrees to pay (consistent with the Communications Act and the standards set forth herein). Any requirement the LFA imposes on the applicant to negotiate or engage in any regulatory or administrative processes before the applicant files the requisite information is per se unreasonable and preempted by this Order. Such a requirement would delay competitive entry by undermining the efficacy of the time limits adopted in this Order and would not serve any legitimate purpose. At their discretion, applicants may choose to engage in informal negotiations before filing an application. These informal negotiations do not apply to the deadline, however; we will calculate the deadline from the date that the applicant first files its application with an LFA. For purposes of any disputes that may arise,the applicant will have the burden of proving that it filed the requisite information or,where required,the application with the LFA,by producing either a receipt-stamped copy of the filing or a certified mail return receipt indicating receipt of the required documentation. We believe that adoption of a time limit with a specific starting point will ensure that the franchising process will not be unduly delayed by pre-filing requirements, will increase applicants' incentive to begin negotiating in earnest at an earlier stage of the process,and will encourage both LFAs and applicants to reach agreement within the specified time frame. We note that an LFA may toll the running of the 90-day or six-month time period if it has requested information from the franchise applicant and is waiting for such information. Once the information is received by the LFA,the time period would automatically begin to run again. c. Remedy for Failure to Negotiate a Franchise Within the Time Limit 76. Finally, we consider what remedy or remedies may be appropriate in the event that an LFA and franchise applicant are unable to reach agreement within the 90-day or six-month time frame. Section 635 of the Communications Act provides a specific remedy for an applicant who believes that an LFA unreasonably denied its application containing the requisite information within the applicable time frame. Here,we establish a remedy in the event an LFA does not grant or deny a franchise application by the deadline. In selecting this remedy, we seek to provide a meaningful incentive for local franchising authorities to abide by the deadlines contained in this Order while at the same time maintaining LFAs' authority to manage rights-of-way,collect franchise fees,and address other legitimate franchise concerns. 77. In the event that an LFA fails to grant or deny an application by the deadline set by the Commission, Verizon urges the Commission to temporarily authorize the applicant to provide video 275 Id 276 See infra paras.99-104. 38 • Federal Communications Commission FCC 06-180 service.277 In general,we agree with this proposed remedy. In order to encourage franchising authorities to reach a fmal decision on a competitive application within the applicable time frame set forth in this Order, a failure to abide by the Commission's deadline must bring with it meaningful consequences. Additionally, we do not believe that a sufficient remedy for an LFA's inaction on an application is the creation of a remedial process, such as arbitration, that will result in even further delay. We also decline to agree to NATOA's suggestion that an applicant should be awarded a franchise identical to that held by the incumbent cable operator. This suggestion is impractical for the same reasons that we find local level- playing-field requirements are preempted.278 Therefore, if an LFA has not made a final decision within the time limits we adopt in this Order, the LFA will be deemed to have granted the applicant an interim franchise based on the terms proposed in the application. This interim franchise will remain in effect only until the LFA takes final action on the application. We believe this approach is preferable to having the Commission itself provide interim franchises to applicants because a "deemed grant" will begin the process of developing a working relationship between the competitive applicant and the franchising authority,which will be helpful in the event that a negotiated franchise is ultimately approved. 78. The Commission has authority to deem a franchise application "granted" on an interim basis. As noted above, the Commission has broad authority to adopt rules to implement Title VI and, specifically, Section 621(a)(1) of the Communications Act 279 As the Supreme Court has explained, the Commission serves"as the `single Government agency' with `unified jurisdiction' and`regulatory power over all forms of electrical communication, whether by telephone,telegraph, cable, or radio.si280 Section 201(b) authorizes the Commission to "prescribe such rules and regulations as may be necessary in the public interest to carry out the provisions of this Act.s2B1 "[T]he grant in § 201(b) means what it says: The FCC has rulemaking authority to carry out the `provisions of this Act.'"282 Section 2 of the Communications Act grants the Commission explicit jurisdiction over "cable services.s283 Moreover, Congress specifically charged the Commission with the administration of the Cable Act, including Section 621,and federal courts have consistently upheld the Commission's authority in this area.284 79. The Commission has previously granted franchise applicants temporary authority to operate in local areas. In the early 1970s, the Commission required every cable operator to obtain a federal certificate of compliance from the Commission before it could "commence operations."285 In effect,the Commission acted as a co-franchising authority—requiring both an FCC certificate and a local franchise (granted pursuant to detailed Commission guidance and oversight) prior to the provision of 277 See Letter from Leora Hochstein,Executive Director,Federal Regulatory,Verizon,to Marlene Dortch,Secretary, Federal Communications Commission at 1 (May 3,2006). 278See infra para. 138. If new entrants were required to adopt the same franchises as incumbents,the new entrants would be forced to accept terms that violate Section 621(a)(1)'s prohibition on unreasonable refusals to grant franchises. See Mercatus Center at 39-40;Phoenix Center Competition Paper at 7. 279 See supra Section III.B. 28° United States v.Southwestern Cable Co.,392 U.S. 157,167-68(1968)(citations omitted). 281 47 U.S.C.§201(b).'See also 47 U.S.C.§§ 151, 154(i),303(r). 282 AT&T Corp.v.Iowa Utilites Board, 525 U.S.366,378(1999). 283 47 U.S.C.§ 152. 284 See supra note 208. 285 Amendment of Part 74,Subpart K, of the Commission's Rules and Regulations Relative to Community Antenna Television Systems,36 F.C.C.2d 143,¶ 178(1972). 39 Federal Communications Commission FCC 06-180 services.286 As the Commission noted, "[a]lthough we have determined that local authorities ought to have the widest scope in franchising cable operators, the final responsibility is ours.s287 And the Commission granted interim franchises for cable services in areas where there was no other franchising authority.288 80. We note that the deemed grant approach is consistent with other federal regulations designed to address inaction on the part of a State decision maker.289 In addition, this approach does not raise any special legal concerns about impinging on state or local authority. The Act plainly gives federal courts authority to review decisions made pursuant to Section 621(a)(1).290 As the Supreme Court observed in Iowa Utilities Board, "This is, at bottom, a debate not about whether the States will be allowed to do their own thing, but about whether it will be the FCC or the federal courts that draw the lines to which they must hew. To be sure,the FCC's lines can be even more restrictive than those drawn by the courts—but it is hard to spark a passionate `States'rights' debate over that detail."29' 81. We anticipate that a deemed grant will be the exception rather than the rule because LFAs will generally comply with the Commission's rules and either accept or reject applications within the applicable time frame. However, in the rare instance that a local franchising authority unreasonably delays acting on an application and a deemed grant therefore occurs,we encourage the parties to continue to negotiate and attempt to reach a franchise agreement following expiration of the formal time limit. Each party will have a strong incentive to negotiate sincerely: LFAs will want to ensure that their constituents continue to receive the benefits of competition and cable providers will want to protect the investments they have made in deploying their systems. If the LFA ultimately acts to deny the franchise after the deadline, the applicant may appeal such denial pursuant to Section 635(a) of the Communications Act If, on the other hand, the LFA ultimately grants the franchise, the applicant's operations will continue pursuant to the negotiated franchise,rather than the interim franchise. 2. Build-Out 82. As discussed above, build-out requirements in many cases may constitute unreasonable barriers to entry into the MVPD market for facilities-based competitors 292 Accordingly, we limit LFAs' ability to impose certain build-out requirements pursuant to Section 621(a)(1). 286 The Commission ended the certificate requirement and ceded additional authority to state and local governments in the late 1970s,but only for pragmatic reasons. See, e.g.,Report and Order, 66 F.C.C.2d 380,¶¶33, 37 (1977); Memorandum Opinion and Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 71 F.C.C.2d 569, ¶ 7 (1979) (withdrawing aspects of Commission franchising participation, but only "as long as the actions taken at the local level will not undermine important and overriding federal interests"). 287 Teleprompter Cable Sys.,52 F.C.C.2d 1263,¶9(1975)(emphasis added). 288 See,e.g.,Cable Television Reconsideration Order,36 F.C.C.2d 326,¶116(1972);Sun Valley Cable Communications (Sun City, Arizona), 39 F.C.C.2d 105 (1973); Mahoning Valley Cablevision, Inc. (Liberty Township, Ohio),39 F.C.C.2d 939(1973). 289 See, e.g.,40 C.F.R. 141.716(a)(watershed control plans that are submitted to a state and not acted upon by the regulatory deadline are "considered approved" until the state subsequently withdraws such approval.); 42 C.F.R. 438.56(e)(2)(an application to disenroll from a Medicaid managed care plan shall be"considered approved"if not acted on by a state agency within the regulatory deadline). See also 47 U.S.C. § 160(c) (petition for forbearance "deemed granted"if Commission fails to deny within the regulatory deadline). 290 See 47 U.S.C.§555. 291 AT&T Corp.v.Iowa Utils.Bd.,525 U.S.366,378 n.6(1999). 292 See Section III.A.,supra, at paras.31-42. 40 Federal Communications Commission FCC 06-180 a. Authority 83. Proponents of build-out requirements do not offer any persuasive legal argument that the Commission lacks authority to address this significant problem and conclude that certain build-out requirements for competitive entrants are unreasonable. Nothing in the Communications Act requires competitive franchise applicants to agree to build-out their networks in any particular fashion. Nevertheless, incumbent cable operators and LFAs contend that it is both lawful and appropriate, in all circumstances, to impose the same build-out requirements on competitive applicants that apply to incumbents.293 We reject these arguments and fmd that Section 621(a)(1)prohibits LFAs from refusing to award a new franchise on the ground that the applicant will not agree to unreasonable build-out requirements. 84. The only provision in the Communications Act that even alludes to build-out is Section 621(a)(4)(A), which provides that"a franchising authority . . . shall allow the applicant's cable system a reasonable period of time to become capable of providing cable service to all households in the franchise area."294 Far from a grant of authority,however, Section 621(a)(4)(A) is actually a limitation on LFAs' authority. In circumstances when it is reasonable for LFAs to require cable operators to build out their networks in accordance with a specific plan, LFAs must give franchisees a reasonable period of time to comply with those requirements. However, Section 621(a)(4)(A) does not address the central question here: whether it may be unreasonable for LFAs to impose certain build-out requirements on competitive cable applicants. To answer that question, Section 621(a)(4)(A)must be read in conjunction with Section 621(a)(1)'s prohibition on unreasonable refusals to award competitive franchises,and in light of the Act's twin goals of promoting competition and broadband deployment.295 85. Our interpretation of Section 621(a)(4)(A) is consistent with relevant jurisprudence and the legislative history. The D.C. Circuit has squarely rejected the notion that Section 621(a)(4)(A) authorizes LFAs to impose universal build-out requirements on all cable providers. The court has held that Section 621(a)(4)(A) does not require that cable operators extend service "throughout the franchise area," but instead is a limit on franchising authorities that seek to impose such obligations 296 That decision comports with the legislative history, which indicates that Congress explicitly rejected an approach that would have imposed affirmative build-out obligations on all cable providers. The House version of the bill provided that an LFA's "refusal to award a franchise shall not be unreasonable if, for example, such refusal is on the ground . . . of inadequate assurance that the cable operator will,within a reasonable period of time, provide universal service throughout the entire franchise area under the 293 See, e.g.,Comcast Reply Comments at 34;NCTA Reply Comments at 25-26;NATOA Reply Comments at 24; Southeast Michigan Municipalities Reply Comments at 44-45. 294 47 U.S.C. §541(a)(4)(A). 295 Americable Intern.,Inc.v.Dep't of Navy, 129 F.3d 1271, 1274-75(D.C.Cir. 1997). 296 Id. See also Americable Intern., Inc. v. U.S. Dept. of Navy, 931 F. Supp. 1, 2-3 (D.D.C. 1996) ("Americable argues first that the Cable Act establishes a`requirement'that a franchise`provide universal service throughout the franchise area.'Its authority for that position is 47 U.S.C.§541(a)(4)(A),which requires that a franchising authority (here the Navy) allow an applicant's system 'a reasonable period of time to become capable of providing cable service to all households in the franchise area. . . .' That language contains no requirement of universal service, of course. Americable's strained argument is at odds with the purpose of the Cable Act, which is to promote competition, and of the amendment in question, which protects the interests of new franchise applicants and not incumbents like Americable"). 41 Federal Communications Commission FCC 06-180 jurisdiction of the franchising authority.s297 By declining to adopt this language, Congress made clear that it did not intend to impose uniform build-out requirements on all franchise applicants.298 86. LFAs and incumbent cable operators also rely on Section 621(a)(3) to support compulsory build-out. That Section provides: "In awarding a franchise or franchises, a franchising authority shall assure that access to cable service is not denied to any group of potential residential cable subscribers because of the income of the residents of the local area in which such group resides."299 We therefore address below some commenters' concerns that limitations on build-out requirements will contravene or render ineffective the statutory prohibition against discrimination on the basis of income ("redlining.")30D But for present purposes,it has already been established that Section 621(a)(3) does not mandate universal build-out. As the Commission previously has stated,"the intent of[Section 621(a)(3)] was to prevent the exclusion of cable service based on income" and"this section does not mandate that the franchising authority require the complete wiring of the franchise area in those circumstances where such an exclusion is not based on the income status of the residents of the unwired area."301 The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit(the"D.C.Circuit")has upheld this interpretation in the face of an argument that universal build-out was required by Section 621(a)(3): The statute on its face prohibits discrimination on the basis of income; it manifestly does not require universal [build-out]. . . . [The provision requires] "wiring of all areas of the franchise" to prevent redlining. However, if no redlining is in evidence, it is likewise clear that wiring within the franchise area can be limited.30 b. Discussion 87. Given the current state of the MVPD marketplace,we fmd that an LFA's refusal to award a competitive franchise because the applicant will not agree to specified build-out requirements can be unreasonable. Market conditions today are far different from when incumbent cable operators obtained their franchises. Incumbent cable providers were frequently awarded community-wide monopolies.303 In that context, a requirement that the provider build out facilities to the entire community was eminently sensible. The essential bargain was that the cable operator would provide service to an entire community in exchange for its status as the only franchisee from whom customers in the community could purchase 297 H.R.REP.No. 102-628,at 9(1992). 298 See Doe v. Chao,540 U.S. 614, 622-23 (2004)(fording relevance in the fact that Congress had cut out the very language in the bill that would have achieved the result claimant urged). 299 47 U.S.C.§541(a)(3). 300 See, e.g., Comcast Reply at 2 (arguing that incumbent LECs are seeking Commission action on build-out requirements in order to pursue their"high-value"customers while bypassing"low-value"ones). 301 Implementing the Provisions of the Cable Communications Policy Act of 1984, Report and Order, MM Docket No. 84-1296, 58 Rad. Reg. 2d (P & F) 1, 62-63 (1985). BSPA Comments at 6 ("The most significant factors affecting where a wireline network will be built relate to cost of construction and the density of the population that will be served. These factors have a much more significant impact on the network expansion plans than the specific customer profile in a geographic area"). 302 ACLU v. FCC, 823 F.2d 1554, 1580 (D.C. Cir. 1987) (emphasis in original). See also Consumers for Cable Choice Comments at 8;DOJ Ex Parte at 4. 303 See H.R.REP.No. 102-862,at 77-78 (1992)(Conf. Rep.),as reprinted in 1992 U.S.C.C.A.N. 1231, 1259-1260; Mercatus Center Comments at 39-40;Phoenix Center Competition Paper at 7. 42 • Federal Communications Commission FCC 06-180 • service. Thus,a fmancial burden was placed upon the monopoly provider in exchange for the undeniable benefit of being able to operate without competition.304 88. By contrast,new cable entrants must compete with entrenched cable operators and other video service providers. A competing cable provider that seeks to offer service in a particular community cannot reasonably expect to capture more than a fraction of the total market."' Build-out requirements thus impose significant financial risks on competitive applicants,who must incur substantial construction costs to deploy facilities within the franchise area in exchange for the opportunity to capture a relatively small percentage of the market.306 In many instances, build-out requirements make entry so expensive that the prospective competitive provider withdraws its application and simply declines to serve any portion of the community.30' Given the entry-deterring effect of build-out conditions, our construction of Section 621(a)(1)best serves the Act's purposes of promoting competition and broadband deployment.308 89. Accordingly, we find that it is unlawful for LFAs to refuse to grant a competitive franchise on the basis of unreasonable build-out mandates. For example, absent other factors, it would seem unreasonable to require a new competitive entrant to serve everyone in a franchise area before it has begun providing service to anyone. It also would seem unreasonable to require facilities-based entrants, such as incumbent LECs; to build out beyond the footprint of their existing facilities before they have even begun providing cable service.309 It also would seem unreasonable, absent other factors, to require more of a new entrant than an incumbent cable operator by, for instance, requiring the new entrant to build out its facilities in a shorter period of time than that originally afforded to the incumbent cable operator;or requiring the new entrant to build out and provide service to areas of lower density than those that the incumbent cable operator is required to build out to and serve.310 We note, however, it would seem reasonable for an LFA in establishing build-out requirements to consider the new entrant's market penetration. It would also seem reasonable for an LFA to consider benchmarks requiring the new entrant to increase its build-out after a reasonable period of time had passed after initiating service and taking into account its market success. 90. Some other practices that seem unreasonable include: requiring the new entrant to build out and provide service to buildings or developments to which the new entrant cannot obtain access on reasonable terms; requiring the new entrant to build out to certain areas or customers that the entrant cannot reach using standard technical solutions; and requiring the new entrant to build out and provide service to areas where it cannot obtain reasonable access to and use of the public rights of way. Subjecting a competitive applicant to more stringent build-out requirements than the LFA placed on the incumbent cable operator is unreasonable in light of the greater economic challenges facing competitive applicants explained above. Moreover, build-out requirements may significantly deter entry and thus 304 See FTTH Council Comments at 32-33;BellSouth Comments at 34. 3°5 See, e.g., AT&T Comments at 50;FTTH Council Comments at 29-30. 306 See FTTH Council Comments at 32-35;DOJ Ex Parte at 12-15(May 10,2006);AT&T Reply Comments at 34- 36;BellSouth Comments at 34-35;Verizon Comments at 39-40. 307 See FTTH Council Comments at 35; BellSouth Comments at 17-19, 35; USTA Comments at 22-25; Verizon Comments at 40-42. 308 AT&T Comments at 62-64;BellSouth Comments at 32-33;Qwest Comments at 21-22;USTA Comments at 27; Verizon Comments at 44-46. 309 See supra paras.38-40. 31°As we understand these franchising agreements are public documents, we find it reasonable to require the new entrant to produce the incumbent's current agreement. 43 Federal Communications Commission FCC 06-180 • forestall competition by placing substantial demands on competitive entrants. 91. In sum,we fmd,based on the record as a whole,that build-out requirements imposed by LFAs can operate as unreasonable barriers to competitive entry. The Commission has broad authority under Section 621(a)(1) to determine whether particular LFA conditions on entry are unreasonable. Exercising that authority, we find that Section 621(a)(1) prohibits LFAs from refusing to award a competitive franchise because the applicant will not agree to unreasonable build-out requirements. c. Redlining 92. The Communications Act forbids access to cable service from being denied to any group of potential residential cable subscribers because of neighborhood income. The statute is thus clear that no provider of cable services may deploy services with the intent to redline and "that access to cable service [may not be] denied to any group of potential residential cable subscribers because of the income of the residents of the local area in which such group resides.s31 Nothing in our action today is intended to limit LFAs' authority to appropriately enforce Section 621(a)(3) and to ensure that their constituents are protected against discrimination. This includes an LFA's authority to deny a franchise that would run afoul of Section 621(a)(3). 93. MMTC suggests that the Commission develop anti-redlining"best practices,"specifically defining who is responsible for overseeing redlining issues, what constitutes redlining, and developing substantial relief for those affected by redlining.312 MMTC suggests that an LFA could afford a new entrant means of obtaining pre-clearance of its build-out plans,establishing a rebuttable presumption that the new entrant will not redline (for example, proposing to replicate a successful anti-redlining program employed in another franchise area).313 Alternatively, an LFA could allow a new entrant to choose among regulatory options,any of which would be sufficient to allow for build-out to commence while the granular details of anti-redlining reporting are fmalized.314 We note these suggestions but do not require them. 3. Franchise Fees 94. In response to questions in the Local Franchising NPRM concerning existing practices that may impede cable entry,315 various parties discussed unreasonable demands relating to franchise fees. Commenters have also indicated that unreasonable demands concerning fees or other consideration by some LFAs have created an unreasonable barrier to entry.316 Such matters include not only the universe 311 47 U.S.C. §541. 312 MMTC Comments at 22,MMTC Reply at 15. MMTC urges that The State Regulators Council of the Advisory Committee on Diversity for Communication in the Digital Age should be the oversight committee for redlining issues. MMTC Comments at 24. 313 MMTC Reply at 11. 314 MMTC Reply at 11 (providing examples of "rapid buildout plan," "equal service verification plan," and "combined plan"). 315 Local Franchising NPRM,20 FCC Red at 18588. 316 See, e.g.,AT&T Reply at Attachment C at 5 ("Lynbrook,N.Y.has asked Verizon to provide cameras to film a holiday visit from Santa Claus.Deputy Mayor Thomas Miccio said, 'They know if they don't get this process done they're going to be in big, big trouble, so we feel we're in a very good position."") (citing Dionne Searcey, As Verizon Enters Cable Business, it Faces Local Static, WALL ST.J., Oct. 28, 2005, at Al), Verizon Comments at Attachment A at 14 ("Two LFAs in California required application fees of$25,000 and $20,000, respectively. (continued...) 44 • Federal Communications Commission FCC 06-180 of franchise-related costs imposed on providers that should or should not be included within the 5 percent statutory franchise fee cap established in Section 622(b),317 but also the calculation of franchise fees(i.e., the revenue base from which the 5 percent is calculated). Accordingly, we will exercise our authority under Section 621(a)(1) to address the unreasonable demands made by some LFAs. In particular, any refusal to award an additional competitive franchise because of an applicant's refusal to accede to demands that are deemed impermissible below shall be considered to be unreasonable. The Commission's jurisdiction over franchise fee policy is well established.31B The general law with respect to franchise fees should be relatively well known, but we believe it may be helpful to restate the basic propositions here in effort to avoid misunderstandings that can lead to delay in the franchising process as well as unreasonable refusals to award competitive franchises. To the extent that our determinations are relevant to incumbent cable operators as well, we would expect that discrepancies would be addressed at the next franchise renewal negotiation period, as noted in the FNPRM infra, which tentatively concludes that the fmdings in this Order should apply to cable operators that have existing franchise agreements as they negotiate renewal of those agreements with LFAs.319 95. We address below four significant issues relating to franchise fee payments. First, we consider the franchise fee revenue base. Second,we examine the limitations on charges incidental to the awarding or enforcing of a franchise. Third, we discuss the proper classification of in-kind payments unrelated to the provision of cable service. Finally,we consider whether contributions in support of PEG services and equipment should be considered within the franchise fee calculation. 96. The fundamental franchise fee limitation is set forth in Section 622(b), which states that "franchise fees paid by a cable operator with respect to any cable system shall not exceed 5 percent of such cable operator's gross revenues derived in such period from the operation of the cable system to provide cable services.i320 Section 622(g)(1)broadly defines the term"franchise fee"to include"any tax, fee,or assessment of any kind imposed by a franchising authority or other governmental entity on a cable operator or cable subscriber, or both, solely because of their status as such."321 Section 622(g)(2)(c), however,excludes from the term"franchise fee" any"capital costs which are required by the franchise to be incurred by the cable operator for public, educational, or governmental access facilities."322 And Section 622(g)(2)(D) excludes from the term (and therefore from the 5 percent cap) "requirements or charges incidental to the awarding or enforcing of the franchise, including payments for bonds, security funds, letters of credit, insurance, indemnification, penalties, or liquidated damages."' It has been established that certain types of"in-kind" obligations, in addition to monetary payments, may be subject (Continued from previous page) Another community in that state has requested an upfront application fee of$30,000 plus an agreement to pay additional expenses(i.e., attorneys fees)of up to an additional$20,000."). 317 47 U.S.C.§542(b). 318 See ACLU v. FCC, 823 F.2d 1554, 1574(D.C. Cir. 1987)("[I]t is clear. . . that the ultimate responsibility for ensuring a'national policy'with respect to franchise fees lies with the federal agency responsible for administering the Communications Act.")(emphasis in original). 319 See infra para. 140. 320 47 U.S.C. § 542(b)(emphasis added). FTTH Council supports an alternative cap based on the actual costs of managing the use of public rights-of-way, but we need not address that argument because we do not have the discretion to adopt a different limit than that set b;7 Congress. 32147 U.S.C. §542(g)(1). 322 47 U.S.C. § 542(g)(2)(C). 323 47 U.S.C. §542(g)(2)(D). 45 Federal Communications Commission FCC 06-180 • to the cap. The legislative history of the 1984 Cable Act, which adopted the franchise fee limit, specifically provides that "lump sum grants not related to PEG access for municipal programs such as libraries,recreation departments,detention centers or other payments not related to PEG access would be subject to the 5 percent limitation."324 97. Definition of the 5 percent fee cap revenue base. As a preliminary matter,we address the request of several parties to clarify which revenue-generating services should be included in the gross fee figure from which the 5 percent calculation is drawn.325 The record indicates that in the franchise application process, disputes that arise as to the propriety of particular fees can be a significant cause of delay in the process and that some franchising authorities are making unreasonable demands in this area 326 This issue is of particular concern where a prospective new entrant for the provision of cable services is a facilities-based incumbent or competitive provider of telecommunications and/or broadband services. A number of controversies regarding which revenues are properly subject to application of the franchise fee were resolved before the Supreme Court's decision in NCTA v. Brand X,327 which settled issues concerning the proper regulatory classification of cable modem-based Internet access service. Nevertheless, in some quarters, there has been considerable uncertainty over the application of franchise fees to Internet access service revenues and other non-cable revenues. Thus,we believe it may assist the franchise process and prevent unreasonable refusals to award competitive franchises to reiterate certain conclusions that have been reached with respect to the franchise fee base. 98. We clarify that a cable operator is not required to pay franchise fees on revenues from non-cable services.328 Section 622(b) provides that the "franchise fees paid by a cable operator with respect to any cable system shall not exceed 5 percent of such cable operator's gross revenues derived in such period from the operation of the cable system to provide cable services."329 The term"cable service" is explicitly defined in Section 602(6) to mean (i) "the one-way transmission to subscribers of video programming or other programming service,"and(ii)"subscriber interaction,if any,which is required for the selection or use of such video programming or other programming service."330 The Commission determined in the Cable Modem Declaratory Ruling that a franchise authority may not assess franchise fees on non-cable services, such as cable modem service,stating that"revenue from cable modem service would not be included in the calculation of gross revenues from which the franchise fee ceiling is determined."331 Although this decision related specifically to Internet access service revenues, the same 324 H.R.REP.No.98-934,at 65(1984),as reprinted in 1984 U.S.C.C.A.N.4655,4702. 325 Verizon Comments at 63-64;BellSouth Comments at 41-43. 326 See supra paras.43-45. 327 125 S.Ct.2688(2005). See infra note 331. 328 Advertising revenue and home shopping commissions have been included in an operator's gross revenues for franchise fee calculation purposes. See Texas Coalition of Cities for Utility Issues v. FCC, 354 F.3d 802, 806(5th Cir.2003)("A cable operator's gross revenue includes revenue from subscriptions and revenue from other sources- e.g., advertising and commissions from home shopping networks."); City of Pasadena, California The City of Nashville, Tennessee and The City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, 16 FCC Rcd. 18192, 2001 WL 1167612, par. 15 (2001)("There is no dispute among the parties to this proceeding,or in relevant precedent,that advertising revenue and home shopping commissions can be considered part of an operator's gross revenues for franchise fee calculation purposes."). 329 47 U.S.C. § 542(b)(emphasis added). 330 47 U.S.C.§522(6). 331 In re Inquiry Concerning High Speed Access to the Internet Over Cable and Other Facilities, 17 FCC Rcd 4798, 4851 (2002)("Cable Modem Declaratory Ruling"),rev'd,Brand X Internet Services v.FCC,345 F.3d 1120(9`s Cir. (continued...) 46 • Federal Communications Commission FCC 06-180 would be true for other "non-cable" service revenues.332 Thus, Internet access services, including broadband data services,and any other non-cable services are not subject to"cable services"fees. 99. Charges incidental to the awarding or enforcing of a franchise. Section 622(g)(2)(D) excludes from the term"franchise fee" "requirements or charges incidental to the awarding or enforcing of the franchise, including payments for bonds, security funds, letters of credit, insurance, indemnification, penalties, or liquidated damages.i333 Such"incidental"requirements or charges may be assessed by a franchising authority without counting toward the 5 percent cap. A number of parties assert, and seek Commission clarification,that certain types of payments being requested in the franchise process are not incidental fees under Section 622(g)(2)(D) but instead'must either be prohibited or counted toward the cap.334 Furthermore,a number of parties report that disputes over such issues as well as unreasonable demands being made by some franchising authorities in this regard may be leading to delays in the franchising process as well as unreasonable refusals to award competitive.franchises. We therefore determine that non-incidental franchise-related costs required by LFAs must count toward the 5 percent franchise fee cap and provide guidance as to what constitutes such non-incidental franchise- related costs. Under the Act,these costs combined with other franchise fees cannot exceed 5 percent of gross revenues for cable service. 100. BellSouth urges us to prohibit franchising authorities from assessing fees that the authorities claim are"incidental"if those fees are not specifically allowed under Section 622 of the Cable Act.335 BellSouth asserts that LFAs often seek fees beyond the 5 percent franchise fee allowed by the statutory provision. The company therefore asks us to clarify that any costs that an LFA requires a cable provider to pay beyond the exceptions listed in Section 622—including generally applicable taxes, PEG capital costs,and"incidental charges"—count toward the 5 percent cap.336 OPASTCO asserts that higher fees discourage investment and often will need to be passed on to consumers.337 Verizon also requests that we clarify that fees that exceed the cap are unreasonable.338 101. AT&T argues that we should find unreasonable any fees or contribution requirements that are not credited toward the franchise fee obligation.339 AT&T also asserts that any financial obligation to the franchising authority that a provider undertakes, such as application or acceptance fees (Continued from previous page) 2003), rev'd, NCTA v. Brand X, 545 U.S. 967 (2005). The Commission issued a notice of proposed rulemaking ("Cable Modem NPRM') concurrently with the Cable Modem Declaratory Ruling. Certain questions from the Cable Modem NPRM that are relevant, but not directly related,to this discussion remain pending before the Commission. Cable Modem Declaratory Ruling at 4839-4854. 332 See NATOA Reply at 29(agreeing that non-cable services are not subject to franchise fees). 333 47 U.S.C. §542(g)(2)(D). 334 AT&T Comments at 65-67;BellSouth Comments at 7,38-39. 335 BellSouth Comments at 7. 336 BellSouth.Comments at 38-39. 337 OPASTCO Reply at 5. 338 Verizon Reply at 59. 339 AT&T Comments at 64. 47 Federal Communications Commission FCC 06-180 that exceed the reasonable cost of processing an application, free or discounted service to an LFA, and LFA attorney or consultant fees,should apply toward the franchise fee obligation.34o 102. Conversely, NATOA asserts'that costs such as those enumerated above by AT&T fall within Section 622(g)(2)(D)'s definition of'charges "incidental" to granting the franchise.341 NATOA contends that the word "incidental" does not refer to the amount of the charge, but rather the fact that a charge is "naturally appertaining"to the grant of a franchise. Thus,NATOA argues,these costs are not part of the franchise fee and therefore do not count toward the cap 34z 103. There is nothing in the text of the statute or the legislative history to suggest that Congress intended the list of exceptions in Section 622(g)(2)(D) to include the myriad additional expenses that some LFAs argue are"incidental."343 Given that the lack of clarity on this issue may hinder competitive deployment and lead to unreasonable refusals to award competitive franchises under Section 621,we seek to provide guidance as to what is"incidental"for a new competitive application.' We find that the term "incidental" in Section 622(g)(2)(D) should be limited to the list of incidentals in the statutory provision, as well as other minor expenses, as described below. We find instructive a series of federal court decisions relating to this subsection of Section 622. These courts have indicated that (i) there are significant limits on what payments qualify as"incidental"and may be requested outside of the 5 percent fee limitation; and(ii)processing fees, consultant fees, and attorney fees are not necessarily to be regarded as "incidental" to the awarding of a franchise.345 In Robin Cable Systems v. City of Sierra Vista, for example,the United States District Court for the District of Arizona held that"processing costs" of up to $30,000 required as part of the award of a franchise were not excluded under subsection (g)(2)(D)because they were not"incidental,"but rather"substantial"and therefore"inconsistent with the Cable Act."346 Additionally, in Time Warner Entertainment v.Briggs, the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts decided that attorney fees and consultant fees fall within the definition of franchise fees, as defined in Section 622. Because the municipality in that case was already collecting 5 percent of the operator's gross revenues, the Court determined that a franchise provision requiring the cable operator to pay such fees above and beyond its 5 percent gross revenues.was preempted and therefore unenforceable.347 Finally, in Birmingham Cable Comm. v. City of Birmingham, the United States District for the Northern District of Alabama stated that "it would be an aberrant construction of 34°AT&T Comments at 65-67. 34'NATOA Reply at 34-35. 342 NATOA Reply at 35(citing Random House Dictionary of the English Language at 720). 343 See infra paras. 105-108. 344 NATOA argues that the Commission is powerless to rewrite the meaning of the statute. NATOA Reply at 35. Yet, Section 622(i)states"[a]ny Federal agency may not regulate the amount of the franchise fees paid by a cable operator,or regulate the use of funds derived from such fees,except as provided in this section." Therefore,we are within our Congressionally mandated authority to provide clarifying guidance regarding the meaning of this provision. 345 See Robin Cable Systems v. City of Sierra Vista, 842 F. Stipp.380(D.Ariz. 1993); Time Warner Entertainment Co. v. Briggs, 1993 WL 23710(D. Mass. Jan. 14, 1993);Birmingham Cable Comm. v. City of Birmingham, 1989 WL 253850(N.D.Ala. 1989). 346 Robin Cable at 381. 347 Time Warner at 23710*6. 48 • Federal Communications Commission FCC 06-180 • the phrase `incidental to the awarding ... of the franchise,' in this context, to conclude that the phrase embraces consultant fees incurred solely by the City."348 104. We fmd these decisions instructive and emphasize that LFAs must count such non- incidental franchise-related costs toward the cap. We agree with these judicial decisions that non- incidental costs include the items discussed above, such as attorney fees and consultant fees, but may include other items, as well. Examples of other items include application or processing fees that exceed the reasonable cost of processing the application,acceptance fees,free or discounted services provided.to an LFA,any requirement to lease or purchase equipment from an LFA at prices higher than market value, and in-kind payments as discussed below. Accordingly, if LFAs continue'to request the provision of such in-kind services and the reimbursement of franchise-related costs, the value of such costs and services should count towards the provider's franchise fee payments.349 For future guidance, LFAs and video service providers may look to judicial cases to determine other costs that should be considered "incidental." 105. In-kind payments unrelated to provision of cable service. The record indicates that in the context of some franchise negotiations,LFAs have demanded from new entrants payments or in-kind contributions that are unrelated to the provision of cable services. While many parties argue that franchising authority requirements unrelated to the provision of cable services are unreasonable,350 few parties provided specific details surrounding the in-kind payment demands of LFAs.35' As discussed further below, most parties generally discussed examples of concessions, but were unwilling to provide details of specific instances, including the identity of the LFA requesting the unrelated services.352 Even without specific details concerning the LFAs involved,however,the record adequately supports a fmding that LFA requests unrelated to the provision of cable services have a negative impact on the entry of new cable competitors in terms of timing and costs and may lead to unreasonable refusals to award competitive franchises. Accordingly,we clarify that any requests made by LFAs that are unrelated to the provision of cable services by a new competitive entrant are subject to the statutory 5 percent franchise fee cap. 106. The Broadband Service Providers Association states that an example of a,municipal capital requirement can include traffic light control systems.353 FTTH Council states that non-video requirements raise the cost of entry for new entrants and should be prohibited.354 As an example, FTTH 348 Birmingham at 253850. 349 To the extent that an LFA requires franchise fee payments of less than 5 percent an offset may not be necessary. Such LFAs are able to request the reimbursement or provision of such costs up to the 5 percent statutory threshold. 35°Alcatel Comments at 10;FTTH Council Comments at 36;OPASTCO Reply at 4;USTelecom Comments at 48; BPSA Comments at 8;NTCA Comments at 13;South Slope Comments at 15. See also DOJ Ex Parte at 11. 351 Some LFAs argue that commenters'allegations about inappropriate fees fail to identify the LFAs in question. As a consequence, they contend, we should not rely on such unsubstantiated claims unless the particular LFAs in question are given a chance to respond. Communications Support Group Reply at 7;Anne Arundel County Reply at 5. We need not resolve particular disputes between parties,however,in order to address this issue. Our clarification that all LFA requests not related to cable services must be counted toward the 5 percent cap is a matter of statutory construction,and all commenters have had ample opportunity to address this issue. 352 Broadband Service Providers Association Comments at 8;AT&T Comments at 26;Verizon Comments at 57-58. Parties have indicated that they were unwilling to identify specific instances of unreasonable requests,since in many cases these parties are still trying to negotiate franchise agreements with the communities at issue. 353 Broadband Service Providers Association Comments at 8. 354 FTTH Council Comments at 66. 49 Federal Communications Commission FCC 06-180 • Council asserts that in San Antonio, Grande Communications was required to prepay $1 million in franchise fees(which took the company five years to draw down)and to fund a$50,000 scholarship,with an additional $7,200 to be contributed each year. They assert that new entrants agree to these requirements because they have no alternative.'S5 The National Telecommunications Cooperative Association ("NTCA") also asserts that its members have complained that LFAs require them to accept franchise terms unrelated to the provision of video service.356 NTCA states that any incumbent cable operator that already abides by such a requirement has made the concession in exchange for an exclusive franchise,but that new entrants, in contrast,must fight for every subscriber and will not survive if forced into expensive non-video related projects 357 107. AT&T refers to a press article stating that Verizon has faced myriad requests unrelated to the provision of cable service. These include: a$13 million"wish list"in Tampa,Florida; a request for video hookup for a Christmas celebration and money for wildflower seeds in New York;and a request for fiber on traffic lights to monitor traffic in Virginia.35S Verizon provides little additional information about these examples, but argues that any requests must be considered franchise-related costs subject to the 5 percent franchise fee cap,as discussed above.3s9 108. We clarify that any requests made by LFAs unrelated to the provision of cable services by a new competitive entrant are subject to the statutory 5 percent franchise fee cap, as discussed above. Municipal projects unrelated to the provision of cable service do not fall within any of the exempted categories in Section 622(g)(2) of the Act and thus should be considered a"franchise fee"under Section 622(g)(1). The legislative history of the 1984 Cable Act supports this finding,providing that"lump sum grants not related to PEG access for municipal programs such as libraries, recreation departments, detention centers or other payments not related to PEG access would be subject to the 5 percent limitation."366 Accordingly, any such requests for municipal projects will count towards the 5 percent cap. 109. Contributions in support of PEG services and equipment.As further discussed in the Section below, we also consider the question of the proper treatment of LFA-mandated contributions in support of PEG services and equipment. The record reflects that disputes regarding such contributions are impeding video deployment and may be leading to unreasonable refusals to award competitive franchises.361 Section 622(g)(2)(C) excludes from the term"franchise fee" any "capital costs which are required by the franchise to be incurred by the cable operator for public, educational, or governmental access facilities."362 Accordingly, payments of this type, if collected only for the cost of building PEG facilities, are not subject to the 5 percent limit. Capital costs refer to those costs incurred in or associated 355 Id.at 38. 356 NTCA Comments at 4. 357 NTCA Comments at 13. 358 AT&T Comments at 26(citing Dionne Searcey,As Verizon Enters Cable Business, it Faces Local Static,WALL ST.J.,Oct.28,2005,at Al). See also City of Tampa Reply Comments at 5. 359 Verizon Comments at 54. See also USTelecom Comments at 48. 36°H.R.REP.No.98-934,at 65(1984),as reprinted in 1984 U.S.C.C.A.N.4655,4702. 361 See, e.g., FTTH Council Comments at 36(noting how Knology declined to enter the Louisville market after the Louisville LFA requested a PEG grant of$266,000 at the time of franchise grant,with$1.9 million total due over the 15-year term). 362 47 U.S.C. §542(g)(2)(C). 50 Federal Communications Commission FCC 06-180 with the construction of PEG access facilities.363 These costs are distinct from payments in support of the use of PEG access facilities. PEG support payments may include, but are not limited to, salaries and training. Payments made in support of PEG access facilities are considered franchise fees and are subject to the 5 percent cap.364 While Section 622(g)(2)(B) excluded from the term franchise fee any such payments made in support of PEG facilities, it only applies to any franchise in effect on the date of enactment.365 Thus, for any franchise granted after 1984, this exemption from franchise fees no longer applies. 4. PEG/Institutional Networks 110. In the Local Franchising NPRM,we tentatively concluded that it is not unreasonable for an LFA, in awarding a franchise, to "require adequate assurance that the cable operator will provide adequate public,educational and governmental access channel capacity, facilities,or financial support"366 because this promotes important statutory and public policy goals 367 However, pursuant to Section 621(a)(1), we conclude that LFAs may not make unreasonable demands of competitive applicants for PEG and I-Net368 and that conditioning the award of a competitive franchise on applicants agreeing to such unreasonable demands constitutes an unreasonable refusal to award a franchise. This finding is limited to competitive applicants under Section 621(a)(1). Yet, as this issue is also germane to existing franchisees, we ask for further comment on the applicability of this and other findings in the Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking attached hereto. The FNPRM tentatively concludes that the findings in this Order should apply to cable operators that have existing franchise agreements as they negotiate renewal of those agreements with LFAs. 111. As an initial matter,we conclude that we have the authority to address issues relating to PEG and I-Net support.369 Some commenters argue that Congress explicitly granted the responsibility for PEG and I-Net regulation to state and local governments.370 For example, NATOA contends that we cannot limit the in-kind or monetary support that LFAs may request for PEG access, because Sections 624(a) and (b) allow an LFA to establish requirements "related to the establishment and operation of a cable system," including facilities and equipment.371 In response, Verizon claims that PEG requirements should extend only to channel capacity, and that LFAs can obtain other contributions only to the extent 363 See H.R.REP.No.98-934,at 19(1984),as reprinted in 1984 U.S.C.C.A.N.4655,4656. 364 See Cable TV Fund 14-A v. City of Naperville, 1997 WL 433628(N.D.III. 1997)at 13;City of Bowie, Maryland, 14 FCC Rcd.7675(Cable Service Bureau, 1999);as clarified 14 FCC Rcd 9596(Cable Services Bureau, 1999). 365 47 U.S.C. §542(g)(2)(B). 366 47 U.S.C.§541(a)(4)(B). 367 Local Franchising NPRM,20 FCC Rcd at 18590. 368 An I-Net is defined as "a communication network which is constructed or operated by the cable operator and which is generally available only to subscribers who are not residential customers."47 U.S.C. §531(f). 369 See infra Section III.B.2. 370 NATOA Comments at 35; NATOA Reply at 30-31; Hawaii Reply at 2-3; Mercatus Comments at 35; Certain Florida Municipalities Comments at 17-18;Anne Arundel et al Comments at 35;City of New York Comments at 3- 4. 371 NATOA Reply at 30(quoting47 U.S.C. §544(b)). 51 Federal Communications Commission FCC 06-180 that they are agreed to voluntarily by the cable operator.372 Verizon also asserts that the record confirms that LFAs often demand PEG support that exceeds statutory limits.373 112. Section 611(a)of the Communications Act operates as a restriction on the authority of the franchising authority to establish channel capacity requirements for PEG. This Section provides that"[a] franchising authority may establish requirements in a franchise with respect to the designation or use of channel capacity for public, educational, or governmental use only to the extent provided in this section."374 Section 611(b) allows a franchising authority to require that"channel capacity be designated for public, educational or governmental use," but the extent of such channel capacity is not defined.375 Section 62 1(a)(4)(b)provides that a franchising authority may require"adequate assurance"that the cable operator will provide "adequate" PEG access channel capacity, facilities, or financial support."376 Because the statute does not define the term"adequate,"we have the authority to interpret what Congress meant by "adequate PEG access channel capacity, facilities, and fmancial support," and to prohibit excessive LFA demands in this area, if necessary. We note that the legislative history does not define "adequate," nor does it provide any guidance as to what Congress meant by the term.377 We therefore conclude that"adequate"should be given its plain meaning: the term does not mean significant but rather "satisfactory or sufficient.i378 As discussed above, we have also accepted the tentative conclusion of the Local Franchising NPRvl that Section 621(a)(1) prohibits not only the ultimate refusal to award a competitive franchise, but also the establishment of procedures and other requirements that have the effect of unreasonably interfering with the ability of a would-be competitor to obtain a competitive franchise. Given this conclusion and our authority to interpret the term"adequate"in Section 621(a)(4), we will provide guidance as to what constitutes"adequate"PEG support under that provision as subject to the constraints of the"reasonableness"requirement in Section 621(a)(1). 113. AT&T asserts that we should shorten the period for franchise negotiations by adopting standard terms for PEG channels.379 We reject this suggestion and clarify that LFAs are free to establish their own requirements for PEG to the extent discussed herein,provided that the non-capital costs of such requirements are offset from the cable operator's franchise fee payments. This is consistent with the Act and the historic management of PEG requirements by LFAs.38o 114. Consumers for Cable Choice and Verizon argue that it is unreasonable for an LFA to request a number of PEG channels from a new entrant that is greater than the number of channels that the community is using at the time the new entrant submits its franchise application.381 We fmd that it is 372 Verizon Reply at 60-61. 373 Verizon Reply at 60(citing NATOA Comments). 374 47 U.S.C. §531(a). 375 47 U.S.C.§531(b). • 376 47 U.S.C. §541(a)(4)(B). 377 See See H.R.REP.No. 102-862,at 78(1992)(Conf.Rep.),as reprinted in 1992 U.S.C.C.A.N. 1231, 1260. 378 American Heritage Dictionary,Second College Edition(1991). 379 AT&T Reply at 15. 38o See 47 U.S.C.§541(a)(4)(B);Time Warner Cable of New York City v. City of New York,943 F.Supp. 1357, 1367 (S.D.N.Y 1996),aff'd sub nom. Time Warner Cable of New York City v.Bloomberg, L.P., 118 F.3d 917(2nd Cir. 1997). 381 Consumers for Cable Choice Comments at 8;Verizon Comments at 71. 52 • Federal Communications Commission FCC 06-180 unreasonable for an LFA to impose on a new entrant more burdensome PEG carriage obligations than it has imposed upon the incumbent cable operator. 115. Some commenters also asked whether certain requirements regarding construction or financial support of PEG facilities and I-Nets are unreasonable under Section 621(a)(1). Several parties indicate that, as a general matter,PEG contributions should be limited to what is"reasonable"to support "adequate"facilities.382 We agree that PEG support required by an LFA in exchange for granting a new entrant a franchise should be both adequate and reasonable, as discussed above. In addressing each of these concerns below,we seek to strike the necessary balance between the two statutory terms. 116. Ad Hoc Telecom Manufacturers argue that it is unreasonable to require the payment of ongoing costs to operate PEG channels,because a requirement is unrelated to right-of-way management, the fundamental policy rationale for an LFA's franchising authority.383 In response, Cablevision asserts that exempting incumbent LECs from PEG support requirements would undermine the key localism features of franchise requirements, and could undermine the ability of incumbent cable operators to provide robust community access.384 We disagree with Ad Hoc Telecom Manufacturers that it is per se unreasonable for LFAs to require the payment of ongoing costs to support PEG. Such a ruling would be contrary to Section 621(a)(4)(B) and public policy. We note, however, that any ongoing LFA-required PEG support costs are subject to the franchise fee cap,as discussed above. 117. FTTH Council, Verizon, and AT&T ask us to affirm that PEG or I-Net requirements imposed on a new entrant that are wholly duplicative of existing requirements imposed on the incumbent cable operator are per se unreasonable.385 AT&T and Verizon argue that Section 621(a)(4)(B) requires adequate facilities, not duplicative facilities.386 FTTH Council contends that if LFAs can require duplicative facilities, they can burden new entrants with inefficient obligations without increasing the benefit to the public.387 FTTH Council thus suggests that LFAs be precluded from imposing completely duplicative requirements,and that we require new entrants to contribute a pro rata share of the incumbent cable operator's PEG obligations. For example, if an incumbent cable operator funds a PEG studio, the new entrant should be required to contribute a pro rata share of the ongoing fmancial obligation for such studio,based on the new entrant's number of subscribers.388 118. In addition to advocating a pro rata contribution rule, FTTH Council requests that we require incumbents to permit new entrants to connect with the incumbent's pre-existing PEG channel feeds.389 FTTH Council proposes that the incumbent cable operator and new entrant decide how to accomplish this connection, with LFA involvement if necessary, and that the costs of the connection should be deducted from the new entrant's PEG-related fmancial obligations to the LFA.396 Others agree that PEG interconnection is necessary to maximize the value of local access channels when more than one 382 BellSouth Comments at 8;Verizon Comments at 71. 383 Ad Hoc Telecom Manufacturer Coalition Comments at 4. 384 Cablevision Reply at 29-30. 385 FTTH Council Comments at 66;Verizon Comments at 71;AT&T Comments at 67. 386 AT&T Comments at 67-68;Verizon Reply at 61. 387 FTTH Council Comments at 67. 388 Id 389 id 390 Id 53 Federal Communications Commission FCC 06-180 • video provider operates in a community.391 New entrants seek a pro rata contribution rule based on practical constraints as well. AT&T asserts that, although incumbent cable operators can provide space for PEG in local headend buildings, LEC new entrants' facilities are not designed to accommodate those needs. Thus, if duplicative facilities are demanded, new entrants would have to build or rent facilities solely for this purpose, which AT&T contends would be unreasonable under the statute.392 NATOA counters that AT&T's complaint regarding space mischaracterizes PEG studio requirements that exist in some franchises.393 Specifically, NATOA claims that LFAs generally are not concerned with a PEG studio's location, and that PEG studios are usually located near cable headends simply because those locations reduce the cable operators' costs.394 119. We agree with AT&T, FTTH Council, Verizon, and others that completely duplicative PEG and I-Net requirements imposed by LFAs would be unreasonable.395 Such duplication generally would be inefficient and would provide minimal additional benefits to the public,unless it was required to address an LFA's,particular concern regarding redundancy needed for, for example, public safety. We clarify that an I-Net requirement is not duplicative if it would provide additional capability or functionality,beyond that provided by existing I-Net facilities. We note,however,that we would expect an LFA to consider whether a competitive franchisee can provide such additional functionality by providing financial support or actual equipment to supplement existing I-Net facilities, rather than by constructing new I-Net facilities. Finally,we fmd that it is unreasonable for an LFA to refuse to award a competitive franchise unless the applicant agrees to pay the face value of an I-Net that will not be constructed. Payment for I-Nets that ultimately are not constructed are unreasonable as they do not serve their intended purpose. 120. While we prefer that LFAs and new entrants negotiate reasonable PEG obligations, we fmd that under Section 621 it is unreasonable for an LFA to require a new entrant to provide PEG support that is in excess of the incumbent cable operator's obligations. We also agree that a pro rata cost sharing approach is one reasonable means of meeting the statutory requirement of the provision of adequate PEG facilities. To the extent that a new entrant agrees to share pro rata costs with the incumbent cable operator,such an arrangement is per se reasonable.396 391 Communications Support Group,Inc.Reply at 12. 392 AT&T Comments at 70. 393 NATOA Reply at 41-42. 394 NATOA Reply at 42. 395 If a new entrant, for technical, financial, or other reasons, is unable to interconnect with the incumbent cable operator's facilities,it would not be unreasonable for an LFA to require the new entrant to assume the responsibility of providing comparable facilities,subject to the limitations discussed herein. 396 To determine a new entrant's per se reasonable PEG support payment, the new entrant should determine the incumbent cable operator's per subscriber payment at the time the competitive applicant applies for a franchise or submits its informational filing,and then calculate the proportionate fee based on its subscriber base. A new entrant may agree to provide PEG support over and above the incumbent cable operator's existing obligations, but such support is at the entrant's discretion. If the new entrant agrees to share the pro rata costs with the incumbent cable operator,the PEG prof ramming provider,be it the incumbent cable operator,the LFA,or a third-party programmer, must allow the new entrant to interconnect with the existing PEG feeds. The costs of such interconnection should be borne by the new entrant. We note that we previously have required cost-sharing and interconnection for PEG channels and facilities in another context. Section 75.1505(d)of the Commission's rules requires that if an LFA and OVS operator cannot reach an agreement on the OVS operator's PEG obligations,the operator is required to match the incumbent cable operator's PEG obligations and the incumbent cable operator is required to permit the OVS (continued...) 54 Federal Communications Commission FCC 06-180 • 5. Regulation of Mixed-Use Networks 121. We clarify that LFAs' jurisdiction applies only to the provision of cable services over cable systems. To the extent a cable operator provides non-cable services and/or operates facilities that do not qualify as a cable system, it is unreasonable for an LFA to refuse to award a franchise based on issues related to such services or facilities. For example,we find it unreasonable for an LFA to refuse to grant a cable franchise to an applicant for resisting an LFA's demands for regulatory control over non- cable services or facilities.397 Similarly, an LFA has no authority to insist on an entity obtaining a separate cable franchise in order to upgrade non-cable facilities. For example,assuming an entity(e.g.,a LEC) already possesses authority to access the public rights-of-way,an LFA may not require the LEC to obtain a franchise solely for the purpose of upgrading its network.398 So long as there is a non-cable purpose associated with the network upgrade, the LEC is not required to obtain a franchise until and unless it proposes to offer cable services. For example, if a LEC deploys fiber optic cable that can be used for cable and non-cable services, this deployment alone does not trigger the obligation to obtain a cable franchise. The same is true for boxes housing infrastructure to be used for cable and non-cable services. 122. We further clarify that an LFA may not use its video franchising authority to attempt to regulate a LEC's entire network beyond the provision of cable services. We agree with Verizon that the "entirety of a telecommunications/data network is not automatically converted to a `cable system' once subscribers start receiving video programming."399 For instance, we find that the provision of video services pursuant to a cable franchise does not provide a basis for customer service regulation by local law or franchise agreement of a cable operator's entire network, or any services beyond cable services 400 Local regulations that attempt to regulate any non-cable services offered by video providers are preempted because such regulation is beyond the scope of local franchising authority and is inconsistent with the definition of "cable system" in Section 602(7)(C)401 This provision explicitly states that a common carrier facility subject to Title II is considered a cable system"to the extent such facility is used in the transmission of video programming. . . ."402 As discussed above,revenues from non-cable services are not included in the base for calculation of franchise fees. 123. In response to requests that we address LFA authority to regulate"interactive on-demand services,s403 we note that Section 602(7)(C) excludes from the definition of"cable system"a facility of a common carrier that is used solely to provide interactive on-demand services.404 "Interactive on-demand services"are defined as "service[s]providing video programming to subscribers over switched networks on an on-demand, point-to-point basis, but does not include services providing video programming (Continued from previous page) operator to connect with the existing PEG feeds, with such costs borne by the OVS operator. 47 C.F.R. § 76.1505(d). 397 Verizon Comments at 75. 398 See Verizon Comments at 21. See also South Slope Comments at 11;NCTA Comments at 12: 399 Verizon Comments at 83. 400 Verizon Comments at 75. 4°'47 U.S.C. §522(7)(C). See also Verizon Comments at 82-87. 402 47 U.S.C. §522(7)(C). 4°3 See BellSouth at 42;NATOA Reply at 27-28. 484 47 U.S.C.§522(7)(C). 55 Federal Communications Commission FCC 06-180 • prescheduled by the programming provider.s40S We do not address at this time what particular services may fall within the definition. 124. We note that this discussion does not address the regulatory classification of any particular video services being offered. We do not address in this Order whether video services provided over Internet Protocol are or are not"cable services?' D. Preemption of Local Laws,Regulations and Requirements 125. Having established rules and guidance to implement Section 621(a)(1), we turn now to the question of local laws that may be inconsistent with our decision today. Because the rules we adopt represent a reasonable interpretation of relevant provisions in Title VI as well as a reasonable accommodation of the various policy interests that Congress entrusted to the Commission, they have preemptive effect pursuant to Section 636(c). Alternatively, local laws are impliedly preempted to the extent that they conflict with this Order or stand as an obstacle to the accomplishment and execution of the full purposes and objectives of Congress.407 126. At that outset of this discussion, it is important to reiterate that we do not preempt state law or state level franchising decisions in this Order.408 Instead,we preempt only local laws,regulations, practices, and requirements to the extent that: (1) provisions in those laws, regulations, practices, and agreements conflict with the rules or guidance adopted in this Order; and (2) such provisions are not specifically authorized by state law. As noted above,409 we conclude that the record before us does not provide sufficient information to make determinations with respect to franchising decisions where a state is involved, issuing franchises at the state level or enacting laws governing specific aspects of the franchising process. We expressly limit our fmdings and regulations in this Order to actions or inactions at the local level where a state has not circumscribed the LFA's authority. For example, in light of differences between the scope of franchises issued at the state level and those issued at the local level, it may be necessary to use different criteria for determining what may be unreasonable with respect to the key franchising issues addressed herein. We also recognize that many states only recently have enacted comprehensive franchise reform laws designed to facilitate competitive entry. In light of these facts, we lack a sufficient record to evaluate whether and how such state laws may lead to unreasonable refusals to award additional competitive franchises. 127. Section 636(c) of the Communications Act provides that "any provision of law of any State, political subdivision, or agency thereof, or franchising authority, or any provision of any franchise granted by such authority, which is inconsistent with this Act shall be deemed to be preempted and superseded.s410 In the Local Franchising NPRM,the Commission tentatively concluded that,pursuant to the authority granted under Sections 621 and 636(c),and under the Supremacy Clause,411 the Commission 405 47 U.S.C. §522(12). 4°6 See IP-Enabled Services, 19 FCC Rcd 4863 (2004); Petition of SBC Communications Inc. for a Declaratory Ruling, WC Docket No. 04-36 (filed Feb. 5, 2004); Letter from James C. Smith, Senior Vice President, SBC Services Inc.,to Marlene H.Dortch,Secretary,Federal Communications Commission,WC Docket No.04-36(filed Sept. 14,2005). 407 Florida Lime and Avocado Growers v.Paul,373 U.S. 132, 142-43(1963). 4°8 See supra nee 2. 409 Id 41°47 U.S.C.§556(c). 411 U.S.Const.,Art.VI,c1.2. 56 • Federal Communications Commission FCC 06-180 may deem to be preempted any state or local law that stands as an obstacle to the accomplishment and execution of the full purposes and objectives of Title VI.412 For example, we may deem preempted any, local law that causes an unreasonable refusal to award a competitive franchise in violation of Section 621(a)(1)413 Accordingly, the Commission sought comment on whether it would be appropriate to preempt state and local legislation to the extent we fmd that it serves as an unreasonable barrier to the grant of competitive franchises. 128. The doctrine of federal preemption arises from the Supremacy Clause, which provides that federal law is the "supreme Law of the Land.s414 Preemption analysis requires a statute-specific inquiry. There are various avenues by which state law may be superseded,by federal law. We focus on the two which are most relevant here. First, preemption can occur where Congress expressly preempts state law.4t5 When a federal statute contains an express preemption provision,the preemption analysis consists of identifying the scope of the subject matter expressly preempted and determining if a state's law falls within its scope.416 Second, preemption can be implied and can occur where federal law conflicts with state law.417 Courts have found implied"conflict preemption"where compliance with both state and federal law is impossible or where state law "stands as an obstacle to the accomplishment and execution of the full purposes and objectives of Congress."419 129. Applying these principles to this proceeding, we find that local franchising laws, regulations, and agreements are preempted to the extent they conflict with the rules we adopt in this Order. Section 636(c) expressly preempts state and local laws that are inconsistent with the Communications Act 419 This provision precludes states and localities from acting in a manner inconsistent with the Commission's interpretations of Title VI so long as those interpretations are valid.42o It is the Commission's job, in the first instance, to determine the scope of the subject matter expressly preempted by Section 636.421 As noted elsewhere, we adopt the rules in this Order pursuant to our interpretation of Section 621(a)(1)and other relevant Title VI provisions in light of the twin congressional goals of promoting competition in the multichannel video marketplace and promoting broadband deployment.422 These rules represent a reasonable interpretation of relevant provisions in Title VI as well as a reasonable accommodation of the various policy interests that Congress entrusted to the Commission. They therefore have preemptive effect pursuant to Section 636(c). 412 Local Franchising NPRM,20 FCC Rcd at 18589. 413Id 414 U.S.Const.Art.VI,cl.2. See also Hillsborough County,Florida v.Automated Med.Labs.,Inc.,471 U.S.707, 712-13(1985). 415 Cipollone v.Liggett Group,Inc.,505 U.S.504,517(1992). 416Id.at 517. 417 Florida Lime and Avocado Growers,373 U.S.at 142-43. 418 Id. 419 47 U.S.C.§556(c). 420 See, e.g., Liberty Cablevision of Puerto Rico, Inc. v. Municipality of Caguas, 417 F.3d 216 (1st Cir. 2005) (finding municipal ordinances that imposed franchise fees on cable operators were preempted under Section 636(c) where inconsistent with Section 622 of the Communications Act). 421 See Cipollone,505 U.S.at 517;Capital Cities Cable,467 U.S.691,699(1984). 422 See supra paras.2-4,61-64. 57 Federal COmmunications Commission FCC 06-180 • 130. Alternatively, we find that such local laws, regulations, and agreements are impliedly preempted to the extent that they conflict with this Order or stand as an obstacle to the accomplishment and execution of the full purposes and objectives of Congress.443 Among the stated purposes of Title VI is to (1) "establish a national policy concerning cable communications," (2)"establish franchise procedures and standards which encourage the growth and development of cable systems and which assure that cable systems are responsive to the needs and interests of the local community," and (3) "promote competition in cable communications and minimize unnecessary regulation that would impose an undue economic burden on cable systems."424 The legislative history to both the 1984 and 1992 Cable Acts identifies a national policy of encouraging competition in the multichannel video marketplace and recognizes the national implications that the local franchising process can have on that policy.425 The national policy of promoting a competitive multichannel video marketplace has been repeatedly reemphasized by Congress, the Commission, and the courts 426 The record here shows that the current operation of the franchising process at the local level conflicts with this national multichannel video policy by imposing substantial delays on competitive entry and requiring unduly burdensome conditions that deter entry.427 And to the extent that local requirements result in LFAs unreasonably refusing to award competitive franchises,such mandates frustrate the policy goals underlying Title VI. The rules we adopt today, e.g., limits on the time period for LFA action on competitive franchise applications,428 limits on LFA's ability to impose build-out requirements,429 and limits on LFA collection of franchise fees,43o 423 Florida Lime and Avocado Growers,373 U.S.at 142-43. 424 47 U.S.C. §521 (1),(2)&(6). 425 See H.R.REP.No. 98-934,at 19(1984),as reprinted in 1984 U.S.C.C.A.N.4655,4656; S.REP.No. 97-518,at 14(1982)("free and open competition in the marketplace"and the"elimination and prevention of artificial barriers to entry"are essential to the growth and development of the cable industry);H.R.REP.No. 102-862,at 77-78(1992) (Conf.Rep.),as reprinted in 1992 U.S.C.C.A.N. 1231, 1259-60. 426 See, e.g., 47 U.S.C. § 521(6) (stating that one of the purposes of Title VI is"to promote competition in cable communications");FCC v.Beach Communications,Inc., 508 U.S.307,309(1993)(recognizing"[o]ne objective of the Cable Act was to set out `franchise procedures and standards which encourage the growth and development of cable systems and which assure that cable systems are responsive to the needs and interests of the local community."'(citing 47 U.S.C.§521(2))). 427 See, e.g., AT&T Reply at 6-7 ("today's standardless franchising process, and the anticompetitive substantive conditions demanded of new entrants by many LFAs ... not only delay entry, but often prevent it altogether"); AT&T Comments at 43 (listing several conditions commonly imposed in the local franchising process that raise the cost of entry, deter broadband investment, and deny consumers the benefits of competition and choice); Verizon Comments at iv-vi(the franchising process is often marked by inordinate delay and is often used by many LFAs"as an opportunity to demand all manner of additional concessions,mostly unrelated to the provision of video services or the underlying purposes of franchise requirements, from the would-be competitor"); TIA Comments at 7-15 (many LFAs unreasonably delay the grant of competitive franchises and demand excessive concessions from potential entrants);USTA Comments at 19-20("The single biggest obstacle to widespread competition in the video service market is the requirement that a provider obtain an individually negotiated local franchise in each area where it intends to provide service"); FTTH Council Comments at 59-60 ("the franchising process as implemented by numerous LFAs across the country continues to suffer from numerous flaws that frustrate the twin Congressional objectives of promoting cable competition and fostering deployment of advanced services to all Americans"); Alcatel Comments at 19("[t]he regulatory obstacle of thousands of local video franchises potentially wielding their authority to adopt unreasonable requirements,will invariably impede deployment by competitors and negatively impact investment in advanced technologies and services"). 428 See supra Section III.C.1. 429 See supra Section III.C.2. 43°See supra Section III.C.3. 58 • Federal Communications Commission FCC 06-180 are designed to ensure efficiency and fairness in the local franchising process and to provide certainty to prospective marketplace participants. This, in turn, will allow us to effectuate Congress' twin goals of promoting cable competition and minimizing unnecessary and unduly burdensome regulation on cable systems. Thus, not only are Section 636(c)'s requirements for preemption satisfied, but preemption in these circumstances is proper pursuant to the Commission's judicially recognized ability, when acting pursuant to its delegated authority, to preempt local regulations that conflict with or stand as an obstacle to the accomplishment of federal objectives.4 1 131. We reject the claim by incumbent cable operators and franchising authorities that the Commission lacks authority to preempt local requirements because Congress has not explicitly granted the Commission the authority to preempt 432 These commenters suggest that because the Commission seeks to preempt a power traditionally exercised by a state or local government(i.e., local franchising), under the Fifth Circuit's decision in Ciy of Dallas,433 the Commission can only preempt where it is given express statutory authority to do so.434 However, this argument ignores the plain language of Section 636(c),which states that"any provision of law of any State,political subdivision, or agency therefore, or franchising authority ... which is inconsistent with this chapter shall be deemed to be preempted and superseded."435 Moreover, Section 621 expressly limits the authority of franchising authorities by prohibiting exclusive franchises and unreasonable refusals to award additional competitive franchises.436 Congress could not have stated its intent to limit local franchising authority more clearly. These provisions therefore satisfy any express preemption requirement.437 132. Furthermore, as long as the Commission acts within the scope of its delegated authority in adopting rules that implement Title VI, including the prohibition of Section 621(a)(1), its rules have preemptive effect 438 Courts assess whether an agency acted within the scope of its authority "without any presumption one way or the other";there is no presumption against preemption in this context.439 As noted above, Congress charged the Commission with the task of administering the Communications Act, 431 See, e.g.,Louisiana Public Service Commission v.FCC,476 U.S.355,369(1986). 432 See Comcast Comments at 36-37;Comcast Reply at 35-37;Burnsville/Eagan Comments at 35-36. 433 City of Dallas, 165 F.3d at 341. 434 See Comcast Comments at 37;Comcast Reply at 36;Burnsville/Eagan Comments at 35-36. 435 47 U.S.C. §556(c). 436 47 U.S.C.§541(a)(1). 437 See Liberty Cablevision of Puerto Rico v. Municipality of Caguas, 417 F.3d 216, 221 (1st Cir. 2005) (Section 636(c)makes clear that Congress"unmistakably"intended to preempt state and local franchising decisions that are inconsistent with the Act,including Section 621); Qwest Broadband Services,Inc. v. City of Boulder, 151 F. Supp. 2d. 1236, 1243 (D. Colo. 2001)(a franchise provision in the Boulder,Colorado charter was preempted by Section 621(a)(1)because it conflicted directly with that provision's mandate that the"franchising authority"be responsible for granting the franchise). 438 See City of New York v.FCC,486 U.S.57,64(1988)("statutorily authorized regulations of an agency will pre- empt any state or local law that conflicts with such regulations or frustrates the purposes thereof");Louisiana Public Serv. Comm.,476 U.S. at 369("a federal agency acting within the scope of its congressionally delegated authority may pre-empt state regulation"); Capital Cities Cable, Inc. v. Crisp, 467 U.S. 691, 699 (1984) (when a federal agency promulgates regulations intended to preempt state law, courts uphold preemption as long as the agency's choice"represents a reasonable accommodation of conflicting policies that were committed to the agency's care by the statute");Fidelity Federal Savings&Loan Ass 458 U.S.at 153("Federal regulations have no less pre-emptive effect than federal statutes"). 439 New York v.FERC,535 U.S. 1, 18(2002). 59 Federal Communications Commission FCC 06-180 • including Title VI, and the Commission has clear authority to adopt rules implementing provisions such as Section 621440 Consequently,our rules preempt any contrary local regulations.44' 133. We also fmd no merit in incumbent cable operators' and local franchising authorities' argument that the scope of the Commission's preemption authority under Section 636(c)is limited by the terms of Section 636(a)of the Act 442 Section 636(a)provides that nothing in Title VI"shall be construed to affect any authority of any State, political subdivision, or agency thereof, or franchising authority, regarding matters of public health,safety,and welfare,to the extent consistent with the express provisions of this title."443 The very reason for preemption in these circumstances is that many local franchising laws and practices are at odds with the express provisions of Title VI, as interpreted in this Order. Consequently, Section 636(a) presents no obstacle to preemption here. We therefore need not decide whether the state and local laws at issue relate to"matters of public health,safety,and welfare"within the meaning of Section 636(a). 134. We also reject the franchising authorities' argument that any attempt to preempt lawful local government control of public rights-of-way by interfering with local franchising requirements, procedures and processes could constitute an unconstitutional taking under the Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution.444 The "takings" clause of the Fifth Amendment provides: "[N]or shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."445 We conclude that our actions here do not run afoul of the Fifth Amendment for several reasons. To begin with, our actions do not result in a Fifth Amendment taking. Courts have held that municipalities generally do not have a compensable `ownership" interest in public rights-of-way,446 but rather hold the public streets and sidewalks in trust for the public.47 As one court explained, "municipalities generally possess no rights to profit from their streets unless specifically authorized by the state."448 Also, we note that 44°See supra paras.53-64. 44'See Fidelity Federal Savings&Loan Assn. v.De la Cuesta,458 U.S. 141, 153-58(1982); City of New York, 486 U.S.at 64. See also AT&T Comments at 41-42. 442 See Comcast Comments at 39(citing 47 U.S.C. § 556(a)). See also Florida Municipalities Comments at 18-19 (the Cable Act provides for limited preemption of local regulatory efforts in certain specific areas,none of which cover competitive franchises). Commenters further point to the legislative history for Section 636(a),which noted that a state may "exercise authority over the whole range of cable activities, such as negotiations with cable operators; consumer protection; construction requirements; rate regulation or deregulation; the assessment of financial qualifications;the provision of technical assistance with respect to cable;and other franchise-related issues —as long as the exercise of that authority is consistent with Title VI." See Comcast Comments at 39-40(citing H.R. REP.No.98-934,at 94(1984),as reprinted in 1984 U.S.C.C.A.N.4655,4731). 443 47 U.S.C. § 556(a)(emphasis added). 4"See Texas Coalition of Cities Comments at 29-35;Bumsville/Eagan Comments at 38. Burnsville/Eagan further argues that Fifth Amendment concerns would arise if the Commission were to interfere with the terms under which a competitive franchise is granted,thereby forcing modifications to existing cable franchises,pursuant to state and local level-playing-field requirements,thus depriving LFAs of lawful and reasonable compensation they negotiated with the incumbent cable operators for the use of public rights-of-way. 445 U.S.Const.Amend.V. 446 See Liberty Cablevision,417 F.3d at 222. "7 See New Jersey Payphone Ass'n,Inc.v. Town of West New York, 130 F.Supp.2d 631,638(D.N.J.2001);see also Liberty Cablevision, 417 F.3d at 222 (recognizing that it is "'a mistake to suppose ... [that] the city is constitutionally and necessarily entitled to compensation"'for use of the city streets). 4"8 See Liberty Cablevision,417 F.3d at 222. 60 Federal Communications Commission FCC 06-180 telecommunications carriers that seek to offer video service already have an independent right under state law to occupy rights-of-way.449 States have granted franchises to telecommunications carriers, pursuant to which the carriers lawfully occupy public rights-of-way for the purpose of providing telecommunications service 45o Because all municipal power is derived from the state,451 courts have held that"a state can take public rights-of-way without compensating the municipality within which they are located."452 Given the municipality is.not entitled to compensation when its interest in the streets are taken pursuant to state law, it is difficult to see how the transmission of additional video signals along those same lines results in any physical occupation of public rights-of-way beyond that already permitted by the states ass 135. Moreover, even if there was a taking, Congress provided for"just compensation" to the local franchising authorities.454 Section 622(h)(2) of the Act provides that a local franchising authority may recover a franchise fee of up to 5 percent of a cable operator's annual gross revenue.455 Congress enacted the cable franchise fee as the consideration given in exchange for the right to use the public ways.456 The implementing regulations we adopt today do not eviscerate the ability of local authorities to impose a franchise fee. Rather, our actions here simply ensure that the local franchising authority does not impose an excessive fee or other unreasonable costs in violation of the express statutory provisions and policy goals encompassed in Title VI.457 136. Finally, LFAs maintain that the Commission's preemption of local governmental powers offends the Tenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.458 The Tenth Amendment provides that "[t]he powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.s459 In support of their position, commenters argue 449 See Verizon Reply at 25. 45o See Verizon Reply at 25;South Slope Comments at 10-11;NCTA Comments at 12. 451 See St.Louis v. Western Union Telegraph Co., 149 U.S.465,467(1893);Liberty Cablevision,417 F.3d at 221. 452 See City&County of Denver, 18 P.3d 748,761 (Colo.2001). 453 See Verizon Reply at 25-26. See also C/R TY, Inc. v. Shannondale, Inc., 27 F.3d 104, 109 (4th Cir. 1994) (reasoning that the transmission of cable television signals"would not impose an additional burden on[a]servient estate"on which telephone poles,power lines,and telephone wires had previously been installed). 454 See U.S. v.Riverside Bayview Homes, 474 U.S. 121, 128(1985)(the Fifth Amendment does not prohibit takings, only uncompensated ones). Because we find that the statute provides just compensation, we need not address whether the takings clause of the Fifth Amendment encompasses the property interests of state and local governments in the same way that it applies to the property interests of private persons. 45547 U.S.C. §542(h)(2). 456 In passing the 1984 Cable Act,Congress recognized local government's entitlement to"assess the cable operator a fee for the operator's use of public ways,"and established"the authority of a city to collect a franchise fee of up to 5 percent of an operator's annual gross revenues." H.R. REP. No. 98-934, at 26 (1984), as reprinted in 1984 U.S.C.C.A.N.4655,4663. 45' For the reasons stated above,we need not reach the issue of whether a"taking"has occurred with respect to a competitive applicant providing cable service over the same network it uses to provide telephone service,for which it is already authorized by the local government to use the public rights-of-way. 458 See Michigan Municipal League Comments at 24("[a]ny action by the Commission to mandate the granting of a franchise directly or by means of state actions in favor of any party over the objection of the local franchising authority offends the Tenth Amendment of the U.S.Constitution");Anne Arundel County Comments at 50(same). 459 U.S.Const.Amend.X. 61 Federal Communications Commission FCC 06-180 • that the Commission is improperly attempting to override local government's duty to "maximize the value of local property for the greater good" by imposing a federal regulatory scheme onto the states and/or local governments.6° Contrary to the local franchising authorities' claim, however, they have failed to demonstrate any violation of the Tenth Amendment. ' "If a power is delegated to Congress in the Constitution, the Tenth Amendment expressly disclaims any reservation of that power to the States."462 Thus, when Congress acts within the scope of its authority under the Commerce Clause, no Tenth Amendment issue arises.463 Regulation of cable services is well within Congress' authority under the Commerce Clause464 Thus, because our authority in this area derives from a proper exercise of congressional power, the Tenth Amendment poses no obstacle to our preemption of state and local franchise law or practices.465 Likewise, there is no merit to LFA commenters' suggestion that Commission regulation of the franchising process would constitute an improper "commandeering" of state governmental power.4b6 The Supreme Court has recognized that"where Congress has the authority to regulate private activity under the Commerce Clause," Congress has the "power to offer States the choice of regulating that activity according to federal standards or having state law preempted by federal regulation.s467 And here,we are simply requiring local franchising authorities to exercise their regulatory authority according to federal standards, or else local requirements will be preempted. For all of these reasons,our actions today do not offend the Tenth Amendment. 137. We do not purport to identify every local requirement that this Order preempts. Rather, in accordance with Section 636(c), we merely find that local laws, regulations and, agreements are preempted to the extent they conflict with this Order and the rules adopted herein. For example, local laws would be preempted if they: (1) authorize a local franchising authority to take longer than 90 days to act on a competitive franchise application concerning entities with existing authority to access public rights-of-way, and six months concerning entities that do not have authority to access public rights-of- way;468 (2) allow an LFA to impose unreasonable build-out requirements on competitive franchise applicants;469 or(3)authorize or require a local franchising authority to collect franchise fees in excess of the fees authorized by law.47o 138. One specific example of the type of local laws that this Order preempts are so-called "level-playing-field" requirements that have been adopted by a number of local authorities.471 We fmd 460 See Michigan Municipal League Comments at 25;Anne Arundel County Comments at 51. 461 See Verizon Reply at 27-29. 462 See New York v. U.S., 505 U.S. 144, 156(1992). 463 See id.at 157-58. 464 See Crisp,467 U.S.at 700-701 (holding that cable services are interstate services). 465 See Qwest Broadband Services, Inc. v. City of Boulder, 151 F.Supp.2d 1236, 1245 ("the inquiries under the Commerce Clause and the Tenth Amendment are mirror images,and a holding that a Congressional enactment does not violate the Commerce Clause is dispositive of a Tenth Amendment challenge)(citing United States v.Baer, 235 F.3d 561,563 n.6(10th Cir.2000). See also Verizon Reply at 28. 466 See Michigan Municipal League Comments at 25;Anne Arundel County Comments at 51. 467 See New York v. U.S., 505 U.S.at 167. 468 See supra at Se-lion III.C.1. 469 See supra at Section III.C.2. 47°See supra at Section III.C.3. 471 See, e.g., GMTC Comments at 15. 62 Federal Communications Commission FCC 06-180 that these mandates unreasonably impede competitive entry into the multichannel video marketplace by requiring LFAs to grant franchises to competitors on substantially the same terms imposed on the incumbent cable operators 472 As an initial matter,just because an incumbent cable operator may agree to franchise terms that are inconsistent with provisions in Title VI, LFAs may not require new entrants to agree to such unlawful terms pursuant to level-playing-field mandates because any such requirement would conflict with Title VI. Moreover, the record demonstrates that aside from this specific scenario, level-playing-field mandates imposed at the local level deter competition in a more fundamental manner. The record indicates that in today's market, new entrants face "steep economic challenges" in an "industry characterized by large fixed and sunk costs," without the resulting benefits incumbent cable operators enjoyed for years as monopolists in the video services marketplace.473 According to commenters, "a competitive video provider who enters the market today is in a fundamentally different situation"from that of the incumbent cable operator:"[w]hen incumbents installed their systems,they had a captive market,"whereas new entrants"have to 'win' every customer from the incumbent"and thus do not have "anywhere near the number of subscribers over which to spread the costs."474 Commenters explain that "unlike the incumbents who were able to pay for any of the concessions that they grant an LFA out of the supra-competitive revenue from their on-going operations,""new entrants have no assured market position.' 75 Based on the record before us, we thus fmd that an LFAs refusal to award an additional competitive franchise unless the competitive applicant meets substantially all the terms and 472 See FTTH Council Comments at 28-31 ("there is substantial evidence that level playing field requirements have harmed new entrants or simply scared off applicants in the first place");Verizon Comments at 76-80(level-playing- field provisions are"protectionist requirements"for the benefit of the incumbent cable operator and are often cited as a basis for imposing all manner of additional costs and obligations, many of which are unreasonable and/or unlawful, on a would-be new entrant into the market); USTA Reply at 23-26, 32-34 (level-playing-field laws intrinsically limit the ability of LFAs to award franchises); see also, GAO Report, Wire-Based Competition Benefited Consumers in Selected Markets (Feb. 2004), GAO-04-241 Report at 21 (noting that one local official indicated that the level-playing-field law in his state was a factor in an interested competitive cable company's retracting a cable application); BSPA Comments at 4-5 (level-playing-field statutes are a superficial appeal to fairness that masks the real intent to protect the incumbent's market position, and such requirements delay or limit the growth of competition by negatively impacting the availability or use of capital);Letter from Lawrence Spiwak, President,Phoenix Ctr. For Advanced Legal and Econ. Pub.Policy Studies,to Marlene Dortch, Secretary,Federal Communications Commission at Attachment, Phoenix Center Policy Paper Number 21: Competition After Unbundling: Entry, Industry Structure and Convergence, 37 ("presence of a `first mover' advantage means that requiring a new entrant to bear an entry cost simply because the incumbent cable operator has already borne it will have the effect of deterring entry substantially, even if such costs did not deter the incumbent cable operator from offering service")(March 13,2006)("Phoenix Center Competition Paper");DOJ Ex Parte at 16. But see Comcast Comments at 40(maintaining that state level-playing-field statutes are a legitimate and well-established exercise of state and local regulatory authority and are not inconsistent with the Communications Act);NATOA Reply at 43-44 (maintaining that there is little or no evidence to suggest that state level-playing-field laws have had anywhere near the draconian effect on the granting of competitive franchises as the telephone industry alleges). 473 See USTA Reply at 24. See also, Verizon Reply at 65 ("In exchange for the costs they incurred to enter The market, the incumbent cable operators generally received exclusive franchises and enjoyed all of the benefits of being monopoly providers for years, often decades."); Mercatus Comments at 40 ("while a second cable operator will have to make the same unrecoverable investment previously made by the incumbent,it will not have the benefit of a monopoly over which to amortize it");FTTH Council Comments at 3("New entrants are highly unlikely to ever obtain and enjoy the fruits of market power. Consequently,the burdens of the pre-existing franchising process from the perspective of these new entrants are not offset by the benefits that the monopolists enjoyed."). 474 See FTTH Council Comments at 30(quoting Andy Sarwal Declaration,para.7);Verizon Comments at 77(new entrants"[face]ubiquitous competition from strong and entrenched competitors,which in turn leads to lower market share and lower profit margins"). 475 See Verizon Reply at 65. See also USTA Reply at 24. 63 Federal Communications Commission FCC 06-180 conditions imposed on the incumbent cable operator may be unreasonable, and inconsistent with the "unreasonable refusal" prohibition of Section 621(a)(1). Accordingly, to the extent a locally-mandated level-playing-field requirement is inconsistent with the rules, guidance, and findings adopted in this Order, such requirement is deemed preempted.476 IV. FURTHER NOTICE OF PROPOSED RULEMAKING 139. As discussed above, this proceeding is limited to competitive applicants under Section 621(a)(1)47 Yet, some of the decisions in this Order also appear germane to existing franchisees. We asked in the Local Franchising NPRM whether current procedures and requirements were appropriate for any cable operator, including existing operators.478 NCTA argues that if the Commission establishes franchising relief for new entrants, we should do the same for incumbent cable operators because imposing similar franchising requirements on new entrants and incumbent cable operators promotes competition.479 Somewhat analogously,the BSPA argues that any new franchise regulatory relief should extend to all current competitive operators and new entrants equally; otherwise, the inequities would effectively penalize existing competitive franchisees simply because they were the first to risk competition with the incumbent cable operator.48° The record does not indicate any opposition by new entrants to the idea that any relief afforded them also be afforded to incumbent cable operators481 Some incumbent cable operators discussed the potential impact of Commission action under Section 621 on incumbent cable operators. For example, Charter argues that granting competitive cable providers entry free from local franchise requirements would affect Charter's ability to satisfy its existing obligations; funds that Charter might use to respond to competition by investing in new facilities and services'would instead be tied up in franchise obligations not imposed on Charter's competitors,which would undermine the company's investment and render its franchise obligations commercially impracticable482 AT&T 476 We also find troubling the record evidence that suggests incumbent cable operators use "level-playing-field" requirements to frustrate negotiations between LFAs and competitive providers, causing delay and preventing competitive entry. See, e.g., Letter from John Goodman, Broadband Service Providers Association, to Marlene Dortch, Secretary, Federal Communications Commission (March 3, 2006) (explaining that the incumbent cable operator used level-playing-field requirements to bring litigation against the LFA which delayed the negotiation process and made entry so expensive that it no longer became feasible for the new entrant);Texas Coalition of Cities Comments at 13 ("Most delays in competitive franchise negotiations result from the incumbent cable provider's demands that competitive providers' franchises contain virtually identical terms."); Verizon Reply at 65-66 ("incumbents' over-eagerness to support these anticompetitive requirements further evidences the need for the Commission to remove this roadblock to competition"). 477 See supra paras. 1, 113. 478 Local Franchising NPRM,20 FCC Rcd at 18588. 479 NCTA Comments at 13 (quoting Appropriate Framework for Broadband Access to the Internet Over Wireline Facilities, 20 FCC Rcd 14853, 14855-56, 14864-65(2005)"[T]reating like services alike promotes competition"by allowing the market to determine the better operator rather than providing one operator "artificial regulatory advantages"). See also Cox Reply at 2-4. 48°BSPA Comments at 2-3. 481See, e.g.,BSPA Cot iments at 2-3(any new regulatory relief in franchising should apply to all current competitive operators and potential new entrants). But see FTTH Council Comments at 24(new entrants are not treated more favorably than incumbents when they are burdened with the same requirements as incumbents but do not have the same market power). 482 Charter Comments at 3-4. 64 Federal Communications Commission FCC 06-180 argues that competition will not harm incumbent cable operators: cable has handled the competition that DBS presents, and analysts predict that the new wave of competition will not put them out of business 483 140. We tentatively conclude that the findings in this Order should apply to cable operators that have existing franchise agreements as they negotiate renewal of those agreements with LFAs. We note that Section 611(a) states "A franchising authority may establish requirements in a franchise with respect to the designation or use of channel capacity for public, educational, or governmental use" and Section 622(a) provides "any cable operator may be required under the terms of any franchise to pay a franchise fee." These statutory provisions do not distinguish between incumbents and new entrants or franchises issued to incumbents versus franchises issued to new entrants. We seek comment on our tentative conclusion. We also seek comment on our authority to implement this finding. We also seek comment on what effect, if any,the fmdings in this Order have on most favored nation clauses that may be included in existing franchises. The Commission will conclude this rulemaking and release an order no later than six months after release of this Order. 141. In the Local Franchising NPRM, we also sought comment on whether customer service requirements should vary greatly from jurisdiction to jurisdiction.484 In response, AT&T urges us to adopt rules to prevent LFAs from imposing various data collection and related requirements in exchange for a franchise 485 AT&T claims that LFAs have imposed obligations that franchisees collect, track, and report customer service performance data for individual franchise areas.486 AT&T states that it operates its call centers and systems on a region-wide basis, and that it is not currently possible or economically feasible for AT&T to comply with the various local customer service requirements on a franchise by franchise basis.487 AT&T also asks us to affirm that LFAs may not, absent the franchise applicant's consent,impose any local service quality standards that go beyond the requirements of duly enacted laws and ordinances.488 Verizon indicates that some localities have conditioned the grant of a franchise upon the submission of Verizon's data services to local customer service regulation489 142. NATOA opposes AT&T's request for relief from local customer service standards, and argues that the Act and the Commission's rules explicitly provide for local customer service regulation!" Specifically, NATOA asserts that Section 632(d)(2) of the Cable Act allows for the establishment and enforcement of local customer service laws that go beyond the federal standards 491 Other parties assert that customer service regulation is necessary to ensure that consumers have regulatory relief.492 483 AT&T Reply at 5. 484 Local Franchising NPRM,20 FCC Rcd at 18588. 485 AT&T Comments at 72-73. 486 Id. 487 Id. As discussed in Section III.C.2 above, AT&T's existing call center regions do not mirror local franchise areas. One region can encompass multiple franchise areas, and impose a multitude of regulations upon a new entrant. 488 AT&T Comments at 73. 489 Verizon Comments at 75. 490 NATOA Reply at 40-41. See also New York City Comments at 3(citing 47 U.S.C.§552). 491 47 U.S.C.§552(d)(2). Accord 47 C.F.R. §76.309(b)(4). 492 See, e.g., Alliance for Public Technology Comments at 2-3;American Association of People with Disabilities at 2;Cavalier Comments at 6. 65 Federal Communications Commission FCC 06-180 • 143. Section 632(d)(2)states that: [n]othing in this Section shall be construed to preclude a franchising authority and a cable operator from agreeing to customer service requirements that exceed the standards established by the Commission . . . . Nothing in this Title shall be construed to prevent the establishment and enforcement of any municipal law or regulation, or any State law, concerning customer service that imposes customer service requirements that exceed the standards set by the Commission under this section, or that addresses matters not addressed by the standards set by the Commission under this section.493 Given this explicit statutory language, we tentatively conclude that we cannot preempt state or local customer service laws that exceed the Commission's standards, nor can we prevent LFAs and cable operators from agreeing to more stringent standards. We seek comment on this tentative conclusion. V. PROCEDURAL MATTERS 144. Ex Parte Rules. This is a pemut-but-disclose notice and comment rulemaking proceeding. Ex Parte presentations are permitted, except during the Sunshine Agenda period, provided that they are disclosed as provided in the Commission's rules. See generally 47 C.F.R. §§ 1.1202, 1.1203,and 1.1206(a). 145. Comment Information. Pursuant to sections 1.415 and 1.419 of the Commission's rules, 47 CFR §§ 1.415, 1.419, interested parties may file comments on or before 30 days after this Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking is published in the Federal Register,and reply comments on or before 45 days of publication. Comments may be filed using: (1) the Commission's Electronic Comment Filing System (ECFS), (2) the Federal Government's eRulemaking Portal, or (3) by filing paper copies. See Electronic Filing of Documents in Rulemaking Proceedings,63 FR 24121 (1998). ■ Electronic Filers: Comments may be filed electronically using the Internet by accessing the ECFS: http://www.fcc.aov/cab/ecfs/ or the Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. Filers should follow the instructions provided on the website for submitting comments. ■ For ECFS filers, if multiple docket or rulemaking numbers appear in the caption of this proceeding, filers must transmit one electronic copy of the comments for each docket or rulemaking number referenced in the caption. In completing the transmittal screen, filers should include their full name, U.S. Postal Service mailing address, and the applicable docket or rulemaking number. Parties may also submit an electronic comment by Internet e-mail. To get filing instructions, filers should send an e-mail to ecfs(ufcc.gov, and include the following words in the body of the message, "get form." A sample form and directions will be sent in response. ■ Paper Filers: Parties who choose to file by paper must file an original and four copies of each filing. If more than one docket or rulemaking number appears in the caption of this proceeding, filers must submit two additional copies for each additional docket or rulemaking number. Filings can be sent by hand or messenger delivery,by commercial overnight courier, or by first- class or overnight U.S. Postal Service mail (although we continue to experience delays in 493 47 U.S.C.§552(d)(2). Accord 47 C.F.R.§76.309(b)(4). 66 Federal Communications Commission FCC 06-180 receiving U.S.Postal Service mail). All filings must be addressed to the Commission's Secretary, Office of the Secretary,Federal Communications Commission. ■ The Commission's contractor will receive hand-delivered or messenger-delivered paper filings for the Commission's Secretary at 236 Massachusetts Avenue, NE., Suite 110, Washington,DC 20002. The filing hours at this location are 8:00 a.m.to 7:00 p.m. All hand deliveries must be held together with rubber bands or fasteners. Any envelopes must be disposed of before entering the building. • Commercial overnight mail(other than U.S. Postal Service Express Mail and Priority Mail)must be sent to 9300 East Hampton Drive,Capitol Heights,MD 20743. • U.S.Postal Service first-class,Express, and Priority mail should be addressed to 445 12th Street, SW,Washington DC 20554. People with Disabilities: To request materials in accessible formats for people with disabilities (braille, large print, electronic files, audio format), send an e-mail to fcc504(a�fcc.gov or call the Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau at 202-418-0530(voice),202-418-0432(tty). 146. Initial Paperwork Reduction Act Analysis. This Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking does not contain proposed information collection(s) subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA),Public Law 104-13. In addition, therefore, it does not contain any new or modified"information collection burden for small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees," pursuant to the Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002,Public Law 107-198,see 44 U.S.C.3506(c)(4). 147. Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis. As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act,494 the Commission has prepared an Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis(IRFA)of the possible significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities of the proposals addressed in this Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking. The IRFA is set forth in Appendix C. Written public comments are requested on the IRFA. These comments must be filed in accordance with the same filing deadlines for comments on the Second Further Notice,and they should have a separate and distinct heading designating them as responses to the IRFA. 148. Paperwork Reduction Act Analysis. This document contains new information collection requirements subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), Public Law 104-13. It will be submitted to the Office of Management and Budget(OMB)for review under Section 3507(d)of the PRA. OMB, the general public, and other Federal agencies are invited to comment on the new information collection requirements contained in this proceeding. In addition, we note that pursuant to the Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, Public Law 107-198, see 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(4), we will seek specific comment on how the Commission might "further reduce the information collection burden for small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees." 149. In this present document, we have assessed the effects of the application filing requirements used to calculate the time frame in which a local franchising authority shall make a decision, and find that those requirements will benefit companies with fewer than 25 employees by providing such companies with,specific application requirements of a reasonable length. We anticipate this specificity will streamline this process for companies with fewer than 25 employees,and that these requirements will not burden those companies. 494 See 5 U.S.C.§603. 67 Federal Communications Commission FCC 06-180 • 150. Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act,495 the Commission has prepared a Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis ("FRFA") relating to this Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking. The FRFA is set forth in Appendix D. 151. Congressional Review Act. The Commission will send a copy of this Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in a report to be sent to Congress and the Government Accountability Office pursuant to the Congressional Review Act,see 5 U.S.C. § 801(a)(1)(A). 152. Additional Information. For additional information on this proceeding, please contact Holly Saurer, Media Bureau at (202) 418-2120, or Brendan Murray, Policy Division, Media Bureau at (202)418-2120. VI. ORDERING CLAUSES 153. IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to the authority contained in Sections 1, 2, 4(i), 303, 303r,403 and 405 of the Communications Act of 1934,47 U.S.0 §§ 151, 152, 154(i), 303, 303(r), 403 , this Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking IS ADOPTED. 154. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that pursuant to the authority contained in Sections Sections 1,2,4(i), 303, 303a, 303b,and 307 of the Communications Act of 1934,47 U.S.0 §§ 151, 152, 154(i), 303, 303a, 303b, and 307, the Commission's rules ARE HEREBY AMENDED as set forth in Appendix B. It is our intention in adopting these rule changes that, if any provision of the rules is held invalid by any court of competent jurisdiction, the remaining provisions shall remain in effect to the fullest extent permitted by law. 155. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the rules contained herein SHALL BE EFFECTIVE 30 days after publication of the Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in the Federal Register, except for the rules that contain information collection requirements subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act, which shall become effective immediately upon announcement in the Federal Register of OMB approval. 156. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Commission's Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau, Reference Information Center, SHALL SEND a copy of this Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, including the Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis,to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration. 157. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Commission SHALL SEND a copy of this Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in a report to be sent to Congress and the General Accounting Office pursuant to the Congressional Review Act,see 5 U.S.C. § 801(a)(1)(A). FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Marlene H.Dortch Secretary 495 See 5 U.S.C. §604. 68 Federal Communications Commission FCC 06-180 APPENDIX A List of Commenters and Reply Commenters 1. Abilene,TX 2. Access Channel 5,NY 3. Access Fort Wayne,IN 4. Access Sacramento,CA 5. Ad Hoc Telecom Manufacturer Coalition 6. Ada Township,et al. 7. Advance/Newhouse Communications 8. AEI-Brookings Joint Center for Regulatory Studies 9. Alamance County,NC 10. Albuquerque,NM 11. Alcatel 12. Alhambra,CA 13. Alliance for Public Technology 14. Alpina,MI 15. American Association of Business Persons with Disabilities 16. American Association of People with Disabilities 17. American Cable Association 18. American Consumer Institute 19. American Corn Growers Association 20. American Homeowners Grassroots Alliance 21. Anaheim,CA 22. Angels Camp,CA 23. Anne Arundel County,Carroll County,Charles County,Howard County and Montgomery County 24. Apex,NC 25. Apple Valley,MN 26. Appleton,WI 27. Archdale,NC 28. Arlington Independent Media,VA 29. Asheboro,NC 30. Ashland,KY 31. Ashokie,NC 32. Association of Independent Programming Networks 33. AT&T Inc. 34. Atascadero,CA 35. Bailey,NC 36. Banning,CA 37. Barrington,IL 38. Bellefonte,PA 39. Bellflower,CA 40. BellSouth 41. Benson,NC 42. Berks Community TV,PA 43. Beverly Hills,CA 44. Biddeford,ME 45. Billerica Access TV,MA 46. Billerica,MA 47. Birmingham Area Cable Board,MI 69 Federal Communications Commission FCC 06-180 • 48. Blue Lake,CA 49. Bonita Springs,FL 50. Boston Community Access and Programming Foundation(BCAPF) 51. Boston,MA 52. Bowie,MD 53. Branford Commun. TV,CT 54. Brea,CA 55. Brisbane,CA 56. Broadband Service Providers Association 57. Brunswick,ME 58. Bucks County Consortium of Communities,PA 59. Burlington,NC 60. Burnsville/Eagan Telecommunications Commission; The City of Minneapolis, MN; The North Metro Telecommunications Commission; The North Suburban Communications Commission; and The South Washington County Telecommunications Commission("City of Minneapolis") 61. Cable Access St.Paul,MN 62. Cable Advisory Council of South Central CT 63. Cablevision Systems Corporation 64. Cadillac,MI 65. Calabash,NC 66. California Alliance for Consumer Protection 67. California Farmers Union 68. California Small Business Association 69. California Small Business Roundtable 70. Cambridge Public Access Corp,MA 71. Cambridge,MA 72. Campbell County Cable Board,KY '73. Cape Coral,FL 74. Capital Community TV,OR 75. Carlsbad,CA 76. Carrboro,NC 77. Cary,NC 78. Castalia,NC 79. Caswell County,NC 80. Cavalier Telephone,LLC/Cavalier IP TV,LLC 81. Cedar Rapids,Iowa 82. Center for Digital Democracy 83. Central St.Croix Valley Joint Cable Comm,MN 84. Certain Florida Municipalities 85. Champaign,IL 86. Champaign-Urbana Cable TV and Telecomm Commission,IL 87. Chapel Hill,NC 88. Charlotte,NC 89. Charter Communications,Inc. 90. Chicago Access Corp,IL 91. Chicago,IL 92. Cincinnati Bell,Inc. 93. Cincinnati,OH 94. Citizen's Community TV,CO 95. City and County of San Francisco,CA 96. City of Los Angeles 70 • Federal Communications Commission FCC 06-180 97. City of Philadelphia 98. City of St.Louis,Missouri 99. City of Ventura,California 100. Clackamas County,OR 101. Clark County,NV 102. Clay County,FL 103. Clayton,NC 104. Clinton Township,MI 105. Clovis,CA 106. College Twp,PA 107. Comcast Corporation 108. Communications Support Group,Inc. 109. Community Access TV,1L 110. Community Programming Board of Forest Park et al,OH 111. Concord,CA 112. Concord,NC 113. Consumer Coalition of California 114. Consumer Electronics Association 115. Consumers First 116. Consumers for Cable Choice 117. Coral Springs,Florida 118. Coralville,IA 119. Coronado,CA 120. Cox Communications,Inc. 121. Cypress,CA 122. Daly City,CA 123. Dare County,NC 124. Darlington,SC 125. Davis,CA 126. Del Mar, CA 127. Delray Beach,FL 128. Democratic Processes Center 129. Discovery Institute's Technology&Democracy Project 130. Dortches,NC 131. Dublin,CA 132. Durham,NC 133. Eden,NC 134. El Cerrito,CA 135. Elk Grove,IL 136. Elon,NC* 137. Enumclaw,WA 138. Escondido,CA 139. Esopus,NY 140. Evanston,IL 141. Fairfax Cable Access,VA 142. Fairfax County,Virginia 143. Fairfax,CA 144. Faith,NC 145. Fall River Community TV,MA 146. Fargo,ND 147. Farmington,MN 71 Federal Communications Commission FCC 06-180 • 148. Ferguson,PA 149. Ferndale,CA 150. Fiber-to-the-Home Council 151. Floral Park,NY 152. Florence,Kentucky 153. Florence,KY 154. Fort Worth,TX 155. Fortuna,CA 156. Foster City,CA 157. Foxboro Cable Access,MA 158. Franklin Lakes,NJ 159. Franklin,KY 160. Free Enterprise Fund 161. Free Press(Reply) 162. Free Press,Consumers Union,Consumer Federation of America 163. Freedomworks 164. Ft.Lauderdale,FL 165. Gainesville,FL 166. Garland,TX 167. Gamer,NC 168. Geneva,IL 169. Georgia Municipal Association(GMA) 170. Gibsonville,NC 171. Gilroy,CA 172. Glenview,IL 173. Graham,NC 174. Grand Rapids,MI 175. Granite Quarry,NC 176. Great Neck/North Shore Cable Comm'n,NY 177. Greater Metro Telecommunications Consortium,et al. (GMTC) 178. Green Spring,K 179. Greensboro,NC* 180. Greenville,NC 181. Guilford County,NC 182. Harnett County,NC 183. Harris Township,PA 184. Haw River,NC 185. Hawaii Consumers 186. Hawaii Telcom Communications,Inc. 187. Henderson County,NC 188. Henderson,NV 189. Hialeah,FL 190. Hibbing Public Access TV,MN 191. High Point,NC 192. High Tech Broadband Coalition 193. Highlands,1"C 194. Hillsborough,NC 195. Holly Springs,NC 196. Huntsville,AL 197. Imperial Beach,CA 198. Independent Multi-Family Communications Council 72 Federal Communications Commission FCC 06-180 199. Indianapolis,IN 200. Institute for Policy Innovation 201. Intergovernmental Cable Comm Auth,MI 202. Iowa City,IA 203. Irvine,CA 204. Irwindale,CA 205. Itasca Comm TV,MN 206. Jackson,CA 207. Jamestown,NC 208. Jefferson County League of Cities Cable Comm'n,Kentucky 209. Jenkins,KY 210. Jersey Access Group,NJ 211. Kansas City,Missouri 212. Kernersville,NC 213. Killeen,TX 214. King County,WA 215. Kitty Hawk,NC 216. Knightdale,NC 217. La Puente,CA 218. Lake Forest,CA 219. Lake Lurie,NC 220. Lake Mills,WI 221. Lake Minnetonka Communications Comm,MN 222. Lake Worth,FL 223. Lakewood,CA 224. Las Vegas,NV 225. LaVerne,CA 226. League of Minnesota Cities(LMC) 227. League of United Latin American Citizens of the Northeast Region+ 228. Leavenworth,KS 229. Lee County,FL 230. Leibowitz&Associates,P.A. 231. Lenexa,KS 232. Lewisville,NC 233. Lexington,NC 234. Lincoln,CA 235. Lincoln,NE 236. Long Beach,CA 237. Longmont,CO 238. Loomis,CA 239. Los Angeles Cable Television Access Corp.,CA 240. Los Banos,CA 241. Lynwood,CA 242. Madison Hts,MI 243. Madison,NC 244. Madison,WI 245. Malverne,NY 246. Manatee County,Florida 247. Manhattan Community Access Corp.,NY 248. Mann Telecomm Agency,CA 249. Martha's Vineyard Comm TV,MA 73 Federal Communications Commission FCC 06-180 • 250. Maxton,NC 251. Mayodan,NC 252. Mayville,NY 253. Maywood,CA 254. Mecklenburg County,NC 255. Medford,OR 256. Medford,OR 257. Media Action Marin,CA 258. Media Bridges Cincinnati,OH 259. Mercatus Center 260. Metheun Comm TV,MA 261. Metropolitan Area Comm Commit',OR 262. Metropolitan Educational Access Corp,TN 263. Miami Valley Comm Council,OH 264. Miami-Dade County,Florida 265. Michigan Municipal League 266. Microsoft Corporation 267. Middlesex,NC 268. Midland,TX 269. Milpitas,CA 270. Minnesota Telecomm Alliance 271. Minority Media and Telecommunications Council,et al. 272. Missouri Chapter - National Association of Telecommunications Officers and Advisors (MO- NATOA) 273. Mobile,AL 274. Momeyer,NC 275. Monrovia,CA 276. Monterey Park,CA 277. Montrose,CO 278. Morrisville,NC 279. Mount Morris,MI 280. Mt.Hood Cable Regulatory Commission(MHCRC) 281. Murfeesboro,TN 282. Murfreesboro,NC 283. Murrieta,CA 284. National Association of Broadcasters 285. National Black Chamber of Commerce 286. National Cable&Telecommunications Association 287..:National Caucus and Center on Black Aged 288, National Grange 289. National Hispanic Council on Aging 290. National Taxpayers Union 291. National Telecommunications Cooperative Association 292. NATOA,NLC,NACO,USCM,ACM,and ACD 293. Naval Media Center,US 294. New Jersey Board of Public Utilities(NJBPU) 295. New Jersey Division of the Ratepayer Advocate 296. New York City 297. New York State Conference of Mayors(NYCOM) 298. Newton Comm Access Cntr,MA 299. Norfolk,VA 74 Federal Communications Commission FCC 06-180 300. North Kansas City,MO 301. North Liberty,IA 302. North Richland Hills,TX 303. Northbrook,IL 304. Northern Berkshire Comm TV Corp,MA 305. Northern Dakota County Cable Comm Comm'm 306. Northwest Suburbs Cable Commun Comm'n,MN 307. Norwalk,CA 308. Oceanside Comm TV,CA 309. Onslow Cnty,NC • 310. Ontario,CA 311. Orange County,FL 312. Organization for the Promotion and Advancement of Small Telecommunications Companies 313. Orion Neighborhood TV,MI 314. Oxford,NC 315. Pacific Research Institute 316. Pac-West Telecomm,Inc. 317. Palmetto,FL 318. Palo Alto,CA(on behalf of Joint Powers) 319. Pasadena,CA 320. Patton,PA 321. Peachtree City,GA 322. Pennsville, NJ 323. Perris,CA 324. Philadelphia,PA 325. Pike County,Kentucky 326. Pike County,KY -327. Pikeville,Kentucky 328. Pikeville,KY 329. Pinetops,NC 330. Pittsboro,NC 331. Plainfield,MI 332. Pleasant Garden,NC 333. Pleasant Hill,CA 334. Plymouth,MA 335. Pocatello,ID 336. Post Falls,ID 337. Poway,CA 338. Prince George's Community TV,Inc. 339. Prince George's County,MD 340. Princeton Community TV,NJ 341. Public Cable Television Authority 342. Public Utility Commission of Texas 343. Public,Educational and Government Access Oversight Comm of Metro Nashville 344. Queen Anne's County,MD 345. Quote Unquote,NM 346. Qwest Communications International Inc. 347. Ramsey/Washington Counties Suburban Cable Commun.Comm'n,MN 348. Rancho Cordova,CA 349. Rancho Santa Margarita, CA • 350. Randolph County,NC 75 Federal Communications Commission FCC 06-180 • 351. RCN Telecom Services,Inc. 352. Red Oak,NC 353. Redding,CA 354. Reidsville,NC 355. Renton,WA 356. Richmond,KY 357. River Bend,NC 358. Rockingham County,NC 359. Rockwell,NC 360. Rolling Hills Estates,CA 361. Rowan County,NC 362. Sacramento Metro Cable TV Commission,CA 363. Saint Charles,MO 364. Salem,OR 365. Salt Lake City,UT 366. San Diego,CA 367. San Dimas,CA 368. San Jose,CA 369. San Juan Capistrano,CA 370. San Marcos,CA 371. San Mateo County Telecomm Auth, CA 372. Sanford,NC 373. Santa Clara,CA 374. Santa Clarita,CA 375. Santa Cruz County Community TV 376. Santa Rosa,CA 377. Santee,CA 378. Saratoga Springs,NY 379. Scotts Valley,CA 380. Seattle,WA 381. Sebastopol,CA 382. Self-Advocacy Association of New York State,Inc. 383. Shaler,PA 384. Sierra Madre,CA 385. Signal Hill,CA 386. Siler City,NC 387. Simi Valley,CA 388. Sjoberg's,Inc. 389. Skokie,IL 390. Smithfield,NC 391. Solana Beach,CA 392. South Orange Village,NJ 393. South Portland,ME 394. South San Francisco,CA 395. South Slope Cooperative Telephone Company 396. Southeast Michigan Municipalities 397. Southwest Suburban Cable Commission(SWSCC) 398. Spring Hope,NC 399. Springfield,MO 400. St. Charles,IL 401. St.Paul,MN* 76 Federal Communications Commission FCC 06-180 402. St.Petersburg,FL 403. Standish,ME 404. State College Bourough,PA 405. State of Hawaii 406. Statesville,NC 407. Sun Prairie Cable Access TV,WI 408. Sunapee,NH* 409. Sunnyvale,CA 410. Susanville,CA 411. Tabor City,NC 412. Tampa,FL 413. Taylor,MI 414. Telco Retirees Association,Inc. 415. Telecommunications Industry Association 416. Temecula,CA 417. Texas Coalition of Cities for Utility Issues(TCCFUI) 418. Texas Municipal League and the Texas City Attorneys Association 419. The Progress&Freedom Foundation 420. Time Warner Cable 421. Tobaccoville,NC 422. Toppenish,WA 423. Torrance,CA 424. Truckee,CA 425. Tulsa,OK 426. Tuolumne,CA 427. Ukiah,CA 428. United States Internet Industry Association 429. United States Telecom Association 430. United States-Mexico Chamber of Commerce 431. URTV Asheville,NC 432. Valley Voters Organized Toward Empowerment 433. Vancouver Educational Telecommunications Consortium(VETC) 434. Vass,NC 435. Verizon 436. Vermont Public Service Board(VPSB) 437. Video Access Alliance 438. Villages of Larchmont&Mamaroneck,NY 439. Virginia Cable Telecommunications Association(VCTA) 440. Vista,CA 441. Wake Forest,NC 442. Walnut Creek,CA 443. Walnut Creek,California 444. Warrenville,IL 445. Washington State Grange 446. Wayland,MA 447. Wendell,NC 448. West Allis,WI 449. West Palm Beach,FL 450. Westport,WI 451. Wheaton,IL 452. Whitakers,NC • 77 Federal Communications Commission FCC 06-180 453. White Plains Cable Access TV,NY 454. White, SD 455. Whittier,CA 456. Wilbraham,MA 457. Wilson,NC 458. Winchester,KY&KY Regional Cable Comm. 459. Windham Community TV,NH 460. Winston-Salem,NC 461. Wisconsin Association of Public,Educational and Government Access Channels(WAPC) 462. Women Impacting Public Policy 463. Worchester,MA 464. World Institute on Disability 465. Yanceyville,NC 466. Yuma,AZ 467. Zebulon,NC 468. Zeeland,MI • 78 Federal Communications Commission FCC 06-180 APPENDIX B Rule Changes Part 76 of Title 47 of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended as follows: Part 76—MULTICHANNEL VIDEO AND CABLE TELEVISION SERVICE 1. Revise Subpart C title to read as follows: Subpart C—Cable Franchise Applications 2. Insert into new Subpart C the following: §76.41 Franchise Application Process (a)Definition. Competitive Franchise Applicant. For the purpose of this section,an applicant for a cable franchise in an area currently served by another cable operator or cable operators in accordance with 47 U.S.C. § 541(a)(1). (b) A competitive franchise applicant must include the following information in writing in its franchise application,in addition to any information required by applicable state and local laws: (1)the applicant's name; (2)the names of the applicant's officers and directors; (3)the business address of the applicant; (4)the name and contact information of a designated contact for the applicant; (5)a description of the geographic area that the applicant proposes to serve; (6)the PEG channel capacity and capital support proposed by the applicant; (7)the term of the agreement proposed by the applicant; (8)whether the applicant holds an existing authorization to access the public rights-of-way in the subject franchise service area as described under subsection(b)(5); (9)the amount of the franchise fee the applicant offers to pay;and (10)any additional information required by applicable state or local laws. (c) A franchising authority may not require a competitive franchise applicant to negotiate or engage in any regulatory or administrative processes prior to the filing of the application. (d)When a competitive franchise applicant files a franchise application with a franchising authority and the applicant has existing authority to access public rights-of-way in the geographic area that the applicant proposes to serve,the franchising authority must grant or deny the application within 90 days of the date the application is received by the franchising authority. If a competitive franchise applicant does not have existing authority to access public rights-of-way in the geographic area that the applicant proposes to serve, the franchising authority must grant or deny the application within.180 days of the date the application is received by the franchising authority. A franchising authority and a competitive franchise applicant may agree in writing to extend the 90-day or 180-day deadline,whichever is applicable. 79 Federal Communications Commission FCC 06-180 e) If a franchising authority does not grant or deny an application within the time limit specified in subsection (d), the competitive franchise applicant will be authorized to offer service pursuant to an interim franchise in accordance with the terms of the application submitted under subsection(b). f) If after expiration of the time limit specified in subsection (d) a franchising authority denies an application, the competitive franchise applicant must discontinue operating under the interim franchise specified in subsection (e) unless the franchising authority provides consent for the interim franchise to continue for a limited period of time, such as during the period when judicial review of the franchising authority's decision is pending. The competitive franchise applicant may seek judicial review of the denial under 47 U.S.C. § 555. g)If after expiration of the time limit specified in subsection(d)a franchising authority and a competitive franchise applicant agree on the terms of a franchise, upon the effective date of that franchise, that franchise will govern and the interim franchise will expire. 80 • Federal Communications Commission FCC 06-180 APPENDIX C Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 1. As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, as amended (the "RFA"),' the Commission has prepared this Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis("IRFA")of the possible significant economic impact of the policies and rules proposed in the Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking ("Further Notice") on a substantial number of small entities.' Written public comments are requested on this IRFA. Comments must be identified as responses to the IRFA and must be filed by the deadlines for comments on the Further Notice provided in paragraph 145 of the item. -The Commission will send a copy of the Further Notice, including this IRFA, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration("SBA").' In addition,the Further Notice and IRFA(or summaries thereof)will be published in the Federal Register.' A. Need for,and Objectives of,the Proposed Rules 2. The Further Notice continues a process to implement Section 621(a)(1) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, in order to further the interrelated goals of enhanced cable competition and accelerated broadband deployment as discussed in the Report and Order ("Order"). Specifically,the Further Notice solicits comment on whether the Commission should apply the rules and guidelines adopted in the Order to cable operators that have existing franchise agreements, and if so, whether the Commission has authority to do so. The Further Notice also seeks comment on whether the Commission can preempt state or local customer service laws that exceed Commission standards. B. Legal Basis 3. The Further Notice tentatively concludes that the Commission has authority to apply the fmdings in the Order to cable operators with existing franchise agreements. In that regard, the Further Notice fmds that neither Section 611(a) nor Section 622(a) distinguishes between incumbents and new entrants or franchises issued to incumbents and franchises issued to new entrants.' C. Description and Estimate of the Number of Small Entities to Which the Proposed Rules Will Apply 4. The RFA directs agencies to provide a description of, and where feasible, an estimate of the number of small entities that may be affected by the proposed rules, if adopted.' The RFA generally defines the term "small entity" as having the same meaning as the terms "small business," "small organization," and "small governmental jurisdiction."' In addition, the term "small business" has the ' The RFA,see 5 U.S.C. §§601 —612,has been amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996("SBREFA"),Pub.L.No. 104-121,Title II, 110 Stat.857(1996). 2 See 5 U.S.C. §603. Although we are conducting an IRFA at this stage in the process, it is foreseeable that ultimately we will certify this action pursuant to the RFA,5 U.S.C. §605(b),because we anticipate at this time that any rules adopted pursuant to this Notice will have no significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. 3 See 5 U.S.C.§603(a). 4 See 5 U.S.C. §603(a). 5 See 47 U.S.C.§§531(a),542(a). 6 5 U.S.C.§603(b)(3). 7 5 U.S.C.§601(6). 81 Federal Communications Commission FCC 06-180 • same meaning as the term "small business concern" under the Small Business Act.8 A "small business concern" is one which: (1) is independently owned and operated; (2)is not dominant in its field of operation; and (3)satisfies any additional criteria established by the Small Business Administration ("SBA").9 5. Small Businesses. Nationwide, there are a total of approximately 22.4 million small businesses, according to SBA data.10 6. Small Organizations. Nationwide, there are approximately 1.6 million small organizations." 7. The Commission has determined that the group of small entities possibly directly affected by the proposed rules herein, if adopted, consists of small governmental entities. A description of these entities is provided below. In addition the Commission voluntarily provides descriptions of a number of entities that may be merely indirectly affected by any rules that result from the Further Notice. • Small Governmental Jurisdictions 8. The term"small governmental jurisdiction" is defined as "governments of cities, towns, townships, villages, school districts, or special districts, with a population of less than fifty thousand.s12 As of 1997, there were approximately 87,453 governmental jurisdictions in the United States.13 This number includes 39,044 county governments, municipalities, and townships, of which 37,546 (approximately 96.2 percent)have populations of fewer than 50,000,and of which 1,498 have populations of 50,000 or more. Thus, we estimate the number of small governmental jurisdictions overall to be 84,098 or fewer. Miscellaneous Entities 9. The entities described in this section are affected merely indirectly by our current action, and therefore are not formally a part of this RFA analysis. We have included them, however,to broaden the record in this proceeding and to alert them to our tentative conclusions. Cable Operators 10. The "Cable and Other Program Distribution" census category includes cable systems operators, closed circuit television services, direct broadcast satellite services, multipoint distribution systems, satellite master antenna systems, and subscription television services. The SBA has developed small business size standard for this census category,which includes all such companies generating$13.0 million or less in revenue annually.14 According to Census Bureau data for 1997, there were a total of 8 5 U.S.C. §601(3) (incorporating by reference the definition of"small-business concern" in the Small Business Act, 15 U.S.C. §632). Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. §601(3),the statutory definition of a small business applies"unless an agency, after consultation with the Office of Advocacy of the Small Business Administration and after opportunity for public comment,establishes one or more definitions of such term which are appropriate to the activities of the agency and publishes such definition(s)in the Federal Register." 9 15 U.S.C. §632. 10 See SBA,Programs and Services,SBA Pamphlet No.CO-0028,at page 40(July 2002). " Independent Sector,The New Nonprofit Almanac&Desk Reference(2002). • 12 5 U.S.C. §601(5). 13 U.S. Census Bureau, Statistical Abstract of the United States: 2000, Section 9, pages 299-300,Tables 490 and 492. 14 13 C.F.R. § 121.201,North American Industry Classification System(NAICS)517510. 82 • Federal Communications Commission FCC 06-180 1,311 firms in this category, total, that had operated for the entire year.15 Of this total, 1,180 firms had annual receipts of under $10 million and an additional 52 firms had receipts of$10 million or more but less than $25 million. Consequently, the Commission estimates that the majority of providers in this service category are small businesses that may be affected by the rules and policies adopted herein. 11. Cable System Operators (Rate Regulation Standard). The Commission has developed its own small-business-size standard for cable system operators, for purposes of rate regulation. Under the Commission's rules,a"small cable company"is one serving fewer than 400,000 subscribers nationwide.16 The most recent estimates indicate that there were 1,439 cable operators who qualified as small cable system operators at the end of 1995.17 Since then, some of those companies may have grown to serve over 400,000 subscribers, and others may have been involved in transactions that caused them to be combined with other cable operators. Consequently, the Commission estimates that there are now fewer than 1,439 small entity cable system operators that may be affected by the rules and policies adopted herein. 12. Cable System Operators (Telecom Act Standard). The Communications Act of 1934,as amended, also contains a size standard for small cable system operators, which is "a cable operator that, directly or through an affiliate, serves in the aggregate fewer than 1 percent of all subscribers in the United States and is not affiliated with any entity or entities whose gross annual revenues in the aggregate exceed $250,000,000"18 The Commission has determined that there are 67,700,000 subscribers in the United States.19 Therefore, an operator serving fewer than 677,000 subscribers shall be deemed a small operator, if its annual revenues,when combined with the total annual revenues of all its affiliates, do not exceed $250 million in the aggregate.20 Based on available data, the Commission estimates that the number of cable operators serving 677,000 subscribers or fewer,totals 1,450.21 The Commission neither requests nor collects information on whether cable system operators are affiliated with entities whose gross annual revenues exceed $250 million,22 and therefore is unable, at this time, to estimate more, accurately the number of cable system operators that would qualify as small cable operators under the size standard contained in the Communications Act of 1934. 13. Open Video Services. Open Video Service ("OVS") systems provide subscription services.23 As noted above, the SBA has created a small business size standard for Cable and Other 15 U.S. Census Bureau, 1997 Economic Census, Subject Series: Information, "Establishment and Firm Size (Including Legal Form of Organization),"Table 4,NAICS code 513220(issued October 2000). 16 47 C.F.R. §76.901(e). The Commission developed this definition based on its determination that a small cable system operator is one with annual revenues of$100 million or less. See Implementation of Sections of the 1992 Cable Act: Rate Regulation, Sixth Report and Order and Eleventh Order on Reconsideration, 10 FCC Rcd 7393 (1995). 17 Paul Kagan Associates,Inc.,Cable TV Investor,February 29, 1996(based on figures for December 30, 1995). 18 47 U.S.C. §543(m)(2). 19 See FCC Announces New Subscriber Count for the Definition of Small Cable Operator,Public Notice DA 01-158 (2001). 20 47 C.F.R.§76.901(f). 21 See FCC Announces New Subscriber Count for the Definition of Small Cable Operators,Public Notice,DA 01- 0158(2001). 22 The Commission does receive such information on a case-by-case basis if a cable operator appeals a local franchise authority's finding that the operator does not qualify as a small cable operator pursuant to §76.901(f)of the Commission's rules. See 47 C.F.R. §76.909(b). 23 See 47 U.S.C. §573. 83 Federal Communications Commission FCC 06-180 • Program Distribution.24 This standard provides that a small entity is one with $13.0 million or less in annual receipts. The Commission has certified approximately 25 OVS operators to serve 75 areas, and some of these are currently providing service.25 Affiliates of Residential Communications Network, Inc. (RCN) received approval to operate OVS systems in New York City, Boston, Washington, D.C., and other areas. RCN has sufficient revenues to assure that they do not qualify as a small business entity. Little fmancial information is available for the other entities that are authorized to provide OVS and are not yet operational. Given that some entities authorized to provide OVS service have not yet begun to generate revenues, the Commission concludes that up to 24 OVS operators (those remaining) might qualify as small businesses that may be affected by the rules and policies adopted herein. D. Description of Projected Reporting, Recordkeeping and Other Compliance Requirements 14. We anticipate that any rules that result from this action would have at most a de minimis impact on small governmental jurisdictions (e.g., one-time proceedings to amend existing procedures regarding the method of granting competitive franchises). Local franchising authorities ("LFAs") today must review and decide upon competitive cable franchise applications, and will continue to perform that role upon the conclusion of this proceeding;any rules that might be adopted pursuant to this Notice likely would require at most only modifications to that process. E. Steps Taken to Minimize Significant Economic Impact on Small Entities and Significant Alternatives Considered 15. The RFA requires an agency to describe any significant, specifically small business, alternatives that it has considered in reaching its proposed approach, which may include the following four alternatives (among others): "(1)the establishment of differing compliance or reporting requirements or timetables that take into account the resources available to small entities; (2)the clarification, consolidation, or simplification of compliance and reporting requirements under the rule for such small entities; (3)the use of performance rather than design standards; and (4)an exemption from coverage of the rule,or any part thereof,for such small entities."' 16. As discussed in the Further Notice, Sections 611(a) and 622(a) do not distinguish between new entrants and cable operators with existing franchises.27 As discussed in the Order, the Commission has the authority to implement the mandate of Section 621(a)(1)to ensure that LFAs do not unreasonably refuse to award competitive franchises to new entrants,and adopts rules designed to ensure that the local franchising process does not create unreasonable barriers to competitive entry for new entrants. Such rules consist of specific guidelines (e.g., maximum timeframes for considering a competitive franchise application) and general principles regarding franchise fees designed to provide LFAs with the guidance necessary to conform their behavior to the directive of Section 621(a)(1). As noted above, applying these rules regarding the franchising process to cable operators with existing franchises likely would have at most a de minimis impact on small governmental jurisdictions. Even if that were not the case, however, we believe that the interest of fairness to those cable operators would outweigh any impact on small entities. The alternative (i.e., continuing to allow LFAs to follow procedures that are unreasonable) would be unacceptable, as it would be inconsistent with the Communications Act. We seek comment on the impact that such rules might have on small entities, and on what effect alternative rules would have on those entities. We also invite comment on ways in which 24 13 C.F.R.§ 121.201,NAICS code 517510. 25 See http://www.fcc.gov/mb/ovs/csovscer.html (visited December 19, 2006), http://www.fcc.gov/mb/ovs/ csovsarc.html(visited December 19,2006). 26 5 U.S.C.§§603(c)(1)-(4). 27 47 U.S.C. §§531(a),542(a). 84 • Federal Communications Commission FCC 06-180 the Commission might implement the tentative conclusions while at the same time imposing lesser burdens on small entities. F. Federal Rules that May Duplicate,Overlap,or Conflict with the Proposed Rules 17. None. 85 Federal Communications Commission FCC 06-180 APPENDIX D Final Regulatory Flexibility Act Analysis 1. As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980,as amended("RFA")' an Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis("IRFA")was incorporated in the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking ("NPRM")to this proceeding.' The Commission sought written public comment on the proposals in the NPRM,including comment on the IRFA. The Commission received one comment on the IRFA. This present Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis("FRFA")conforms to the RFA.3 A. Need for,and Objectives of,the Report and Order 2. This Report and Order ("Order") adopts rules and provides guidance to implement Section 621 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended(the"Communications Act").4 Section 621 of the Communications Act prohibits franchising authorities from unreasonably refusing to award competitive franchises for the provision of cable services.' The Commission has found that the current franchising process constitutes an unreasonable barrier to entry for competitive entrants that impedes enhanced cable competition and accelerated broadband deployment. The Commission also has determined that it has authority to address this problem. To eliminate the unreasonable barriers to entry into the cable market, and to encourage investment in broadband facilities, in this Order the Commission (1)adopts maximum time frames within which local franchising authorities("LFAs")must grant or deny franchise applications (90 days for new entrants with existing access to rights-of-way and six months for those who do not); (2) prohibits LFAs from imposing unreasonable build-out requirements on new entrants; (3) identifies certain costs, fees, and other compensation which, if required by LFAs, must be counted toward the statutory 5 percent cap on franchise fees; (4) interprets new entrants' obligations to provide support for PEG channels and facilities and institutional networks("I-Nets");and(5)clarifies that LFA authority is limited to regulation of cable services, not mixed-use services. The Commission also preempts local laws, regulations, and franchise agreement requirements, including level-playing-field provisions, to the extent they impose greater restrictions on market entry for competitive entrants than what the Order allows. The rule and guidelines are adopted in order to further the interrelated goals of enhanced cable competition and accelerated broadband deployment. For the specific language of the rule adopted,see Appendix B. B. Summary of Significant Issues Raised by Public Comments in Response to the IRFA 3. Only one commenter, Sjoberg's, Inc. submitted a comment that specifically responded to the IRFA. Sjoberg's, Inc. contends that small cable operators are directly affected by the adoption of rules that treat competitive cable entrants more favorably than incumbents. Sjoberg's Inc. argues that small cable operators are not in a position to compete with large potential competitors. These arguments were considered and rejected as discussed below. 4. We disagree with Sjoberg's Inc. assertion that our rules will treat competitive cable entrants more favorably than incumbents. While the actions we take in the Order will serve to increase ' See 5 U.S.C. § 603. The RFA,see 5 U.S.C. § 601 et. seq.,has been amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996("SBREFA"),Pub.L.No. 104-121,Title II, 110 Stat.847(1996). The SBREFA was enacted as Title II of the Contract With America Advancement Act of 1996("CWAAA"). 2 Implementation of Section 621(a)(1) of the Cable Communications Policy Act of 1984 as amended by the Cable Television Consumer Protection and Competition Act of 1992,20 FCC Rcd 18581 (2005)("NPRM"). 3 See 5 U.S.C.§604. 4 47 U.S.C. §541(a)(1). 5 Id. 86 • Federal Communications Commission FCC 06-180 competition in the multichannel video programming("MVPD") market, we do not believe that the rules we adopt in the Order will put any incumbent provider at a competitive disadvantage. In fact,we believe that incumbent cable operators are at a competitive advantage in the MVPD market; incumbent cable operators have the competitive advantage of an existing customer base and significant brand recognition in their existing markets. Furthermore,we ask in the Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking whether the fmdings adopted in the Order should apply to existing cable operators and tentatively conclude that they should. C. Description and Estimate of the Number of Small Entities to Which the Proposed Rules Will Apply Entities Directly Affected By Proposed Rules 5. The RFA directs the Commission to provide a description of and, where feasible, an estimate of the number of small entities that will be affected by the rules adopted herein.6 The RFA generally defines the term "small entity" as having the same meaning as the terms "small business," "small organization," and "small government jurisdiction."' In addition, the term "small business" has the same meaning as the term"small business concern"under the Small Business Act.8 A small business concern is one which: (1) is independently owned and operated; (2) is not dominant in its field of operation; and (3) satisfies any additional criteria established by the Small Business Administration (SBA).9 • 6. The rules adopted by this Order will streamline the local franchising process by adopting rules that provide guidance as to what constitutes an unreasonable refusal to grant a cable franchise. The Commission has determined that the group of small entities directly affected by the rules adopted herein consists of small governmental entities(which, in some cases,may be represented in the local franchising process by not-for-profit enterprises). Therefore, in this FRFA, we consider the impact of the rules on small governmental entities. A description of such small entities, as well as an estimate of the number of such small entities,is provided below. 7. Small governmental jurisdictions. Small governmental jurisdictions are"governments of cities, towns, townships, villages, school districts, or special districts, with a population of less than fifty thousand.s10 As of 1997, there were approximately 87,453 governmental jurisdictions in the United States." This number includes 39,044 county governments, municipalities, and townships, of which 37,546 (approximately 96.2 percent) have populations of fewer than 50,000, and of which 1,498 have populations of 50,000 or more. Thus,we estimate the number of small governmental jurisdictions overall to be 84,098 or fewer. 6 5 U.S.C.§603(b)(3). 'Id. §601(6). 8 Id. § 601(3)(incorporating by reference the definition of"small business concern"in 15 U.S.C. § 632). Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 601(3),the statutory definition of a small business applies"unless an agency,after consultation with the Office of Advocacy of the Small Business Administration and after opportunity for public comment,establishes one or more definitions of such term which are appropriate to the activities of the agency and publishes such definition(s)in the Federal Register." 5 U.S.C.§601(3). 9 15 U.S.C. §632. Application of the statutory criteria of dominance in its field of operation and independence are sometimes difficult to apply in the context of broadcast television. Accordingly, the Commission's statistical account of television stations may be over-inclusive. 10 5 U.S.C. §601(5). U.S. Census Bureau, Statistical Abstract of the United States: 2000, Section 9,pages 299-300, Tables 490 and 492. 87 Federal Communications Commission FCC 06-180 • Miscellaneous Entities 8. The entities described in this section are affected merely indirectly by our current action, and therefore are not formally a part of this RFA analysis. We have included them, however,to broaden the record in this proceeding and to alert them to our conclusions. Cable Operators 9. The "Cable and Other Program Distribution" census category includes cable systems operators, closed circuit television services, direct broadcast satellite services, multipoint distribution systems, satellite master antenna systems, and subscription television services. The SBA has developed small business size standard for this census category,which includes all such companies generating$13.0 million or less in revenue annually.'2 According to Census Bureau data for 1997, there were a total of 1,311 firms in this category, total, that had operated for the entire year.13 Of this total, 1,180 firms had annual receipts of under $10 million and an additional 52 firms had receipts of$10 million or more but less than $25 million. Consequently, the Commission estimates that the majority of providers in this service category are small businesses that may be affected by the rules and policies adopted herein. 10. Cable System Operators (Rate Regulation Standard). The Commission has developed its own small-business-size standard for cable system operators, for purposes of rate regulation. Under the Commission's rules,a"small cable company"is one serving fewer than 400,000 subscribers nationwide.14 The most recent estimates indicate that there were 1,439 cable operators who qualified as small cable system operators at the end of 1995.15 Since then, some of those companies may have grown to serve over 400,000 subscribers, and others may have been involved in transactions that caused them to be combined with other cable operators. Consequently, the Commission estimates that there are now fewer than 1,439 small entity cable system operators that may be affected by the rules and policies adopted herein. 11. Cable System Operators (Telecom Act Standard). The Communications Act of 1934, as amended, also contains a size standard for small cable system operators, which is "a cable operator that, directly or through an affiliate, serves in the aggregate fewer than 1 percent of all subscribers in the United States and is not affiliated with any entity or entities whose gross annual revenues in the aggregate exceed $250,000,000.s16 The Commission has determined that there are 67,700,000 subscribers in the United States!' Therefore, an operator serving fewer than 677,000 subscribers shall be deemed a small operator, if its annual revenues,when combined with the total annual revenues of all its affiliates, do not exceed $250 million in the aggregate.18 Based on available data, the Commission estimates that the 12 13 C.F.R.§ 121.201,North American Industry Classification System(NAICS)code 517510. 13 U.S. Census Bureau, 1997 Economic Census, Subject Series: Information, "Establishment and Firm Size (Including Legal Form of Organization),"Table 4,NAICS code 513220(issued October 2000). 14 47 C.F.R. § 76.901(e). The Commission developed this definition based on its determination that a small cable system operator is one with annual revenues of$100 million or less. See Implementation of Sections of the 1992 Cable Act: Rate Regulation, Sixth Report and Order and Eleventh Order on Reconsideration, 10 FCC Rcd 7393 (1995). 15 Paul Kagan Associates,Inc.,Cable TV Investor,February 29, 1996(based on figures for December 30, 1995). 16 47 U.S.C. §543(m)(2). 17 See FCC Announces New Subscriber Count for the Definition of Small Cable Operator,Public Notice DA 01-158 (2001). 18 47 C.F.R. §76.901(f). 88 Federal Communications Commission FCC 06-180 • number of cable operators serving 677,000 subscribers or fewer,totals 1,450.i9 The Commission neither requests nor collects information on whether cable system operators are affiliated with entities whose gross annual revenues exceed $250 million,20 and therefore is unable, at this time, to estimate more accurately the number of cable system operators that would qualify as small cable operators under the size standard contained in the Communications Act of 1934. 12. Open Video Services. Open Video Service ("OVS") systems provide subscription services.21 As noted above, the SBA has created a small business size standard for Cable and Other Program Distribution.22 This standard provides that a small entity is one with $13.0 million or less in annual receipts. The Commission has certified approximately 25 OVS operators to serve 75 areas, and some of these are currently providing service.23 Affiliates of Residential Communications Network, Inc. (RCN) received approval to operate OVS systems in New York City, Boston, Washington, D.C., and other areas. RCN has sufficient revenues to assure that they do not qualify as a small business entity. Little financial information is available for the other entities that are authorized to provide OVS and are not yet operational. Given that some entities authorized to provide OVS service have not yet begun to generate revenues, the Commission concludes that up to 24 OVS operators (those remaining) might qualify as small businesses that may be affected by the rules and policies adopted herein. Telecommunications Service Entities 13. As noted above, a "small business" under the RFA is one that, inter alia, meets the pertinent small business size standard(e.g., a telephone communications business having 1,500 or fewer employees), and "is not dominant in its field of operation."24 The SBA's Office of Advocacy contends that, for RFA purposes, small incumbent local exchange carriers are not dominant in their field of operation because any such dominance is not "national" in scope.25 We have therefore included small incumbent local exchange carriers in this RFA analysis, although we emphasize that this RFA action has no effect on Commission analyses and determinations in other,non-RFA contexts. 14. Incumbent Local Exchange Carriers(`LECs"). Neither the Commission nor the SBA has •developed a small business size standard specifically for incumbent local exchange services. The appropriate size standard under SBA rules is for the category Wired Telecommunications Carriers.Under that size standard, such a business is small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees.26 According to 19 See FCC Announces New Subscriber Count for the Definition of Small Cable Operators,Public Notice,DA 01- 0158(2001). 20 The Commission does receive such information on a case-by-case basis if a cable operator appeals a local franchise authority's finding that the operator does not qualify as a small cable operator pursuant to § 76.901(f) of the Commission's rules.See 47 C.F.R.§76.909(b). 21 See 47 U.S.C.§573. 22 13 C.F.R. § 121.201,NAICS code 517510. 23 See http://www.fcc.gov/mb/ovs/csovscer.html(visited December 19,2006), http://www.fcc.gov/mb/ovs/csovsarc.html(visited December 19,2006). 24 15 U.S.C. §632. 25 Letter from Jeri W.Glover,Chief Counsel for Advocacy,SBA,to William E.Kennard,Chairman,FCC(May 27, 1999). The Small Business Act contains a definition of"small-business concern,"which the RFA incorporates into its own definition of"small business."See 15 U.S.C.§632(a)(Small Business Act);5 U.S.C. §601(3)(RFA).SBA regulations interpret "small business concern" to include the concept of dominance on a national basis. See 13 C.F.R.§ 121.102(b). 26 13 C.F.R. § 121.201,NAICS code 517110(changed from 513310 in Oct.2002). 89 Federal Communications Commission FCC 06-180 Commission data,27 1,303 carriers have reported that they are engaged in the provision of incumbent local exchange services. Of these 1,303 carriers, an estimated 1,020 have 1,500 or fewer employees and 283 have more than 1,500 employees. Consequently, the Commission estimates that most providers of incumbent local exchange service are small businesses that may be affected by our action. In addition, limited preliminary census data for 2002 indicate that the total number of wired communications carriers increased approximately 34 percent from 1997 to 2002.28 15. Competitive Local Exchange Carriers, Competitive Access Providers (CAPs), "Shared- Tenant Service Providers,"and "Other Local Service Providers." Neither the Commission nor the SBA has developed a small business size standard specifically for these service providers. The appropriate size standard under SBA rules is for the category Wired Telecommunications Carriers. Under that size standard, such a business is small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees.29 According to Commission data,3o 769 carriers have reported that they are engaged in the provision of either competitive access provider services or competitive local exchange carrier services. Of these 769 carriers, an estimated 676 have 1,500 or fewer employees and 93 have more than 1,500 employees. In addition, 12 carriers have reported that they are "Shared-Tenant Service Providers," and all 12 are estimated to have 1,500 or fewer employees. In addition, 39 carriers have reported that they are "Other Local Service Providers." Of the 39, an estimated 38 have 1,500 or fewer employees and one has more than 1,500 employees. Consequently, the Commission estimates that most providers of competitive local exchange service, competitive access providers, "Shared-Tenant Service Providers," and "Other Local Service Providers" are small entities that may be affected by our action.In addition,limited preliminary census data for 2002 indicate that the total number of wired communications carriers increased approximately 34 percent from 1997 to 2002.31 D. Description of Projected Reporting, Record Keeping and other Compliance Requirements 16. The rule and guidance adopted in the Order will require de minimus additional reporting, record keeping, and other compliance requirements. The most significant change requires potential franchisees to file an application to mark the beginning of the franchise negotiation process. This filing requires minimal information, and we estimate that the average burden on applicants to complete this application is one hour. The franchising authority will review this application in the normal course of its franchising.procedures. The rule will not require any additional special skills beyond any already needed in the cable franchising context. E. Steps Taken to Minimize Significant Impact on Small Entities, and Significant Alternatives Considered 17. The RFA requires an agency to describe any significant alternatives that it has considered 27 FCC,Wireline Competition Bureau, Industry Analysis and Technology Division, "Trends in Telephone Service" at Table 5.3, page 5-5 (June 2005) ("Trends in Telephone Service"). This source uses data that are current as of October 1,2004. 28 See U.S.Census Bureau,2002 Economic Census,Industry Series:"Information,"Table 2,Comparative Statistics for the United States (1997 NAICS Basis): 2002 and 1997, NAICS code 513310 (issued Nov. 2004). The preliminary data indicate that the total number of"establishments"increased from 20,815 to 27,891.In this context, the number of establishments is a less helpful indicator of small business prevalence than is the number of"firms," because the latter number takes into account the concept of common ownership or control. The more helpful 2002 census data on firms,including employment and receipts numbers,will be issued in late 2005. 29 13 C.F.R. § 121.201,NAICS code 517110. 30"Trends in Telephone Service"at Table 5.3. 31 See supra note 28. 90 • Federal Communications Commission FCC 06-180 in reaching its proposed approach,which may include the following four alternatives(among others): (1) the establishment of differing compliance or reporting requirements or timetables that take into account the resources available to small entities; (2) the clarification, consolidation, or simplification of compliance or reporting requirements under the rule for small entities; (3) the use of performance,rather than design, standards; and (4) an exemption from coverage of the rule, or any part thereof, for small entities.32 18. In the NPRM, the Commission sought comment on the impact that rules interpreting Section 621(a)(1) might have on small entities, and on what effect alternative rules would have on those entities. The Commission also invited comment on ways in which the Commission might implement Section 621(a)(1) while at the same time impose lesser burdens on small entities. The Commission tentatively concluded that any rules likely would have at most a de minimis impact on small governmental jurisdictions, and that the interrelated, high-priority federal communications policy goals of enhanced cable competition and accelerated broadband deployment necessitated the establishment of specific guidelines for LFAs with respect to the process by which they grant competitive cable franchises. We agree with those tentative conclusions,and we believe that the rules adopted in the Order will not impose a significant impact on any small entity. 19. In the Order, we provide that LFAs should reasonably review franchise applications within 90 days for entities existing authority to access rights-of way, and within six months for entities that do not have such authority. This will result in decreasing the regulatory burdens on cable operators. We declined to adopt shorter deadlines that commenters proposed(e.g., 17 days, one month) in order to provide small entities more flexibility in scheduling their franchise negotiation sessions. In the Order,we also provide guidance on whether an LFA may reasonably refuse to award a competitive franchise based on certain franchise requirements, such as build-out requirements and franchise fees. As an alternative, we considered providing no guidance on any franchising terms. We conclude that the guidance we provide minimizes any adverse impact on small entities because it clarifies the terms within which parties must negotiate,and should prevent small entities from facing costly litigation over those terms. F. Report to Congress 20. The Commission will send a copy of the Order, including this FRFA, in a report to be sent to Congress pursuant to the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996.33 In addition, the Commission will send a copy of the Order, including the FRFA, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration. A copy of the Order and FRFA(or summaries thereof) will also be published in the Federal Register.' 32 5 U.S.C. §603(c)(1)-(c)(4) 33 See 5 U.S.C.§801(a)(1)(A). 34 See id. § 604(b). 91 } Federal Communications Commission FCC 06-180 STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN KEVIN J.MARTIN Re: Implementation of Section 621(a)(1)of the Cable Communications Policy Act of 1984 as amended by the Cable Television Consumer Protection and Competition Act of 1992(MB Docket No. 05-311) Greater competition in the market for the delivery for multichannel video programming is a primary and long-standing goal of federal communications policy. In passing the 1992 Cable Act, Congress recognized that competition between multiple cable systems would be beneficial, would help lower cable rates, and specifically encouraged local franchising authorities to award competitive franchises. Section 621 of the statute reads,"A franchising authority may not grant an exclusive franchise and may not unreasonably refuse to award an additional competitive franchise." Telephone companies are investing billions of dollars to upgrade their networks to provide.video. As new providers began actively seeking entry into video markets, we began to hear that some local authorities were making the process of getting franchises unreasonably difficult, despite clear statutory language. The record collected by the Commission in this proceeding cited instances where LFAs sat on applications for more than a year or required extraordinary in kind contributions such as the building of public swimming pools and recreation centers. Such unreasonable requirements are especially troubling because competition is desperately needed in the video market. As we just found, from 1995 to 2005, cable rates have risen 93%. In 1995 cable cost $22.37 per month. Last year, cable cost $43.04 per month. Today's Communications Daily reports that prices for expanded basic are now about $50 per month. The trend in pricing of cable services is of particular importance to consumers. Since 1996 the prices of every other communications service have declined while cable rates have risen year after year after year. This item appropriately removes such regulatory barriers by giving meaning to the words Congress wrote in section 621 of the Cable Act. Specifically, the Commission fmds that an LFA is unreasonably refusing to grant a competitive franchise when it does not act on an application within a reasonable time period, imposes taxes on non-cable services such as broadband,requires a new entrant to provide unrelated services or imposes unreasonable build-out requirements. The widespread deployment of broadband remains my top priority as Chairman and a major Commission objective. During my tenure as Chairman, the Commission has worked hard to create a regulatory environment.that promotes broadband deployment. We have removed legacy regulations,like tariffs and price controls, that discourage carriers from investing in their broadband networks, and we worked to create a regulatory level playing-field among broadband platforms. And we have begun to see some success as a result of the Commission's policies. High-speed connections to the Internet have grown over 400%since I became Commissioner in July 200. The ability to deploy broadband networks rapidly however, is intrinsically linked to the ability to offer video to consumers. As the Commission stated in the Notice in this proceeding: "The construction of modern telecommunications facilities requires substantial capital investment and such networks, once completed, are capable of providing not only voice and data, but video as well. As a consequence, the ability to offer video offers the promise of an additional revenue stream from which deployment costs can be recovered." Similarly, in a 2005 Policy Paper, the Phoenix Center found that video is "is now the key driver for new fiber deployment in the residential market." The Phoenix Center went on to say that: "If a new 92 Federal Communications Commission FCC 06-180 entrant cannot readily provide consumers multichannel video over an advanced network, then the prospects for success will be diminished substantially due to a reduction in the entrant's potential revenues. Quite simply,the ability to sell video services over these fiber networks may be a crucial factor in getting those fiber networks deployed." By enhancing the ability of new entrants to provide video services then we are advancing our goal of universal affordable broadband access for Americans, as well as our goal of increased video competition. I am also committed to seeing that consumers are able to realize the benefits of competition in the forms of better services and lower prices. In recent years however, consumers have had limited choice among video services providers and ever increasing prices for those services. But as was just demonstrated in our annual price survey, cable competition can impact cable bills. Again, it found that only in areas where there was competition from a second cable operator did average price for cable service decrease. I am pleased that the steps taken by the Commission today will expressly further this type of competition and help ensure that lower prices are available to as many Americans as possible as quickly as possible. Addressing build-out requirements was particularly difficult. This item seeks to strike a balance between encouraging as widespread deployment of broadband as possible while not deterring entry altogether. I believed it would have been appropriate to provide examples of build-out requirements that would be reasonable in addition to illustrating those that could not be.' • ' For example,I would have been willing to fmd that it would seem reasonable for an LFA to require that,beginning five years after the effective date of a new entrant's franchise and every 3 years thereafter, if in the portion of the franchise area where the new entrant has chosen to offer cable service at least 15 percent of the households subscribe to such service,the new entrant increase by 20 percent the households in the franchise area to which the new entrant offers cable service by the beginning of the next 3-year interval,until the new entrant is capable of providing cable service to all households in the franchise area. 93 Federal Communications Commission FCC 06-180 DISSENTING STATEMENT OF COMMISSIONER MICHAEL J.COPPS Re: Implementation of Section 621(a)(1)of the Cable Communications Policy Act of 1984 as amended by the Cable Television Consumer Protection and Competition Act of 1992(MB Docket No. 05-311) I think that all of my colleagues and I can agree on the central importance of encouraging video competition. It is abundantly clear that cable rates are rising faster than inflation and that wireline cable competition can be helpful in bringing those rates down. Consumers deserve rules that will bring such competition to their doorsteps because consumers are not being well-served by the lack of competition today. I think my colleagues and I can also agree on the central importance of broadband deployment. As I have often pointed out,our nation is falling behind in the international broadband race. Encouraging new entrants into the video market could at least assist in the challenge of building out broadband infrastructure, although it doesn't represent anything near the totality of what a real broadband strategy would look like. But agreeing on the many benefits of video competition is hardly the same thing as coming up with rules that will actually encourage honest-to-goodness competition within the framework of the statutes that Congress has given us. The item before us today doesn't get us there and I cannot support it as written. In recent days we had discussions attempting to craft an item with which I would feel more comfortable. Chairman Martin engaged in those discussions in good faith and I thank him for that. My goal was to encourage an item that preserves a local authority's statutory right to seek specific and far- 'reaching build-out requirements, protects each community's ability to negotiate for PEG and I-NET facilities, and maintains truly meaningful local ability to deal with the huge companies that are coming into our cities and towns to build important infrastructure. Throughout the consideration of this item and even as we discussed ways to improve it in recent days, I have been troubled at the lack of a granular record that would demonstrate that the present franchising system is irretrievably broken and that traditional federal-state-local relationships have to be so thoroughly upended. If we are going to preempt and upend the balances inherent in long-standing federal-state-local jurisdictional authorities, we should have a record clearly demonstrating that those local authorities are not up to the task of handling this infrastructure build-out and that competition can be introduced only by preempting and upsetting these long-standing principles of federalism. My colleagues may recall that when we launched the NPRM on this item, I made it very clear how important the compilation of a compelling granular record would be in my consideration of this proceeding. I do not believe that either today's item or the record behind it makes such a showing. The various examples of "unreasonable"franchise requirements that the item enumerates are not closely or carefully supported by the record and often fail to rise beyond isolated episodes or anecdotal evidence. Many people questioned,and continue to question,the Commission's legal authority to do what it is doing today. It is clear that those questions remain and that the Commission has been asked by those with oversight powers to more conclusively demonstrate our authority to undertake the actions we initiate today. I believe it is the better course of wisdom in so far-reaching a proceeding, in light of the concern being expressed by those with oversight responsibilities of this Commission,to thoroughly answer those questions, to lay out the basis of our claimed legal authority, and to explain what legal risks this action entails before taking action. Under the circumstances,proceeding on such a controversial decision today 94 • Federal Communications Commission FCC 06-180 does not put an end to this issue. It only invites more delay,more confusion,and more possibility of legal challenge. As we face the challenge of providing ubiquitous high-speed broadband to all our citizens, we need the certainty of a national strategy to get the job done. Right now this nation is hobbled because it has no such strategy, no plan for the infrastructure build-out our people need to be productive and competitive citizens of the world. The United States is ranked number twenty-one in the International Telecommunications Union's Digital Opportunity Index. It is difficult to take much comfort from being twenty-first in the Twenty-first century. The kind of broadband strategy I am talking about demands a level of consensus and national buy-in by the many diverse interests and entities that would be responsible for implementing it. While I have never equated franchise reform as anything remotely equivalent to a national broadband strategy,I do believe a properly-crafted and legally-certain franchising reform could facilitate some level of broadband build-out. That is what I attempted to work toward here. But if our decision is only going to increase concern, increase the questions and increase the risk, then I think we should pause, take a deep breath, answer the questions and reach out for more consensus. I don't say unanimity,of course,but at least a level of comfort that builds an environment wherein the next few years can see the job actually getting done rather than spent in contentious debate or court challenge because our reasoning was deemed inadequate. So I thank my colleagues, and especially the Chairman, for the discussions we have had— discussions that were both in good faith and substantive—but in light of the concerns I have just discussed, I cannot support this afternoon's outcome. Unlike so many other proceedings coming before the Commission, I was nowhere near certain as I came to work this morning how the vote on this item would go. I actually thought that perhaps we would take the short time needed, answer the questions that had been posed,and then reassess where we were as to proceeding with an item. That was my preference. Instead it appears a majority will proceed to approve an item that, as drafted right now, is without important enhancements I have been advocating and without sufficient buy-in from the world beyond the FCC to assure its effectiveness. I must therefore respectfully dissent. 95 Federal Communications Commission FCC 06-180 DISSENTING STATEMENT OF COMMISSIONER JONATHAN S.ADELSTEIN Re: Implementation of Section 621(a)(1)of the Cable Communications Policy Act of 1984 as amended by the Cable Television Consumer Protection and Competition Act of 1992 (MB Docket No. 05-311) The policy goals of this Order, to promote competitive video offerings and broadband deployment, are laudable. But while I support these goals, today's item goes out on a limb in asserting federal authority to preempt local governments, and then saws off the limb with a highly dubious legal scheme. It substitutes our judgment as to what is reasonable—or unreasonable—for that of local officials —all in violation of the franchising framework established in the Communications Act. Today's Order is certain to offend many in Congress, who worked long and hard on this important issue, only to have a Commission decision rushed through with little consultation. The result will be heavy oversight after-the-fact, and a likely rejection by the courts. It will solve nothing, create much confusion, and provide little certainty or progress on our shared goal of promoting real video competition and universal broadband deployment. This outcome is disappointing because I believe we must do everything we can to encourage competitive video offerings. As I was driving to work this morning, I saw a line of Verizon trucks installing FiOS in my neighborhood. I must admit,I am very excited about this new service, and plan to subscribe. FiOS is now available because our local county officials approved a franchise for Verizon. If they had not, I imagine many of my neighbors would have complained loudly. Maybe that is why Verizon has repeatedly told Wall Street investors, "[e]ven in those states where we don't have the whole state,places like Pennsylvania,we have become very successful now in getting franchising. So we don't see that as an issue going forward."' I am pleased with their efforts and their success, and want to encourage their continued investment. As I said in the underlying Notice of Proposed Rule Making,"Congress clearly sought to promote competitive cable offerings and to facilitate the approval of competitive cable franchises in the Cable Act of 1992.s2 I agree the Commission should do what it can within the current legal framework to facilitate increased video competition because it benefits American consumers, promotes U.S. deployment of broadband networks and services,and enhances the free exchange of ideas in our democratic society. Notwithstanding these worthy goals, I,unfortunately,cannot support this Order because the FCC is a regulatory agency, not a legislative body. In my years working on Capitol Hill, I learned enough to know that today's Order is legislation disguised as regulation. The courts will likely reverse such action because the Commission cannot act when it "does not really define specific statutory terms, but rather takes off from those terms and devises a comprehensive regulatory regimen.... This extensive quasi- legislative effort to implement the statute does not strike [me] as merely a construction of statutory phrases.s3 'Final Transcript, Thomson StreetEvents,VZ-Verizon at UBS 34th Annual Global Media Conference,Dec.6,2006, at page 7,available at,http://investor.verizon.com/news/20061206/20061206 transcript.pdf. 2 Statement of Commissioner Jonathan S. Adelstein, Implementation of Section 621(a)(1) of the Cable Communications Policy Act of 1984,as amended by the Cable Television Consumer Protection and Competition Act of 1992, MB Docket No. 05-311, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, FCC 05-180 (rel. Nov. 18, 2005) ("Local Franchising NPRM"). 3 Kelley v. E.P.A., 15 F.3d 1100, 1108 (DC. Cir. 1994). While the Commission contends that "[d]espite the parameters established by the Communications Act, ... operation of the franchising process has proven far more (continued...) 96 Federal Communications Commission FCC 06-180 • Today's Order is disappointing because while there is bipartisan agreement that the current video franchising framework should be refined to better reflect marketplace realities, technological advancement, and consumer demands, the decision skips the fine-tuning and performs an extreme makeover. The majority accomplishes today what the elected representatives of the American people have tried to do through the legislative process. In doing so,the Commission not only disregards current law and exceeds its authority,but it also usurps congressional prerogatives and ignores the plain meaning of Title VI, the cannons of statutory construction, and the judicial remedy Congress already provided for unreasonable refusals. In crafting a broadly aggressive and legally tenuous solution,the majority attempts the legal equivalent of triple axels and quadruple toe loops that would only impress an Olympic judge who is willing to overlook slips,stumbles,and falls. We might keep in mind former President Ronald Reagan's views on federalism and the role of local governments. In his first State of the Union Address,President Reagan exhorted Americans to give power back to local governments: Together,after 50 years of taking power away from the hands of the people in their states and local communities we have started returning power and resources to them. ... Some will also say our states and local communities are not up to the challenge of a new and creative partnership. Well,that might have been true 20 years ago. ... It's no longer true today. This Administration has faith in state and local governments and the constitutional balance envisioned by the Founding Fathers.4 More recently, President George W. Bush echoed this trust in local government, asserting that "government closest to the people is more responsive and accountable.s5 While the Commission has long viewed the cable franchising process as "a deliberately structured dualism,s6 today's decision is a clear rebuke of this storied relationship with local government. Congressional action in 1984, 1992, and 1996 re-affirmed further that it is Congress' intent that "the franchise process take[s] place at the local level where city officials have the best understanding of local communities' needs and can require cable operators to tailor the cable system to meet those needs."7 This is clearly set forth in the purposes of Title 6, wherein Congress made clear that Title 6 would establish the proper local, state and federal roles.8 Congress established a framework whereby state and local authorities, within certain federal limits, are primarily responsible for the administration of the franchising process. That process is inherently local and fact-specific. Indeed, a one-size-fits-all (Continued from previous page) complex and time consuming than it should be,"(Order,¶3),the proper inquiry is whether the franchising process is operating as Congress intended. Today's Order ignores this important question. In so doing, the Commission disregards the parameters established in the Cable Act and imposes its view of how the franchising process should be. 4 President Ronald Reagan,State of the Union Address,January 26, 1982,available at, htto://www.reagan.utexas.edu/archives/soeeches/1982/12682c.htm. 5 George W.Bush,"What the Congress Can Do For America,"WALL ST.J.,January 3,2007,at A13. 6 Cable Television Report and Order, 36 F.C.C.2d 143,207¶177,recon.,36 F.C.C.2d 326(1972). 7 H.R.Rep.No.934,98th Congress,2d Sess.at 24. 8 47 U.S.C. §521 (3). 97 Federal Communications Commission FCC 06-180 approach is antithetical to clear congressional intent that cable systems be "responsive to needs and interests of local community.s9 To be sure, the franchising process is not perfect and, by definition, negotiations may result in some delay. But Congress, after much deliberation, created this process to achieve certain stated policy objectives, which are clearly set out in the Act. 10 Regardless of how commenters now feel about this carefully calibrated and negotiated balance, Congress delegated authority to state and local governments to make certain decisions and to determine the merit of granting cable franchises in their respective communities. It then set forth a judicial remedy if a party is aggrieved by a denial of franchising." While Congress has the power to revisit this scheme, and has strongly considered doing so, until then this Commission must adhere to the law as written. Yet today,the Commission is federalizing the franchising process,taking it upon itself to decide, in every local dispute, what is "unreasonable," without actually looking at specific, local examples to determine the real situation.' Instead of acknowledging the vast dispute in the record as to whether there are actually any unreasonable refusals being made today, the majority simply accepts in every case that the phone companies are right and the local governments are wrong,all without bothering to examine the facts behind these competing claims,or conduct any independent fact-fmding. This is breathtaking in its disrespect of our local and state government partners and in its utter disregard for agency action based on a sound record. Today's Order also displays a fundamental misunderstanding about the commitment of franchising authorities to bring competition to their citizens. By law, a franchise under Title 6 confers a right of access to people's property.13 Unlike members of this Commission,many state and local officials are elected and directly accountable to their citizens. Our knee-jerk embrace of everything interested companies say while discounting local elected officials on a matter grounded in local property rights certainly does not inspire a great deal of confidence in the Commission's ability on the federal level to arbitrate every local dispute in the country and fairly decide who is unreasonable and who is not. Even if the Commission had such power, there is no mechanism outlined in this Order to establish how that process would work. Consequently, the end result will likely be litigation, confusion, abuse of the process, and a certain amount of chaos. It is sadly ironic that this agency, which has been recently in violation of one of its own 90 day statutory deadlines,is telling localities to do as I say,not as I do.14 9 47 U.S.C. §521(2). 10 One of the principal purposes of Title VI is to"establish franchise procedures and standards which encourage the growth and development of cable systems and which assure that cable systems are responsive to the needs and interests of the local community."47 U.S.C. §521(2). "47 U.S.C. §555. 12 See Letter from David L.Smith,City Attorney,City of Tampa,to Kevin Martin,Chairman,FCC,dated January 5, 2007 (stating "[hjow disappointing it was to learn that ... the FCC would embrace as truth an allegation in a rulemaking that has such far-reaching implications to so many, without doing any follow-up with the jurisdiction named to confirm it accuracy."). 13 See 47 U.S.C.§541 (a)(2). 14 See, e.g., In the Matter of Comcast Corporation's Request for Waiver of 47 C.F.R. § 76.120(a)(1),CSR 7017-Z, CS Docket No 97-80,DA-06-2543,CS Docket No 97-80,filed 4/19/06(waiver proceeding placed on public notice 5/17/06 and decided 1/10/2007, well past the statutory "shot clock"); 47 U.S.C. § 549(c) ("the Commission shall grant any such waiver request within 90 days of any application filed under this subsection."). 98 • Federal Communications Commission FCC 06-180 Over the past two years, Congress held nearly two dozen hearings on franchising, and sought to amend the Cable Act in an effort to reform the current franchising process and"strike the right balance between national standards and local oversight.s15 Yet,the Commission has finalized in the dark of night what Congress was unable to resolve in two years of intensive public deliberations. In contrast to the Senate where I used to work, one might call the FCC the world's least deliberative body. And the fmal product shows it. Congress would not have expended effort on a major piece of legislation had its members believed it was not necessary to grant the Commission explicit authority to do what the majority now contends the Commission can do under existing law. The House bill proposed a national cable franchising regime, while the Senate bill proposed an expedited competitive franchise process which would have required local authorities to issue franchises pursuant to a standard application drafted by the Commission. Today's Order turns federalism on its head by putting the Commission in the role of sole arbiter of what is a "reasonable" or "unreasonable" LFA practice and short-circuiting the franchising process if an arbitrary shot clock has expired. While Congress worked to change federal law to create a role for the Commission in the franchising process,there was and continues to be considerable state and local activity to reform the local franchising process. To date, nearly half of all states have adopted state-wide franchise reform or mandatory state franchise terms, or have engaged in a democratic process to enact meaningful franchise reform legislation.16 Hundreds of other localities have approved new franchises, and many more are in the works. When we launched this proceeding, the central question was "whether the local franchising process truly is a hindrance to the deployment of alternative video networks, as some new entrants assert[ed]."" Indeed, the Local Franchising NPRM explicitly solicited "empirical data" and "concrete examples"regarding problems in the franchising process that FCC could resolve. In response,the record evidence provides scant, dated, isolated, and unverified examples that fall far short of demonstrating a systematic failure of state and local governments to negotiate in good faith and in a reasonable fashion. According to the Telecommunications Industry Association, "some recent examples of overly- burdensome, and ... `unreasonable,' extraneous obligationss18 included: (1) Merton Group's two year negotiations with Hanover, New Hampshire, which concluded in December, .2004; (2) Knology's negotiations with Louisville, Kentucky in early 2000; (3) Knology's franchise negotiations with the greater Nashville,Tennessee area in March 2000;and(4)Grande Communication's negotiations with San Antonio and Corpus Christi, Texas in 2002. Additionally, Fiber-To-The-Home Council cites the efforts of Guadalupe Valley Telephone Cooperative to seek a franchise in the City of Bulverde, Texas in 2004. The Order itself relies on unconfirmed allegations by Verizon and AT&T about unreasonable demands and negotiations being drawn out over an extended period of time; and complaints by U.S. Telecom 15 H.R.REP.No. 109-470,at 3(2006). • 16 While the Order purportedly refrains from explicitly preempting "statewide franchising decisions" and only addresses "decisions made by [instrumentalities of the state, such as] county — or municipal level franchising authorities," this dubious distinction has a questionable legal basis. Under Title 6, LFAs derive their power by virtue of state law,so such distinctions are not for the FCC to make. Moreover,the Commission's contention that it does not have sufficient information in the record to consider the effect of franchising by states(some of which have had laws in place for a decade),but has sufficient record evidence to preempt 33,000 LFAs,is facially preposterous. 17 Adelstein Statement,Local Franchising NPRM. 18 Letter from Grant Seiffert, to Jonathan S. Adelstein, Commissioner, FCC, MB Docket No. 05-311 (dated December 11,2006). 99 Federal Communications Commission FCC 06-180 Association, Qwest, and Bell South about new entrants accepting franchise terms that they considered unreasonable in order to avoid further delay in obtaining the franchise, or, in one case, filing a"friendly lawsuit." These examples, based on my review of the record evidence, represent the extent to which competitive video providers argue that LFAs are delaying in acting on franchise applications. However, considering the current franchising process has been in place nearly 15 years and there are over 30,000 LFAs, I fmd these sporadic examples, individually and collectively, wholly insufficient to justify the Commission's quasi-legislative attempt to federalize the local franchising process. These sparse allegations and anecdotal evidence do not rise to a level that warrants today's drastic, substantive measures. The Commission's blind acceptance of a few alleged instances as illustrative of a much broader problem is a poor and unfortunate reflection of the disregard for proper agency process. The Commission neither attempted to conduct any independent fact-fmding or due diligence, nor verify the allegations made by parties who have a vested interest in the outcome of this proceeding.19 Even more shocking,the Commission and the commenters fail to cite to a single actual,present day problem pending with any specific LFA.20 Notwithstanding the scant record evidence to justify agency preemption and the creation of a national, unified franchising process in contravention of federal law, the Commission conjures its authority to reinterpret and, in certain respects, rewrite section 621 and Title VI of the Communications Act, on just two words in section 621(a)(1)21 —`unreasonably refuse." The Commission ignores the verb that follows: "to award." A plain reading section 621(a)(1)does not provide a wholesale"unreasonable" test for all LFA action. Rather,the statutory language focuses on the act of awarding a franchise. While I agree that the Commission has authority to interpret and implement the Communications Act, including Title VI,22 the Commission does not have authority to ignore the plain meaning, structure and legislative history of section 621,and judicial precedent.23 19 Local Franchising NPRM, ¶1 ("potential competitors seeking to enter the multichannel video programming distributor("MVPD") marketplace have alleged,that in many areas the current operation of the local franchising process serves as a barrier to entry. Accordingly,this Notice is designed to solicit comment on implementation of Section 621(a)(1)'s directive that LFAs not unreasonably refuse to award competitive franchises.") 20 During the Commission's Agenda Meeting in Keller,Texas,on February 10,2006,one Verizon official identified Montgomery County, Maryland, as an obstinate LFA that was insisting upon unreasonable illegal demand and delaying negotiations. Since that meeting, Verizon has in fact obtained a franchise in Montgomery County. See Press Release,Montgomery Country,Md.,County Negotiates Cable Franchise Agreement with Verizon;Agreement Resolves Litigation, Provides Increased Competition for Cable Service (Sept. 13, 2006) (available at http://www.montgomerycountymd.gov/apps/News/press/PR_details.asp?PrID=2582). In fact, this Order blatantly ignores public statements that significantly undermine representations some proponents of this decision have made to the Commission. For example,AT&T has publicly stated that Project Lightspeed will be available to 90%of its "high-value" customers, but to less than 5% of its "low value" neighborhoods, but today the Commission undermines a locality's ability to ensure all residents are served. Leslie Cauley, Cable, Phone Companies Duke it out for Customers, USA Today, May 22, 2005, available at: http://www.usatoday.com/money/media/2005-05-22- telco-tv-cover-usat x.htm?csp=34 (last viewed 12/20/06). As Verizon's CEO of one major new entrant recently noted,"Any place it's come to a vote,we win." Dionne Searcey,As Verizon Enters Cable Business,It Faces Local Static Telecom Giant Gets Demands As It Negotiates TV Deals, Wall St. J., Oct. 28,2005, at Al. Yet in today's Order,the Commission somehow determines that there is widespread bad faith only on the part of the LFAs,not the new entrants,in order to justify this sweeping federal preemption. 21 47 U.S.C.§541(a)(1). 22 Admittedly, however, read together, sections 621(a)(1) and 635(a), clearly vest the courts, not the FCC, with exclusive jurisdiction over the determination of what constitutes "unreasonably refuse." In light of the fact that these two provisions were amended simultaneously in 1992, this is the only rational interpretation. As NATOA pointed out in its Comments,"(i]t is ludicrous to suggest that Congress,having provided that only"fmal"decisions (continued...) 100 Federal Communications Commission FCC 06-180 While the Commission purports to limit its action today to interpreting`unreasonably refuse,"the Order stretches section 621 well beyond the meaning that the statute can bear and, consequentially, changes the franchising process in fundamental ways. There are certain salient features of today's Order that raise serious legal and policy implications, requiring careful scrutiny. Most notably, the Order: (1) imposes a 90-day shot clock on LFAs to render a decision on the franchise application of a competitive applicant with existing rights-of-way; (2) deems a competitive entrant's franchise application granted after 90-days; (3) prohibits the denial of a competitive entrant's application based upon the entrant's refusal to comply with any build-out obligations; (4) prohibits the denial of a competitive entrant's application based upon the entrant's refusal to build and support PEG and I-net;and(5) authorizes a new entrant to refrain from obtaining a franchise when it is upgrading"mixed use"facilities that will be used for the delivery of video content. The Order fords that franchising negotiations that extend beyond the time frames created today by the Commission amount to an unreasonable refusal to award a competitive franchise within the meaning of 621(a)(1). This finding ignores the plain reading of the first sentence of section 621(a)(1), which provides that a franchising authority "may not unreasonably refuse to award an additional competitive franchise."24 On its face, Section 621(a)(1) does not impose a time limitation on an LFA's authority to consider, award, or deny a competitive franchise. The second and final sentence of section 621(a)(1)provides judicial relief, with no Commission involvement contemplated,when the competitive franchise has been"denied by a final decision of the franchising authority."25 There is no ambiguity here: Congress simply did not impose a time limit on franchise negotiations,as it did on other parts of Title VI (see discussion infra). Hence, whether you read the first sentence alone or in context of the entire statutory provision or title, its plain and unambiguous meaning is contrary to the Commission's interpretation. Section 621(a)(1) provides an expressed limitation on the nature, not the timing, of the refusal to award a competitive franchise.26 (Continued from previous page) of the"denial"of a franchise application may be appealed,somehow intended,sub silentio,to have its own language gutted by allowing parties to bypass the last sentence of§ 621(a)(1)entirely and go directly to the FCC." NATOA Comments at-28. 23 The Senate Report of the 1992 Cable Act concluded that,"[biased on the evidence in the record taken as a whole, it is clear that there are benefits from competition between two cable systems. Thus, the Committee believes that local franchising authorities should be encouraged[not required] to award second franchises. Accordingly, [the 1992 Cable Act,] as reported, prohibits local franchising authorities from unreasonably refusing to grant second franchises."S.Rep.No. 102-92,at 47(1991)(emphasis supplied). Thus,an LFA's decision to not grant a franchise need only not be unreasonable. As one federal district court observed: The House version contained a specific list of"reasonable"grounds for denial. H. R.Conf.Rep. No. 102-862, at 168-69 (1992). The Senate version, on the other hand, listed "technically infeasible" and left other reasonable grounds undefined. By choosing not to adopt a federally mandated list of reasonable grounds for denial in favor of an open-ended defmition, Congress intended to leave states with the power to determine the bases for granting or denying franchises, with the only caveat being that a denial must be "reasonable." Knology, Inc. v. Insight Communications Co., L.P.,2001 WL 1750839 at*2(W.D.Ky. March 20,2001)(citation omitted)(emphasis supplied). 24 47 U.S.C. §541(a)(1)(emphasis added). 25 Id.(emphasis added). 26 Congressional intent to qualify the nature of an LFA's refusal, not the timing of the refusal, is clear when you consider another provision of Section 621(a). Section 621(a)(4)(A)provides that"franchising authority shall allow (continued...) 101 Federal Communications Commission FCC 06-180 Even if I were able to move beyond this Order's facially defective reading of 621(a)(1), the Commission's selection of 90 days as the only reasonable time frame for an LFA to consider the franchise application of a competitive provider that already has rights-of-way access before it is "deemed granted" is demonstrably inconsistent with the overall framework of Title VI,unsupported by the record evidence, and quite arbitrary. The franchising framework established in Title VI does not support the Commission's decision to select 90 days as the deadline for a default grant—another Commission creation—to become effective.27 Throughout Part III (Franchising and Regulation) of Title VI, when Congress specifically decided to impose a deadline for LFAs to consider sales of cable systems,modification of franchise obligations,and renewals of existing franchises,in all three instances,Congress chose 120 days.28 In other sections of the Act,the prevalent time frame Congress imposed on LFAs and the Commission is 180 days.29 Today,the Commission, without authority, cannot take the place of Congress and impose a tighter time frame than Congress ever contemplated to impose on LFAs in the franchising process. This is well beyond Commission "line-drawing" authority, which requires the Commission to operate within the established framework of the authorizing legislation. While a 90-day deadline arguably could be considered "reasonable," that is not the statutory standard the Commission is purporting to use as the basis of its authority. We can only define "unreasonable" refusal, 30 which could be "foot-dragging" or "stonewalling"that amounts to a defacto denial of a franchise application. This is not the same as establishing an arbitrary, inflexible 90-day time frame, which overlooks the fact that 120 or 180 days may be reasonable under certain circumstances. While the Commission has line-drawing authority in some cases, the position taken in the Order is untenable on its face, given that Congress set a 120-day deadline for franchise transfers, which tend to be simpler than awarding new franchises, unless one is willing to assert that Congress itself was unreasonable. The aggressive schedule set here, while understandable and even desirable from a policy perspective,is evidence of the legislative nature of the Order. (Continued from previous page) the applicant's cable system a reasonable period of time to become capable of providing cable service to all households in the franchise area." In that case,Congress explicitly qualified timing,not the scope of buildout. As demonstrated in the Order, the Commission's attempt to super-inflate the meaning of"unreasonably refuse" in 621(a)(1), and diminish the significance of"unreasonable period of time" in section 621(a)(4)(A) is transparently inconsistent and blatantly self-serving. 27 The Order imposes a time limit of 90 days on LFAs to decide franchise applications from entities that already have access to public rights-of-way and a time limit of six months for applicants that are not already authorized to occupy the rights-of-way. Such a distinction does not exist in Title 6, notwithstanding the fact that Congress specifically contemplated phone companies—entities that already have access to public rights-of-way—obtaining franchises to provide video service. 28 47 U.S.C. § 537(providing LFAs 120 days to act upon request for approval of sale or transfer on cable systems); 47 U.S.C. §545(providing LFAs 120 days to modify franchise obligations);and 47 U.S.C. §546(providing LFAs a "4-month period" to "renew the franchise or, issue a preliminary assessment that the franchise should not be renewed"). 29 See, e.g.,47 U.S.C. § 543 (authorizing the Commission to "ensure that the rates for the basic service tier are reasonable"and requiring the Commission to develop regulations in 180 days). 30 47 U.S.C. § 541(a)(1). Today's Order specifically adopts rules that prohibit franchising authorities from "unreasonably refusing"to award competitive franchises. Order at¶1. 102 Federal Communications Commission FCC 06-180 To make matters worse,the Commission-created 90-day shot clock seems to function more like a waiting period, during which time the new entrant has little incentive to engage in meaningful negotiations. An objective review of the evidence shows that there is sufficient blame on both sides of the negotiation table. Sometimes, there are good reasons for delay; and at other times, one side might stall to gain leverage.' While the majority is certainly aware of these tactics, they fail to even mention the need for LFAs and new entrants to abide by, or so much as to have,reciprocal good faith negotiation obligations. The majority also has ignored the apparent need to develop a complaint or grievance mechanism for the parties to ensure compliance. Perhaps Congress might consider imposing on the Commission a binding deadline to resolve complaints, which would inject an incentive for both sides to negotiate,meaningfully and in good faith.3z Without anything other than the asserted authority to interpret "unreasonably refuse," the Commission creates a regulatory reprimand for an LFA's failure to render a fmal decision within the Commission-created time limits. The consequences of the failure to reach agreement within 90 days is that the•LFA will be deemed to have granted the competitive entrant an interim franchise based on the terms proposed in the entrant's franchise application. In practicality,this will confer rights-of-way access over local property. In selecting this remedy, the Commission purportedly "seeks to provide a meaningful incentive for local franchising authority to abide by the deadlines contained in the Order."33 While the policy goal is understandable and arguably consistent with congressional intent to encourage the award of competitive cable franchises,we do not have legal authority to establish punitive, one-sided consequences,in order to create an"incentive." Moreover,the Commission ignores that by establishing a default grant of franchise applications effectively confers local property rights unilaterally and without regard for inherent local police powers and public health,safety and welfare. The Commission cites no credible authority that empowers it to deem a new entrant's franchise application granted by the LFA and thus confer local property rights.34 When construing a statute, principles of construction caution against any interpretation that may contravene existing law or U.S. Constitution. In this case, I am wary of a federal agency, which purports not to preempt any state-based 31 As the July 11, 2006, filing of the Greater Metro Telecommunications Consortium,the Rainer Communications Commission and the City of Tacoma, Washington explained: "[I]t is an oversimplification to believe that competitive entry into video programming can be facilitated by requiring a local government to act on a franchise application within a specific period of time. What the Commission may consider a delay is often a reasonable time for consideration,and indeed,the internal bureaucracies within many large companies often times dwarf the internal processes within local government,so that any rule the Commission might deem appropriate to apply regarding time to respond,must also be imposed upon the other party to negotiations." 32 The Commission purposefully stops short of creating reciprocal good faith obligations because that would authorize the parties to file a complaint with the Commission when negotiations fall apart. Such a complaint process would effectively serve as an enforcement mechanism,which would only increase this Order's litigation exposure as quasi-legislative document. Nevertheless,today's Order cannot be reasonably viewed as mere guidance to LFAs or a clarification of the term"unreasonably refuse"in section 621(a)(1). There is a real,punitive consequence if the LFA does not follow the Commission's dictates — a "deemed granted" franchise, which incurably alters the dynamics of franchise negotiations. 33 Order at¶76. 34 The Commission's reliance on ancillary authority it exercised in the early 1970s, well before congressional enactments in 1984, 1992 and 1996,is unavailing. In fact,such reliance reveals the Commission's need to make too large a reach to justify it actions. See Letter from James L.Casserly,Counsel for Comcast Corporation,to Marlene Dortch,Federal Communications Commission,MB Docket No.05-311 (filed December 13,2006). 103 Federal Communications Commission FCC 06-180 franchising law,but yet is prepared to step into the shoes of an LFA—an instrumentality of the state—to grant a franchise application with all the attendant rights-of-way privileges.35 The Commission rejected an approach that would have deemed an application"denied" once the shot clock expired without LFA action. This approach, I maintain, would have expedited the judicial review that was Congress' chosen remedy,and is infmitely more consistent with the letter and spirit of the Communications Act, Title VI, and specifically sections 621(a)(1) and 635. Nowhere in the Act is the Commission granted the authority to force localities to grant franchises. Simply put, the Commission's "deemed granted" approach in the Order is not a justifiable choice to fill the perceived gap left open by Congress when it did not provide a specific remedy against LFA action that is short of an outright denial of a franchise application. While it is generally proper for the Commission to exercise its "predictive judgment,"that is only when the Commission has the requisite authority to act within a certain area and it stays within its authority. Neither exists in this case. In terms of build-out, the Commission seems to make a deliberate effort to overlook the plain meaning of the statute and to substitute its policy judgment for that of Congress. The Commission concludes that it is unlawful for LFAs to refuse to grant a competitive franchise on the basis of an applicants' refusal to agree to any build-out obligations. The Commission's analysis in this regard is anemic and facially inadequate. Section 621(a)(4)(A) provides that "[i]n awarding a franchise the franchising authority shall allow the applicant's cable system a reasonable period of time to become capable of providing cable service to all households in the franchise area." Absent express statutory authority, the Commission cannot declare it unreasonable for LFAs to require build-out to all households in the franchise area over a reasonable period of time. The Commission's argument in this regard is particularly spurious in light of the stated objective of this Order to promote broadband deployment and our common goal of promoting affordable broadband to all Americans. hi the end, this is less about fiber to the home and more about fiber to the McMansion. The Commission is correct on one point,that section 621(a)(4)(A)is actually a limitation on LFA authority. However, consistent with plain reading of the provision and its legislative history, Section 621(a)(4)(A)surely is not a grant of authority to the Commission and does not impose a limitation on the scope of a competitive provider's build-out obligations. Indeed, section 621(a)(4)(A) explicitly limits the "period of time" to build-out, but an LFA is unrestrained to impose full, partial, or no build-out obligations on all cable service providers. As long as an LFA gives a competitive provider"a reasonable period of time to become capable of providing cable service to all households in the franchise area," section 621(a)(4)(A)essentially shields build-out requirement from constituting an"unreasonable refusal" to grant a competitive franchise. While this policy could be changed by Congress to facilitate competitive entry,that is not the current state of the law. An LFA cannot be prohibited from requiring build-out to all households in the franchise area if an LFA allows "a reasonable period of time" to do so. The Commission has not been ordained with a legislative"blue pencil"to rewrite law. Congress specifically directed LFAs — not the FCC — to allow a reasonable period of time for build-out. As much as the Commission would like it be its role, Congress gave the role to LFAs, and it is Congress' purview to modify that explicit delegation of authority. 35 See generally, Charter Communications v. County of Santa Cruz, 304 F.3d 927 (9th Cir. 2002) (holding that deference is accorded to legislative action of local government),especially in light of fact that the Commission does not have clear congressionally delegated authority in this case; and local regulations, in this case, are likely explicitly sanctioned by the Cable Act and consistent with the express provisions of the Act,see 47 U.S.C. §556(a). 104 Federal Communications Commission FCC 06-180 Assuredly, Section 621(a)(4)(A) does not impose "universal" or `uniform" build-out requirements on franchise applicants. This may be a reflection of congressional intent to focus on the needs of the locality.36 However, it does not prohibit LFAs from requiring build-out obligations as a condition of franchise approval,so long as the competitive applicant is given a reasonable period of time. The rapid deployment of broadband has been a goal of mine since I joined this Commission. Wireline competition in the video market,particularly, is critical as a means to constrain prices,which in itself is a worthy goal after year upon year of price hikes. It is also critical to the future of our democracy that Americans have access to as many forms of video content as possible so they can make up their own minds about the issues of the day and not remain subject to a limited number of gatekeepers who decide what deserves airing based on their own financial or ideological interests. But, in order for the Commission to promote these goals effectively,we must operate within our legal authority. • Perhaps the majority has failed to consider the real life consequences of today's Order. For instance, in New York City, competitive entrants could file the Commission-mandated informational filing that proposes to serve only Broadway, Madison, or Park Avenue. Under today's Order, the New York City franchising authority would be forbidden from denying the competitive franchise based solely on the fact that the new entrant refuses to certain build-out requirements. The LFA is placed in the difficult position of either denying outright the franchise and absorb the costs and fees for the ensuing litigation,or agree to a franchise that is not responsive to needs and interests of local community. How can the majority declare build-out to be an impediment to entry when one of the major incumbent phone companies,AT&T,claims that it does not need a franchise to operate its video service, and the other,Verizon,has agreed to different,but favorable,build-out obligations with various states and localities? Under the federalist scheme of the Act,different jurisdictions can choose models that best suit their specific needs. For example,in New Jersey,the state-wide franchise reform law correlates build-out principally to population density, while build-out obligations in Virginia principally track the entrant's existing wireline facilities. And in New York City, Verizon and the LFA were actively negotiating universal build-out over a period of a few years. The broad pen with which the majority writes today's Order does not stop with build-out. The Order also uses the Commission's alleged authority under Section 621(a)(1) to determine that any LFA refusal to award a competitive franchise because of a new entrant's refusal to support PEG or I-Net is per se unreasonable. Although the Order purports to provide clarification with respect to which franchise fees are permissible under the Act, it muddles the regime and leaves communities and new entrants with conflicting views about funding PEG and I-Net. Indeed, Congress provided explicit direction on what constitutes or does not constitute a franchise fee,with a remedy to the courts for aggrieved parties. Today's Order should make clear that, while any requests made by an LFA unrelated to the provision of cable service and unrelated to PEG or I-NET are subject to the statutory five percent franchise fee cap, these are not the type of costs excluded from the term "franchise fee" by section 622(g)(2)(C). That provision excludes from the term"franchise fee" any"capital costs that are required by the franchise to be incurred by the cable operator for public, educational, or governmental access facilities." The legislative history of the 1984 Cable Act clearly indicates that"any franchise requirement for the provision of services,facilities or equipment is not included as a`fee."'37 36 See 47 U.S.C. § 521 (2)(stating that the one of the central purposes of Title 6 is to"assure that cable systems are responsive to the needs and interests of the local community.") See also 47 U.S.C. § 521(3)(stating that another central purpose of Title 6 is to establish clear federal,state and local roles). 37 The legislative history of 1984 Cable Act provides"in general, [section 622(g)(2)(C)] defines as a franchise fee only monetary payments made by the cable operator, and does not include as a'fee' any franchise requirement for (continued...) 105 Federal Communications Commission FCC 06-180 PEG facilities and access provide an important resource to thousands of communities across this country. Equally important,redundancy or even duplicative I-Net provides invaluable homeland security and public health, safety and welfare functions in towns, cities, and municipalities across America. It is my hope that today's decision does not undermine these and other important community media resource needs. While my objections to today's Order are numerous and substantial, that should not overlook the real need I believe there is for franchise reform. Indeed, there is bipartisan support for reform in Congress, and most LFAs throughout this country are committed to bring video competition to their jurisdictions. My fundamental concern with this Order is that it is based on such paper-thin jurisdiction, but it is truly broad in scope. It ignores the plain reading of the section 621, usurps congressional prerogative and pre-empts LFAs in certain important respects that directly contradict the Act. The sum total here is an arrogant case of federal power riding roughshod over local governments. It turns federalism on its head. While I can support certain efforts to streamline the process and preclude local authorities from engaging in unreasonable practices,this item blatantly and unnecessarily tempts the federal courts to overturn this clearly excessive exercise of the limited role afforded to us by the law. The likely outcome of being reversed in Federal Court could have pernicious and unintended consequences in limiting our flexibility to exercise our discretion in future worthy endeavors. Accordingly,I dissent. (Continued from previous page) the provision of services, facilities or equipment. As regards PEG access in new franchises, payments for capital costs required by the franchise to be made by the franchise to be made by the cable operator are not defined as fees under this provision." H.R.REP.No.98-934,at 65 reprinted in 1984 U.S.C.C.A.N.4702. 106 Federal Communications Commission FCC 06-180 STATEMENT OF COMMISSIONER DEBORAH TAYLOR TATE Re: Implementation of Section 621(a)(1) of the Cable Communications Policy Act of 1984 as amended by the Cable Television Consumer Protection and Competition Act of 1992(MB Docket No. 05-311) Today's item, like most we address as an expert agency, is full of sophisticated technical, legal, and policy arguments. At a high level,however,I view this as a continuation down a path of deregulatory policies designed to encourage new market entry, innovation, and investment. Indeed, "encourag[ing] more robust competition in the video marketplace"by limiting franchising requirements has long been a stated goal of the Commission as well as a driving force behind statutory terms we interpret today. Section 621(a)(1) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the "Act"), states that franchising authorities ("LFAs") may not "unreasonably refuse to award" a competitive franchise.to provide cable services. I agree with our conclusion that we have the jurisdictional authority to interpret this section of the Act and adopt rules to implement it. In amending Section 621(a)(1) to include the phrase"unreasonably refuse to award,"Congress explicitly limited the authority of LFAs. However,if an LFA does not make a fmal decision for months on end,or perhaps even years as the record indicates,new entrants are given no recourse. Also, unreasonable demands, similar to long delays, serve as a further barrier to competitive entry. It is nonsensical to contend that, despite the limitation on LFA authority in the Act, LFAs remain the sole arbiters of whether their actions in the franchise approval process are reasonable. Since the section's judicial review provision applies only to final decisions by LFAs, absent Commission action to identify "unreasonable" terms and conditions, franchise applicants would have no avenue for redress. I conclude that our broad and well-recognized authority as the federal agency responsible for administering the Act, including Title VI, permits us to identify such terms and conditions,and I support our exercise of that authority. As with most orders, we explored numerous ways to achieve our goals. I ultimately support today's item, because I believe that, by streamlining timeframes for action and providing practical guidelines for both LFAs and new entrants, the item encourages the development of competition in the video marketplace and speeds the deployment of broadband across the country in a platform-neutral manner. These beneficial policy results should not be underestimated. Our annual reports to Congress on cable prices, including the report we adopt today, consistently show that prices are lower where wireline competition is present. And, of course, broadband deployment enhances our ability to educate our children for the jobs of tomorrow and ensures that the United States remains competitive in this global communications age. Additionally, I am pleased that we recognize— and do not preempt—the actions of those states that have reformed their franchise rules. Their efforts to streamline the process for competitive entry are laudable. Finally, it is critical that as we advance pro-competitive policies, we ensure that our policies do not unreasonably create asymmetry in the marketplace. Accordingly,I am encouraged that we resolve to address open issues regarding existing franchise agreements on an expedited basis. I encourage all interested parties to use. your energies toward assisting us as we seek a way to apply more broadly our conclusions across all companies. 107 Federal Communications Commission FCC 06-180 STATEMENT OF COMMISSIONER ROBERT M.MCDOWELL Re: In the matter of Implementation of Section 621(a)(1) of the Cable Communications Policy Act of 1984 as amended by the Cable Television Consumer Protection and Competition Act of 1992 (MB Docket No. 05-311) I have long advocated the Commission doing all that it can to open new opportunities for entrepreneurs to have the freedom to construct new delivery platforms for innovative new services. More delivery platforms mean more competition. More competition means consumers can choose among more innovative offerings. As consumers become more empowered, prices fall and, as a .result, new technologies become more available to help improve the lives of all Americans. In short, creating a de- regulatory environment where competition is given the chance to flourish kicks off a virtuous cycle of hope, investment,growth and opportunity. Today,the Commission is taking a step forward in what I hope will be a noble quest to spur more competition across many delivery platforms and,where appropriate,within delivery platforms. While we already have some competition in the video market, American consumers are demanding even more competition. And that's the goal of our action today: more competition through de-regulation. Perhaps President Ronald Reagan foresaw an issue like this one when he said, "We have a healthy skepticism of government, checking its excesses at the same time we're willing to harness its energy when it helps improve the lives of our citizens." That is precisely what we are doing today: checking any government excesses at the local level to unleash free markets which will help improve the lives of all Americans. This order strikes a careful balance between establishing a de-regulatory national framework to clear unnecessary regulatory underbrush, while also preserving local control over local issues. It guards against localities making unreasonable demands of new entrants,while still allowing those same localities to be able to protect important local interests through meaningful negotiations with aspiring video service providers. Local franchising authorities are still free to deny deficient applications on their own schedule, but we are imposing a"shot clock"to guard against unreasonable delay. After the shot clock runs out,if the locality has not granted or denied the application,an interim or temporary authority will be granted to give the parties more time to reach a consensus. If the LFA feels as though it cannot grant a franchise during this period,they are free to deny the application. And unhappy applicants still have the liberty to go to court,as codified under federal law. Additionally, should communications companies decide to upgrade their existing non-cable services networks, localities may not require them to obtain a franchise. However, this order does not address whether video service providers can avoid local or federal jurisdiction over those video services because those services are carried over differing protocols, such as Internet protocol. That question is explicitly left for another docket. In the same spirit of deference to localities, we are not pre-empting recently enacted state laws that make it easier for new video service providers to enter the market. Those important frameworks will remain intact. Similarly,on the important issue of build-out requirements,we preserve local flexibility to implement important public policy objectives, but we don't allow localities to require new entrants to serve everybody before they serve anybody. Many commenting parties,Members of Congress, and two of my distinguished colleagues, have legitimately raised questions regarding the Commission's authority to implement many of these initiatives. I have raised similar questions. However, as the draft of this item has evolved and, I think, improved, my concerns have been assuaged, for the most part. The Commission has ample general and 108 • Federal Communications Commission FCC 06-180 • specific authority to issue these rules under several sections including, but not limited to, sections: 151, 201, 706, 621, 622, and many others. Furthermore, a careful reading of applicable case law shows that the courts have consistently given the Commission broad discretion in this arena. While I understand the concerns of others, after additional study, I feel as though we are now on safe legal ground. But I know that reasonable minds will differ on this point and that appellate lawyers are already on their way to the court house. That is the American way,I suppose. This order is not perfect. If it were, it would say that all of the de-regulatory benefits we are providing to new entrants we are also providing to all video providers,be they incumbent cable providers, over-builders or others. I want to ensure that no governmental entities, including those of us at the FCC, have any thumb on the scale to give a regulatory advantage to any competitor. But the record in this proceeding does not allow us to create a regulatory parity framework just yet. That's why I am pleased that today's order and further notice contain the tentative conclusion that the relief we are granting to new entrants will apply to all video service providers once they renew their franchises. Also, I have consistently maintained during my time here that if shot clocks are good for others then they are good for the FCC itself. Accordingly,I am pleased that the Chairman has agreed to release an order as a result of the further notice no later than six months from the release date of this order, and regardless of the appellate posture of this matter. Resolving these important questions soon will give much-needed regulatory certainty to all market players, spark investment, speed competition on its way, and make America a stronger player in the global economy. By the same token, it is no secret that I would also like to see the Commission act more quickly on petitions filed by any individual or industry group, especially if those petitions may help spur competition in any market, be it video, voice, data, wireless, or countless others. We should never let government inaction create market distortions. I thank my entire staff, especially Cristina Pauze, for their long hours, dedication and insight regarding this order. I also thank the tireless Media Bureau and the General Counsel's office for their tremendous efforts on this important matter. Lastly,I would like to thank Chairman Martin for his strong leadership on this issue. 109 I Arent Fox ATTORNEYS AT LAW D. Jacques Smith 202/857-6154 smith.jacques@arentfox.com April 3, 2007 Alan G.Fishel 202/857-6450 fishela@arentfox.com HAND DELIVERED Jeffrey E.Rummel Patricia S. Connor, Clerk rummelj@arentfox.com U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit 1100 East Main Street, Suite 501 Richmond, Virginia 23219-3517 Re: Petition for Review Ms. Connor: Transmitted herewith on behalf of the National Association of Telecommunications Officers and Advisors (NATOA) are an original plus four paper copies of NATOA's Petition for Review of the Report and Order of the Federal Communications Commission in MB Docket No. 05-311 released March 5, 2007, 72 Fed. Reg. 13189 (March 21, 2007). In addition, enclosed is a check in the amount of Four Hundred Fifty Dollars ($450.00) as payment of the required filing fees. An additional copy of the Petition for Review is being presented by the courier submitting this filing. Please date-stamp the additional copy of the Petition for Review and provide the date- stamped copy to the courier as proof of filing. Should any questions arise with respect to this matter, please communicate directly with this office. Respectfully submitt. D. Jacques Alan G. Fis' < Jeffrey E. Rummel Attorneys for Petitioner Arent Fox PLLC WASHINGTON,DC NEW YORK 1050 Connecticut Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20036.5339 202.857.6000 PHN 202.857.6395 FAX www.arentfox.com IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT ) NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF ) TELECOMMUNICATIONS OFFICERS ) AND ADVISORS ) ) Petitioner ) ) v. ) No. ) FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS ) COMMISSION and the UNITED STATES ) OF AMERICA ) ) Respondents ) PETITION FOR REVIEW Pursuant to 47 U.S.C. § 402(a), 28 U.S.C. §§ 2342-2344, and Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 15(a),the National Association of Telecommunications Officers and Advisors ("NATOA")hereby respectfully petitions the court for review of the Federal Communications Commission's ("FCC") Report and Order,In the Matter of Implementation of Section 621(a)(1) of the Cable Communications Policy Act of 1984 as amended by the Cable Television Consumer Protection and Competition Act of 1992, FCC 06-180, MB Docket No. 05-311, which was adopted December 20, 2006, and released March 5, 2007 ("Order"). A summary of the Order was published in the Federal Register on March 21, 2007. .72 Fed. Reg. 13189 (March 21, 2007). A copy of the Order is attached as Exhibit A. This Petition for Review has been filed within ten days of the issuance of the Order, and thus is subject to the procedures established under 28 U.S.C. §2112(a), should other qualified Petitions for Review be filed in different Courts of Appeals. Venue is proper under 28 U.S.C. §2343 because NATOA's principal office is located in the Commonwealth of Virginia. NATOA's membership includes state and local government officials and staff members from across the nation whose responsibility is to develop and administer cable franchising and communications policy for the nation's local governments, including franchising authorities within the meaning of Section 602(10) of the Cable Act of 1984, 47 U.S.C. §522(10). NATOA filed comments in the FCC proceeding leading up to the Order on review. In the Order, the FCC adopted rules and policies addressing issues concerning the award of competitive franchises by franchising authorities. NATOA seeks review of the Order on the grounds that it exceeds the FCC's statutory authority, is arbitrary and capricious, an abuse of discretion, unsupported by substantial evidence, in violation of the United States Constitution, including, without limitation, the Fifth and Tenth Amendments, and is otherwise contrary to law. The Order also violates both the Communications Act and Administrative Procedure Act's public notice requirements. NATOA respectfully requests that this Court hold unlawful, vacate, enjoin, and set aside the Order. NATOA also requests that this Court grant such other relief as it may deem appropriate. Respectfully subm';` ed, '4 D. Jacque' . :tW Alan G. Fish:. Jeffrey E. R Arent Fox LLP 1050 Connecticut Avenue,NW Washington, DC 20036 Telephone: (202) 857-6154 Facsimile: (202) 857-6395 Attorneys for Petitioner April 3, 2007 LIST OF RESPONDENTS REQUIRED BY LOCAL RULE 15(b) The following is a list of the names and addresses of the Respondents in this case: Federal Communications Commission: The United States of America: Sam Feder Alberto R. Gonzalez General Counsel Attorney General of the United States Federal Communications Commission United States Department of Justice 445 12th Street, SW 950 Pennsylvania Avenue,NW Washington, D.C. 20554 Washington, DC 20530 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE ON RESPONDENTS I, D. Jacques Smith, certify that on this 3rd day of April, 2007, I served copies of the foregoing Petition for Review by causing them to be delivered by U.S. mail and by e-mail (as indicated)to the following Respondents: Sam Feder Alberto R. Gonzalez General Counsel Attorney General of the United States Federal Communications Commission United States Department of Justice 445 12th Street, SW 950 Pennsylvania Avenue,NW Washington,D.C. 20554 Washington, D 0 ;30 (By First Class Mail and Email) (By First 1.,;:,s ) lai . D. Jac I'rth CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE ON COMMENTERS I, D. Jacques Smith, certify that on this 3rd day of April, 2007, I served copies of the foregoing Petition for Review by causing them to be delivered by U.S. mail to the commenters in the underlying FCC rulemaking proceeding who are listed on the pages that follow. or. _ - ' Ag D. JacquT' List of Commenters Larry D. Gilley City Manager City of Abilene, Texas 555 Walnut Street Abilene, TX 79601 Access Channel 5 PO Box 188 Mayville,NY 14757 -0188 Erik Mollberg Access Fort Wayne 200 East Berry Street P.O. Box 2270 Fort Wayne, IN 46801 Access Sacramento 4623 T Street Sacramento, CA 95819 Ad Hoc Telecom Manufacturer Coalition Rodney L Joyce Joyce & Associates 10 Laurel Parkway Chevy Chase, MD 20815 Ada Township 7330 Thornapple River Drive P.O. Box 370 • Ada MI 49301 Advance/Newhouse Communications Hogan& Hartson L.L.P. Gardner F. Gillespie 555 Thirteenth Street,N.W. Washington, DC 20004 -1109 Bob Hahn AEI-Brookings Joint Center for Regulatory Studies 1150 17th Street,N.W. Washington, DC 20554 1 Alamance County Office Building • 124 West Elm Street Graham,NC 27253 Carolyn Fudge City of Albuquerque 1 Civic Plaza NW P.O. Box 2248 Albuquerque,NM 87103 Alcatel Paul Kenefick 919 18th Street,NW. Washington, DC 20006 Alhambra, CA 111 South First Street Alhambra, CA 91801 Daniel B. Phythyon Alliance for Public Technology 919 18th Street,N.W. Washington, DC 20006 Alpena, MI City Hall 208 North First Avenue Alpena,MI 49707 American Association of Business Persons with Disabilities 2 Wood Hollow Irvine, CA 92604 -3229 Andrew J. Imparato President and CEO American Association of People with Disabilities 1629 K Street,N.W., Suite 503 Washington, DC 20006 American Cable Association Cinnamon Mueller Christopher Cinnamon 307 N. Michigan Avenue, Suite 1020 Chicago, IL 60601 2 Stephen Pociask The American Consumer Institute P.O. Box 2161 Reston, VA 20171 The American Corn Growers Association P.O. Box 18157 Washington, DC 20036 American Homeowners Grassroots Alliance 6776 Little Falls Rd Arlington,VA 22213 -1213 • City of Anaheim, California 200 S. Anaheim Blvd. Suite 733 Anaheim, CA 92805 City of Angels Camp William Hutchinson 584 S. Main Angels Camp, CA 95222 Anne Arundel County, Carroll County, Charles County, Howard County and Montgomery County Nicholas Miller Miller &Van Eaton 1155 Connecticut Avenue N.W. Washington, DC 20036 Town of Apex,North Carolina P.O. Box 250 73 Hunter Street Apex,NC 27502 -3305 Thomas Lawell, City Administrator City of Apple Valley Apple Valley Municipal Center 7100 - 147th Street West Apple Valley, MN 55124 Ellen Totzke City of Appleton 100 North Appleton Street Appleton, WI 54911 3 • Archdale,NC 307 Balfour Drive P.O. Box 14068 Archdale,NC 27263 Arlington Independent Media, VA 2701-C Wilson Blvd. Arlington, VA 22201 Asheboro,NC 146 N Church Street Asheboro NC 27203 City of Ashland Michelle R. Merchant P.O. Box 1839 Ashland, KY 41105 -1839 Mayor Linda L. Blackburn Town of Ahoskie 201 Main Street W Ahoskie,NC 27910 -0767 Association of Independent Programming Networks Kathleen Wallman 9332 Ramey Lane Great Falls,VA 22066 AT&T Thomas F. Hughes 1120 20th Street,N.W., Suite 1000 Washington, DC 20036 City of Atascadero 6907 El Camino Real Atascadero, CA 93422 Town of Bailey P.O. Box 40 6260 Main Street Bailey,NC 27807 -0040 City of Banning 176. E. Lincoln Banning, CA 92220 - 4 Village of Barrington, Illinois 200 S. Hough Street Barrington, IL 60010 -4322 Borough of Bellefonte 236 West Lamb Street Bellefonte,PA 16823 Kevin M. Chun, City of Bellflower, CA 16600 Civic Center Drive Bellflower, CA 90706 BellSouth Bennett L. Ross 1133 21st Street,N.W., Suite 900 Washington,DC 20036 Mayor Jerry McLamb Town of Benson 303 E Church Street Benson,NC 27504 Ann Sheehan Berks Community Television 645 Penn Street Reading, PA 19601 -3543 Northern Berkshire Community Television Corp. Heritage State Park Building#6 North Adams, MA 01247 City of Beverly Hills Cable Television Office do Mark Geddes 455 N. Rexford Drive Beverly Hills, CA 90210 City Council of the City of Biddeford, Maine John D. Bubier 205 Main Street Biddeford, ME 04005 Billerica Access TV, MA 430 Boston Road Billerica, MA 01821 5 Billerica, MA Sam Schauerman 430 Boston Road Billerica, MA 01821 Birmingham Area Cable Board Michael Salhaney Beier Howlett, P.C. 200 E. Long Lake Road, Suite 110 Bloomfield Hills,MI 48316 City of Blue Lake P.O. Box 458 Blue Lake, CA 95525 City of Bonita Springs Audrey E. Vance 9101 Bonita Beach Road Bonita Springs, FL 34135 Curtis Henderson Jr./ Boston Community Access & Programming Foundation Boston Neighborhood Network 8 Park Plaza, Suite 2240 Boston,MA 02458 Boston Cable Office 43 Hawkins Street Boston,MA 02114 City of Bowie, Maryland David Deutsch Bowie City Hall 2614 Kenhill Drive Bowie,MD 20715 Ali Abulugma Pres. Branford Community Television, Inc. Box 1019 Branford, CT 06405 City of Brea 1 Civic Center Circle Brea, CA 92821 -5732 6 City of Brisbane Attn: City Manager 50 Park Place Brisbane, CA 94005 Broadband Service Providers Association 1735 New York Avenue N.W., Suite 500 Washington, DC 20006 Town of Brunswick Maine 28 Federal Street, Suite 2 Brunswick, ME 04011 Bucks County Consortium of Communities Frederick A. Polner Polner Law Office 4018 Mt. Royal Boulevard Allison Park, PA 15101 Burlington,NC 425 S. Lexington Avenue Burlington,NC 27215 Burnsville/Eagan Telecommunications Commission et al Stephen J. Guzzetta Bradley& Guzzetta, LLC 444 Cedar Street Saint Paul, MN 55101 Mike Wassenaar Cable Access St Paul d/b/a Saint Paul Neighborhood Network 375 Jackson Street, Suite 250 Saint Paul, MN 55101 Susan Adele Huizenga Cable Advisory Council of South Central CT, Inc. 36 Surrey Drive Wallingford, CT 06492 Cablevision Systems Corp. Howard J. Symons Mintz Levin Cohn Ferris Glovsky and Popeo, PC 701 Pennsylvania Avenue,N.W., Suite 900 Washington, DC 20004 7 City of Cadillac 200 N. Lake St. Cadillac, MI 49601 Donna H. Prince Town of Calabash P.O. Box 4967 Calabash,NC 28467 California Alliance for Consumer Protection 37 Derow Court Sacramento, CA 95833 California Farmers Union 2881 Geer Road Suite D Turlock, CA 95382 California Small Business Association& California Small Business Roundtable 6101 W. Centinela Avenue, Suite 342 Culver City, CA 90230 Susan Fleischmann Cambridge Public Access Corporation 675 Massachusetts Avenue Cambridge MA 02139 Robert W. Healy City Manager City of Cambridge Cambridge City Hall 795 Massachusetts Avenue Cambridge, MA. 02139 Campbell County Cable Board 10 Hilltop Drive Highland Heights, KY 41076 -5023 City of Cape Coral Eleni C. Pantaridis Leibowitz&Associates 1 S.E. 3rd Avenue Suite 1450 Miami, FL 33131 8 Capital Community Television CCTV P.O. Box 23.42 Salem, OR 97308 -2342 Carlsbad, CA Office of City Attorney Paul Edmonson 1200 Carlsbad Village Drive Carlsbad, CA 92008 -1949 Town of Carrboro,North Carolina 301 W. Main Street Carrboro,NC 27510 -2029 Cary,NC Town of Cary P.O. Box 8005 Cary, NC 27512 -8005 Town of Castalia P.O. Box 237 9507 Main Street. Hwy 58 Castalia,NC 27816 -0237 Caswell County,NC • Chair, Board of Commissioners, Caswell County,NC County Courthouse P.O. Box 98 Yanceyville,NC 27379 Cavalier Telephone LLC John K. Shumate, Jr. 2134 West Laburnum Avenue Richmond, VA 23227 City of Cedar Rapids, Iowa James H. Flitz City Attorney's Office City Hall - 7th Floor Cedar Rapids, IA 52401 -1225 Center for Digital Democracy 1718 Connecticut Avenue,N.W., Suite 200 Washington, DC 20009 9 Jack Doerr Central St. Croix Valley Joint Cable Communications Commission 1492 Frontage Road West Stillwater, MN 55082 Certain Florida Municipalities Gary I. Resnick, Esq. Weiss Serota Helfman, et al. 3107 Stirling Road, Suite 300 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33312 Champaign, IL City of Champaign 102 N Neil Street Champaign, IL 61820 Champaign-Urbana Cable TV and Telecom Commission, IL Richard L. Atterberry C-U Cable TV and Telecom Commission 705 W. Washington Street Champaign, IL 61820 Town of Chapel Hill,North Carolina 405 Martin Luther King Jr. Blvd. Chapel Hill,NC 27516 -2124 Charlotte-Mecklenburg Office of Cable and Franchise Management 600 East Fourth Street- 9th Floor Charlotte,NC 28202 -2816 Charter Communications T. Scott Thompson Cole, Raywid&Braverman, L.L.P. 1919 Pennsylvania Avenue,N.W., Second Floor Washington, DC 20006 Barbara Popovic,Executive Director Chicago Access Corporation- CAN TV 322 S. Green Street Chicago, IL 60607 City Of Chicago 30 N. La Salle Street, Suite 900 Chicago, IL 60602 10 Jouett Kinney Cincinnati Bell Inc. 201 E. Fourth Street, 103-1280 Cincinnati, OH 45202 City of Cincinnati Deborah C. Holston City of Cincinnati 801 Plum Street, Suite 104 Cincinnati, OH 45202 Peter Stewart for Citizens Community Television 1132 Jefferson Ave. PO Box 581 Louisville, CO 80027 City and County of San Francisco Thomas Long City Attorney's Office City Hall, 1 Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett Place, Rm 234 San Francisco, CA 94102 -4682 City of Los Angeles Nicholas Miller Miller&Van Eaton 1155 Connecticut Avenue N.W. Washington, DC 20036 Joseph James, Deputy Commissioner Dept. of Public Property City of Philadelphia City Hall, Room 732 Philadelphia,PA 19107 Susan Littlefield Communications Manager, City of St. Louis Communications Div. 4971 Oakland Avenue St. Louis, MO 63110 11 City of Ventura, CA Joseph Van Eaton Miller&Van Eaton, P.L.L.C. Suite 1000 1155 Connecticut Avenue N.W. Washington, DC 20036 Clackamas County (#100) 2051 Kaen Road Oregon City, OR 97045 Clark County(#101) County Clerk's Office 200 Lewis Avenue Fifth Floor Las Vegas,NV 89101 Clay County Leibowitz& Associates Eleni C. Pantaridis 1 SE 3rd Avenue Suite 1450 Miami, FL 33131 Clayton,NC PO Box 879 111 E. 2nd St. Clayton, NC 27528 -0879 Clinton Township Communications Department 40700 Romeo Plank Road Clinton Township, MI 48044 City of Clovis/John Holt 1033 Fifth Street Clovis, CA 93612 College Township, Pennsylvania 1481 E. College Avenue State College, PA 16801 Communications Support Group 505 Scenic Avenue Piedmont, CA 94611 12 Community Programming Board of Forest Park, Greenhills, and Springfield Township 2086 Waycross Road Forest Park, OH 45240 -2717 Comcast Corporation _Willkie Farr& Gallagher LLP James L. Casserly 1875 K Street NW Washington, DC 20006 Consumer Coalition of California 11304 Jack Rabbit Trail Austin,TX 78750 Consumer Electronics Association 2500 Wilson Blvd Arlington,VA 22201 Consumers for Cable Choice P.O. Box 329 Greenwood, IN 46142 Consumers First, Inc. 33 Southwood Drive Orinda, CA 94563 City of Coral Springs, FL City Law Dept. 9551 West Sample Road Coral Springs, FL 33065 Cox Communications Dow Lohnes PLLC Gary S. Lutzker 1200 New Hampshire Avenue N.W. Suite 800 Washington, DC 20036 13 City of Delray Beach, Florida Leibowitz &Associates Eleni C. Pantaridis 1 SE 3rd Avenue Suite 1450 Miami, FL 33131 Democratic Processes Center, Inc. P.O. Box 329 Greenwood, IN 46142 Susan Bonilla, Mayor do Peter Dragovich Dir. of CM 1950 Parkside Drive, MS/01 Concord, CA 94519 Concord NC (#112) P.O. Box 308 26 Union Street Concord,NC 28026 -0308 City of Coralville 1512 7th Street PO Box 5127 Coralville, IA 52241 -1708 Tom Smisek City of Coronado 1825 Strand Way Coronado, CA 92118 -3005 City of Cypress 5275 Orange Avenue • Cypress, CA 90630 City of Daly City 333- 90th Street Daly City, CA 94015 County of Dare,North Carolina c/o Sharp Michael Outten and Graham Bobby Outten P.O. Drawer 1027 Kitty Hawk,NC 27949 -1027 14 County Administrator Office 1 Public Square, Room 210 Darlington, SC 29532 City of Davis, California 23 Russell Blvd. Davis, Ca. 95616 City of Del Mar 1050 Camino del Mar Del Mar, CA 92014 -2604 Discovery Institute Hance Haney 1015 15th Street,N.W. Ste 900 Washington, DC 20005 Town of Dortches 3057 Town Hall Rd Rocky Mount,NC 27804 -9186 City of Dublin 100 Civic Plaza Dublin, CA 94568 City of Eden Honorable John E. Grogan, Mayor 308 East Stadium Drive Eden,NC 27288 City of El Cerrito 10890 San Pabloe Avenue El Cerrito, CA 94530 Village of Elk Grove Village, Illinois 901 Wellington Avenue Elk Grove Village, IL 60007 Mayor 104 South Williamson St. Elon,NC 27244 15 Jon Funfar City of Enumclaw 1339 Griffin Ave. Enumclaw, WA 98022 Clay Phillips, City Manager City of Escondido 201 N. Broadway Escondido, CA 92025 Town of Esopus PO Box 700 Port Ewen,NY 12466 City of Evanston David Cook 2100 Ridge Suite 1450 Evanston, IL 60201 -1495 Fairfax Cable Access Corporation 2929 Eskridge Road, Suite S Fairfax,VA 22031 Fairfax County Department of Cable Communications & Consumer Protection 12000 Government Center Parkway, Suite 433 Fairfax,VA 22035 -0048 Town of Fairfax, California Law Office of Lawrence Bragman 142 Bolinas Road Fairfax, CA 94930 William H. Johnson, Jr. Mayor 100 N. Main Street Faith,NC 28041 -0037 • Bristol Community College/Fall River Community Television 777 Elsbree Street Fall River, MA 02720 -7307 16 Pat Zavoral City Administrator City of Fargo, North Dakota The Bailer Herbst Law Group, P.C. Adrian E. Herbst 377N Grain Exchange Building 301 Fourth Avenue South Minneapolis, MN 55415 -1015 City of Farmington 325 Oak Street Farmington, MN 55024 City of Durham,NC Theodore L. Voorhees Assistant City Manager 101 City Hall Plaza Durham,NC 27701 Fiber-to-the-Home Council Kelley Drye &Warren LLP Thomas Cohen 3050 K Street,NW Suite 400 Washington, DC 20007 City of Florence, Kentucky Diane Whalen 8100 Ewing Boulevard Florence, KY 41042 -7588 City of Foster City, California Linda Koelling 610 Foster City Boulevard Foster, CA 94404 City of Franklin, KY W. Scott Crabtree 212 South College Street P.O.Box 615 Franklin, KY 42135 -0615 17 Free Enterprise Fund E. O'Brien Murray 1850 M Street,NW Suite 800 Washington, DC 20036 Free Press Institute for Public Representation Angela J. Campbell 600 New Jersey Avenue,N.W. Suite 312 Washington, DC 20001 Township of Ferguson Mark A Kunkle 3147 Research Drive State College, PA 16801 City of Ferndale Michael Powers City Manager PO Box 1095 Ferndale, CA 95536 Village of Floral Park One Floral Boulevard Floral Park,NY 11001 City of Fort Worth 401 W. 2nd Street ' Fort Worth, TX76101 City of Fortuna 621 11th Street PO Box 545 Fortuna, CA 95540 Foxboro Cable Access, Inc. PO Box 524 Foxboro, MA 02035 18 G. Thomas Donch Borough of Franklin Lakes DeKorte Drive Franklin Lakes,New Jersey 07417 Free Press Institute for Public Representation Angela J. Campbell 600 New Jersey Avenue,N.W. Suite 312 Washington, DC 20001 Free Press, Consumers Union, Consumer Federation of America 1801 18th St.,NW Suite 9 Washington, DC 20009 FreedomWorks 1775 Pennsylvania Avenue,NW Eleventh Floor Washington, DC 20006 City of Fort Lauderdale, FL 100 N Andrews Ave Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 City of Gainsville, Florida Russ Blackburn P.O. Box 490 Gainsville, FL 32602 -0490 City of Garland Texas William E. Dollar 200 N. 5th Street Garland, TX 75040 Town of Garner Judy Bass Post Office Box 446 Garner,NC 27529 Mayor Kevin R. Burns 22 South First Street Geneva, IL 60134 19 Georgia Municipal Association Ed Rutter 201 Pryor Street SW Atlanta, GA 30303 -3606 Hawaiian Telcom Communications, Inc. Latham& Watkins LLP Elizabeth Park 555 Eleventh Street,NW Suite 1000 Washington, DC 20004 -1304 Hawaii Consumers P.O. Box 179375 Honolulu, HI 96817 Office of the County Attorney Henderson County,North Carolina Charles Russell Burrell 100 North King Street Hendersonville,NC 28792 Mayor • 129 West Main Street Gibsonville,NC 27249 City of Gilroy HCD 7351 Rosanna Street Gilroy, CA 95020 Village of Glenview Glenview Televison 1225 Waukegan Road Glenview, IL 60025 Mayor 201 South Main St. Graham,NC 27253 City of Grand Rapids Jon Koeze 300 Monroe,NW Grand Rapids,MI 49503 20 Mayor, Town of Granite Quarry 143 N. Salisbury Street Granite Quarry,NC 28072 Great Neck/North Shore Cable Commission et al 1505 Kellym Place Mineola,NY 11501 Greater Metro Telecommunications Consortium Ken Fellman 3773 Cherry Creek North Drive Ptarmigan Place, Suite 900 Denver, CO 80209 Green Spring, KY William M. Huff 7103 Green Spring Drive Louisville, KY 40241 City of Greenboro City Attorney's Office P.O. Box 3136 Greensboro,NC 27402 -3136 City of Greenville David A. Holec P.O. Box 7207 Greenville,NC 27835 -7207 Chairwoman.Guilford County Board of Commissioners 301 W. Market Street Greensboro,NC 27402 Chairman Board of Commissioners Harnett County PO Box 759 Lillington,NC 27546 21 Harris Township 224 East Main Street P.O. Box 20 Boalsburg, PA 16827 City of Henderson Mark Backus 240 Water Street P.O. Box 95050 Henderson,NV 89005 -5050 City of Hialeah, Florida Leibowitz&Associates Eleni C. Pantaridis 1 SE 3rd Avenue Suite 1450 Miami, FL 33131 Hibbing Public Access Television P.O. Box 712 Hibbing, MN 55746 Becky Smothers Mayor, City of High Point 211 S. Hamilton Street High point,NC 27261 High Tech Broadband Coalition Derek Khlopin/TIA 1300 Pennsylvania Avenue,NW, Suite 350 Washington, DC 20004 Town of Hillsborough,North Carolina PO Box 429 111 E. 2nd St. Hillsborough,NC 27278 -0429 22 Town of Holly Springs,North Carolina PO Box 8 128 S. Main St. Holly Springs;NC 27540 -0008 City of Huntsville, Alabama Mayor Loretta Spencer Claudia Anderson P. O. Box 308 Huntsville,AL 35804 City of Imperial Beach, California James P. Lough City Hall 825 Imperial Beach Blvd Imperial Beach, CA 91932 Independent Multi-Family Communications Council William J. Burhop 3004 Oregon Knolls Drive NW Washington, DC 20015 City of Indianapolis Rick Maultra 2501 City-County Building 200 E. Washington Street Indianapolis, Indiana 46204 Institute for Policy Innovation Thomas A. Giovanetti 1660 S. Stemmons Freeway Suite 475 Lewisville, TX 75067 Mayor 403 East Main St. Haw River,NC 27258 • 23 • Mayor 210 North Fourth Street Highlands,NC 28741 -0460 Institute for Policy Innovation do Thomas A. Giovanetti 1660 S. Stemmons Freeway Suite 475 Lewisville, TX 75067 Intergovernmental Cable Communications Authority do Timothy J. Currier, Esquire 200 E. Long Lake Road, Suite#110 Bloomfield Hills, MI 48304 -2361 City of Irwindale 5050 North Irwindale Avenue Irwindale, CA 91706 City of Irvine 1 Civic Center Irvine, CA 92623 Itasca Community Television Executive Director Beth George 724 Conifer Drive Grand Rapids MN 55744-2475 City of Iowa City do Steve Atkins, City Manager Iowa City, IA Jefferson County League of Cities Cable Commission c/o Linda K. Ain 4725 Inman Drive Lexington, KY 40513 24 City of Jenkins, Kentucky c/o Robert Shubert P.O. Box 568 Jenkins, KY 41537 -0568 City of Kansas City, Missouri c/o William D. Geary, Assistant Ci 28th Floor City Hall 414 East 12th Street Kansas City, MO 64106 -2796 City of Killeen c/o Traci Briggs P.O. Box 1329 Killeen, TX 76540 -1329 King County, Washington c/o David Martinez Chief Information Office 700 5th Avenue, Suite 2300 Seattle, WA 98104 Town of Kitty Hawk Mayor PO Box 549 Kitty Hawk,NC 27947 Town of Knightdale, North Carolina c/o Mayor Doug Boyd 950 Steeple Square Ct. Knightdale,NC 27545 City of La Puente c/o Hal Ledford, City Manager 15900 E. Main Street La Puente, CA 91744 Lake Minnetonka Communications Commission c/o Sally Koenecke 4071 Sunset Drive Spring Park, MN 55384 25 City of Lake Worth Leibowitz &Associates Eleni C. Pantaridis 1 SE 3rd Avenue Suite 1450 Miami, FL 33131 City Of Las Vegas,Nevada do Larry G. Bettis 400 Stewart Avenue,Ninth Floor Las Vegas,NV 89101 -2986 City of La Verne do Bob Russi 3660 D Street La Verne, CA 91750 League of.Minnesota Cities and MN Assoc. of Community Telecom Administrators 145 University Avenue West St. Paul, MN 55103 -2044 LEAGUE OF UNITED LATIN AMERICAN CITIZENS OF THE NORTHEAST REGION 41 Eden Street FRAMINGHAM, MA 01702 -6320 Gary Ortiz, City of Leavenworth, Kansas City Hall 100 North 5th Street Leavenworth, KS 66048 -1970 Lee County, Florida Leibowitz&Associates Eleni C. Pantaridis 1 SE 3rd Avenue Suite 1450 Miami,FL 33131 Leibowitz &Associates Matthew L. Leibowitz 1 SE 3rd Ave Suite 1450 Miami, FL 33131 26 City of Lenexa, Kansas do Rebecca A. Yocham 12350 W. 87th Street Parkway Lenexa, KS 66215 City of Lincoln,Nebraska do City Attorney's Office Steven Huggenberger 575 South 10th Street Room 4201 Lincoln,NE 68508 City of Lincoln c/o Gerald F. Johnson 640 Fifth Street Lincoln, CA 95648 City of Long Beach c/o Gerald R. Miller, City Manager, 333 West Ocean Boulevard Long Beach, CA 90802 City of Longmont, Colorado c/o Jim Wall 350 Kimbark Street Longmont, CO 80503 Town of Loomis, Placer County, California do Rhonda Morillas 6140 Horseshoe Bar Rd., Suite K Loomis, CA 95650 City of Los Banos, California 520 J Street Los Banos, CA 93635 City of Lynwood 11330 Bullis Road Lynwood, CA 90262 27 City of Madison Heights Jon Austin, City Manager 300 W. 13 Mile Road Madison Heights, MI 48071 -1899 Incorporated Village of Malverne N.Y. do Anthony J. Panzarella 99 Church Street Malverne,NY 11565 Manatee County do Manatee County Attorney's Office Robert Michael Eschenfelder 1112 Manatee Avenue West Ste. 969 Bradenton, FL 34205 Marin Telecommunications Agency c/o Richards, Watson& Gershon Gregory W. Stepanicich Richards, Watson& Gershon 44 Montgomery Street, Suite 3800 San Francisco, CA 94104 -4811 City of St. Petersburg, Florida do Muslim A. Gadiwalla One 4th Street North St. Petersburg, FL 33705 City of St. Petersburg, FL ICS Dept. One Forth Street North St. Petersburg, FL 33701 -3804 State of Hawaii do Squire, Sanders &Dempsey LLP Bruce A. Olcott 1201 Pennsylvania Avenue NW Washington,DC 20004 28 Town of Sunapee,New Hampshire do Douglas Munro, Chairman Sunapee Electronic Communications Board of Selectmen P.O. Box 717 Sunapee,NH 03782 -0717 City of Sunnyvale, California do Amy Chan 456 West Olive Avenue Sunnyvale, CA 94086 City of Susanville do Rodney E. DeBoer 66 North Lassen Street Susanville, CA 96130 -3904 City of Tampa, Florida do Miller&Van Eaton Nicholas P. Miller Suite 1000 1155 Connecticut Avenue,N.W. Washington, DC 20036 TelCo Retirees Associations, Inc 6168 Capri Dive San Diego, CA 92120 Telecommunications Industry Association 2500 Wilson Boulevard • Suite 300 Arlington, VA 22201 City of Temecula c/o Richards, Watson and Gershon William Rudell 43200 Business Park Drive P.O. Box 9033 Temecula, CA 92589 -9033 29 Texas Coalition of Cities on Franchised Utility Issues.TCCFUI. do Clarence A. West 707 West Avenue Suite 207 Austin, TX 78701 Texas Coalition of Cities For Franchised Utility Issues.TCCFUI do Clarence A. West 1201 Rio Grande Suite 200 Austin, TX 78701 Texas Municipal League/Texas City Attorneys Association do Scott Houston 1821 Rutherford Lane Suite 400 Austin, TX 78754 Time Warner Cable do Fleischman and Walsh, L.L.P. Seth Davidson 1919 Pennsylvania Avenue,NW Suite 600 Washington, DC 20006 Town of Truckee 10183 Truckee Airport Road, Truckee, CA 96161 Truckee, CA 96161 City of Tulsa, Oklahoma c/o Tulsa City Attorney's Office Patrick T. Boulden City Hall, Suite 300 200 Civic Center Tulsa, OK 74103 -3833 Tuolumne County, California c/o Elizabeth E. Bass 2 South Green Street Sonora, CA 95370 30 City of Ukiah do Rapport and Marston David J. Rapport Ukiah Civic Center 300 Seminary Ave. Ukiah, CA 95482 UNITED STATES TELECOM ASSOCIATION do JAMES W. OLSON 607 14th Street,NW Suite 400 Washington, DC 20005 -2164 United States Telecom Association do Jeffrey S Lanning 607 14th Street,NW Suite 400 Washington, DC 20005 -2150 U.S.-Mexico Chamber of Commerce 1300 Pennsylvania Ave.,N.W. Ste. G-0003 Washington, DC 20004 -3021 VALLEY VOTERS ORGANIZED TOWARD EMPOWERMENT- VALLEY VOTE 14622 Ventura Blvd #424 Sherman Oaks, CA 91403 Verizon do Dee May 1300 I Street,NW Suite 400 West Washington, DC 20005 Vermont Public Service Board do John Bentley 112 State Street Montpelier, VT 05620 -2701 Vermont Public Service Board and Vermont Department of Public Service do Leslie A. Cadwell 112 State Street, Drawer 20 Montpelier, VT 05620 -2601 31 Video Access Alliance c/o Julia Johnson PO Box 14917 Tallahassee, FL 32317 Villages of Larchmont and Mamaroneck, Town of Mamaroneck,New York do Miller&Van Eaton Joseph Van Eaton Suite 1000 1155 Connecticut Avenue,N.W. Washington, DC 20036 Virginia Cable Telecommunications Association c/o Christian&Barton, LLP Peter E. Broadbent, Jr., Esqui 909 East Main Street, Suite 1200 Richmond, VA 23219 -3095 City of Vista, California 600 Eucalyptus Avenue Vista, CA 92084 Town of Wake Forest,North Carolina 401 Elm Ave. Wake Forest,NC 27587 -2932 City of Walnut Creek do Paul M. Valle-Riestra 1666 N. Main St. P.O. Box 8039 Walnut Creek, CA 94596 WASHINGTON STATE GRANGE 924 Capitol Way South Olympia, WA 98501 -1210 Town of Wendell,North Carolina PO Box 828 15 E. Fourth St. Wendell,NC 27591 -0828 West Allis Community Center Media Center do Mary Shanahan-Spanic 7210 W. Greenfield Avenue West Allis, WI 53214 32 City of West Palm Beach, Florida c/o Leibowitz&Associates • Eleni C. Pantaridis 1 SE 3rd Avenue Suite 1450 Miami,FL 33131 Thomas G. Wilson, Town of Westport Attorney/Administrator/Clerk-Treasurer Town of Westport 5387 Mary Lake Road, Waunakee, WI 53597 City of Wheaton do Gary White 303 W Wesley Wheaton, IL 60189 -0727 City of Whittier c/o Stephen W. Helvey, City Manage 13230 Penn Street Whittier, CA 90602 City of Wilson,North Carolina P.O. Box 10 Wilson,NC 27894 Dodd D. Dixon, Attorney at Law Executive Director Kentucky Regional Cable Commission Mayor, City of Winchester Winchester, Kentucky Windham Cable Advisory Board c/o Leo A. Hart 3 North Lowell Road Windham,NH 03087 City of Winston-Salem PO Box 2511 Attn Information Systems Winston-Salem,NC 27102 33 Wisconsin Association of Public, Education, and Government Access Channels -WAPC c/o Mary Bennin Cardona, Executive Director 4209 Bagley Parkway Madison, WI 53705 Women Impacting Public Policy 48 San Antonio Place San Francisco, CA 94133 The World Institute on Disability do Kathy Martinez, Executive Director 510 16th Street, Suite 100 Oakland, CA 94612 City of Yuma do Gregory Dean Huland One City Plaza Post Office Box 13014 Yuma,AZ 85366 -3014 Town of Zebulon,North Carolina 100 N. Arendell Ave. Zebulon,NC 27597 -2837 Zeeland Charter Township c/o Bradley Slagh 6582 Byron Road Zeeland, MI 49464 34 Town of Standish do Gordon Billington 175 Northeast Road Standish, ME 04804 State College Borough do Thomas J. Fountain II 243 South Allen Street State College, PA 16801 City of Statesville do Rob Hites 301 South Center Street Statesville,NC 28687 -1111 Sun Prairie Cable Access c/o Pam Steitz- Executive Director 1350 Linnerud Drive - Suite 2 Sun Prairie, WI 53590 Mayor, Town of Tabor City do Marion S. Baxter PO Drawer Tabor City,NC 28463 City of Taylor, City Clerk's Office do Mary Ann Rilley 23555 Goddard Road Taylor, MI 48180 The Progress and Freedom Foundation do Garland T. McCoy Jr. and 1444 Eye Street,NW Suite 500 Washington,DC 20005 Village of Tobaccoville do Mayor Keith P. Snow P.O. Box 332 Tobaccoville,NC 27050 City of Toppenish Scott Staples 21 West First Avenue Toppenish, WA 98948 35 City of Torrance Michael D. Smith 3350 Civic Center Drive Torrance, CA 90503 United States Internet Industry Association James Anderson, Counsel 1800 Diagonal Road Suite 600 Alexandria,VA 22314 URTV 31 College Place Ste 20 A Asheville,NC 28801 Vancouver Educational Telecommunications Association(VETC) 2500 NE 65th Avenue Vancouver, WA 98661 Mayor, Town of Vass c/o Henry E. Callahan PO Box 487 Vass,NC 28394 City of Warrenville c/o Jennifer McMahon 28W701 Stafford Place Warrenville, IL 60555 Chair, Cable TV Advisory Committee c/o Maurice H. Stauffer Town of Wayland Wayland, MA 01778 36 Town of Whitaker,NC PO Box 727 302 NW Railroad St. Whitakers,NC 27891 White Plains Cable Access TV do James D. Kenny 4 Martine Ave. White Plains,NY,NY 10606 City of White do Mayor Randy Brown PO Box 682 White SD 57276-0682 Town of Wilbraham c/o Richard Scott 4 Chapel Street Wilbraham, MA 01095 City of Worcester c/o David M. Moore - City Solicitor City Hall Room 301 455 Main Street Worcester, MA 01608 Town of Yanceyville do Daniel G. Printz, Jr. -Mayor Daniel G. Printz,Jr. -Mayor P 0 Box 727 Yanceyville,NC 27379 Jeffrey Bullins Mayor Town of Mayodan 210 W. Main Street Mayodan,NC 27027 Charles L. Kelsey Village Clerk Village of Mayville PO Box 188 Mayville,NY 14757 -0188 37 Thomas Martin Mayor City of Maywood 4319 Slauson Avenue Maywood, CA 90270 Mecklenburg County Doris J. Boris Charlotte-Mecklenburg Office of Cable and Franchise Management 600 East Fourth Street- 9th Floor Charlotte,NC 28202 -2816 City of Medford Gary Wheeler, Mayor John Huttel 411 W. 8th Street Medford, OR 97501 Peter Franck do Media Action Marin Franck Law Offices 1115 Irwin Suite 101 San Rafael, CA 94901 -3321 Media Bridges Cincinnati, Inc. 1100 Race Street Cincinnati, OH 45202 -7219 Mercatus Center do Jerry Brito and Jerry Ellig 3301 N. Fairfax Drive #450 Arlington, VA 22201 Methuen Community Television 13 Branch Street Methuen, MA 01844 38 Metropolitan Area Communications Commission Bruce Crest 1815 NW 169th Place Suite 6020 Beaverton, OR 97006 Metropolitan Educational Access Corp. Elliott Mitchell 120 White Bridge Road MS 46 Nashville, TN 37209 Miami Valley Comm. Council Glenn Alexander 1195 East Alex-Bell Road Centerville, OH 45459 Miami Dade County, Florida Cathy Grimes-Peel Director, Consumer Services Department 140 West Flagler Street, Suite 90 Miami, FL 33130 Michigan Municipal League Gerald L. Lederer Miller&Van Eaton 1155 Connecticut Avenue N.W. Suite 1000 Washington, DC 20036 Microsoft Corp. Gerald Waldron and David Fagan Covington and Burling 1201 Pennsylvania Avenue,N.W. Washington, DC 20004 Microsoft Corp. c/o Scott Blake Harris Harris Wiltshire 1200 18th Street,NW 12th Floor Washington, DC 20036 39 Town of Middlesex P.O. Box 69 Middlesex,NC 27557-0069 Rick Menchaca City of Midland PO Box 1152 Midland, TX 79702 Jose Esteves Milipitas, CA 455 E. Calaveras Blvd Milpitas, CA 95035 Minnesota Telecom Alliance Stephen J. Gn77etta Bradley and Guzzetta, LLC 444 Cedar Street Saint Paul, MN 55101 Minority Media Telecom Council David Honig 3636 16th Street N.W. Suite B-366 Washington,DC 20010 Mobile,Alabama Mobile County Commission 205 Government St., Mobile, AL 36644 Missouri NATOA Miller&Van Eaton Frederick E. Ellrod III 1155 Connecticut Avenue,N.W. Suite 1000 Washington, DC 20036 40 Town of Momeyer 4868 Momeyer Way Nashville,NC 27856 -9091 Richard Singer Monrovia, CA 415 S. Ivy Avenue Monrovia, CA 91016 Chris Jeffers, City Manager Monterey Park City Hall Monterey Park, CA 91754 Russell D. Duree Montrose, CO City Attorney's Office P.O. Box 790 Montrose, CO 81402 -0790 Town of Morrisville,North Carolina PO Box 166 100 Town Hall Dr. Morrisville,NC 27560 -0166 Robert D. Slattery Mount Morris, MI 116 49 N. Saginaw Street Mt. Morris, MI 48458 Mt. Hood Cable Regulatory Commission—MHCRC 1120 SW 5th Ave., Rm 1305 Portland, OR 97204 Alan Bozeman 111 West Vine Street Murfreesboro, TN 37130 41 Lynn Johnson, Mayor Town of Murfreesboro P.O. Box 6 Murfreesboro,NC 27855 -0006 City of Murrieta 26442 Beckman Court Murrieta, CA 92562 National Association of Broadcasters Jerianne Timmerman 1771 N Street NW Washington, DC 20036 National Black Chamber of Commerce, Inc 1350 Connecticut Ave. NW Suite 405 Washington, DC 20036 National Cable &Telecommunications Association 25 Massachusetts Avenue,N.W. Suite 100 Washington, DC 20001 -1431 National Caucus and Center on Black Aged 1220 L Street NW Suite 800 Washington DC 20005 National Grange Leroy Watson, Legislative Dir. 1616H St.NW Washington, DC 20006 National Hispanic Council on Aging 1341 Connecticut Avenue,N.W. Suite 4.2 Washington, DC 20036 42 National Taxpayers Union 108 N. Alfred Street Alexandria, VA 22314 National Telecommunications Cooperative Association Daniel Mitchell 4121 Wilson Blvd., 10th Floor Arlington, VA 22203 NATOA,NLC,NACO, USCM, ACM &ACD Spiegel &McDiarmid Tillman L. Lay 1333 New Hampshire Avenue,N.W. 2nd Floor Washington, DC 20036 Naval Media Center 2713 Mitscher Road, SW, Bldg. 168 Anacostia Annex, DC 20373-5819 New Jersey Board of Public Utilities State of New Jersey, Division of Law 124 Halsey Street, 5th Floor P.O. Box 45029 Newark,NJ 07101 New Jersey Division of the Ratepayer Advocate 31 Clinton Street, 11th Floor P.O. Box 46005 Newark,NJ 07101 Radhika Karmarkar. New York City Department of Information Technology and Telecommunications 75 Park Place New York,NY 10007 43 New York State Conference of Mayors 119 Washington Ave. Albany,NY 12210 Newton Communications Access Center, Inc c/o P.O. Box 610192, 90 Lincoln Street Newton, MA 02461 -0192 Norfolk, VA Department of Law, City Attorney's Office Martha P. McGann, Deputy City 900 City Hall Building, 810 Union Street Norfolk,VA 23510 City of North Kansas City Thomas E. Barzee, Jr. 2010 Howell North Kansas City,MO 64116 Chris Hoffman- City of North Liberty Telecommunications Commission 5 E. Cherry Street PO Box 77 North Liberty, IA 52317 -0077 City of North Richland Hills P.O. Box 820609 North Richland Hills, TX 76812 -0609 Village of Northbrook John Novinson 1225 Cedar Lane Northbrook, IL 60015 Northern Berkshire Community Television.Corp Heritage State Park Building#6 North Adams, MA 0124 44 Northern Dakota County Cable Cornmirriications Commission,NDC4 Jodie Miller, Executive Director 5845 Blaine Avenue Inver Grove Heights, MN 55076 -1401 Northwest Suburbs Cable Commun. Comm'n Coralie Wilson CTV 15/North Suburban Access Corp. • 950 Woodhill Drive Roseville, MN 55113 City of Norwalk 12700 Norwalk Blvd Norwalk, CA 90650 Oceanside Community Television(KOCT) 3038 Industry Street, Suite 101, Oceanside, CA 92054 Delma Collins Chair, Board of Commissioners, Onslow County 118 Old Bridge Road Jacksonville,NC 27540 City of Ontario, CA Mayhook Law, PLLC Jeffrey Mayhook 34808 NE 14th Avenue La Center, WA 98629 Orange County Government 201 S. Rosalind Ave. 3rd Floor Orlando, FL 32801 OPASTCO 21 Dupont Circle,NW Suite 700 Washington, DC 20036 45 Orion Neighborhood Television Diane Griffiths 698 South Lapeer Road Lake Orion, MI 48362 City of Oxford,North Carolina PO Box 130 300 Williamsboro St Oxford,NC 27565 -1307 Pacific Research Institute 755 Sansome Street Suite 450 San Francisco, CA 94111 Pac-West Telecomm,Inc. Swidler Berlin LLP Patrick J. Donovan 3000 K Street,NW Suite 300 Washington,DC, DC 20007 -5116 City of Palo Alto Office of City Attorney Grant Kolling 250 Hamilton Avenue, 8th Floor Palo Alto, CA 94301 -2531 City of Palmetto 516 8th Ave W Palmetto, FL 34221 -1209 City of Pasadena, California 117 E. Colorado Blvd, 3rd Floor Pasadena, CA 91105 46 Patton Township Elliot Abrams 100 Patton Plaza State College, PA 16803 Harold K. Logsdon, Mayor • Peachtree City 151 Willowbend Road Peachtree City, Georgia 30269 Peachtree City, GA 30269 -3104 Township of Pennsville Thomas H. Strong, Sr., Mayor 90 North Broadway Pennsville,NJ 08070 City of Perris -Michael McDermott 101 N 'D' Street Penis, CA 92570 -1998 City of Philadelphia PA Joseph James, Deputy Commissioner Public Property City Hall, Room 732 Philadelphia,PA 19107 Pike County, KY William M. Deskins 146 Main Street Pikeville,KY 41501 -1180 City of Pikeville KY Frank Justice 118 College Street Pikeville, KY 41501 -1786 47 Town of Pinetops J. Vines Cobb, Jr. Post Office Drawer C Pinetops,NC 27864 Town of Pittsboro,North Carolina c/o PO Box 759 635 East St Pittsboro,NC 27312 -0759 Plainfield Charter Township 6161 Belmont Avenue Belmont, MI 49306 -9609 Rick Wallace Mayor Town of Pleasant Garden PO Box 307 Pleasant Garden,North Carolina 27309 February 1, 2006 City of Pleasant Hill Debra Margolis 100 Gregory Lane Pleasant Hill, CA 94523 Plymouth Area Community Access Television By: Nancy L. Richard Executive Director PACTV 130 Court Street, Plymouth MA 02360 Kathy Oborn,Video Service Director City of Pocatello PO Box 4169 Pocatello, ID 83205 -4169 48 Clay Larkin, Mayor City of Post Falls Mayor Clay Larkin, City of Post Falls 408 N. Spokane Street Post Falls, ID 83854 City of Poway City Manager's Office PO Box 789 Poway, CA 92074 -0789 Princeton Community TV 369 Witherspoon St. Princeton,NJ 08540 Public Cable Television Authority 10200 Slater Avenue Fountain Valley, CA 92708 Public Utility Commission of Texas Rosemary McMahill 1701 N. Congress Avenue P.O. Box 13326 Austin, TX 78711 -3326 Public,Educational and Governmental (PEG) Access Oversight Committee of Nashville, Davidson County, Tennessee Alan D. Johnson, Chair 215 Second Avenue North Nashville, TN 37201 49 Qwest Communications International Inc. Melissa E.Newman Suite 950 607 14th Street,N.W. Washington, DC 20005 Quote...Unquote,Inc 415 Tijeras N.W. Albuquerque,NM 87102 Queen Anne's County Paul W: Comfort 107 N. Liberty Street Centreville, MD 21617 Prince George's County Community Television McCollum &Associates James E. McCollum, Jr College Park, MD 20741 -1717 Prince George's County, Maryland Funk&Bolton, , PA Ernest A. Crofoot 315 High Street Suite 202 Chestertown, MD 21620 -0000 Ramsey/Washington Counties Cable Communications Commission 2460 East County Road White Bear Lake, MN 55110 City of Rancho Cordova- Robert J. McGarvey, Mayor 2729 Prospect Park Drive Rancho Cordova, CA 95670 50 • City of Rancho Santa Margarita Steven E. Hayman 22112 El Paseo Rancho Snata Margarita, CA 92688 Harold Holmes Chair, Board of Commissioners Randolph County 725 McDowell Road Asheboro,North Carolina 27204 RCN Telecom Services, Inc. Swidler Berlin LLP Katie Besha 3000 K Street NW Suite 300 Washington, DC 20007 Town of Red Oak,NC PO Box A Red Oak Blvd Red Oak,NC 27868 -0016 Richard Duvernay& Gerry Kersten on behalf of the City of Redding City of Redding 777 Cypress Avenue Redding, CA 96001 Mayor James K. Festerman 230 W. Morehead Street Reidsville,NC 27320 Bonnie Walton 1055 S. Grady Way Renton, WA 98055 51 City of Richmond, KY Connie Lawson 239 W Main Street Richmond, KY 40476 -0250 John Kirkland Mayor Town of River Bend 45 Shoreline Drive New Bern,North Carolina 28562 N. Jerry Owens Chair, Board of Commissioners Rockingham County 371 NC 65, Suite 206 Wentworth,North Carolina 27375 Town of Rockwell Mayor Beauford Taylor PO Box 506 Rockwell,NC 28138 -0506 Douglas R. Prichard, City Manager City of Rolling Hills Estates 4045 Palos Verdes Drive North Rolling Hills Estates, CA 90274 Gus Andres Chair, Board of Commissioners Rowan County 130 W. Innes Street Salisbury,North Carolina 28144 City of Rolling Hills Estates 4045 Palos Verdes Drive North Rolling Hills Estates, CA 90274 52 Sacramento Metropolitan Cable Television Commission McDonough, Holland& alien, PC Harriet A. Steiner 555 Capitol Mall, 9th floor Sacramento, CA 95814 City of Saint Charles, Missouri Saint Charles City Hall 200 North Second Street Saint Charles, MO 63301 Linda Berman 555 Liberty Street ST, Room 220 Salem, OR 97301 Chris Bramhall 451 South State Street, Suite 505A Salt Lake City,UT 84111 • County of San Diego 1600 Pacific Highway Room 208 • San Diego, CA 92101 Rey Arellano City of San Diego 202 C Street, MS-9B San Diego, CA 92101 Curtis W. Morris 245 East Bonita Avenue San Dimas, CA 91773 City Attorney's Office/City of San Jose William H. Hughe 200 E. Santa Clara St., 16th Floor San Jose, CA 95113 City of San Juan Capistrano 32400 Paseo Adelanto San Juan Capistrano, CA 92675 53 City of San Marcos 1 Civic Center Drive San Marcos, CA 92069 -2918 San Mateo County Telecommunications Authority—SAMCAT Greg Rubens, Attorney at Law 600 Elm Street San Carlos, CA 94070 -3018 City of Sanford,North Carolina PO Box 3729 225 E. Weatherspoon St Sanford,NC 27331 -3729 City of Santa Clara 1500 Warburton Avenue Santa Clara, CA 95050 -3713 City of Santa Clarita 23920 Valencia Blvd Santa Clarita, CA 91355 Maryanne Rehberg on behalf of Community television of Santa Cruz County 816 Pacific Ave. Santa Cruz„ CA 95062 City of Santa Rosa, California Jane Bender City Hall, Room#8 100 Santa Rosa Avenue Santa Rosa, CA 95404 54 • City of Santee Attn: Keith Till, City Manager 10601 Magnolia Avenue Santee, CA 92071 -1266 City of Saratoga Springs Valene Keehn City Hall, Suite 6 474 Broadway Saratoga Springs,NY 12866 Charles A. Comstock, City Manager, City of Scotts Valley Kirsten Powell, City Attorney City of Scotts Valley One Civic Center Drive Scotts Valley, CA 95066 City of Seattle Tony Perez 700 5th Avenue, Suite 2700 P.O. Box 94709 Seattle, WA 98124 -4709 City of Sebastopol, California 7120 Bodega Ave. Sebastopol, CA 95472 Self Advocacy Association of New York State 75 Morton St# 1 New York,NY 10014 Township of Shaler Timothy J. Rogers 300 Wetzel Road Timothy J. Rogers Glenshaw,PA 15116 -2288 55 City of Sierra Madre 232 W. Sierra Madre Blvd Sierra Madre, CA 91024 City of Signal Hill 2175 Cherry Avenue Signal Hill, CA 90755 Town of Siler City Charles L. Turner 311 N 2nd Ave Siler,NC 27344 -0769 City of Simi Valley 2929 Tapo Canyon Road Simi Valley, CA 93063 Sjoberg's Inc. 315 N. Main Avenue Thief River Falls, MN 56701 Village of Skokie Albert J. Rigoni 5127 Oakton Street Skokie, IL 60077 Town of Smithfield,North Carolina PO Box 761 350 E. Market St. Smithfield,NC 27577 -0761 City of Solana Beach, California James P. Lough 635 S. HWY 101 Solana Beach, CA 92075 56 Township of South Orange Village Marjorie O. Smith 101 South Orange Avenue South Orange,NJ 07079 City of South Portland Tony Vigue P.O. Box 9422 Portland, ME 04116 City and County of San Francisco City Attorney's Office Thomas Long City Hall, 1 Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett Place, Rm 234 San Francisco, CA 94102 -4682 South Slope Cooperative Telephone Company Davis, Brown, Koehn, Shors &Roberts, P.C. John C. Pietila 2500 The Financial Center 666 Walnut Des Moines, IA 50309 -3993 Southeastern Michigan Municipalities Neil J. Lehto 4035 Iverness Lane West Bloomfield, MI 48323 -1714 Southwest Suburban Cable Commission Moss &Barnett Brian T. Grogan 4800 Wells Fargo Center 90 South Seventh Street Minneapolis,MN 55402 -4129 Town of Spring Hope,NC PO BOX 87 118 W. Railroad St. Spring Hope,NC 27882 -0087 57 City of Springfield 840 Boonville Ave P.O. Box 8368 Springfield, MO 65801-8368 City of St. Charles 2 E. Main Street St. Charles, IL 60174 Mayor Chris Coleman 390 City Hall 15 West Kellogg Boulevard Saint Paul, MN 55102 City of Jackson do Alfred A. Nunes 33 Broadway Jackson, CA 95642 -2301 Town of Jamestown William G. Ragsdale, III PO Box 848 Jamestown,NC 27282 Jersey Access Group c/o Rich Desimone 500 Main Street Metuchen,NJ 08840 City of Kernersville do Curtis L. Swisher, Mayor 134 East Mountain Street Kernersville,NC 27284 City of Lake Forest c/o Scott C. Smith, City Attorney Lake Forest City Hall 25550 Commercentre Drive, Suite 100 Lake Forest, CA 92630 58 Town of Lake Lure . Don Mullen, Mayor 2948 Memorial Hwy Lake Lure,NC 28746 -0255 Town of Lake Mills James A. Heinz, Chairperson N7041 Faville Road Lake Mills, WI 53551 City of Lakewood c/o Lisa Novotny 5050 Clark Ave Lakewood, CA 90712 City of Lewisville Mayor Thomas J. Lawson PO Box 547 Lewisville,NC 27023 City of Lexington Mayor Richard L. Thomas 28 West Center Street Lexington,NC 27292 Los Angeles Cable Television Access Corp c/o Herb Isaacs, Corporate Secretary LA36 108 West 2nd Street Unit 108, Los Angeles, Ca 90012 Town of Madison Kenneth Y. Hawkins, Mayor 120 N Market St Madison,NC 27025 Bob Chemow City of Madison 215 Martin Luther King Jr. Blvd. Madison, WI 53710 -0002 59 1 Manhattan Community Access Corp c/o Manhattan Neighborhood Network Daniel Coughlin-Executive Director 537 West 59th Street, New York,NY 10019 Martha's Vineyard Plum TV c/o MacDara Bohan, General Manager 9 Main St. Vineyard Haven, MA 02568 City of Maxton Mayor Lillie McKoy 201 McCaskill Ave Maxton,NC 28364 Community Access Television Inc. 1126 West 17th Street Davenport, IA 52804 -3714 60 EXHIBIT A Federal Communications Commission FCC 06-180 • Before the Federal Communications Commission Washington,D.C.20554 In the Matter of ) Implementation of Section 621(a)(1) of the Cable ) MB Docket No.05-311 Communications Policy Act of 1984 as amended ) by the Cable Television Consumer Protection and ) Competition Act of 1992 ) REPORT AND ORDER AND FURTHER NOTICE OF PROPOSED RULEMAKING Adopted: December 20,2006 Released: March 5,2007 Comment Date: [30 days after date of publication in the Federal Register] Reply Comment Date: [45 days after date of publication in the Federal Register] By the Commission: Chairman Martin,Commissioners Tate and McDowell issuing separate statements; Commissioners Copps and Adelstein dissenting and issuing separate statements. TABLE OF CONTENTS Paragraph I. INTRODUCTION 1 II. BACKGROUND 6 III. DISCUSSION 18 A. The Current Operation of the Franchising Process Unreasonably Interferes With Competitive Entry 19 B. The Commission Has Authority to Adopt Rules Pursuant to Section 621(a)(1) 53 C. Steps to Ensure that the Local Franchising Process Does Not Unreasonably Interfere with Competitive Cable Entry and Rapid Broadband Deployment 65 1. Time Limit for Franchise Negotiations 66 2. Build-Out 82 3. Franchise Fees 94 4. PEG/Institutional Networks 110 5. Regulation of Mixed-Use,Networks 121 D. Preemption of Local Laws,Regulations and Requirements 125 IV. FURTHER NOTICE OF PROPOSED RULEMAKING 139 V. PROCEDURAL MATTERS 144 VI. ORDERING CLAUSES 153 APPENDIX A—List of Commenters and Reply Commenters APPENDIX B—Rule Changes APPENDIX C—Initial Regulatory Flexibility Act Analysis APPENDIX D—Final Regulatory Flexibility Act Analysis Federal Communications Commission FCC 06-180 v I. INTRODUCTION 1. In this Report and Order("Order"), we adopt rules and provide guidance to implement Section 621(a)(1) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended(the "Communications Act"), which prohibits franchising authorities from unreasonably refusing to award competitive franchises for the provision of cable services.' We find that the current operation of the local franchising process in many jurisdictions constitutes an unreasonable barrier to entry that impedes the achievement of the interrelated federal goals of enhanced cable competition and accelerated broadband deployment.' We further find that Commission action to address this problem is both authorized and necessary. Accordingly, we adopt measures to address a variety of means by which local franchising authorities, i.e.,county-or municipal- level franchising authorities ("LFAs"), are unreasonably refusing to award competitive franchises. We anticipate that the rules and guidance we adopt today will facilitate and expedite entry of new cable competitors into the market for the delivery of video programming,3 and accelerate broadband deployment consistent with our statutory responsibilities. '47 U.S.C. §541(a)(1). 2 While there is a sufficient record before us to generally determine what constitutes an "unreasonable refusal to award an additional competitive franchise" at the local level under Section 621(a)(1), we do not have sufficient information to make such determinations with respect to franchising decisions where a state is involved, either by issuing franchises at the state level or enacting laws governing specific aspects of the franchising process. We therefore expressly limit our findings and regulations in this Order to actions or inactions at the local level where a state has not specifically circumscribed the LFA's authority. In light of the differences between the scope of franchises issued at the state level and those issued at the local level, we do not address the reasonableness of demands made by state level franchising authorities, such as Hawaii,which may need to be evaluated by different criteria than those applied to the demands of local franchising authorities. Additionally, what constitutes an unreasonable period of time for a state level franchising authority to take to review an application may differ from what constitutes an unreasonable period of time at the local level. Moreover,as discussed infra,many states have enacted comprehensive franchise reform laws designed to facilitate competitive entry. Some of these laws allow competitive entrants to obtain statewide franchises while others establish a comprehensive set of statewide parameters that cabin the discretion of LFAs. Compare TEx.UTIL.CODE ANN. §§ 66.001-66.017 with VA. CODE ANN. §§ 15.2-2108.19 et seq. In light of the fact that many of these laws have only been in effect for a short period of time,and we do not have an adequate record from those relatively few states that have had statewide franchising for a longer period of time to draw general conclusions with respect to the operation of the franchising process where there is state involvement,we lack a sufficient record to evaluate whether and how such state laws may lead to unreasonable refusals to award additional competitive franchises. As a result, our Order today only addresses decisions made by county-or municipal-level franchising authorities. See U.S. Cellular Corp. v.FCC,254 F.3d 78, 86 (D.C. Cir.2001)("agencies need not address all problems in one fell swoop") (citations and internal quotation marks omitted);Personal Watercraft Industry Assoc. v.Dept.of Commerce,48 F.3d 540,544(D.C.Cir. 1995)("An agency does not have to'make progress on every front before it can make progress on any front.')(quoting United States v.Edge Broadcasting Co.,509 U.S.418,434(1993));National Association of Broadcasters v.FCC, 740 F.2d 1190, 1207(D.C.Cir. 1984)("[A]gencies,while entitled to less deference than Congress,nonetheless need not deal in one fell swoop with the entire breadth of a novel development;instead, `reform may take place one step at a time, addressing itself to the phase of the problem which seems most acute to the [regulatory] mind.") (citations and internal quotation marks omitted, alteration in original). Moreover, it does not address any aspect of an LFA's decision-making to the extent that such aspect is specifically addressed by state law. For example, the state of Massachusetts provides LFAs with 12 months from the date of their decision to begin the licensing process to approve or deny a franchise application. 207 Mass. Code Regs. 3.02(2006). These laws are not addressed by this decision. Consequently, unless otherwise stated, references herein to "the franchising process" or "franchising" refer solely to processes controlled by county-or municipal-level franchising authorities,including but not limited to the ultimate decision to award a franchise. 3 References throughout this Order to"video programming"or"video services"are intended to mean cable services. 2 Federal Communications Commission FCC 06-180 2. New competitors are entering markets for the delivery of services historically offered by monopolists: traditional phone companies are primed to enter the cable market, while traditional cable companies are competing in the telephony market. Ultimately,both types of companies are projected to offer customers a "triple play" of voice, high-speed Internet access, and video services over their respective networks. We believe this competition for delivery of bundled services will benefit consumers by driving down prices and improving the quality of service offerings. We are concerned, however, that traditional phone companies seeking to enter the video market face unreasonable regulatory obstacles, to the detriment of competition generally and cable subscribers in particular. 3. The Communications Act sets forth the basic rules concerning what franchising authorities may and may not do in evaluating applications for competitive franchises. Despite the parameters established by the Communications Act, however, operation of the franchising process has proven far more complex and time consuming than it should be, particularly with respect to facilities- based telecommunications and broadband providers that already have access to rights-of-way. New entrants have demonstrated that they are willing and able to upgrade their networks to provide video services,but the current operation of the franchising process at the local level unreasonably delays and,in some cases, derails these efforts due to LFAs' unreasonable demands on competitive applicants. These delays discourage investment in the fiber-based infrastructure necessary for the provision of advanced broadband services,because franchise applicants do not have the promise of revenues from video services to offset the costs of such deployment. Thus, the current operation of the franchising process often not only contravenes the statutory imperative to foster competition in the multichannel video programming distribution ("MVPD") market, but also defeats the congressional goal of encouraging broadband deployment. 4. In light of the problems with the current operation of the franchising process,we believe that it is now appropriate for the Commission to exercise its authority and take steps to prevent LFAs from unreasonably refusing to award competitive franchises. We have broad rulemaking authority to implement the provisions of the Communications Act, including Title VI generally and Section 621(a)(1) in particular. In addition, Section 706 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 directs the Commission to encourage broadband deployment by removing barriers to infrastructure investment,and the U.S.Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit has held that the Commission may fashion its rules to fulfill the goals of Section 706.4 5. To eliminate the unreasonable barriers to entry into the cable market, and to encourage investment in broadband facilities,we: (1)fmd that an LFA's failure to issue a decision on a competitive application within the time frames specified herein constitutes an unreasonable refusal to award a competitive franchise within the meaning of Section 621(a)(1); (2) find that an LFA's refusal to grant a competitive franchise because of an applicant's unwillingness to agree to unreasonable build-out mandates constitutes an unreasonable refusal to award a competitive franchise within the meaning of Section 621(a)(1); (3) fmd that unless certain specified costs, fees, and other compensation required by LFAs are counted toward the statutory 5 percent cap on franchise fees,demanding them could result in an unreasonable refusal to award a competitive franchise; (4)find that it would be an unreasonable refusal to award a competitive franchise if the LFA denied an application based upon a new entrant's refusal to undertake certain obligations relating to public, educational, and government ("PEG") and institutional networks ("I-Nets") and (5) find that it is unreasonable under Section 621(a)(1) for an LFA to refuse to grant a franchise based on issues related to non-cable services or facilities. Furthermore, we preempt local laws, regulations, and requirements, including level-playing-field provisions, to the extent they permit LFAs to impose greater restrictions on market entry than the rules adopted herein. .We also adopt 4 See USTA v.FCC,359 F.3d 554,579-80(D.C.Cir.2004). 3 Federal Communications Commission FCC 06-180 a Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking ("FNPRM") seeking comment on how our findings in this Order should affect existing franchisees. In addition, the FNPRM asks for comment on local consumer protection and customer service standards as applied to new entrants. H. BACKGROUND 6. Section 621. Any new entrant seeking to offer "cable service"5 as a "cable operators6 becomes subject to the requirements of Title VI. Section 621 of Title VI sets forth general cable franchise requirements. Subsection(b)(1)of Section 621 prohibits a cable operator from providing cable service in a particular area without first obtaining a cable franchise,' and subsection (a)(1) grants to franchising authorities the power to award such franchises.8 7. The initial purpose of Section 621(a)(1),which was added to the Communications Act by the Cable Communications Policy Act of 1984(the"1984 Cable Act"),9 was to delineate the role of LFAs in the franchising process.10 As originally enacted, Section 621(a)(1) simply stated that "[a] franchising authority may award, in accordance with the provisions of this title, 1 or more franchises within its jurisdiction.sH A few years later, however, the Commission prepared a report to Congress on the cable industry pursuant to the requirements of the 1984 Cable Act.I2 In that Report,the Commission concluded 5 Section 602(6) of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. §522(6) (defining "cable service" as "(A)the one-way transmission to subscribers of (i)video programming, or (ii)other programming service, and (B)subscriber interaction, if any, which is required for the selection or use of such video programming or other programming service"). 6 Section 602(5)of the Communications Act,47 U.S.C. §522(5)(defining"cable operator"as"any person or group of persons(A)who provides cable service over a cable system and directly or through one or more affiliates owns a significant interest in a cable system,or(B)who otherwise controls or is responsible for,through any arrangement, the management and operation of such a cable system"). '47 U.S.C. §541(b)(1)("Except to the extent provided in paragraph(2)and subsection(f),a cable operator may not provide cable service without a franchise."). B 47 U.S.C. §541(a)(1)(stating that"[a]franchising authority may award,in accordance with the provisions of this title, 1 or more franchises within its jurisdiction"). A"franchising authority"is defined to mean"any governmental entity empowered by Federal,State,or local law to grant a franchise." Section 602(10)of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. §522(10). As noted above,references herein to"local franchising authorities"or"LFAs"mean only the county or municipal governmental entities empowered to grant franchises. 9 Cable Communications Policy Act of 1984,Pub.L No.98-549,98 Stat.2779. 1°See, e.g.,H.R.REP.No. 98-934, at 19(1984)("[The 1984 Cable Act] establishes a national policy that clarifies the current system of local, state and federal regulation of cable television. This policy continues reliance on the local franchising process as the primary means of cable television regulation, while defining and limiting the authority that a franchising authority may exercise through the franchise process. ... [This legislation]will preserve the critical role of municipal governments in the franchise process, while providing appropriate deregulation in certain respects to the provision of cable service.");id.at 24("It is the Committee's intent that the franchise process take place at the local level where city officials have the best understanding of local communications needs and can require cable operators to tailor the cable system to meet those needs. However, if that process is to further the purposes of this legislation, the provisions of these franchises, and the authority of the municipal governments to enforce these provisions, must be based on certain important uniform federal standards that are not continually altered by Federal,state and local regulation."). 11 Cable Communications Policy Act of 1984,Pub.L.No.98-549,98 Stat.2779,§621 (1984). 12 See generally Competition, Rate Deregulation and the Commission's Policies Relating to the Provision of Cable Television Service,5 FCC Rcd 4962(1990)("Report"). 4 • Federal Communications Commission FCC 06-180 that in order"[t]o encourage more robust competition in the local video marketplace,the Congress should ... forbid local franchising authorities from unreasonably denying a franchise to potential competitors who are ready and able to provide service.i13 8. In response,14 Congress revised Section 621(a)(1) through the Cable Television Consumer Protection and Competition Act of 1992 (the "1992 Cable Act")15 to read as follows: "A franchising authority may award, in accordance with the provisions of this title, 1 or more franchises within its jurisdiction; except that a franchising authority may not grant an exclusive franchise and may not unreasonably refuse to award an additional competitive franchise.s16 In the Conference Report on the legislation,Congress found that competition in the cable industry was sorely lacking: For a variety of reasons,including local franchising requirements and the extraordinary expense of constructing more than one cable television system to serve a particular.geographic area, most cable television subscribers have no opportunity to select between competing cable systems. Without the presence of another multichannel video programming distributor,a cable system faces no local competition. The result is undue market power for the cable operator as compared to that of consumers and video programmers.l7 To address this problem, Congress abridged local government authority over the franchising process to promote greater cable competition: Based on the evidence in the record taken as a whole,it is clear that there are benefits from competition between two cable systems. Thus, the Committee believes that local franchising authorities should be encouraged to award second franchises. Accordingly, [the 1992 Cable Act] as reported, prohibits local franchising authorities from unreasonably refusing to grant second franchises.18 13 Id.at 4974; see also id.at 5012("This Commission is convinced that the most effective method of promoting the interests of viewers or consumers is through the free play of competitive market forces."). The Report also recommended that Congress "prohibit franchising rules whose intent or effect is to create unreasonable barriers to the entry of potential competing multichannel video providers,""limit local franchising requirements to appropriate governmental interests (e.g., public health and safety, repair and good condition of public rights-of-way, and the posting of an appropriate construction bond),"and"permit competitors to enter a market pursuant to an initial,time- limited suspension of any`universal[build-out]' obligation." Id. 14 See H.R.REP.No. 102-628,at 47(1992) ("The Commission recommended that Congress,in order to encourage more robust competition in the local video marketplace, prevent local franchising authorities from unreasonably denying a franchise to potential competitors who are ready and able to provide service."). The Commission has previously recognized that "Congress incorporated the Commission's recommendations in the 1992 Cable Act by amending §621(a)(1) of the Communications Act." Implementation of Section 19 of the Cable Television Consumer Protection and Competition Act of 1992(Annual Assessment of the Status of Competition in the Market for the Delivery of Video Programming),9 FCC Rcd 7442,7469(1994). 15 Cable Television Consumer Protection and Competition Act of 1992,Pub.L.No. 102-385, 106 Stat. 1460. 16 47 U.S.C. §541(a)(1)(emphasis added). 17 H.R.CoNF.REP.No. 102-862,at 1231 (1992). 18 S.REP.No. 102-92,at 47(1991). 5 Federal Communications Commission FCC 06-180 As revised, Section 621(a)(1) establishes a clear, federal-level limitation on the authority of LFAs in the franchising process in order to "promote the availability to the public of a diversity of views and information through cable television and other video distribution media,"and to"rely on the marketplace, to the maximum extent feasible, to achieve that availability.s19 Congress further recognized that increased competition in the video programming industry would curb excessive rate increases and enhance customer service, two areas in particular which Congress found had deteriorated because of the monopoly power of cable operators brought about,at least in part,by the local franchising process.20 9. In 1992, Congress also revised Section 621(a)(1) to provide that"[a]ny applicant whose application for a second franchise has been denied by a final decision of the franchising authority may appeal such final decision pursuant to the provisions of section 635.s21 Section 635, in turn, states that "[a]ny cable operator adversely affected by any fmal determination made by a franchising authority under section 621(a)(1) ... may commence an action within 120 days after receiving notice of such determination" in federal court or a state court of general jurisdiction.22 Congress did not, however, provide an explicit judicial remedy for other forms of unreasonable refusals to award competitive franchises, such as an LFA's refusal to act on a pending franchise application within a reasonable time period. 10. The Local Franchising NPRM. Notwithstanding the limitation imposed on LFAs by Section 621(a)(1), prior to commencement of this proceeding, the Commission had seen indications that the current operation of the franchising process still serves as an unreasonable barrier to entry23 for potential new cable entrants into the MVPD market 24 In November 2005, the Commission issued a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking ("Local Franchising NPRM') to determine whether LFAs are unreasonably refusing to award competitive franchises and thereby impeding achievement of the statute's goals of increasing competition in the delivery of video programming and accelerating broadband deployment. 11. The Commission sought comment on the current environment in which new cable entrants attempt to obtain competitive cable franchises. For example,the Commission requested input on 19 Id. 20 S. REP.No. 102-92,at 9(quoting members of the cable industry who acknowledged that"because the franchise limits the customers to a single provider in the market, other `customer-oriented' intangibles relating to the expectation of future patronage do not exist for a cable system. There is a goodwill in a monopoly. Customers return,not because of any sense of satisfaction with the monopolist,but rather because they have no other choices"); see also id.at 3-9, 13-14,20-21. 21 47 U.S.C.§541(a)(1). 22 47 U.S.C.§555(a). 23 See Implementation of Section 621(a)(1) of the Cable Communications Policy Act of 1984 as amended by the Cable Television Consumer Protection and Competition Act of 1992, 20 FCC Rcd 18581, 18584 (2005) ("Local Franchising NPRM")(citing comments of Alcatel,BellSouth,Broadcast Service Providers Assoc.,and Consumers for Cable Choice,filed in MB Docket No.05-255). 24 We refer herein to "new entrants," "new cable entrants," and "new cable competitors" interchangeably. Specifically, we intend these terms to describe entities that opt to offer "cable service" over a "cable system" utilizing public rights-of-way, and thus are uefined under the Communications Act as"cable operator[s]"that must obtain a franchise. Although we recognize that there are numerous other ways to enter the MVPD market (e.g., direct broadcast satellite ("DBS"), wireless cable, private cable), our actions in this proceeding relate to our authority under Section 621(a)(1) of the Communications Act,and thus are limited to competitive entrants seeking to obtain cable franchises. 6 Federal Communications Commission FCC 06-180 the number of: (a)LFAs in the United States; (b) competitive franchise applications filed to date;25 and (c) ongoing franchise negotiations.26 To determine whether the current operation of the franchising process discourages competition and broadband deployment, the Commission also sought information regarding,among other things: •, how much time, on average, elapses between the date a franchise application is filed and the date an LFA acts on the application,and during that period,how much time is spent in active negotiations;27 •. whether to establish a maximum time frame for an LFA to act on an application for a competitive franchise;28 • whether"level-playing-field"mandates,which impose on new entrants terms and conditions identical to those in the incumbent cable operator's franchise,constitute unreasonable barriers to entry;29 • whether build-out requirements (i.e., requirements that a franchisee deploy cable service to parts or all of the franchise area within a specified period of time) are creating unreasonable barriers to competitive entry;" • specific,examples of any monetary or in-kind LFA demands unrelated to cable services that could be adversely affecting new entrants'ability to obtain franchises;31 and • whether current procedures or requirements are appropriate for any cable operator, including' incumbent cable operators.32 12. In the Local Franchising NPRM, we tentatively concluded that Section 621(a)(1) empowers the Commission to adopt rules to ensure that the franchising process does not unduly interfere' with the ability of potential competitors to provide video programming to consumers.33 Accordingly,the Commission sought comment on how it could best remedy any problems with the current franchising process.34 • 25 Local Franchising NPRM,20 FCC Rcd at 18588: 26 Id 27 Id 28 Id.at 18591. 29Id at 18588. Id.at 18592. ' ' ' 31 Id. See also Comments of Verizon, MB Docket No. 05-255 at 12 (filed Sept. 19, 2005)(arguing that"[m]any local franchising authorities unfortunately view the franchising process as an opportunity to garner from a potential new video entrant concessions that are in no way related to video services or to the rationales for requiring franchises"). See Appendix A for a list of all commenters and reply commenters. 32 Local Franchising NPRM,20 FCC Rcd at 18592. 33 Id.at 18590. 34Id.at 18581. Federal Communications Commission FCC 06-180 13. The Commission also asked whether Section 706 provides a basis for the Commission to address barriers faced by would-be entrants to the video market's Section 706 directs the Commission to encourage broadband deployment by utilizing"measures that promote competition ... or other regulating methods that remove barriers to infrastructure investment.s36 Competitive entrants in the video market are, in large part, deploying new fiber-based facilities that allow companies to offer the "triple play" of voice, data, and video services. New entrants' video offerings thus directly affect their roll-out of new broadband services. Revenues from cable services are, in fact, a driver for broadband deployment. In light of that relationship, the Commission sought comment on whether it could take remedial action pursuant to Section 706.37 14. The Franchising Process. The record in this proceeding demonstrates that the franchising process differs significantly from locality to locality. In most states,franchising is conducted at the local level, affording counties and municipalities broad discretion in deciding whether to grant a franchise.38 Some counties and municipalities have cable ordinances that govern the structure of negotiations, while others may proceed on an applicant-by-applicant basis.39 Where franchising negotiations are focused at the local level, some LFAs create formal or informal consortia to pool their resources and expedite competitive entry4° 15. To provide video services over a geographic area that encompasses more than one LFA,a prospective entrant must become familiar with all applicable regulations. This is a time-consuming and expensive process that has a chilling effect on competitors4' Verizon estimates, for example,that it will need 2,500-3,000 franchises in order to provide video services throughout its service area.42 AT&T states 35 Id.at 18590. 36 Section 706 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996,47 U.S.C.§ 157 nt. 37 See USTA v. FCC, 359 F.3d 554, 580, 583 (D.C. Cir. 2004). See also USTelecom Comments at 15; TIA Comments at 16-17. 38 See, e.g.,MD.ANN.CODE art.23A§2(b)(13);OR.CONST.ART.I, § 21 (2005);COLO.REV.STAT.ANN. §30-35- 201 (West 2005). We also note that several states have adopted statutes governing the franchising process. For example, some states require public hearings or special elections. See League of Minnesota Cities ("LMC") Comments at 6-8, South Slope Comments at 6. Other states have laws limiting the range of issues that can be negotiated in a franchise. See Cablevision Comments at 12, LMC Comments at 15. As we discuss below, certain states have adopted new franchising laws that allow providers to apply for franchises through state franchising authorities("SFAs"),and we note that lawmakers in those states adopted these new franchising laws to address the needs of the current marketplace. Furthermore,certain states have traditionally considered franchise applications at the state level. See, e.g., HAW. REV. STAT. §440G-4(2006), CONN.GEN. STAT.ANN. § 16-331 (West 2006), VT. STAT.ANN.fit.30,§502(2006). The record indicates that state level franchising may provide a practical solution to the problems that facilities-based entrants face when seeking to provide competitive services on a broader basis than county or municipal boundaries and seek to provide service in a significant number of franchise areas. See, e.g., AT&T Reply at 21,37,NTCA Comments at 10. 39 See, e.g., Mobile, Ala. Comments at 2 (discussing its Master Cable Services Regulatory Ordinance that was created to ensure all potential entrants were treated in a uniform manner);Ontario,Cal.Comments at 5-6(discussing draft master ordinance that will ensure a"fair and equitable application process"for all new entrants). 4o See, e.g.,MO-NATOA Comments at 8("some localities work together to franchise and manage rights-of-way"); MHRC Comments at 1 (MHRC is a consolidated regulatory authority for six Oregon localities). 41 See, e.g.,Verizon Comments at 27,Att.A,para. 10,59-75;BellSouth Comments at 2, 11;Letter from Jeffrey S. Lanning, Associate General Counsel, USTelecom, to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, Federal Communications Commission at 17-18(July 28,2006)("USTelecom Ex Parte"). 42 Verizon Comments at 27,Att.A,para. 10. 8 • Federal Communications Commission FCC 06-180 that its Project Lightspeed deployment is projected to cover a geographic area that would encompass as many as 2,000 local franchise areas.43 BellSouth estimates that there are approximately 1,500 LFAs within its service area 44 Qwest's in-region territory covers a potential 5,389 LFAs.45 While other companies are also considering competitive entry,46 these estimates amply demonstrate the regulatory burden faced by competitors that seek to enter the market on a wide scale,a burden that is amplified when individual LFAs unreasonably refuse to grant competitive franchises. 16. A few states and municipalities recently have recognized the need for reform and have established expedited franchising processes for new entrants. Although these processes also vary greatly and thus are of limited help to new cable providers seeking to quickly enter the marketplace on a regional basis,they do provide more uniformity in the franchising process on an intrastate basis. These state level reforms appear to offer promise in assisting new entrants to more quickly begin offering consumers a competitive choice among cable providers. In 2005, the Texas legislature designated the Texas Public Utility Commission ("PUC") as the franchising authority for state-issued franchises, and required the PUC to issue a franchise within 17 business days after receipt of a completed application from an eligible applicant.47 In 2006, Indiana, Kansas, South Carolina, New Jersey, North Carolina, and California also passed legislation to streamline the franchising process by providing for expedited, state level grants of franchises. Virginia, by contrast, did not establish statewide franchises but mandated uniform time frames for negotiations,public hearings,and ultimate franchise approval at the local level. In particular,a "certificated provider of telecommunications service"with existing authority to use public rights-of-way is authorized to provide video service within 75 days of filing a request to negotiate with each individual LFA.49 Similarly,Michigan recently enacted legislation that streamlines the franchise application process, establishes a 30-day timeframe within which an LFA must make a decision, and eliminates build-out requirements.5° 17. In some states,however, franchise reform efforts launched in recent months have failed. For example, in Florida, bills that would have allowed competitive providers to enter the market with a permit from the Office of the Secretary of State, and contained no build-out or service delivery schedules, died in committee.51 In Louisiana, the Governor vetoed a bill that would have created a state franchise 43 AT&T Comments at 17. 44 BellSouth Comments at 11. 45 Qwest Comments at 14. 46 See BSPA Comments at 1-2; Cavalier Telephone Comments at 2; South Slope Comments at 2; Cincinnati Bell Comments at 1; Hawaiian Telcom Comments at 1; Minnesota Telecom Alliance Comments at 2. In addition to video services,many of these new entrants also intend to provide broadband services. See, e.g.,Verizon Comments at i;BSPA Comments at 1;Cavalier Telephone Comments at 2. 47 TEX.UTIL.CODE ANN. §§ 66.001,66.003. Holders of these franchises are required to pay franchise fees,comply with customer service standards,and provide the capacity for PEG access channels that a municipality has activated under the incumbent cable operator's franchise agreement. Id. at §§ 66.005, 66.006, 66.008, 66.009, 66.014. Franchisees are not required to comply with any build-out requirements, but they are prohibited from denying service to any area based on the income level of that area. Id. at§66.007. 48 IND. CODE§ 8-1-34-16 (2006); 2006 Kan. Sess.Laws 93 (codified at KAN. STAT.ANN. § 17-1902); S.C. CODE ANN. § 58-12-310 et seq. (2006);Assemb.,No. 804, 212th Leg. (N.J. 2006); 2006 N.C. Sessions Laws 151 (to be codified 1/1/2007 at N.C.GEN STAT.ANN..§66-351 (West 2006);CAL.PUB.UTIL.CODE§401,et seq.;. 49 VA.CODE ANN. § 15.2-2108.1:1 et seq. 50 2006 Mich.Pub.Acts 480. 51 S 1984,2006 Sess.(Fla.2006),HB 1199,2006 Sess.(Fla.2006). 9 Federal Communications Commission FCC 06-180 structure, provided for automatic grant of an application 45 days after filing, and contained no build-out requirements.52 In Maine, a bill that would have replaced municipal franchises with state franchises was withdrawn.53 Finally, a Missouri bill that would have given the Public Service Commission the authority to grant franchises and would have prohibited local franchising died in committee.54 III. DISCUSSION 18. Based on the voluminous record in this proceeding, which includes comments filed by new entrants, incumbent cable operators, LFAs, consumer groups, and others, we conclude that the current operation of the franchising process can constitute an unreasonable barrier to entry for potential cable competitors, and thus justifies Commission action. We find that we have authority under Section 621(a)(1)to address this problem by establishing limits on LFAs' ability to delay,condition,or otherwise "unreasonably refuse to award" competitive franchises. We fmd that we also have the authority to consider the goals of Section 706 in addressing this problem under Section 621(a)(1). We believe that, absent Commission action, deployment of competitive video services by new cable entrants will continue to be unreasonably delayed or, at worst, derailed. Accordingly, we adopt incremental measures directed to LFA-controlled franchising processes, as described in detail below. We anticipate that the rules and guidance we adopt today will facilitate and expedite entry of new cable competitors into the market for the delivery of multichannel video programming and thus encourage broadband deployment. A. The Current Operation of the Franchising Process Unreasonably Interferes With Competitive Entry 19. Most communities in the United States lack cable competition,which would reduce cable rates and increase innovation and quality of service.55 Although LFAs adduced evidence that they have granted some competitive franchises,56 and competitors acknowledge that they have obtained some franchises,57 the record includes only a few hundred examples of competitive franchises, many of which were obtained after months of unnecessary delay. In the vast majority of communities,cable competition simply does not exist. 52 HB 699,2006 Reg.Sess.(La.2006). 53 LR 2800,2006 Leg.,2d.Reg.Sess.(Me.2005). 54 SB 816,2006 Sess.(Mo.2006). 55 See Local Franchising NPRM,20 FCC Rcd at 18588. 56 For example, in Michigan, a number of LFAs have granted competitive franchises to local telecommunications companies. See Ada Township, et al., Comments at 18-26. Vermont has granted franchises to competitive operators in Burlington,Newport,Berlin,Duxbury,Stowe,and Moretown.VPSB Comments at 5. Mt.Hood Cable Regulatory Commission ("MHRC"), a consolidated regulatory authority for six Oregon localities, has negotiated franchises with cable overbuilders, although those companies ultimately were unable to deploy service. MHRC Comments at 20-21. Similarly,the City of Los Angeles has granted two competitive franchises,but each of the competitors went out of business shortly after negotiating the franchise. City of Los Angeles Comments at 15;see also San Diego County,Cal.Comments at 4. Miami-Dade has granted 11 franchises to six providers,and currently is considering the application of another potential entrant. Miami-Dade Comments at 1-2. New Jersey has granted five competitive franchises,but only two ultimately provided service to customers. NJBPU Comments at 3. See also, e.g., AT&T Reply Comments at 11-13; Chicago, Ill. Comments at 2-3; City of Charlotte and Mecklenburg County,N.C.Comments at 12-13;Henderson,Nev.Comments at 5. 57 For example, Verizon has obtained franchises covering approximately 200 franchise areas. See http://newscenter.verizon.com/press-releases/verizon/2006/verizon-to-bring-westem.html. 10 Federal Communications Commission FCC 06-180 20. The dearth of competition is due,at least in part,to the franchising process.58 The record demonstrates that the current operation of the franchising process unreasonably prevents or, at a minimum, unduly delays potential cable competitors from entering the MVPD market.59 Numerous commenters have adduced evidence that the current operation of the franchising process constitutes an unreasonable barrier to entry. Regulatory restrictions and conditions on entry shield incumbents from competition and are associated with various economic inefficiencies, such as reduced innovation and distorted consumer choices.60 We recognize that some LFAs have made reasonable efforts to facilitate competitive entry into the video programming market. We also recognize that recent state level reforms have the potential to streamline the process to a noteworthy degree. We find, though, that the current operation of the local franchising process often is a roadblock to achievement of the statutory goals of enhancing cable competition and broadband deployment. 21. Commenters have identified six factors that stand in the way of competitive entry. They are: .(1) unreasonable delays by LFAs in acting on franchise applications; (2) unreasonable build-out requirements imposed by LFAs; (3) LFA demands unrelated to the franchising process; (4) confusion concerning the meaning and scope of franchise fee obligations; (5)unreasonable LFA demands for PEG channel capacity and construction of I-Nets; and (6) level-playing-field requirements set by LFAs. We address each factor below. 22. LFA Delays in Acting on Franchise Applications. The record demonstrates that unreasonable delays in the franchising process have obstructed and, in some cases, completely derailed attempts to deploy competitive video services. Many new entrants have been subjected to lengthy,costly, drawn-out negotiations that, in many cases, are still ongoing. The FTTH Council cited a report by an investment firm that, on average, the franchising process, as it currently operates, delays entry by 8-16 months.61 The record generally supports that estimate. For example, Verizon had 113 franchise negotiations underway as of the end of March 2005. By the end of March 2006, LFAs had granted only 10 of those franchises. In other words,more than 90%of'the negotiations were not completed within one year.62 Verizon noted that delays are often caused by mandatory waiting periods.63 BellSouth explained that negotiations took an average of 10 months for each of its 20 cable franchise agreements,64 and that in one case,the negotiations took nearly three years.65 AT&T claims that anti-competitive conditions, such as level-playing-field constraints and LFA demands regarding build-out, not only delay entry but can prevent it altogether.66 BellSouth notes that absent such demands (in Georgia, for example), the 58 Qwest Reply at 13-14;USTelecom Ex Parte at 17-18. 59 Verizon Comments at 31-34;AT&T Reply at 22-23;BellSouth Comments at 10;Cavalier Telephone Comments at 1. See also Mercatus Center Comments at 39-43. 6°See, e.g., DOJ Ex Parte at 3 61 FTTH Council Comments at 26. 62 Verizon Reply Comments at 35. These figures do not include Verizon's franchise applications in Texas,which now authorizes statewide franchises. See supra para. 16. 63 Verizon Comments at 31-32. 64 BellSouth Comments at 2. 65 BellSouth Comments at 11. BellSouth's franchise in Cobb County,Ga.took approximately 32 months to obtain; its franchises in Davie, Fla. and Orange County, Fla. took 29 and 28 months, respectively. BellSouth Comments Decl.of Thompson T.Rawls,II,Exh.A. 66 AT&T Reply at 6. 11 Federal Communications Commission FCC 06-180 company's applications were granted quickly.67 Most of Ameritech's franchise negotiations likewise took a number of years 68 New entrants other than the large incumbent local exchange carriers("LECs")69 also have experienced delays in the franchising process. NTCA provided an example of a small, competitive IPTV provider that is in ongoing negotiations that began more than one year ago.70 23. These delays are particularly unreasonable when, as is often the case, the applicant already has access to rights-of-way. One of the primary justifications for cable franchising is the LFA's need to regulate and receive compensation for the use of public rights-of-way.71 However, when considering a franchise application from an entity that already has rights-of-way access, such as an incumbent LEC, an LFA need not and should not devote substantial attention to issues of rights-of-way management.72 Moreover, in obtaining a certificate for public convenience and necessity from a state, a facilities-based provider generally has demonstrated its legal, technical, and fmancial fitness to be a provider of telecommunications services. Thus, an LFA need not spend a significant amount of time considering the fitness of such applicants to access public rights-of-way. 24. Delays in acting on franchise applications are especially onerous because franchise applications are rarely denied outright,73 which would enable applicants to seek judicial review under Section 635.74 Rather, negotiations are often drawn out over an extended period of time.75 As a result, 67 BellSouth Reply at 7. • 68 AT&T Reply at 24. 69 The term "local exchange carrier" means any person that is engaged in the provision of telephone exchange service or exchange access. 47 U.S.C. § 153(26). For the purposes of Section 251 of the Communications Act,"the term `incumbent local exchange carrier' means,with respect to an area, the local exchange carrier that(A)on the date of enactment of the Telecommunications Act of 1996,provided telephone exchange service in such area; and (B)(i)on such date of enactment,was deemed to be a member of the exchange carrier association...;or(B)(ii)is a person or entity that,on or after such date of enactment,became a successor or assign of a member[of the exchange carrier association]." 47 U.S.C. §251(h)(1). A competitive LEC is any LEC other than an incumbent LEC. A LEC will be treated as an ILEC if "(A) such carrier occupies a position in the market for telephone exchange service within an area that is comparable to the position occupied by a carrier described in paragraph[251(h)](1); (B)such carrier has substantially replaced an incumbent local exchange carrier described in paragraph[251(h)](1); and(C) such treatment is consistent with the public interest, convenience, and necessity and the purposes of this section." 47 U.S.C. §251(h)(2). 70 NTCA Comments at 4, 10. 71 We note that certain franchising authorities may have existing authority to regulate LECs through state and local rights-of-way statutes and ordinances. 72 Recognizing this distinction, some states have enacted or proposed streamlined franchising procedures specifically tailored to entities with existing access to public rights-of-way. See, e.g.,VIRGINIA CODE ANN. § 15.2- 2108.1:1 et seq.); 11F-2647, 2006 Sess. (Iowa 2006) (this proposed legislation would grant franchises to all telephone providers authorized to use the right-of-way without any application or negotiation requirement). See also South Slope Comments at 11 (duplicative local franchising requirements imposed on a competitor with existing authority to occupy the rights-of-way are unjustified and constitute an unreasonable barrier to competitive video entry). 73 See Northwest Suburbs Cable Communications Commission Comments at 5-6 (rare instance of competitive franchise denial). 74 See 47 U.S.C. §§541(a)(1),555(a). 75 See Verizon Comments at 30-34; Verizon Reply Comments at 2,34-37; AT&T Reply Comments at 24;NTCA Comments at 4, 10. 12 Federal Communications Commission FCC 06-180 the record shows that numerous new entrants have accepted franchise terms they considered unreasonable in order to avoid further delay.76 Others have filed lawsuits seeking a court order compelling the LFA to act, which entails..additional delay, legal uncertainty, and great expense.77 Alternatively, some prospective entrants have walked away from unduly prolonged negotiations.78 Moreover, delays provide the incumbent cable operator the opportunity to launch targeted marketing campaigns before the competitor's rollout,thus undermining a competitor's prospects for success.79 25. Despite this evidence, incumbent cable operators and LFAs nevertheless assert that new entrants can obtain and are obtaining franchises in a timely fashion,80 and that delays are largely due to unreasonable behavior on the part of franchise applicants, not LFAs.81 For example, Minnesota LFAs claim that they can grant a franchise in as little as eight weeks.62 The record, however, shows that expeditious grants of competitive franchises are atypical. Most LFAs lack any temporal limits for 76 See, e.g.,USTelecom Ex Parte at 20(Grand Rapids,Minnesota insisted that Paul Bunyan Telephone Cooperative provide fiber connections to every municipal building in the City, including a water treatment plant); Qwest Ex Parte at 7 (initially agreed to mandatory build-out provisions in certain situations);BellSouth Comments at 15-16 (in Dekalb County, Georgia, BellSouth makes PEG payments and I-Net support payments that drive total fees significantly above 5 percent of gross revenue). 77 For example, in Maryland, Verizon filed suit against Montgomery County, seeking to invalidate some of the County's franchise rules, and requesting that the County be required to negotiate a franchise agreement, after the parties unsuccessfully attempted to negotiate a franchise beginning in May 2005. See Complaint, Verizon Maryland, Inc. v. Montgomery County, Md., No. 06-01663-MJG (N.D. Md. June 29, 2006). The court denied Verizon's Motion for Preliminary Injunction in August, and ordered the parties to mediation. See Verizon Maryland,Inc.v.Montgomery County,Md.,Order,No.06-01663-MJG(N.D.Md.August 8,2006). Since then,the parties have negotiated a franchise agreement and the County held a public hearing on the draft franchise agreement. See Press Release, Montgomery County, Md., County Negotiates Cable Franchise Agreement with Verizon; Agreement Resolves Litigation, Provides Increased Competition for Cable Service (Sept. 13, 2006) available at http://www.montgomervcountvmd.Qov/apDs/News/oress/PR details.asp?PrID=2582. The County Council granted the negotiated franchise on November 28,2006. Neil Adler,Montgomery officials approve Verizon cable franchise, WASHINGTON BUSINESS JOURNAL, Nov. 28, 2006, available at http://washington.bizjournals.com/ washington/stories/2006/11/27/daily23.html. Qwest's experience with the City of Colorado Springs, Colorado is a particularly onerous example. See Letter from Melissa E.Newman,Vice President,Federal Regulatory,Qwest,to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, Federal Communications Commission (June 13, 2006), Letter from Kenneth L. Fellman, Counsel to Colorado Springs, Colorado, to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, Federal Communications Commission(July 26,2006). The city charter in Colorado Springs requires that a franchise agreement be approved by voters rather than a franchising authority. Despite the fact that the Communications Act and federal case law deem this approach unlawful, the Colorado Springs City Counsel would not grant a franchise absent a vote, and invited Qwest to file a"friendly lawsuit" (presumably at Qwest's expense)to invalidate that provision of the city charter. 47 U.S.C. §§ 522(10), 541, Qwest Broadband Services, Inc. v. City of Boulder, 151 F.Supp.2d 1236 (D. Colo. 2001), Letter from Melissa E. Newman, Vice President, Federal Regulatory, Qwest, to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary,Federal Communications Commission at 2(June 13,2006). 78 See Qwest Comments at 9. 79 See, e.g.,South Slope Comments at 7. B0 Cablevision Reply at 5; Orange County Comments at 5; Palm Beach County Comments at 3. See Comcast Comments at 8-9. 81 Comcast Comments at 16; Cablevision Reply at 2. The incumbent cable operators accuse Verizon of making unreasonable demands through its model franchise. Verizon asserts that it submits a model franchise to begin negotiations because uniformity is necessary for its nationwide service deployment. Verizon Reply at 40. Verizon states that it is willing to negotiate and tailor the model franchise to each locality's needs. Id. 82 LMC Comments at 18. 13 Federal Communications Commission FCC 06-180 consideration of franchise applications, and of those that have such limits, many set forth lengthy time frames. In localities without a time limit or with an unreasonable time limit, the delays caused by the current operation of the franchising process present a significant barrier to entry.83 For example,the cities of Chicago and Indianapolis acknowledged that, as currently operated, their franchising processes take one to three years, respectively.64 Miami-Dade's cable ordinance permits the county to make a final decision on a cable franchise up to eight months after receiving a completed application, and the process may take longer if an applicant submits an incomplete application or amends its application. 85 26. Incumbent cable operators and LFAs state that new entrants could gain rapid entry if the new entrants simply agreed to the same terms applied to incumbent cable franchisees.86 However,this is not a reasonable expectation generally, given that the circumstances surrounding competitive entry are considerably different than those in existence at the time incumbent cable operators obtained their franchises. Incumbent cable operators originally negotiated franchise agreements as a means of acquiring or maintaining a monopoly position.87 In most instances, imposing the incumbent cable operator's terms and conditions on a new entrant would make entry prohibitively costly because the entrant cannot assume that it will quickly—or ever—amass the same number or percentage of subscribers that the incumbent cable operator captured.88 The record demonstrates that requiring entry on the same terms as incumbent cable operators may thwart entry entirely or may threaten new entrants' chances of success once in the market. 27. Incumbent cable operators also suggest that delay is attributable to competitors that are not really serious about entering the market, as demonstrated by their failure to file the thousands of franchise applications required for broad competitive entry.89 We reject this explanation as inconsistent with both the record as well as common sense. Given the complexity and time-consuming nature of the current franchising process, it is patently unreasonable to expect any competitive entrant to file several thousand applications and negotiate several thousand franchising processes at once. Moreover, the incumbent LECs have made their plans to enter the video services market abundantly clear, and the evidence in the record demonstates their seriousness about doing so. For instance, they are investing billions of dollars to upgrade their networks to enable the provision of video services, expenditures that 83 We recognize that some franchising authorities move quickly,as a matter of law or policy. The record indicates that some LFAs have stated that they welcome competition to the incumbent cable operator, and actively facilitate such competition. See, e.g.,Manatee County,Fla. Comments at 4,Ada Township,et al. Comments at 16-27. For example,a consolidated franchising authority in Oregon negotiated and approved competitive franchises within 90 days. See Mt.Hood Cable Regulatory Commission Comments at 20. An advisory committee in Minnesota granted two competitive franchises in six months, after a statutorily imposed eight-week notice and hearing period. See Southwest Suburban Cable Commission Comments at 5, 7. While we laud the prompt disposition of franchise applications in these particular areas,the record shows that these examples are atypical. 84 See Chicago Comments at 4;Indianapolis Comments at 8. 85 Miami-Dade Comments at 3. 86 See, e.g.,ANC Reply at 5-6. Commenters assert that Verizon's model agreement prevents LFAs from exercising control over rights-of-way, does not require Verizon to repair damage to municipal property due to construction, does not require service to all residents,and contains an"opt-out"provision that allows Verizon to abandon an area it does not fmd profitable. ANC Reply at 8-10. 87 Verizon Reply at 38-40. s8 Verizon Comments at 53. 89 Cablevision Comments at 3. 14 Federal Communications Commission FCC 06-180 would make little sense if they were not planning to enter the video market.90 Finally, the record also demonstrates that the obstacles posed by the current operation of the franchising process rocess are so great that some prospective entrants have shied away from the franchise process altogether.9 28. We also reject the argument by incumbent cable operators that delays in the franchising process are immaterial because competitive applicants are not ready to enter the market and frequently delay initiating service once they secure a franchise.92 We fmd that lack of competition in the video market is not attributable to inertia on the part of competitors. Given the financial risk,uncertainty, and delay new entrants face when they apply for a competitive franchise, it is not surprising that they wait until they get franchise approval before taking all steps necessary to provide service.93 The sooner a franchise is granted,the sooner an applicant can begin completing those steps. Consequently,shortening the franchising process will accelerate market entry. Moreover, the record shows that streamlining the franchising process can expedite market entry. For example, less than 30 days after Texas authorized statewide franchises, Verizon filed an application for a franchise with respect to 21 Texas communities and was able to launch services in most of those communities within 45 days 94 29. Incumbent cable operators offer evidence from their experience in the renewal and transfer processes as support for their contention that the vast majority of LFAs operate in a reasonable and timely manner.95 We fmd that incumbent cable operators' purported success in the franchising process is not a useful comparison in this case. Today's large MSOs obtained their current franchises by either renewing their preexisting agreements or by merging with and purchasing other incumbent cable franchisees with preexisting agreements. For two key reasons,their experiences in franchise transfers and renewals are not equivalent to those of new entrants seeking to obtain new franchises.96 First, in the transfer or renewal context,delays in LFA consideration do not result in a bar to market entry. Second, in the transfer or renewal context, the LFA has a vested interest in preserving continuity of service for subscribers,and will act accordingly. 30. We also reject the claims by incumbent cable operators that the experiences of Ameritech, RCN, and other overbuilders97 demonstrate that new entrants can and do obtain competitive. 9° See AT&T Comments at 14; Verizon Comments at 27. In addition to negotiating with LFAs, competitors also have lobbied for broad franchising reform. To be sure,when prospective entrants anticipate franchise reform may occur at the state level,there is evidence in the record they often have not sought franchises at the local level.See Fairfax County,Va.Comments at 4.Such tactics,however,do not indicate that prospective entrants are not serious about entering the market but rather represent a strategic judgment as to the best method of accomplishing that goal. 91 Qwest Comments at 9. 92 NCTA Comments at 11;Comcast Reply at 16;Cablevision Reply at 9;City of Murrieta,Ca.Comments at 2. 93 See Verizon Reply Comments at 37. 94 Verizon Reply Comments at 37-38. See also NTCA Comments at 10-11(citing Texas PUC testimony at February Commission Meeting held in Keller,Texas,which revealed that 15 companies have filed applications to serve 153 discrete communities in Texas since adoption of the new statewide franchising scheme). 95 Comcast Comments at 17. For example, Comcast reports that when it acquired AT&T Broadband, it received timely approval from more than 1,800 LFAs within eight months. The company also states that it was well along in the process of receiving approvals from more than 1,500 LFAs for the Adelphia transaction. 96 AT&T Reply at 22. 97 The term "overbuild" describes the situation in which a second cable operator enters a local market in direct competition with an incumbent cable operator. In these markets,the second operator,or"overbuilder,"lays wires in the same area as the incumbent,"overbuilding"the incumbent's plant,thereby giving consumers a choice between cable service providers. See Implementation of Section 3 of the Cable Television Consumer Protection and (continued...) • 15 Federal Communications Commission FCC 06-180 franchises in a timely manner.98 Charter claims that it secured franchises and upgraded its systems in a highly competitive market and that the incumbent LECs possess sufficient resources to do the same.99 BellSouth notes,however,that Charter does not indicate a single instance in which it obtained a franchise through an initial negotiation, rather than a transfer.10° Comcast argues that it faces competition from cable overbuilders in several markets.101 The record is scant and inconsistent, however, with respect to overbuilder experiences in obtaining franchises, and thus does not provide reliable evidence. BellSouth also claims that,despite RCN's claims that the franchising process has worked in other proceedings,RCN previously has painted a less positive picture of the process and has called it a high barrier to entry.102 Given these facts, we do not believe that the experiences cited by incumbent cable operators shed any significant light on the current operation of the franchising process with respect to competitive entrants. 31. Impact of Build-Out Requirements. The record shows that build-out issues are one of the most contentious between LFAs and prospective new entrants, and that build-out requirements can greatly hinder the deployment of new video and broadband services. New and potential entrants commented extensively on the adverse impact of build-out requirements on their deployment plans.103 Large incumbent LECs,104 small and mid-sized incumbent LECs,105 competitive LECs106 and others view build-out requirements as the most significant obstacle to their plans to deploy competitive video and broadband services. Similarly, consumer groups and the U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division, (Continued from previous page) Competition Act of 1992, Statistical Report on Average Prices for Basic Service, Cable Programming Services, and Equipment,20 FCC Rcd 2718,2719 n.6(2005). 98 Cablevision Reply at 6. Comcast states that the overbuilder industry as a whole has more than 16 million households under active franchise and two million households under franchise in anticipation of future network build-outs. Comcast Comments at 5-6(citing Broadband Service Providers Association Comments,MB Docket No. 05-255,at 7(filed Sept. 19,2005)). 99 Charter Comments at 4. Specifically, Charter states that it entered the cable market in earnest in the late 1990s and has spent the last five years investing billions of dollars to upgrade its cable systems and deploy advanced broadband services in more than 4,000 communities. Charter Comments at 2. During Charter's peak period of growth,it secured over 2,000 franchise transfers with LFAs and invested several billion dollars to upgrade systems, all while subject to significant competition from DBS. Charter Comments at 5. 100 BellSouth Reply at 11. 1°1 Comcast Comments at 4-5. 102 BellSouth Reply at 13(citing RCN's petition to deny the AT&T/Comcast merger application). 1°3 See, e.g., Qwest Comments at 2; Cincinnati Bell Comments at 10-11; South Slope Comments at 7-9; NTCA Comments at 6-7; Cavalier Telephone Comments at 5; BSPA Comments at 6. See also Letter from Lawrence Spiwak,President,Phoenix Ctr. for Advanced Legal and Econ. Pub.Policy Studies,to Marlene Dortch, Secretary, Federal Communications Commission, at Att.,Phoenix Center Policy Paper Number 22: The Consumer Welfare Cost of Cable "Build-out"Rules,at 3("build-out requirements are,on average,counterproductive and serve to slow down deployment of communications networks")(March 13,2006)("Phoenix Center Build-Out Paper"). 104 Qwest Comments at 2. 105 Cincinnati Bell Comments at 10-11;South Slope Comments at 7-9;NTCA Comments at 6-7(because the risk is great,the service provided by the new entrants must be guided by sound business principles; forcing a new entrant to build out an entire area before such action is financially justified is tantamount to forcing that entrant out of the video business);USTelecom Ex Parte at 8-11. 1°6 Cavalier Telephone Comments at 5; BSPA Comments at 6 (a number of competitive franchises have been renegotiated or converted to OVS because the operator could not comply with unreasonable and uneconomic build- out requirements). 16 Federal Communications Commission FCC 06-180 urge the Commission0 to address this aspect of the current franchising process in order to speed competitive entry. 32. The record demonstrates that build-out requirements can substantially reduce competitive entry.108 Numerous commenters urge the Commission to prohibit LFAs from imposing any build-out requirements, and particularly universal build-out requirements.109 They argue that imposition of such mandates, rather than resulting in the increased service throughout the franchise area that LFAs desire, will cause potential new entrants to simply refrain from entering the market at a11.110 They argue that even build-out provisions that do not require deployment throughout an entire franchise area may prevent a prospective new entrant from offering service.°1 33. The record contains numerous examples of build-out requirements at the local level that resulted in delayed entry, no entry, or failed entry. A consortium of California communities demanded that Verizon build out to every household in each community before Verizon would be allowed to offer service to any community,even though large parts of the communities fell outside of Verizon's telephone service area.112 Furthermore, Qwest has withdrawn franchise applications in eight communities due to build-out requirements.'13 In each case, Qwest determined that entering into a franchise agreement that mandates universal build-out would not be economically feasible.114 1°7 See MMTC Comments at 13-24; Consumers for Cable Choice Comments at 8; DOJ Ex Parte at 12-13, 15 (stating that build-out requirements lead to abandonment of entry,less efficient competition,or higher prices). 108 See, e.g., USTelecom Comments at 24 (citing example of Shenandoah Telecommunications, which cannot provide service to an entire county, and thus cannot provide service at all). See also Phoenix Center Build-Out Paper at 1,3;DOJ Ex Parte at 12-13, 15. 1°9 See, e.g.,Alcatel Comments at 10-11;AT&T Comments at 44;BellSouth Reply at 6;NTCA Comments at 6. "°See, e.g.,AT&T Comments at 44;Qwest Comments at 2;Ad Hoc Telecom Manufacturer Coalition Comments at 5;DOJ Ex Parte at 12-13, 15. 111 Not all new entrants to the video market with existing telecommunications facilities are engaging in the upgrades to which Verizon and AT&T have committed. Cavalier Telephone, for example, is delivering IPTV over copper lines. Such delivery is limited,however,by ADSL-2 technology. Cavalier Telephone argues that it is unreasonable to require that it become capable of providing service to all households in a franchise area, which would require Cavalier Telephone to dig up rights-of-way and install duplicative facilities,which it has specifically sought to avoid doing by virtue of relying on the unbundled local loop. Cavalier Telephone Comments at 5. Similarly,Guadalupe Valley Telephone Cooperative (GVTC) could not deploy service in the face of differing build-out requirements across jurisdictions. See AT&T Reply at 37. Once Texas's new statewide franchising law went into effect, however, deployment became economically feasible for GVTC. See id. See also Phoenix Center Build-out Paper at 1, 3, 4 (build-out rules can significantly increase the costs of a new video entrant, and are actually counter- productive, serving primarily to deter new video entry and slow down deployment of communications networks); Phoenix Center Redlining Paper at 3 (even when build-out requirements are applied to new entrants altruistically, the requirements can be self-defeating and often erect insurmountable barriers to entry for new firms);BSPA at 4 (When a new network operator is forced to comply with a build-out that is equal to the existing incumbent cable footprint,it is forced to a build on a timeframe and in geographic areas where the cost to build and customer density will likely produce an economic loss for both network operators.), DOJ Ex Parte at 12-13, 15. 112 Verizon Comments at 41-42. Before the new statewide legislation, a Texas community had made the same request. 113 See Qwest Comments at 9. 114 Id.at 10. • 17 Federal Communications Commission FCC 06-180 34. In many instances, level-playing-field provisions in local laws or franchise agreements compel LFAs to impose on competitors the same build-out requirements that apply to the incumbent cable operator.115 Cable operators use threatened or actual litigation against LFAs to enforce level- playing-field requirements and have successfully delayed entry or driven would-be competitors out of town.16 Even in the absence of level-playing-field requirements,incumbent cable operators demand that LFAs impose comparable build-out requirements on competitors to increase the financial burden and risk for the new entrant.11 35. Build-out requirements can deter market entry because a new entrant generally must take customers from the incumbent cable operator, and thus must focus its efforts in areas where the take-rate will be sufficiently high to make economic sense. Because the second provider realistically cannot count on acquiring a share of the market similar to the incumbent's share, the second entrant cannot justify a large initial deployment.'18 Rather, a new entrant must begin offering service within a smaller area to determine whether it can reasonably ensure a return on its investment before expanding.'19 For example, Verizon has expressed significant concerns about deploying service in areas heavily populated with MDUs already under exclusive contract with another MVPD.120 Due to the risk associated with entering the video market, forcing new entrants to agree up front to build out an entire franchise area too quickly may be tantamount to forcing them out of—or precluding their entry into—the business.121 36. In many cases, build-out requirements also adversely affect consumer welfare. DOJ noted that imposing uneconomical build-out requirements results in less efficient competition and the potential for higher prices.122 Non-profit research organizations the Mercatus Center and the Phoenix Center argue that build-out requirements reduce consumer welfare.123 Each conclude that build-out 15 See, e.g., GMTC Comments at 15; Philadelphia Reply at 2; FTTH Council at 33-34; US Telecom at 30-31; TCCFUI Comments at 11, 15. 116 BSPA Comments at 5-6; BellSouth Comments at 44; Verizon Comments at 33-34 (noting that some LFAs are requesting indemnification from competitive applicants). For example, Insight Communications filed suit against the City of Louisville and Knology. Although the LFA and Knology ultimately won,the delay resulted in Knology declining to enter that market. BSPA Comments at 5-6. 117 See AT&T Comments at 51. 118 Qwest Comments at 8. 19 FTTH Council Comments at 33-34. 120 Verizon Reply at 70-71. 121 NTCA Comments at 7. See also DOJ Ex Parte at 12-13, 15; FTTH Council Comments at 29 (competitive entrants face a riskier investment than incumbents faced when they entered;moreover,incumbent firms have market power in the video market, their customers have little choice, and their costs can be spread over a large base, whereas new entrants do not have this same advantage). Although it is sometimes possible to renegotiate a build-out requirement if the new entrant cannot meet it, in many cases the LFA imposes substantial penalties for failure to meet a build-out requirement. See Anne Arundel County et al. Comments at 4, FTTH Council Comments at 34 (citing Grande Communications franchise agreement establishing penalty of$2,000 per day);Letter from Melissa E. Newman, Vice President-Federal Regulatory, Qwest, to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, Federal Communications Commission,(Apr.26,2006),Attachment at 7 ("Qwest Ex Parte"). '221d at 13. 123 Mercatus Center Comments at 39-41; Phoenix Center Build-Out Paper at 1; Letter from Stephen Pociask, President, American Consumer Institute, to Marlene Dortch, Secretary, Federal Communications Commission (March 3,2006). 18 Federal Communications Commission FCC 06-180 requirements imposed on competitive cable entrants only benefit an incumbent cable operator.124 The Mercatus Center, citing data from the FCC and GAO indicating that customers with a choice of cable providers enjoy lower rates, argues that, to the extent that build-out requirements deter entry,they result in fewer customers having a choice of providers and a resulting reduction in rates.125 The Phoenix Center study contends that build-out requirements deter entry and conflict with federal, state, and local government goals of rapid broadband deployment.126 Another research organization, the American Consumer Institute (ACI), concluded that build-out requirements are inefficient: if a cable competitor initially serves only one neighborhood in a community,and a few consumers in this neighborhood benefit from the competition, total welfare in the community improves because no consumer was made worse and some consumers (those who can subscribe to the competitive service) were made better.127 In comparison,requirements that deter competitive entry may make some consumers(those who would have been able to subscribe to the competitive service) worse off.12B In many instances, placing build-out conditions on competitive entrants harms consumers and competition because it increases the cost of cable service.129 Qwest commented that, in those communities it has not entered due to build-out requirements, consumers have been deprived of the likely benefit of lower prices as the result of competition from a second cable provider.130 This claim is supported by the Commission's 2005 annual cable price survey, in which the Commission observed that average monthly cable rates varied markedly depending on the presence — and type — of MVPD competition in the local market. The greatest difference occurred where there was wireline overbuild competition, where average monthly cable rates were 20.6 percent lower than the average for markets deemed noncompetitive.131 37. For these reasons, we disagree with LFAs and incumbent cable operators who argue that unlimited local flexibility to impose build-out requirements, including universal build-out of a franchise area, is essential to promote competition in the delivery of video programming and ensure a choice in '24 See id 125 Mercatus Center Comments at 41. The Mercatus Center bases this assertion on the evidence that cable rate regulation does not affect cable rates significantly, which suggests that cable providers are not subsidizing less- profitable areas with the returns from more-profitable areas. 'Id. 126 Phoenix Center Build-Out Paper at 1. 127 ACI Comments at 7. 128 AT&T Comments at 48 (citing Thomas Hazlett & George Ford, The Fallacy of Regulatory Symmetry: An Economic Analysis of the "Level Playing Field"in Cable TV Franchising Statutes,3 BUSINESS AND POLITICS issue 1,at 25-26(2001)). 129 AT&T Comments at 48 (citing Thomas Hazlett & George Ford, The Fallacy of Regulatory Symmetry: An Economic Analysis of the `Level Playing Field"in Cable TV Franchising Statutes,3 BusiNEss AND POLITICS issue 1,at 25-26(2001)). 130 Qwest Comments at 10. 131 Implementation of Section 3 of the Cable Television Consumer Protection and Competition Act of 1992: Statistical Report on Average Rates for Basic Service, Cable Programming Service, and Equipment, MM Docket. No.92-266,FCC 06-179,para. 12(rel.Dec.27,2006)("2005 Cable Price Survey"). See also Annual Assessment of the Status of Competition in the Market for the Delivery of Video Programming,20 FCC Rcd 2755,2772-73(2005) ("2005 Video Competition Report"). 19 Federal Communications Commission FCC 06-180 providers for every household.132 In many cases,build-out requirements may have precisely the opposite effects—they deter competition and deny consumers a choice. 38. Although incumbent LECs already have telecommunications facilities deployed over large areas, build-out requirements may nonetheless be a formidable bather to entry for them for two reasons. First,incumbent LECs must upgrade their existing plant to enable the provision of video service, which often costs billions of dollars. Second, as the Commission stated in the Local Franchising NPRM, the boundaries of the areas served by facilities-based providers of telephone and/or broadband services frequently do not coincide with the boundaries of the areas under the jurisdiction of the relevant LFAs.'33 In some cases,a potential new entrant's service area comprises only a portion of the area under the LFA's jurisdiction.134 When LECs are required to build out where they have no existing plant,the business case for market entry is significantly weakened because their deployment costs are substantially increased. 135 In other cases, a potential new entrant's facilities may already cover most or all of the franchise area,but certain economic realities prevent or deter the provider from upgrading certain"wire center service areas" within its overall service area.136 For example, some wire center service areas may encompass a disproportionate level of business locations or multi-dwelling units ("MDUs") with MVPD exclusive contracts.137 New entrants argue that the imposition of build-out requirements in either circumstance creates a disincentive for them to enter the marketplace.138 132 State of Hawaii Reply Comments at 4-5; Ada Township, et al Comments at 8-9; Manatee County, Fla. Comments at 19; Burnsville/Eagan Reply Comments at 19-20; New Jersey Board of Public Utilities Comments at 11-12. 133 Local Franchising NPRM,20 FCC Rcd at para.618595. 134 See NTCA Comments at 15; South Slope Comments at 8-9 (mandatory build-out of entire franchise areas unreasonably impedes competitive entry where entrants' proposed service area is not located entirely within an LFA-defined local franchise area). 135 See, e.g.,FTTH Council Comments at 33-34;South Slope Comments at 8-9;NTCA Comments at 15;BellSouth Reply at 25. BellSouth has a franchise to serve unincorporated Cherokee County, Ga., but the geographic area of this franchise is much larger than the boundaries of BellSouth's wire center. Id. BellSouth faces a similar issue in Orange County, Fla. Id. See also Linda Haugsted,Franchise War in Texas, MULTICHANNEL NEWS,May 2, 2005 (noting that, although Verizon had negotiated successfully a cable franchise with the City of Keller,Texas,"it will not build out all of Keller: It only has telephone plant in 80% of the community. SBC serves the rest of the locality."). NTCA states that theoretically the incumbent LEC could extend its facilities,but to do so within another provider's incumbent LEC territory would require an incumbent LEC to make a financially significant business decision,solely for purposes of providing video programming. See NTCA Comments at 15. 136 See Letter from Leora Hochstein, Executive Director, Federal Regulatory, Verizon, to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary,FCC,MB Docket No.05-311 at 3(filed May 3,2006).In this Order we use"wire center service area"to mean the geographic area served by a wire center as defined in Part 51 of the Commission's rules, except wire centers that have no line-side functionality, such as switching units that exclusively interconnect trunks. See 47 C.F.R. § 51.5. See also Unbundled Access to Network Elements: Review of the Section 251 Unbundling Obligations of Incumbent Local Exchange Carriers, 20 FCC Rcd 2533, 2586 (2005), para. 87 n.251 ("Triennial Review Remand Order") ("By 'wire center,' we mean any incumbent LEC switching office that terminates and aggregates loop facilities"). The Commission's rules define "wire center"to mean"the location of an incumbent LEC local switching facility containing one or more central offices as defined in Part 36 [of the Commission's rules]. The wire center boundaries define the area in which all customers served by a given wire center are located." 47 C.F.R.§51.5. The term"wire center"is often used interchangeably with the term"central office." Technically, the wire center is the location where a LEC terminates subscriber local loops,along with the facilities necessary to maintain them. 137 New entrants also point out that some wire center service areas are low in population density (measured by homes per cable plant mile). The record suggests, however, that LFAs generally have not required franchisees to (continued...) 20 Federal Communications Commission FCC 06-180 39. Incumbent cable operators assert that new entrants' claims are exaggerated, and that, in most cases,LEC facilities are coterminous with municipal boundaries.139 The evidence submitted by new entrants, however, convincingly shows that inconsistencies between the geographic boundaries of municipalities and the network footprints of telephone companies are commonplace.140 The cable industry has adduced no contrary evidence. The fact that few LFAs argued that non-coterminous boundaries are a problem141 is not sufficient to contradict the incumbent LECs' evidence.'42 40. . Based on the record as a whole, we fmd that build-out requirements imposed by LFAs can constitute unreasonable barriers to entry for competitive applicants. Indeed,the record indicates that because potential competitive entrants to the cable market may not be able to economically justify build- out of an entire local franchising area immediately,143 these requirements can have the effect of granting de facto exclusive franchises,in direct contravention of Section 621(a)(1)'s prohibition of exclusive cable franchises.144 41. Besides thwarting potential new entrants' deployment of video services and depriving consumers of reduced prices and increased choice,'45 build-out mandates imposed by LFAs also may directly contravene the goals of Section 706 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996,which requires the Commission to "remov[e] barriers to infrastructure investment" to encourage the deployment of broadband services "on a reasonable and timely basis."146 We agree with AT&T that Section 706, in (Continued from previous page) provide service in low-density areas. See, e.g., Madison, WI Comments at 4(limiting build-out to areas with 40 dwelling units per cable mile);Renton,WA Comments at 3(limiting build-out to 35 dwelling units per mile);West Palm Beach, Fla. Comments at 11 (limiting build-out to areas with 20 homes per mile). Nevertheless, density is likely to be of greater concern to a new entrant than to an incumbent cable operator,because the new entrant has to lure customers from the incumbent cable operator,and therefore cannot count on serving as many of the customers in a cable plant mile. 138 BSPA Comments at 5(when the footprint of an existing system does not match the territory of an LFA,build-out requirements restrict the growth of competition that could be created by incremental expansion of existing networks into adjacent territories because the operator must have the financial means to build out the entire adjacent franchise area before commencing any build-out);NTCA Comments at 15 (requiring small,rural incumbent LECs to deploy service beyond their existing telephone service areas would prohibit some carriers from offering video services to any community,thereby preventing competition). See also DOJ Ex Pante at 12-13,15. 139 See Cablevision Reply at 16-17;Charter Reply at 8. 14°See BSPA Comments at 5;South Slope Comments at 8-9;NTCA Comments at 15. 141 Comcast Reply at 21 (citing comments of NATOA and Torrance,Cal.). 142 Compare Tele Atlas Wire Center Premium v10.1 (April 2006)Maps for Bergen County,NJ and Los Angeles, Ca. and surrounding areas with The BRIDGE Data Group CableBounds Maps for Bergen County, NJ and Los Angeles, Ca. and surrounding areas (filed by the Media Bureau), available at http://gullfoss2.fcc.gov/prod/ecfs/retrieve.cgi?native or_pdf=pdf&iddocument=6518618170, http://gullfoss2.fcc.gov/prod/ecfs/retrieve.cgi?native orj,df--pdf&id__document=6518618171. 143 See FTTH Council Comments at 32;NTCA Comments at 7;Qwest Comments at 2,8;Verizon Comments at 39- 40. 144 47 U.S.C.§544(a)(1). 145 See Annual Assessment of the Status of Competition in the Market for the Delivery of Video Programming,MB Docket No. 05-255, Twelfth Annual Report, FCC 06-11, at ¶ 41 (rel. Mar. 3, 2006) (noting that overbuild competition,when present,often leads to lower cable rates and higher quality service). 146 Section 706 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996,47 U.S.C.§ 157 nt. 21 Federal Communications Commission FCC 06-180 conjunction with Section 621(a)(1),requires us to prevent LFAs from adversely affecting the deployment of broadband services through cable regulation.147 42. We do not find persuasive incumbent cable operators' claims that build-out should necessarily be required for new entrants into the video market because of certain obligations faced by cable operators in their deployment of voice services. To the extent cable operators believe they face undue regulatory obstacles to providing voice services,they should make that point in other proceedings, not here. In any event, commenters generally agree that the record indicates that the investment that a competitive cable provider must make to deploy video in a particular geographic area far outweighs the cost of the additional facilities that a cable operator must install to deploy voice service.'" 43. LFA Demands Unrelated to the Provision of Video Services. Many commenters recounted franchise negotiation experiences in which LFAs made unreasonable demands unrelated to the provision of video services. Verizon, for example, described several communities that made unreasonable requests, such as the purchase of street lights, wiring for all houses of worship, the installation of cell phone towers, cell phone subsidies for town employees, library parking at Verizon's facilities, connection of 220 traffic signals with fiber optics, and provision of free wireless broadband service in an area in which Verizon's subsidiary does not offer such service.'49 In Maryland, some localities conditioned a franchise upon Verizon's agreement to make its data services subject to local customer service regulation.150 AT&T provided examples of impediments that Ameritech New Media faced when it entered the market, including a request for a new recreation center and poo1.151 FTTH 147 AT&T Comments at 45. See also infra para.63. 148 See NTCA Comments at 7;Verizon Reply at 54-55;American Consumer Institute Comments at 7;Review of the Section 251 Unbundling Obligations of Incumbent Local Exchange Carriers, 18 FCC Rcd 16978, 17142-17143 (2003) ("Triennial Review Order"); See also High Tech Broadband Coalition Comments at 4-5 (fiber-to-the-home deployment increased 5300 percent since the Triennial Review Order,due in large part to the elimination of barriers to entry in that Order). 149 Verizon Comments at 57 &Attachment A at 16-17. The Wall Street Journal reported "[Tampa,Florida] City officials presented [Verizon] with a $13 million wish list, including money for an emergency communications network, digital editing equipment and video cameras to film a math-tutoring program for kids." Another community presented Verizon with "requests for seed money for wildflowers and a video hookup for Christmas celebrations."Dionne Searcey,As Verizon Enters Cable Business, it Faces Local Static,WALL ST.J.,Oct.28,2005, at Al. But see Verizon Comments at 65,filed February 13,2006(stating that"one franchising authority in Florida demanded that Verizon meet the incumbent cable operator's cumulative payments for PEG,which would exceed$6 million over 15 years of Verizon's proposed franchise term. When Verizon rejected this demand,the LFA doubled its request, asking for a fee in excess of$13 million that it said would be used for both PEG support and the construction of a redundant institutional network."); Verizon Revised Comments, filed March 6, 2006 at 65 (amending the second sentence of their comments above,in response to a request from the City of Tampa,to state " that "[w]hen Verizon rejected this demand and asked for an explanation, the LFA provided a summary `needs assessment' in excess of$13 million for both PEG support."); Tampa Reply at 3-4 (noting that Verizon's errata "clarified that the City of Tampa has not demanded Verizon provide$13.5 million dollars as a condition of granting a cable television franchise,"and calling the Wall Street Journal article assertions an"urban legend");John Dunbar, FCC's Cable TV Ruling Criticized, ASSOCIATED PRESS,Jan.29,2007(stating that"[The Tampa City Attorney]said Tampa gave Verizon a$13 million`needs assessment'that was required by law in order to obtain contributions for equipment for public access and government channels"and also quoting the City Attorney saying that"it is possible the `needs assessment' included video cameras to film shows such as the math class,but that there was never 'a specific quid pro quo.'Nor was anything like that mentioned in the franchise agreement."). 15°Verizon Comments at 75. 151 AT&T Comments at 24. 22 Federal Communications Commission FCC 06-180 Council highlighted Grande Communications' experience in San Antonio, which required that Grande Communications make an up-front,$1 million franchise fee payment and fund a$50,000 scholarship with additional annual contributions of$7,200.152 The record demonstrates that LFA demands unrelated to cable service typically are not counted toward the statutory 5 percent cap on franchise fees, but rather imposed on franchisees in addition to assessed franchise fees.153 Based on this record evidence, we are convinced that LFA requests for unreasonable concessions are not isolated,and that these requests impose undue burdens upon potential cable providers. 44. Assessment of Franchise Fees. The record establishes that unreasonable demands over franchise fee issues also contribute to delay in franchise negotiations at the local level and hinder competitive entry.154 Fee issues include not only which franchise-related costs imposed on providers should be included within the 5 percent statutory franchise fee cap established in Section 622(b),155 but also the proper calculation of franchise fees(Le.,the revenue base from which the 5 percent is calculated). In Virginia,municipalities have requested large"acceptance fees"upon grant of a franchise,in addition to franchise fees.156 Other LFAs have requested consultant and attorneys' fees.'S7 Several Pennsylvania localities have requested franchise fees based on cable and non-cable revenues.158 Some commenters assert that an obligation to provide anything of value, including PEG costs, should apply toward the franchise fee obligation.159 45. The parties indicate that the lack of clarity with respect to assessment of franchise fees impedes deployment of new video programming facilities and services for three reasons. First, some LFAs make unreasonable demands regarding franchise fees as a condition of awarding a competitive franchise. Second, new entrants cannot reasonably determine the costs of entry in any particular community. Accordingly, they may delay or refrain from entering a market because the cost of entry is unclear and market viability cannot be projected.160 Third,a new entrant must negotiate these terms prior to obtaining a franchise,which can take a considerable amount of time. Thus,unreasonable demands by some LFAs effectively creates an unreasonable barrier to entry. 46. PEG and I-Net Requirements. Negotiations over PEG and I-Nets also contribute to delays in the franchising process. In response to the Local Franchising NPRM, we received numerous comments asking for clarification of what requirements LFAs reasonably may impose on franchisees to 152 FTTH Council Comments at 38. '53 BSPA Comments at 8. BSPA argues that under the current franchising process, LFAs are able to bargain for capital payments to use on infrastructure needs when LFAs should use the capital to benefit consumers. BSPA. claims that LFAs use the capital to build and maintain I-Nets, city broadcasting facilities, and traffic light control systems. Id. 154 See, e.g.,AT&T Comments at 64-67;BellSouth Comments at 38-40;Cavalier Telephone Comments at 7;FTTH Council Comments at 38-40. But see NATOA Reply at 27-35. 155 47 U.S.C.§542(b). 156 Verizon Comments at 59. 157 Id.at 59-60. 158 Id.at 63. 159 AT&T Comments at 65-67;BellSouth Comments at 39. 16°AT&T Reply at 31-32. 23 Federal Communications Commission FCC 06-180 support PEG and I-Nets.161 We also received comments suggesting that some LFAs are making unreasonable demands regarding PEG and I-Net support as a condition of awarding competitive franchises.162 LFAs have demanded funding for PEG programming and facilities that exceeds their needs, and will not provide an accounting of where the money goes.163 For example, one municipality in Florida requested $6 million for PEG facilities, and a Massachusetts community requested 10 PEG channels, when the incumbent cable operator only provides two.164 Several commenters argued that it is unreasonable for an LFA to request a number of PEG channels from a new entrant that is greater than the number of channels that the community is using at the time the new entrant submits its franchise application.165 The record indicates that LFAs also have made what commenters view as unreasonable institutional network requests, such as free cell phones for employees, fiber optic service for traffic signals,and redundant fiber networks for public buildings.166 47. Level-Playing-Field Provisions. The record demonstrates that, in considering franchise applications, some LFAs are constrained by so-called "level-playing-field" provisions in local laws or incumbent cable operator franchise agreements.167 Such provisions typically impose upon new entrants terms and conditions that are neither "more favorable" nor "less burdensome" than those to which existing franchisees are subject.168 Some LFAs impose level-playing-field requirements on new entrants even without a statutory, regulatory, or contractual obligation to do so.169 Minnesota's process allows incumbent cable operators to be active in a competitor's negotiation,and incumbent cable operators have challenged franchise grants when those incumbent cable operators believed that the LFA did not follow correct procedure.170 According to BellSouth, the length of time for approval of its franchises was tied directly to level-playing-field constraints; absent such demands (in Georgia,for example),the company's applications were granted quickly.171 NATOA contends, however, that although level-playing-field 161 See, e.g.,AT&T Comments at 67-70; BellSouth Comments at 39; Consumers for Cable Choice Comments at 8; FTTH Council Comments at 36-37,66-67;Verizon Comments at 65-75. But see NATOA Reply at 30-42. 162 FTTH Council Comments at 36;Verizon Comments at 65-66. 163 Verizon Comments at 65. 164 Id.at 65-66. 165 Consumers for Cable Choice Comments at 8;Verizon Comments at 71. 166 Verizon Comments at 73. 167 See, e.g., Orange County, Fla. Comments at 3; Northwest Suburbs Cable Communications Commission Comments at 3;Winston-Salem,N.C.Comments at 5;Albuquerque,N.M. Comments at 3;Tulsa,Okla.Comments at 2-4;Enumclaw,Wash.Comments at 2;Madison,Wis.Comments at 5-6. 168 See Local Franchising NPRM,20 FCC Rcd at 18588.At least 10 states impose level-playing-field requirements upon LFAs, and those laws vary significantly in the subject matters they encompass. For example, compare Minnesota's requirement that a competitive entrant face similar build-out, franchise fee, and PEG requirements to Illinois's requirement that the competitive franchise be no more favorable with respect to the territorial extent of the franchise,system design,technical performance standards,construction schedules,bonds,standards for construction and installation of facilities,service to subscribers,PEG channels and programming,production assistance,liability and indemnification and franchise fees. MINN. STAT. ANN.§238.08 (West 2006),55 ILL. COMP. STAT.ANN. 5/5- 1095(e)(4)(West 2006),see also ALA.CODE§ 11-27-2(2005),CONN.GEN.STAT. § 16-331(g)(2006),FLA.STAT.§ 166.046(3)(2006),N.H.REV.STAT.ANN. §53-C:3-b(2005),OKLA.STAT.ANN.tit. 11,§22-107.1(B)(West 2006). S.D.CODIFIED LAWS§9-35-27(2005),TENN.CODE.ANN.§7-59-203(2005). 169 See GMTC et al.Comments at 15;Pasadena,Ca.Comments at 10-11;Philadelphia,Pa.Comments at 7. See also AT&T Reply at 14. 17°LMC Comments at 12-15. 24 Federal Communications Commission FCC 06-180 • provisions sometimes can complicate the franchising process,they do not present unreasonable barriers to entry."' NATOA and LFAs argue that level-playing-field provisions serve important policy goals, such as ensuring a competitive environment and providing for an equitable distribution of services and obligations among all operators.13 48. The record demonstrates that local level-playing-field mandates can impose unreasonable and unnecessary requirements on competitive applicants." As noted above, level-playing-field provisions enable incumbent cable operators to delay or prevent new entry by threatening to challenge any franchise that an LFA grants.15 Comcast asserts that MSOs are well within their rights to insist,that their legal and contractual rights are honored in the grant of a subsequent franchise.1' The record demonstrates, however, that local level-playing-field requirements may require LFAs to impose obligations on new entrants that directly contravene Section 621(a)(1)'s prohibition on unreasonable refusals to award a competitive franchise."' In most cases, incumbent cable operators entered into their franchise agreements in exchange for a monopoly over the provision of cable service."' Build-out requirements and other terms and conditions that may have been sensible under those circumstances can be unreasonable when applied to competitive entrants. NATOA's argument that level-playing-field requirements always serve to ensure a competitive environment and provide for an equitable distribution of services and obligations ignores that incumbent and competitive operators are not on the same footing. LFAs do not afford competitive providers the monopoly power and privileges that incumbents received when they agreed to their franchises, something that investors recognize.1' 49. Moreover,competitive operators should not bear the consequences of an incumbent cable operator's choice to agree to any unreasonable franchise terms that an LFA may demand. And while the record is mixed as to whether level-playing-field mandates "assure that cable systems are responsive to the needs and interests of the local community,"180 the more compelling evidence indicates that they do not because they prevent competition. Local level-playing-field provisions impose costs and risks (Continued from previous page) 11 BellSouth Reply at 7. 172 NATOA Reply at 43. 173 See, e.g.,NATOA Reply at 44;Burnsville/Eagan Comments at 44;City of Philadelphia Reply at 2. 174 See, e.g.,South Slope Comments at 7-8(build-out);Verizon Comments at 60-61,71(PEG requirements);AT&T Comments at 67(redundant facilities). See also FTTH Council Comments at 29-30(quoting Hazlett&Ford study concluding that the result of level-playing-field laws"is that incumbents and[LFAs]can force entrants to incur sunk costs considerably in excess of what free market conditions would imply"). We note that,as described below,we do not address — and therefore do not preempt— state laws governing the franchising process including state level- playing-field mandates. 175 See supra para.34;see also DOJ Ex Parte at 15-16. 176 Comcast Reply at 17-18 (citing Comcast's involvement in Verizon's Howard County, Maryland, franchise approval process). "'Mercatus Center at 39-40;Phoenix Center Competition Paper at 7. 1781d. 19 See BSPA Comments 4;USTelecom Comments at 51-53;Mercatus Comments at 39-40. 1S0 47 U.S.C.§521(2);Id. 25 Federal Communications Commission FCC 06-180 • sufficient to undermine the business plan for profitable entry in a given community,thereby undercutting the possibility of competition.181 50. Benefits of Cable Competition. We further agree with new entrants that reform of the operation of the franchise process is necessary and appropriate to achieve increased video competition and broadband deployment)B2 The record demonstrates that new cable competition reduces rates far more than competition from DBS. Specifically, the presence of a second cable operator in a market results in rates approximately 15 percent lower than in areas without competition—about$5 per month.183 The magnitude of the rate decreases caused by wireline cable competition is corroborated by the rates charged in Keller, Texas, where the price for Verizon's"Everything"package is 13 percent below that of the incumbent cable operator, and in Pinellas County, Florida, where Knology is the overbuilder and the incumbent cable operator's rates are $10-15 lower than in neighboring areas where it faces no competition.184 51. We also conclude that broadband deployment and video entry are"inextricably linked"185 and that,because the current operation of the franchising process often presents an unreasonable barrier to entry for the provision of video services, it necessarily hampers deployment of broadband services.186 The record demonstrates that broadband deployment is not profitable without the ability to compete with the bundled services that cable companies provide.187 As the Phoenix Center explains, "the more potential revenues that the network can generate in a household, the more likely it is the network will be 181 Mercatus Comments at 46. 182 Verizon Reply at 5-8. See also DOJ Ex Parte at 1,3. 183 FTTH Council Comments at 13. See also U.S.General Accountability Office,Subscriber Rates and Competition in the Cable Television Industry,GAO-04-262T(Mar. 2004)("[S]ubscribers in areas with a wire-based competitor had monthly cable rates about $5 lower, on average, than subscribers in similar areas without a wire-based competitor. Our interviews with cable operators also revealed that these companies generally lower rates and/or improve customer service where a wire-based competitor is present.");U.S.General Accounting Office,GAO-04-8, Issues Related to Competition and Subscriber Rates in the Cable Television Industry, Report to the Chairman, Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation,U.S. Senate(2003)("2003 GAO Report") at 3 (noting that cable rates are about 15 percent lower in markets where wireline competition is present),and at 10(estimating that with an average monthly cable rate of approximately $34 that year, subscribers in areas with a wire-based competitor had monthly cable rates about$5 lower,on average,than subscribers in areas without such a competitor); U.S. General Accounting Office, GAO-03-130,Issues in Providing Cable and Satellite Television Services,Report to the Subcommittee on Antitrust, Competition, and Business and Consumer Rights, Committee on the Judiciary, U.S. Senate (2002) ("2002 GAO Report") at 9 (noting that in franchise areas with a second cable provider, cable prices are approximately 17 percent lower than in comparable areas without a second cable provider). See also Annual Assessment of the Status of Competition in the Market for the Delivery of Video Programming,MB Docket No. 05-255, Twelfth Annual Report, FCC 06-11, at para. 41 (rel. Mar. 3, 2006) and 2005 Cable Price Survey at paeas. 2, 14 (noting that cable prices are 17 percent lower and decrease substantially when wireline cable competition is present). 184 FTTH Council Comments at 15-16,including chart and declaration. 185 AT&T Comments at 12. See also BSPA Comments at 7; Freedomworks Comments at 15; Mercatus Center Comments at 34-35. 186 Technology and Democracy Project Comments at 4. 187 AT&T Comments at 12.The Government Accountability Office reached this same conclusion in its review of the video service market.See Issues in Providing Cable and Satellite Television Services,GAO 03-130 at 2(2002). 26 Federal Communications Commission FCC 06-180 built to that household."188 DOD's comments underscore that additional video competition will likely speed deployment of advanced broadband services to consumers.189 Thus, although LFAs only oversee the provision of wireline-based video services,their regulatory actions can directly affect the provision of voice and data services, not just cable.190 We find reasonable AT&T's assertion that carriers will not invest billions of dollars in network upgrades unless they are confident that LFAs will grant permission to offer video services quickly and without unreasonable difficulty.19' 52. In sum, the current operation of the franchising process deters entry and thereby denies consumers choices.192 Delays in the franchising process also hamper accelerated broadband deployment and investment in broadband facilities in direct contravention of the goals of Section 706,193 the President's competitive broadband objectives,194 and our established broadband goals.'95 In addition, the economic, effects of franchising delays can trickle down to manufacturing companies, which in some cases have lost business because potential new entrants would not purchase equipment without certainties that they could deploy their services.196 We discuss below our authority to address these problems. B. The Commission Has Authority to Adopt Rules to Implement Section 621(a)(1) 53. In the Local Franchising NPRM, the Commission tentatively concluded that it has the authority to adopt rules implementing Title VI of the Act,197 including Section 621(a)(1).'98 The Commission sought comment on whether it has the authority to adopt rules or whether it is limited to providing guidance.199 Based on the record and governing legal principles, we affirm this tentative conclusion and find that the Commission has the authority to adopt rules to implement Title VI and,more specifically, Section 621(a)(1). 54. Congress delegated to the Commission the task of administering the Communications Act. As the Supreme Court has explained, the Commission serves "as the `single Government agency' with `unified jurisdiction' and `regulatory power over all forms of electrical communication, whether by 188 Letter from Lawrence Spiwak, President, Phoenix Ctr. for Advanced Legal and Econ. Pub. Policy Studies, to Marlene Dortch, Secretary, Federal Communications Commission, at Att.,Phoenix Center Policy Paper Number 23: The Impact of Video Service Regulation on the Construction of Broadband Networks to Low-Income Households,pg 23(March 13,2006)("Phoenix Center Redlining Paper"). 189 DOJ Ex Parte at 3-4. 190 FTTH Council Comments at 4. 191 AT&T Comments at 15. 192 DOJ Ex Parte at 7-8. 193 Section 706 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996,47 U.S.C.§ 157 nt. '94 See The White House, A New Generation of American Innovation, 11-12 (April 2004), available at http://www.whitehouse.gov/infocus/technology/economic jolicy200404/innovation.pdf. 195 See Federal Communications Commission,Strategic Plan 2006-2011 at 3(2005). 196 AT&T Reply at 9; Alcatel Comments at 1; Letter from Danielle Jafari, Director and Legal Counsel of Government Affairs, Telecommunications Industry Association, to Marlene Dortch, Secretary, Federal Communications Commission(March 9,2006). 197 Local Franchising NPRM,20 FCC Rcd at 18589. 198 47 U.S.C. §541(a)(1). 199 Local Franchising NPRM,20 FCC Rcd at 18589. 27 Federal Communications Commission FCC 06-180 • telephone, telegraph, cable, or radio."'200 To that end, "[t]he Act grants the Commission broad responsibility to forge a rapid and efficient communications system, and broad authority to implement that responsibility."2 ' Section 201(b)authorizes the Commission to"prescribe such rules and regulations as may be necessary in the public interest to carry out the provisions of this Act.s202 "[T]he grant in § 201(b) means what it says: The FCC has rulemaking authority to carry out the `provisions of this Act.'"203 This grant of authority therefore necessarily includes Title VI of'the Communications Act in general, and Section 621(a)(1) in particular. Other provisions in the Act reinforce the Commission's general rulemaking authority. Section 303(r), for example, states that "the Commission from time to time, as public convenience, interest, or necessity requires shall ... make such rules and regulations and prescribe such restrictions and conditions,not inconsistent with law,as may be necessary to carry out the provisions of this Act....s204 Section 4(i)states that the Commission"may perform any and all acts,make such rules and regulations, and issue such orders, not inconsistent with this Act, as may be necessary in the execution of its functions."205 55. Section 2 of the Communications Act grants the Commission explicit jurisdiction over "cable services.s206 Moreover, as we explained in the Local Franchising NPRM, Congress specifically charged the Commission with the administration of the Cable Act, including Section 621.207 In addition, federal courts have consistently upheld the Commission's authority in this area.208 56. Although several commenters disagreed with our tentative conclusion, none has persuaded us that the Commission lacks the authority to adopt rules to implement Section 621(a)(1). Incumbent cable operators and franchise authorities argue that the judicial review provisions in Sections 621(a)(1) and 635209 indicate that Congress gave the courts exclusive jurisdiction to interpret and enforce zoo United States v.Southwestern Cable Co.,392 U.S. 157, 167-68(1968)(quotation omitted). 2°1 United Telegraph Workers, AFL-CIO v. FCC, 436 F.2d 920, 923 (D.C. Cir. 1970) (citations and quotations omitted). 2°2 47 U.S.C. § 201(b) ("The Commission may prescribe such rules and regulations as may be necessary in the public interest to carry out the provisions of this Act."). 203 AT&T Corp.v.Iowa Utilities Board,525 U.S.366,378(1999). 204 See also 47 U.S.C.§ 151 (the Commission"shall execute and enforce the provisions of this Act"). 205 47 U.S.C. § 154(i). . 206 47 U.S.C. § 152 ("The provisions of this Act shall apply with respect to cable service, to all persons engaged within the United States in providing such service, and to the facilities of cable operators which relate to such service,as provided in title VI."). 207 Local Franchising NPRM,20 FCC Rcd at 18589. 208 See City of Chicago v.FCC, 199 F.3d 424(7th Cir. 1999)(finding that the FCC is charged by Congress with the administration of the Cable Act, including Section 621). See also City of New York v. FCC,486 U.S. 57, 70 n.6 (1988) (explaining that Section 303 gives the FCC rulemaking power with respect to the Cable Act);Nat'1 Cable Television Ass v. FCC,33 F.3d 66, 70(D.C. Cir. 1994)(upholding Commission finding that certain services are not subject to the franchise requirement in Section 621(b)(1)); United Video v.FCC,890 F.2d 1173, 1183(D.C.Cir. 1989) (denying petitions to review the Commission's syndicated exclusivity rules);ACLU v. FCC, 823 F.2d 1554 (D.C.Cir. 1987)(upholding the Commission's interpretive rules regarding Section 621(a)(3)). 2°9 47 U.S.C. § 541(a)(1) ("[a]ny applicant whose application for a second franchise has been denied by a final decision of the franchising authority may appeal such final decision pursuant to the provisions of section 635 for failure to comply with this subsection"). Section 635 sets forth the specific procedures for such judicial proceedings. 47 U.S.C. §555. 28 • Federal Communications Commission FCC 06-180 Section 621(a)(1), including authority to decide what constitutes an unreasonable refusal to award a competitive cable franchise.21° We find,however,that this argument reads far too much into the judicial review provisions. The mere existence of a judicial review provision in the Communications Act does not, by itself, strip the Commission of its otherwise undeniable rulemaking authority.211 As a general matter, the fact that Congress provides a mechanism for judicial review to remedy a violation of a statutory provision does not deprive an agency of the authority to issue rules interpreting that statutory provision. Here, nothing in the statutory language or the legislative history suggests that by providing a judicial remedy, Congress intended to divest the Commission of the authority to adopt and enforce rules implementing Section 621.212 In light of the Commission's broad rulemaking authority under Section 201 and other provisions in the Act, the absence of a specific grant of rulemaking authority in Section 621 is "not peculiar.s213 Other provisions in the Act demonstrate that when Congress intended to grant exclusive jurisdiction,it said so in the legislation.214 Here,however,neither Section 621(a)(1)nor Section 635 includes an exclusivity provision,and we decline to read one into either provision. 57. In addition, we note that the judicial review provisions at issue here on their face apply only to a fmal decision by the franchising authority.215 They do not provide for review of unreasonable refusals to award an additional franchise by withholding a final decision or insisting on unreasonable terms that an applicant properly refuses to accept. Nor do the judicial review provisions say anything about the broader range of practices governed by Section 621.216 21°See NCTA Reply,at 11-13(given the courts have concurrent jurisdiction to review many provisions of Title VI, Section 635(a)only has meaning if it is read to grant exclusive jurisdiction to the courts);Comcast Comments at 27- 28(Congress provided no role for the Commission in the franchising process);Comcast Reply at 27-28(621(a)(1)'s "unreasonably refuse" language and court review are inextricably linked and thus enforcement authority over the franchising approval process lies with the courts);NATOA Comments at 7-8(same). 211 See ACLU v. Texas,823 F.2d 1554, 1574(D.C. Cir 1987)(recognizing that despite,a reference to"court action" in Section 622(d), in the absence of more explicit guidance from Congress, the Commission has concurrent jurisdiction to take enforcement action with respect to franchise fee disputes). 212 See BellSouth Reply at 35;USTelecom Reply at 14-16. 213 AT&T v. Iowa Utilities Board, 525 U.S. 366,385 (1999). In Iowa Utilities Board,the Supreme Court reviewed Commission rules implementing provisions of the Telecommunications Act of 1996. In particular,states challenged Commission rules implementing Section 252(c)(2),which provides,"a State commission shall.. establish any rates for interconnection, services,or network elements." 47 U.S.C. §252(c)(2). Although this and other provisions in the 1996 Act entrusted the states with certain tasks, the Supreme Court held that "these assignments ... do not logically preclude the Commission's issuance of rules to guide the state-commission judgments." Iowa Utilities Board,525 U.S.at 385. The same reasoning applies to the judicial review provisions in Sections 621(a)(1)and 635. 214 See, e.g.,47 U.S.C. § 255(f)("The Commission shall have exclusive jurisdiction with respect to any complaint under this section."). We do not find persuasive commenters'argument that the only way to give Section 635(a)any meaning is to construe it as giving courts exclusive jurisdiction with regard to the three Title VI provisions enumerated in Section 635(a), i.e., Sections 621(a)(1), 625, and 626. See NATOA Comments at 9. None of the cases cited by commenters support this proposition. Rather, they suggest that in the absence of an exclusivity provision in the statute, the Commission and courts share jurisdiction. See, e.g., NATOA Comments at 9 (citing ACLU v.FCC, 823 F.2d 1554, 1573-75(D.C.Cir. 1987)). 215 47 U.S.C.,§ 541(a)(1) ("Any applicant whose application for a second franchise has been denied by a final decision of the franchising authority may appeal such final decision pursuant to the provisions of section 635 for failure to comply with this subsection") (emphasis added); 47 U.S.C. §555(a) ("Any cable operator adversely affected by any final determination made by a franchising authority under section 621(a)(1)",may commence an action in federal district court or State court)(emphasis added). 216 See USTelecom Reply at 14. 29 Federal Communications Commission FCC 06-180 58. We also reject the argument by some incumbent cable operators and franchise authorities that Section 621(a)(1) is unambiguous and contains no gaps in the statutory language that would give the Commission authority to regulate the franchising process.21 We strongly disagree. Congress did not define the term "unreasonably refuse," and it is far from self-explanatory. The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit has held that the term `unreasonable" is among the "ambiguous statutory terms" in the Communications Act, and that the "court owes substantial deference to the interpretation the Commission accords them.s218 We therefore find that Section 621(a)(1)'s requirement that an LFA "may not unreasonably refuse to award an additional competitive franchise" creates ambiguity that the Commission has the authority to resolve.219 The possibility that a court, in reviewing a particular matter, may determine whether an LFA "unreasonably"denied a second franchise does not displace the Commission's authority to adopt rules generally interpreting what constitutes an "unreasonable refusal"under Section 621(a)(1).22° 59. Some incumbent cable operators and franchise authorities argue that Section 621(a)(1) imposes no general duty of reasonableness on the LFA in connection with procedures for awarding a competitive franchise.22' According to these commenters,the"unreasonably refuse to award"language in the first sentence in Section 621(a)(1)must be read in conjunction with the second sentence,which relates to the denial of a competitive franchise application.222 Based on this, commenters claim that "unreasonably refuse to award"means"unreasonably deny"and,thus,Section 621(a)(1) is not applicable before a fmal decision is rendered.223 We disagree. By concluding that the language "unreasonably refuse to award" means the same thing as "unreasonably deny," commenters violate the long-settled principle of statutory construction that each word in a statutory scheme must be given meaning.224 We find that the better reading of the phrase "unreasonably refuse to award" is that Congress intended to cover LFA conduct beyond ultimate denials by final decision, such as situations where an LFA has unreasonably refused to award an additional franchise by withholding a final decision or by insisting on unreasonable terms that an applicant refuses to accept.225 While the judicial review provisions in Sections 217 See Comcast Reply at 27. 218 Capital Network System, Inc. v. FCC, 28 F.3d 201,204(D.C.Cir. 1994)("Because'just,' `unjust,' 'reasonable,' and 'unreasonable' are ambiguous statutory terms, this court owes substantial deference to the interpretation the Commission accords them."). 219 47 U.S.C.§541(a)(1)(emphasis added). 22° See NCTA v. Brand X Internet Services, 545 U.S. 967, --, 125 S. Ct. 2688, 2700-02 (2005) (where statute is ambiguous,and implementing agency's construction is reasonable,Chevron requires federal court to accept agency's construction of statute,even if agency's reading differs from prior judicial construction). 221 See NCTA Comments at 28-29;Comcast Reply at 31. 222 See NCTA Comments at 29;Comcast Reply at 32. 223 See NATOA Comments at 30-31;NCTA Comments at 28-29; Burnsville/Eagan Comments at 31-32; Comcast Reply at 32-33. 224 See Bailey v. United States, 516 U.S. 137, 143-45 (1995)("We assume that Congress used two terms because it intended each term to have a particular,nonsuperfluous meaning."). 225 See, e.g., Tribune Co.v.FCC, 133 F.3d 61,66(D.C.Cir. 1998)(imposing an"intolerable"condition on the grant of a license application may be deemed a de facto denial of that license for purposes of the appeal provisions under§ 402(b) of the Act, citing Mobile Communications Corp. of America v. FCC, 77 F.3d 1399 (D.C. Cir. 1996)). See also DOJ Ex Parte at 7(stating that unnecessary delays,demands for goods and services unrelated to the provision of cable services, and imposition of build-out requirements are tantamount to a "refusal" to award an additional competitive franchise). 30 Federal Communications Commission FCC 06-180 621(a)(1) and 635 refer to a "final decision" or "final determination,s726 the Commission's rulemaking authority under Section 621 is not constrained in the same manner. Instead, the Commission has the authority to address what constitutes an unreasonable refusal to award a franchise, and as stated above, a local franchising authority may unreasonably refuse to award a franchise through other routes than issuing a fmal decision or determination denying a franchise application. For all of these reasons, we conclude that the Commission may exercise its statutory authority to establish federal standards identifying those LFA-imposed terms and conditions that would violate Section 621(a)(1)of the Communications Act.727 60. Incumbent cable operators and local franchise authorities also maintain that the legislative history of Section 621(a)(1) demonstrates that Congress reserved to LFAs the authority to determine what constitutes "reasonable" grounds for franchise denials,with oversight by the courts, and left no authority under Section 621(a)(1) for the Commission to issue rules or guidelines governing the franchise approval process.728 Commenters point to the Conference Committee Report on the 1992 Amendments,729 which adopted the Senate version of Section 621,?30 rather than the House version,which "contained five examples of circumstances under which it is reasonable for a franchising authority to deny a franchise.s231 We find commenters' reliance on the legislative history to be misplaced. While the House may have initially considered adopting a categorical approach for determining what would constitute a "reasonable denial," Congress ultimately decided to forgo that approach and prohibit franchising authorities from unreasonably refusing to award an additional competitive franchise.232 To be sure, commenters are correct to point out that Congress chose not to define in the Act the meaning of the phrase "unreasonably refuse to award." However, commenters' assertion that Congress therefore intended for this gap in the statute to be filled in by only LFAs and courts lacks any basis in law or logic. Rather, we believe that it is far more reasonable to assume, consistent with settled principles of administrative law, that Congress intended that the Commission, which is charged by Congress with the administration of Title VI,733 to have the authority to do so. There is nothing in the statute or the 226 47 U.S.C. §§541(a),555. See also Puget Sound Energy,Inc. v. U.S., 310 F.3d 613,624-25(9th Cir.2002)(for purposes of determining when power administration's rate determination becomes a"fmal action"under statutory judicial review provision,court will turn for guidance to general doctrine of finality in administrative law,which"is concerned with whether the initial decision-maker has arrived at a definitive position on the issue that inflicts an actual,concrete injury"). 227 See Qwest Reply at 10-11. 228 See NCTA Comments at 22-23;Florida Municipalities Comments at 9-10. 229 H.R.REP.No. 102-862,at 77-78(1992)(Conf.Rep.),as reprinted in 1992 U.S.C.C.A.N. 1231, 1259-1260. 23°S.REP.No. 102-92,at 185(1991)(explaining that"[i]tshall not be considered unreasonable for purposes of this provision for local franchising authorities to deny the application of a potential competitor if it is technically infeasible. However,the Committee does not intend technical infeasibility to be the only justification for denying an additional franchise"). 231 H.R. REP. No. 102-862, at 77-78 (1992) (Conf. Rep.), as reprinted in 1992 U.S.C.C.A.N. 1231, 1259-1260 (listing five examples of reasonable denials identified in the House amendment to include:(1)technical infeasibility; (2) failure of the applicant to assure that it will provide adequate public, educational, and governmental access channel capacity, facilities, or financial support; (3) failure of the applicant to assure that it will provide service throughout the entire franchise area within a reasonable period of time;(4)the award would interfere with the ability of the franchising authority to deny renewal of a franchise; and (5) failure to demonstrate financial, technical, or legal qualifications to provide cable service.");F..R.REP.No. 102-628,at 90(1992).See NCTA Comments at 22; Florida Municipalities Comments at 9-10. 232 H.R.REP.No. 102-862,at 77-78(1992)(Conf.Rep.),as reprinted in 1992 U.S.C.C.A.N. 1231, 1259-1260. 233 See City of Chicago v.FCC, 199 F.3d at 428. See also AT&T Corp. v.Iowa Utilities Board, 525 U.S.at 371-380. 31 Federal Communications Commission FCC 06-180 legislative history to suggest that Congress intended to displace the Commission's explicit authority to interpret and enforce provisions in Title VI,including Section 621(a)(1). 61. The pro-competitive rules and guidance we adopt in this Order are consistent with Congressional intent. Section 601 states that Title VI is designed to "promote competition in cable communications.s734 In a report to Congress prepared pursuant to the 1984 Cable Act, the Commission concluded that in order "[t]o encourage more robust competition in the local video marketplace, the Congress should ... forbid local franchising authorities from unreasonably denying a franchise to potential competitors who are ready and able to provide service."235 In response, Congress revised Section 621(a)(1) to prohibit a franchising authority from unreasonably refusing to award an additional competitive franchise.736 The regulations set forth herein give force to that restriction and vindicate the national policy goal of promoting competition in the video marketplace. 62. Our authority to adopt rules implementing Section 621(a)(1) is further supported by Section 706 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, which directs the Commission to encourage broadband deployment by utilizing "measures that promote competition ... or other regulating methods that remove barriers to infrastructure investment."?37 The D.C.Circuit has found that the Commission has the authority to consider the goals of Section 706 when formulating regulations under the Act.138 The record here indicates that a provider's ability to offer video service and to deploy broadband networks are linked intrinsically, and the federal goals of enhanced cable competition and rapid broadband deployment are interrelated.239 Thus, if the franchising process were allowed to slow competition in the video service market, that would decrease broadband infrastructure investment, which would not only affect video but other broadband services as we11.240 As the DOJ points out, potential gains from competition, such as 234 47 U.S.C. §521(6). 235 See Competition,Rate Deregulation and the Commission's Policies Relating to the Provision of Cable Television Service, 5 FCC Rcd 4962,4974(1990). 236 47 U.S.C. §541(a)(1). See also H.R.REP.No. 102-628,at 47(1992)(noting the Commission's recommendation that, in order to encourage competition, Congress should prevent LFAs from unreasonably denying a franchise to potential competitors);Implementation of Section 19 of the Cable Television Consumer Protection and Competition Act of 1992 Annual Assessment of the Status of Competition in the Market for the Delivery of Video Programming,9 FCC Rcd 7442, 7469 (1994) (recognizing that "Congress incorporated the Commission's recommendation in the 1992 Cable Act by amending§621(a)(1)of the Communications Act..."). The legislative history explained that the purpose of this abridgement of local government authority was to promote greater cable competition. S.REP.No. 102-92, at 47 (1991) (the prohibition on local franchising authorities from unreasonably refusing to grant second franchises is based on evidence in the record that there are benefits from competition between two cable systems and the Committee's belief that LFAs should be encouraged to award second franchises). 237 Section 706 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996,47 U.S.C. § 157 nt. 238 See USTA v. FCC, 359 F.3d 554, 580, 583 (D.C. Cir. 2004); see also USTelecom Comments at 15; TIA Comments at 16. 239 See Alcatel Comments at 5-6;USTelecom Comments at 6(broadband growth is tied to bundled services;firm's perceived need to compete for "triple play" customers is the driving force for broadband investment); AT&T Comments at 39-40 (the local franchising process discourages broadband infrastructure investment that supports video along with other broadband services). 24°See Ad Hoc Telcom Manufacturer Coalition Comments at 1-3 (the franchising process threatens to slow down incumbent LECs'capital expenditures,thereby slowing competition in the video service market and reducing output throughout the high-tech manufacturing industry); AT&T Reply at 31-32(the lack of clear regulatory guidance is chilling investment because new entrants cannot gauge the cost of entry);BellSouth Comments at 20-22(the current franchising process impedes the deployment of BellSouth's broadband network). 32 Federal Communications Commission FCC 06-180 expedited broadband deployment, are more likely to be realized without imposed restrictions or conditions on entry in the franchising process.24' 63. We reject the argument by incumbent cable operators and LFAs that any rules adopted under Section 621(a)(1) could adversely affect the franchising process.242 In particular, LFAs contend that cable service requirements must vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction because cable franchises need to be"tailored to the needs and interests of the local community."243 The Communications Act preserves a role for local jurisdictions in the franchise process. We do not believe that the rules we adopt today will hamper the franchising process. While local franchising authorities and potential new entrants have opposing viewpoints about the reasonableness of certain terms," we received comments from both groups that agree that Commission guidance concerning factors than are"reasonable"will help to expedite the franchising process.245 Therefore,we anticipate that our implementation of Section 621(a)(1)will aid new entrants, incumbent cable operators, and LFAs in understanding the bounds of local authority in considering competitive franchise applications. 64. In sum, we conclude that we have clear authority to interpret and implement the Cable Act, including the ambiguous phrase"unreasonably refuse to award" in Section 621(a)(1), to further the congressional imperatives to promote competition and broadband deployment. As discussed above, this authority is reinforced by Section 4(i) of the Communications Act, which gives us broad power to perform acts necessary to execute our functions, and the mandate in Section 706 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 that we encourage broadband deployment through measures that promote competition.246 We adopt the rules and regulations in this Order pursuant to that authority. We find that Section 621(a)(1) prohibits not only an LFA's ultimate unreasonable denial of a competitive franchise application, but also LFA procedures and conduct that have the effect of unreasonably interfering with the ability of a would-be competitor to obtain a competitive franchise, whether by (1)creating unreasonable delays in the process, or(2)imposing unreasonable regulatory roadblocks, such that they effectively constitute an "unreasonable refusal to award an additional competitive franchise" within the meaning of Section 621(a)(1)247 C. Steps to Ensure that the Local Franchising Process Does Not Unreasonably Interfere with Competitive Cable Entry and Rapid Broadband Deployment 65. Commenters in this proceeding identified several specific issues regarding problems with the current operation of the franchising process. These include: (1) failure by LFAs to grant or deny franchises within reasonable time frames; (2) LFA requirements that a facilities-based new entrant build out its cable facilities beyond a reasonable service area; (3) certain LFA-mandated costs, fees, and other compensation and whether they must be counted toward the statutory 5 percent cap on franchise fees; (4) 241 DOJ Ex Parte at 4. 242 See, e.g.,Anne Arundel County et al. Comments at 15(federal regulation would not allow each locality to tailor franchise terms to its specific needs);NCTA Comments at 23 (universal rules and standards cannot be tailored well enough to define what is reasonable;reasonableness must be reviewed on a case-by-case basis). 243 NATOA Comments at 27(quoting Section 601(2)of the Communications Act,47 U.S.C.§521(2)). 244 See, e.g., NATOA Reply at 43; Verizon Comments at 76-77 (disagreeing about the reasonableness of level playing fields). 245 See Manatee County Comments at 15;Verizon Reply at 35. 246 47 U.S.C. § 154(i),Section 706 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996,47 U.S.C.§ 157 nt. 247 Id. 33 Federal Communications Commission FCC 06-180 • new entrants' obligations to provide support mandated by LFAs for PEG and I-Nets; and (5) facilities- based new entrants' obligations to comply with local consumer protection and customer service standards when the same facilities are used to provide other regulated services,such as telephony. We discuss each measure below. 1. Maximum Time Frame for Franchise Negotiations 66. As explained above,24s the record demonstrates that, although the average time that elapses between application and grant of a franchise varies from locality to locality,unreasonable delays in the franchising process are commonplace and have hindered, and in some cases thwarted entirely, attempts to deploy competitive video services. The record is replete with examples of unreasonable delays in the franchising process,249 which can indefinitely delay competitive entry and leave an applicant without recourse in violation of Section 621(a)(1)'s prohibition on unreasonable refusals to award a competitive franchise.25° 67. We fmd that unreasonable delays in the franchising process deprive consumers of competitive video services, hamper accelerated broadband deployment, and can result in unreasonable refusals to award competitive franchises. Thus, it is necessary to establish reasonable time limits for LFAs to render a decision on a competitive applicant's franchise application.ul We define below the boundaries of a reasonable time period in which an LFA must render a decision, and we establish a remedy for applicants that do not receive a decision within the applicable time frame. We establish a maximum time frame of 90 days for entities with existing authority to access public rights-of-way, and six months for entities that do not have authority to access public rights-of-way. The deadline will be calculated from the date that the applicant files an application or other writing that includes the information described below. Failure of an LFA to act within the allotted time constitutes an unreasonable refusal to award the franchise under Section 621(a)(1), and the LFA at that time is deemed to have granted the entity's application on an interim basis, pursuant to which the applicant may begin providing service. Thereafter, the LFA and applicant may continue to negotiate the terms of the franchise,consistent with the guidance and rulings in this Order. a. Time Limit 68. The record shows that the franchising process in some localities can drag on for years. We are concerned that without a defined time limit, the extended delays will continue, depriving consumers of cable competition and applicants of franchises. We thus consider the appropriate length of time that should be afforded LFAs in reaching a final decision on a competitive franchise application. Commenters suggest a wide range of time frames that may be reasonable for an LFA's consideration of a competitive franchise application. TIA proposes that we adopt the time limit used in the Texas franchising legislation, which would allow a new entrant to obtain a franchise within 17 days of submitting an application.252 Other commenters propose time limits ranging from 30 days to six 248 See supra paras. 14-17,22. 249 See Local Franchising NPRM, 20 FCC Rcd at 18590(quoting 47 U.S.C.§541(a)(1)),FTTH Council Comments at 27,South Slope Comments at 13,Verizon Reply at 34-35. 25°See supra paras.22-30. 251 47 U.S.C.§§541(a)(1),555. 252 See TIA Comments at 8, 18. 34 Federal Communications Commission FCC 06-180 months.253 While NATOA in its comments opposes any time limit,254 in February 2006 a NATOA representative told the Commission that the six-month time limit that California law imposes is reasonable.255 Some commenters have suggested that a franchise applicant that holds an existing authorization to access rights-of-way (e.g., a LEC) should be subject to a shorter time frame than other applicants. These commenters reason that deployment of video services requires an upgrade to existing facilities in the rights-of-way rather than construction of new facilities,and such applicants generally have demonstrated their fitness as a provider of communications services 256 69. In certain states, an SFA is responsible for all franchising decisions (e.g., Hawaii, Connecticut, Vermont, Texas, Indiana, Kansas, South Carolina, and beginning January 1, 2007, California and North Carolina), and the majority of these states have established time frames within which those SFAs must make franchising decisions.257 We are mindful,however, that states in which an LFA is the franchising authority, the LFA may be a small municipal entity with extremely limited resources. 258 Thus, it may not always be feasible for an LFA to carry out legitimate local policy objectives permitted by the Act and appropriate state or local law within an extremely short time frame. We therefore seek to establish a time limit that balances the reasonable needs of the LFA with the needs of the public for greater video service competition and broadband deployment. As set out in detail below, we believe that it is appropriate to provide rules to guide LFAs that retain ultimate decision-making power over franchise decisions. 70. As a preliminary matter, we fmd that a franchise applicant that holds an existing authorization to access rights-of-way should be subject to a shorter time frame for review than other applicants. First, one of the primary justifications for cable franchising is the locality's need to regulate and receive compensation for the use of public rights-of-way.259 In considering an application for a cable franchise by an entity that already has rights-of-way access,however,an LFA need not devote substantial attention to issues of rights-of-way management.260 Second, in obtaining a certificate for public 253 See AT&T Comments at 77, Cavalier Telephone Comments at 4 (suggesting a 30-day time limit); BellSouth Comments at 36, NTCA Comments at 9, OPASTCO Reply at 4 (suggesting a 90-day time limit); Consumers for Cable Choice Comments at 9,Verizon Comments at 38,FTTH Council Comments at 60,State of Hawaii Reply at 3 (suggesting a 120-day time limit);Alliance for Public Technology Comments at 3(suggesting a 180-day time limit); Qwest Comments at 26-27. 254 NATOA Comments at 36-37,NATOA Reply at 21-23. 255 Transcript of FCC Agenda Meeting and Panel Discussion at 38(Feb. 10,2006). 256 See Local Franchising NPRM,20 FCC Rcd at 18591. 257 See HAW.REV.STAT.§440G-4(2006);CONN.GEN.STAT.ANN. § 16-331 (West 2006);VT.STAT.ANN.tit.30,§ 502(2006);TEX.UTIL.CODE ANN. § 66.003(West 2006);IND.CODE§ 8-1-34-16(2006);2006 KAN.SESS.LAWS Ch.93(West 2006); S.C.CODE ANN. § 58-12-05 (2006);N.C.GEN STAT.ANN. § 66-351;CAL.PUB.UTIL.CODE§ 401,et seq. We note that our Order does not affect these franchising decisions. 258 We note that a number of other states in addition to Texas have adopted or are considering statewide franchising in order to speed competitive entry. See, e.g, IND.CODE§ 8-1-34-16 (2006); VA.CODE ANN. § 15.2-2108.1:1 et seq. (2006); SB-816,2006 Sess. (Mo. 2006). Nothing in our discussion here is intended to preempt the actions of any states. The time limit we adopt herein is a ceiling beyond which LFA delay in processing a franchise application becomes unreasonable. To the extent that states and/or municipalities wish to adopt shorter time limits, they remain free to do so. 259 NATOA Comments at 38-39;Ada Township Comments at 11-14;TCCFUI Reply Comments at 18. 26°Recognizing this distinction,some states have created streamlined franchising procedures specifically tailored to entities with existing access to public rights-of-way. See, e.g.,VIRGINIA CODE ANN. §.15.2-2108.1:1 et seq.);HF- 2647,2006 Sess.(Iowa 2006)(this proposed legislation would grant franchises to all telephone providers authorized (continued...) 35 Federal Communications Commission FCC 06-180 convenience and necessity from a state, a facilities-based provider generally has demonstrated its legal, technical, and fmancial fitness to be a provider of telecommunications services. Thus, an LFA need not spend a significant amount of time considering the fitness of such applicants to access public rights-of- way. NATOA and its members concede that the authority to occupy the right-of-way has an effect on the review of the fmancial,technical,and legal merits of the application,and eases right-of-way management burdens.26I We thus fmd that a time limit is particularly appropriate for an applicant that already possesses authority to deploy telecommunications infrastructure in the public rights-of-way.262 We further agree with AT&T that entities with existing authority to access rights-of-way should be entitled to an expedited process, and that lengthy consideration of franchise applications made by such entities would be unreasonable.263 Specifically, we find that 90 days provides LFAs ample time to review and negotiate a franchise agreement with applicants that have access to rights-of-way.2 71. Based on our examination of the record, we believe that a time limit of 90 days for those applicants that have access to rights-of-way strikes the appropriate balance between the goals of facilitating competitive entry into the video marketplace and ensuring that franchising authorities have sufficient time to fulfill their responsibilities. In this vein,we note that 90 days is a considerably longer time frame than that suggested by some commenters, such as TIA.265 Additionally,we recognize that the Communications Act gives an LFA 120 days to make a final decision on a cable operator's request to modify a franchise.266 We believe that the record supports an even shorter time here because the costs associated with delay are much greater with respect to entry. When an incumbent cable franchisee requests a modification, consumers are not deprived of service while an LFA deliberates. Here, delay by an individual LFA deprives consumers of the benefits of cable competition.267 An LFA should be able to (Continued from previous page) to use the right-of-way without any application or negotiation requirement). See also South Slope Comments at 11 (duplicative local franchising requirements imposed on a competitor with existing authority to occupy the rights-of- way are unjustified and constitute an unreasonable barrier to competitive video entry). 261 See NATOA Comments at 38-39. Although NATOA contends that an applicant's authority to occupy the rights- of-way would not affect the length of the negotiations regarding PEG requirements,franchise fees,or build-out,we clarify the law concerning those issues below to minimize further disputes and delays. 262 Ad Hoc Telecom Manufacturers Comments at 6. 263 AT&T argues that an entity authorized to occupy a right-of-way should simply complete a short-form application and agree to general cable franchise requirements such as franchise fees and PEG capacity,and that the right-of-way holder should receive a franchise within one month of filing the short-form application. See AT&T Comments at 74. 264 See BellSouth Comments at 36; Ada Township, et al. Comments at 23; LMC Comments at 18; Hawaiian Telecom Comments at 7-8(recommending a time frame of 90 days from the filing of the application). Several state legislators agree that an applicant's existing authority to occupy the right-of-way lightens the administrative load, and enacted or proposed similar measures to streamline the franchising process for entities that hold the authority. See VIRGINIA CODE ANN. § 15.2-2108.21;HF-2647,2006 Sess.(Iowa 2006)(this proposed legislation would grant franchises to all telephone providers authorized to use the right-of-way without any application or negotiation requirement). We assume generally that state and local regulators are sufficiently empowered to deal with any public safety or aesthetic issues that may arise by virtue of deployment of new video-related equipment by applicants already authorized to use the rights-of way. 265 See TIA Comments at 8-9(a time frame of 17 business days,as set forth in the Texas statute,"provides ample time to negotiate an agreement reflecting the requirements of Section 621"); AT&T Comments at 75, 78-79. See also supra paras. 17,27. 266 See 47 U.S.C.§545. 267 Verizon Comments at 36-37. 36 Federal Communications Commission FCC 06-180 negotiate a franchise with a familiar applicant that is already authorized to occupy the right-of-way in less than 120 days. The list of legitimate,issues to be negotiated is short,26s and we narrow those issues considerably in this Order. We therefore impose a deadline of 90 days for an LFA to reach a final decision on a competitive franchise application submitted by those applicants authorized to occupy rights- of-way within the franchise area. 72. For other applicants, we believe that six months affords a reasonable amount of time to negotiate with an entity that is not already authorized to occupy the right-of-way,as an LFA will need to evaluate the entity's legal, financial, and technical capabilities in addition to generally considering the applicant's fitness to be a communications provider over the rights-of-way: Commenters have presented substantial evidence that six months provides LFAs sufficient time to review an applicant's proposal, negotiate acceptable terms,and award or deny a competitive franchise.269 We are persuaded by the record that a six-month period will allow sufficient time for review. Given that LFAs must act on modification applications within the 120-day limit set by the Communications Act, we believe affording an additional two months — i.e., a six-month review period—will provide LFAs ample time to conduct negotiations with an entity new to the franchise area. 73. Failure of an LFA to act within these time frames is unreasonable and constitutes a refusal to award a competitive franchise. Consistent with other time limits that the Communications Act and our rules impose,270 a franchising authority and a competitive applicant may extend these limits if both parties agree to an extension of time. We further note that an LFA may engage in franchise review activities that are not prohibited by the Communications Act or our rules, such as multiple levels of review or holding a public hearing,271 provided that a fmal decision is made within the time period established under this Order. b. Commencement of the Time Period for Negotiations 74. The record demonstrates that there is no universally accepted event that "starts the clock"for purposes of calculating the length of franchise negotiations between LFAs and new entrants.272 Accordingly, we find it necessary to delineate the point at which such calculation should begin. Few commenters offer specific suggestions on what event should open the time period for franchise negotiations. Qwest contends that the period for negotiations should commence once an applicant files an application.273 On the other hand, Verizon argues that the clock must start before an applicant files a formal application because significant negotiations often take place before a formal filing.274 Specifically, 268 Verizon Reply Comments at 43 n.69. 269 See Cablevision Comments at 10-12; GMTC Comments at 3, 6-8; State of Hawaii Reply at 3;Mt.Hood Cable Regulatory Commission Comments at 20; NJBPU Comments at 5; Southwest Suburban Cable Commission Comments at 7. See also Fairfax County,Va.Comments at 4-7(formal negotiations began April 42005,franchise granted Oct. 1,2005). 27°See, e.g.,47 U.S.C. §537,47 C.F.R.§76.502(c). 271 See Southwest Suburban Cable Commission Comments at 7. 272 See supra paras. 14-17. 273 See Qwest Reply at 2(establish a requirement that an LFA"must act on a franchise application within six months of filing"). 274 See Verizon Reply at 37; Letter from Leora Hochstein, Executive Director, Federal Regulatory, Verizon, to Marlene Dortch,Secretary,Federal Communications Commission at 1 (April 21,2006). 37 Federal Communications Commission FCC 06-180 • the company advocates starting the clock when the applicant initiates negotiations with the LFA,275 which could be documented informally between the applicant and the LFA or with a formal Commission filing for evidentiary purposes. 75. We will calculate the deadline from the date that the applicant first files certain requisite information in writing with the LFA. This filing must meet any applicable state or local requirements, including any state or local laws that specify the contents of a franchise application and payment of a reasonable application fee in jurisdictions where such fee is required.276 This application,whether formal or informal, must at a minimum contain: (1) the applicant's name; (2) the names of the applicant's officers and directors; (3) the applicant's business address; (4) the name and contact information of the applicant's contact; (5) a description of the geographic area that the applicant proposes to serve; (6) the applicant's proposed PEG channel capacity and capital support; (7)the requested term of the agreement; (8)whether the applicant holds an existing authorization to access the community's public rights-of-way; and (9) the amount of the franchise fee the applicant agrees to pay(consistent with the Communications Act and the standards set forth herein). Any requirement the LFA imposes on the applicant to negotiate or engage in any regulatory or administrative processes before the applicant files the requisite information is per se unreasonable and preempted by this Order. Such a requirement would delay competitive entry by undermining the efficacy of the time limits adopted in this Order and would not serve any legitimate purpose. At their discretion, applicants may choose to engage in informal negotiations before filing an application. These informal negotiations do not apply to the deadline, however; we will calculate the deadline from the date that the applicant first files its application with an LFA. For purposes of any disputes that may arise,the applicant will have the burden of proving that it filed the requisite information or,where required,the application with the LFA,by producing either a receipt-stamped copy of the filing or a certified mail return receipt indicating receipt of the required documentation. We believe that adoption of a time limit with a specific starting point will ensure that the franchising process will not be unduly delayed by pre-filing requirements, will increase applicants' incentive to begin negotiating in earnest at an earlier stage of the process,and will encourage both LFAs and applicants to reach agreement within the specified time frame. We note that an LFA may toll the running of the 90-day or six-month time period if it has requested information from the franchise applicant and is waiting for such information. Once the information is received by the LFA,the time period would automatically begin to run again. c. Remedy for Failure to Negotiate a Franchise Within the Time Limit 76. Finally, we consider what remedy or remedies may be appropriate in the event that an LFA and franchise applicant are unable to reach agreement within the 90-day or six-month time frame. Section 635 of the Communications Act provides a specific remedy for an applicant who believes that an LFA unreasonably denied its application containing the requisite information within the applicable time frame. Here,we establish a remedy in the event an LFA does not grant or deny a franchise application by the deadline. In selecting this remedy, we seek to provide a meaningful incentive for local franchising authorities to abide by the deadlines contained in this Order while at the same time maintaining LFAs' authority to manage rights-of-way,collect franchise fees,and address other legitimate franchise concerns. 77. In the event that an LFA fails to grant or deny an application by the deadline set by the Commission, Verizon urges the Commission to temporarily authorize the applicant to provide video 275 Id. 276 See infra paras.99-104. 38 Federal Communications Commission FCC 06-180 service.277 In general,we agree with this proposed remedy. hi order to encourage franchising authorities to reach a fmal decision on a competitive application within the applicable time frame set forth in this Order, a failure to abide by the Commission's deadline must bring with it meaningful consequences. Additionally, we do not believe that a sufficient remedy for an LFA's inaction on an application is the creation of a remedial process, such as arbitration,that will result in even further delay. We also decline to agree to NATOA's suggestion that an applicant should be awarded a franchise identical to that held by the incumbent cable operator. This suggestion is impractical for the same reasons that we fmd local level- playing-field requirements are preempted.278 Therefore, if an LFA has not made a final decision within the time limits we adopt in this Order, the LFA will be deemed to have granted the applicant an interim franchise based on the terms proposed in the application. This interim franchise will remain in effect only until the LFA takes final action on the application. We believe this approach is preferable to having the Commission itself provide interim franchises to applicants because a "deemed grant" will begin the process of developing a working relationship between the competitive applicant and the franchising authority,which will be helpful in the event that a negotiated franchise is ultimately approved. 78. The Commission has authority to deem a franchise application "granted" on an interim basis. As noted above, the Commission has broad authority to adopt rules to implement Title VI and, specifically, Section 621(a)(1) of the Communications Act 279 As the Supreme Court has explained, the Commission serves"as the `single Government agency' with `unified jurisdiction' and`regulatory power over all forms of electrical communication, whether by telephone, telegraph, cable, or radio.si280 Section 201(b) authorizes the Commission to "prescribe such rules and regulations as may be necessary in the public interest to carry out the provisions of this Act.s281 "[T]he grant in § 201(b) means what it says: The FCC has rulemaking authority to carry out the `provisions of this Act."'282 Section 2 of the Communications Act grants the Commission explicit jurisdiction over "cable services."283 Moreover, Congress specifically charged the Commission with the administration of the Cable Act, including Section 621,and federal courts have consistently upheld the Commission's authority in this area284 79. The Commission has previously granted franchise applicants temporary authority to operate in local areas. In the early 1970s, the Commission required every cable operator to obtain a federal certificate of compliance from the Commission before it could "commence operations."285 In effect,the Commission acted as a co-franchising authority—requiring both an FCC certificate and a local franchise (granted pursuant to detailed Commission guidance and oversight) prior to the provision of 277 See Letter from Leora Hochstein,Executive Director,Federal Regulatory,Verizon,to Marlene Dortch,Secretary, Federal Communications Commission at 1 (May 3,2006). 278See infra para. 138. If new entrants were required to adopt the same franchises as incumbents,the new entrants would be forced to accept terms that violate Section 621(a)(1)'s prohibition on unreasonable refusals to grant franchises. See Mercatus Center at 39-40;Phoenix Center Competition Paper at 7. 279 See supra Section III.B. 280 United States v.Southwestern Cable Co., 392 U.S. 157, 167-68(1968)(citations omitted). 281 47 U.S.C. §201(b).See also 47 U.S.C.§§ 151, 154(i),303(r). 282 AT&T Corp.v.Iowa Utilites Board, 525 U.S.366,378(1999). 283 47 U.S.C.§ 152. 284 See supra note 208. 285 Amendment of Part 74,Subpart K, of the Commission's Rules and Regulations Relative to Community Antenna Television Systems,36 F.C.C.2d 143,¶ 178(1972). 39 Federal Communications Commission FCC 06-180 services.286 As the Commission noted, "[a]lthough we have determined that local authorities ought to have the widest scope in franchising cable operators, the final responsibility is ours.s287 And the Commission granted interim franchises for cable services in areas where there was no other franchising authority.'" 80. We note that the deemed grant approach is consistent with other federal regulations designed to address inaction on the part of a State decision maker.289 In addition, this approach does not raise any special legal concerns about impinging on state or local authority. The Act plainly gives federal courts authority to review decisions made pursuant to Section 621(a)(1).290 As the Supreme Court observed in Iowa Utilities Board, "This is, at bottom, a debate not about whether the States will be allowed to do their own thing, but about whether it will be the FCC or the federal courts that draw the lines to which they must hew. To be sure,the FCC's lines can be even more restrictive than those drawn by the courts—but it is hard to spark a passionate `States'rights' debate over that detail.s291 81. We anticipate that a deemed grant will be the exception rather than the rule because LFAs will generally comply with the Commission's rules and either accept or reject applications within the applicable time frame. However, in the rare instance that a local franchising authority unreasonably delays acting on an application and a deemed grant therefore occurs,we encourage the parties to continue to negotiate and attempt to reach a franchise agreement following expiration of the formal time limit. Each party will have a strong incentive to negotiate sincerely: LFAs will want to ensure that their constituents continue to receive the benefits of competition and cable providers will want to protect the investments they have made in deploying their systems. If the LFA ultimately acts to deny the franchise after the deadline, the applicant may appeal such denial pursuant to Section 635(a) of the Communications Act. If, on the other hand, the LFA ultimately grants the franchise, the applicant's operations will continue pursuant to the negotiated franchise,rather than the interim franchise. 2. Build-Out 82. As discussed above, build-out requirements in many cases may constitute unreasonable barriers to entry into the MVPD market for facilities-based competitors.292 Accordingly, we limit LFAs' ability to impose certain build-out requirements pursuant to Section 621(a)(1). 286 The Commission ended the certificate requirement and ceded additional authority to state and local governments in the late 1970s,but only for pragmatic reasons. See,e.g.,Report and Order, 66 F.C.C.2d 380,¶¶33, 37 (1977); Memorandum Opinion and Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 71 F.C.C.2d 569, ¶ 7 (1979) (withdrawing aspects of Commission franchising participation, but only "as long as the actions taken at the local level will not undermine important and overriding federal interests"). 287 Teleprompter Cable Sys.,52 F.C.C.2d 1263,¶9(1975)(emphasis added). 288 See,e.g.,Cable Television Reconsideration Order,36 F.C.C.2d 326,¶116(1972);Sun Valley Cable Communications (Sun City, Arizona), 39 F.C.C.2d 105 (1973); Mahoning Valley Cablevision, Inc. (Liberty Township, Ohio),39 F.C.C.2d 939(1973). 289 See, e.g.,40 C.F.R. 141.716(a)(watershed control plans that are submitted to a state and not acted upon by the regulatory deadline are "considered approved" until the state subsequently withdraws such approval.); 42 C.F.R. 438.56(e)(2)(an application to disenroll from a Medicaid managed care plan shall be"considered approved"if not acted on by a state agency within the regulatory deadline). See also 47 U.S.C. § 160(c) (petition for forbearance "deemed granted"if Commission fails to deny within the regulatory deadline). 290 See 47 U.S.C.§555. 291 AT&T Corp. v.Iowa Utils.Bd.,525 U.S.366,378 n.6(1999). 292 See Section III.A.,supra, at paras.31-42. 40 Federal Communications Commission FCC 06-180 a. Authority 83. Proponents of build-out requirements do not offer any persuasive legal argument that the Commission lacks authority to address this significant problem and conclude that certain build-out requirements for competitive entrants are unreasonable. Nothing in the Communications Act requires competitive franchise applicants to agree to build-out their networks in any particular fashion. Nevertheless, incumbent cable operators and LFAs contend that it is both lawful and appropriate, in all circumstances, to impose the same build-out requirements on competitive applicants that apply to incumbents.293 We reject these arguments and find that Section 621(a)(1)prohibits LFAs from refusing to award a new franchise on the ground that the applicant will not agree to unreasonable build-out requirements. 84. The only provision in the Communications Act that even alludes to build-out is Section 621(a)(4)(A), which provides that"a franchising authority . . . shall allow the applicant's cable system a reasonable period of time to become capable of providing cable service to all households in the franchise area."294 Far from a grant of authority,however, Section 621(a)(4)(A) is actually a limitation on LFAs' authority. In circumstances when it is reasonable for LFAs to require cable operators to build out their networks in accordance with a specific plan, LFAs must give franchisees a reasonable period of time to comply with those requirements. However, Section 621(a)(4)(A) does not address the central question here: whether it may be unreasonable for LFAs to impose certain build-out requirements on competitive cable applicants. To answer that question, Section 621(a)(4)(A)must be read in conjunction with Section 621(a)(1)'s prohibition on unreasonable refusals to award competitive franchises,and in light of the Act's twin goals of promoting competition and broadband deployment.295 85. Our interpretation of Section 621(a)(4)(A) is consistent with relevant jurisprudence and the legislative history. The D.C. Circuit has squarely rejected the notion that Section 621(a)(4)(A) authorizes LFAs to impose universal build-out requirements on all cable providers. The court has held that Section 621(a)(4)(A) does not require that cable operators extend service "throughout the franchise area," but instead is a limit on franchising authorities that seek to impose such obligations 296 That decision comports with the legislative history, which indicates that Congress explicitly rejected an approach that would have imposed affirmative build-out obligations on all cable providers. The House version of the bill provided that an LFA's "refusal to award a franchise shall not be unreasonable if, for example, such refusal is on the ground . . . of inadequate assurance that the cable operator will,within a reasonable period of time, provide universal service throughout the entire franchise area under the 293 See, e.g.,Comcast Reply Comments at 34;NCTA Reply Comments at 25-26;NATOA Reply Comments at 24; Southeast Michigan Municipalities Reply Comments at 44-45. 294 47 U.S.C. §541(a)(4)(A). 295 Americable Intern.,Inc.v.Dep't of Navy, 129 F.3d 1271, 1274-75(D.C.Cir. 1997). 296 Id. See also Americable Intern., Inc. v. U.S. Dept. of Navy, 931 F. Supp. 1, 2-3 (D.D.C. 1996) ("Americable argues first that the Cable Act establishes a`requirement'that a franchise`provide universal service throughout the franchise area.'Its authority for that position is 47 U.S.C.§541(a)(4)(A),which requires that a franchising authority (here the Navy) allow an applicant's system 'a reasonable period of time to become capable of providing cable service to all households in the franchise area. . . .' That language contains no requirement of universal service, of course. Americable's strained argument is at odds with the purpose of the Cable Act, which is to promote competition, and of the amendment in question, which protects the interests of new franchise applicants and not incumbents like Americable"). 41 Federal Communications Commission FCC 06-180 jurisdiction of the franchising authority.s297 By declining to adopt this language, Congress made clear that it did not intend to impose uniform build-out requirements on all franchise applicants.298 86. LFAs and incumbent cable operators also rely on Section 621(a)(3) to support compulsory build-out. That Section provides: "In awarding a franchise or franchises, a franchising authority shall assure that access to cable service is not denied to any group of potential residential cable subscribers because of the income of the residents of the local area in which such group resides"299 We therefore address below some commenters' concerns that limitations on build-out requirements will contravene or render ineffective the statutory prohibition against discrimination on the basis of income ("redlining.")300 But for present purposes, it has already been established that Section 621(a)(3)does not mandate universal build-out. As the Commission previously has stated,"the intent of[Section 621(a)(3)] was to prevent the exclusion of cable service based on income" and"this section does not mandate that the franchising authority require the complete wiring of the franchise area in those circumstances where such an exclusion is not based on the income status of the residents of the unwired area."301 The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit(the"D.C.Circuit")has upheld this interpretation in the face of an argument that universal build-out was required by Section 621(a)(3): The statute on its face prohibits discrimination on the basis of income; it manifestly does not require universal [build-out]. . . . [The provision requires] "wiring of all areas of the franchise" to prevent redlining. However, if no redlining is in evidence, it is likewise clear that wiring within the franchise area can be limited.30 b. Discussion 87. Given the current state of the MVPD marketplace,we fmd that an LFA's refusal to award a competitive franchise because the applicant will not agree to specified build-out requirements can be unreasonable. Market conditions today are far different from when incumbent cable operators obtained their franchises. Incumbent cable providers were frequently awarded community-wide monopolies 303 In that context, a requirement that the provider build out facilities to the entire community was eminently sensible. The essential bargain was that the cable operator would provide service to an entire community in exchange for its status as the only franchisee from whom customers in the community could purchase 297 H.R.REP.No. 102-628,at 9(1992). 298 See Doe v. Chao,540 U.S. 614,622-23(2004)(finding relevance in the fact that Congress had cut out the very language in the bill that would have achieved the result claimant urged). 299 47 U.S.C.§541(a)(3). 3°° See, e.g., Comcast Reply at 2 (arguing that incumbent LECs are seeking Commission action on build-out requirements in order to pursue their"high-value"customers while bypassing"low-value"ones). 301 Implementing the Provisions of the Cable Communications Policy Act of 1984, Report and Order, MM Docket No. 84-1296, 58 Rad. Reg. 2d (P & F) 1, 62-63 (1985). BSPA Comments at 6 ("The most significant factors affecting where a wireline network will be built relate to cost of construction and the density of the population that • will be served. These factors have a much more significant impact on the network expansion plans than the specific customer profile in a geographic area"). 3°2 ACLU v. FCC, 823 F.2d 1554, 1580 (D.C. Cir. 1987) (emphasis in original). See also Consumers for Cable Choice Comments at 8;DOJ Ex Parte at 4. 303 See H.R.REP.No. 102-862, at 77-78 (1992)(Conf. Rep.),as reprinted in 1992 U.S.C.C.A.N. 1231, 1259-1260; Mercatus Center Comments at 39-40;Phoenix Center Competition Paper at 7. 42 • Federal Communications Commission FCC 06-180 service. Thus, a fmancial burden was placed upon the monopoly provider in exchange for the undeniable benefit of being able to operate without competition.304 88. By contrast, new cable entrants must compete with entrenched cable operators and other video service providers. A competing cable provider that seeks to offer service in a particular community cannot reasonably expect to capture more than a fraction of the total market.305 Build-out requirements thus impose significant financial risks on competitive applicants,who must incur substantial construction costs to deploy facilities within the franchise area in exchange for the opportunity to capture a relatively small percentage of the market.306 In many instances, build-out requirements make entry so expensive that the prospective competitive provider withdraws its application and simply declines to serve any portion of the community.307 Given the entry-deterring effect of build-out conditions, our construction of Section 621(a)(1)best serves the Act's purposes of promoting competition and broadband deployment.3°8 89. Accordingly, we find that it is unlawful for LFAs to refuse to grant a competitive franchise on the basis of unreasonable build-out mandates. For example, absent other factors, it would seem unreasonable to require a new competitive entrant to serve everyone in a franchise area before it has begun providing service to anyone. It also would seem unreasonable to require facilities-based entrants, such as incumbent LECs, to build out beyond the footprint of their existing facilities before they have even begun providing cable service.309 It also would seem unreasonable, absent other factors, to require more of a new entrant than an incumbent cable operator by, for instance, requiring the new entrant to build out its facilities in a shorter period of time than that originally afforded to the incumbent cable operator;or requiring the new entrant to build out and provide service to areas of lower density than those that the incumbent cable operator is required to build out to and serve.310 We note, however, it would seem reasonable for an LFA in establishing build-out requirements to consider the new entrant's market penetration. It would also seem reasonable for an LFA to consider benchmarks requiring the new entrant to increase its build-out after a reasonable period of time had passed after initiating service and taking into account its market success. 90. Some other practices that seem unreasonable include: requiring the new entrant to build out and provide service to buildings or developments to which the new entrant cannot obtain access on reasonable terms; requiring the new entrant to build out to certain areas or customers that the entrant cannot reach using standard technical solutions; and requiring the new entrant to build out and provide service to areas where it cannot obtain reasonable access to and use of the public rights of way. Subjecting a competitive applicant to more'stringent build-out requirements than the LFA placed on the incumbent cable operator is unreasonable in light of the greater economic challenges facing competitive applicants explained above. Moreover, build-out requirements may significantly deter entry and thus 3°4 See FTTH Council Comments at 32-33;BellSouth Comments at 34. 305 See,e.g., AT&T Comments at 50;FTTH Council Comments at 29-30. 306 See FTTH Council Comments at 32-35;DOJ Ex Parte at 12-15(May 10,2006);AT&T Reply Comments at 34- 36;BellSouth Comments at 34-35;Verizon Comments at 39-40. 307 See FTTH Council Comments at 35; BellSouth Comments at 17-19, 35; USTA Comments at 22-25; Verizon Comments at 40-42. 3°8 AT&T Comments at 62-64;BellSouth Comments at 32-33;Qwest Comments at 21-22;USTA Comments at 27; Verizon Comments at 44-46. 309 See supra paras.38-40. 31°As we understand these franchising agreements are public documents,we find it reasonable to require the new entrant to produce the incumbent's current agreement. 43 Federal Communications Commission FCC 06-180 • forestall competition by placing substantial demands on competitive entrants. 91. In sum,we find,based on the record as a whole,that build-out requirements imposed by LFAs can operate as unreasonable bathers to competitive entry. The Commission has broad authority under Section 621(a)(1) to determine whether particular LFA conditions on entry are unreasonable. Exercising that authority, we find that Section 621(a)(1) prohibits LFAs from refusing to award a competitive franchise because the applicant will not agree to unreasonable build-out requirements. c. Redlining 92. The Communications Act forbids access to cable service from being denied to any group of potential residential cable subscribers because of neighborhood income. The statute is thus clear that no provider of cable services may deploy services with the intent to redline and "that access to cable service [may not be] denied to any group of potential residential cable subscribers because of the income of the residents of the local area in which such group resides.s311 Nothing in our action today is intended to limit LFAs' authority to appropriately enforce Section 621(a)(3) and to ensure that their constituents are protected against discrimination. This includes an LFA's authority to deny a franchise that would run afoul of Section 621(a)(3). 93. MMTC suggests that the Commission develop anti-redlining"best practices,"specifically defining who is responsible for overseeing redlining issues, what constitutes redlining, and developing substantial relief for those affected by redlining.312 MMTC suggests that an LFA could afford a new entrant means of obtaining pre-clearance of its build-out plans,establishing a rebuttable presumption that the new entrant will not redline (for example, proposing to replicate a successful anti-redlining program employed in another franchise area).313 Alternatively, an LFA could allow a new entrant to choose among regulatory options,any of which would be sufficient to allow for build-out to commence while the granular details of anti-redlining reporting are fmalized.314 We note these suggestions but do not require them. 3. Franchise Fees 94. In response to questions in the Local Franchising NPRM concerning existing practices that may impede cable entry,315 various parties discussed unreasonable demands relating to franchise fees. Commenters have also indicated that unreasonable demands concerning fees or other consideration by some LFAs have created an unreasonable bather to entry.316 Such matters include not only the universe 311 47 U.S.C. §541. 312 MMTC Comments at 22,MMTC Reply at 15. MMTC urges that The State Regulators Council of the Advisory Committee on Diversity for Communication in the Digital Age should be the oversight committee for redlining issues. MMTC Comments at 24. 313 MMTC Reply at 11. 314 MMTC Reply at 11 (providing examples of "rapid buildout plan," "equal service verification plan," and "combined plan"). 315 Local Franchising NPRM, 20 FCC Red at 18588. 316 See, e.g.,AT&T Reply at Attachment C at 5 ("Lynbrook,N.Y.has asked Verizon to provide cameras to film a holiday visit from Santa Claus.Deputy Mayor Thomas Miccio said, 'They know if they don't get this process done they're going to be in big, big trouble, so we feel we're in a very good position."") (citing Dionne Searcey, As Verizon Enters Cable Business, it Faces Local Static, WALL ST. J., Oct. 28, 2005, at Al), Verizon Comments at Attachment A at 14 ("Two LFAs in California required application fees of$25,000 and $20,000, respectively. (continued...) 44 Federal Communications Commission FCC 06-180 of franchise-related costs imposed on providers that should or should not be included within the 5 percent statutory franchise fee cap established in Section 622(b),317 but also the calculation of franchise fees(i.e., the revenue base from which the 5 percent is calculated). Accordingly, we will exercise our authority under Section 621(a)(1) to address the unreasonable demands made by some LFAs. In particular, any refusal to award an additional competitive franchise because of an applicant's refusal to accede to demands that are deemed impermissible below shall be considered to be unreasonable. The Commission's jurisdiction over franchise fee policy is well established.318 The general law with respect to franchise fees should be relatively well known, but we believe it may be helpful to restate the basic propositions here in effort to avoid misunderstandings that can lead to delay in the franchising process as well as unreasonable refusals to award competitive franchises. To the extent that our determinations are relevant to incumbent cable operators as well,we would expect that discrepancies would be addressed at the next franchise renewal negotiation period, as noted in the FNPRM infra, which tentatively concludes that the findings in this Order should apply to cable operators that have existing franchise agreements as they negotiate renewal of those agreements with LFAs 319 95. We address below four significant issues relating to franchise fee payments. First, we consider the franchise fee revenue base. Second,we examine the limitations on charges incidental to the awarding or enforcing of a franchise. Third, we discuss the proper classification of in-kind payments unrelated to the provision of cable service. Finally,we consider whether contributions in support of PEG services and equipment should be considered within the franchise fee calculation. 96. The fundamental franchise fee limitation is set forth in Section 622(b),which states that "franchise fees paid by a cable operator with respect to any cable system shall not exceed 5 percent of such cable operator's gross revenues derived in such period from the operation of the cable system to provide cable services.s320 Section 622(g)(1)broadly defines the term"franchise fee"to include"any tax, fee,or assessment of any kind imposed by a franchising authority or other governmental entity on a cable operator or cable subscriber, or both, solely because of their status as such.s321 Section 622(g)(2)(c), however,excludes from the term"franchise fee"any"capital costs which are required by the franchise to be incurred by the cable operator for public, educational, or governmental access facilities."322 And Section 622(g)(2)(D) excludes from the term (and therefore from the 5 percent cap) "requirements or charges incidental to the awarding or enforcing of the franchise, including payments for bonds, security funds, letters of credit, insurance, indemnification, penalties, or liquidated damages."323 It has been established that certain types of"in-kind" obligations, in addition to monetary payments,may be subject (Continued from previous page) Another community in that state has requested an upfront application fee of$30,000 plus an agreement to pay additional expenses(i.e., attorneys fees)of up to an additional$20,000."). 317 47 U.S.C. §542(b). 318 See ACLU v. FCC, 823 F.2d 1554, 1574(D.C. Cir. 1987)("[I]t is clear. . .that the ultimate responsibility for ensuring a'national policy'with respect to franchise fees lies with the federal agency responsible for administering the Communications Act.")(emphasis in original). 319 See infra para. 140. 320 47 U.S.C. § 542(b) (emphasis added). FTTH Council supports an alternative cap based on the actual costs of managing the use of public rights-of-way, but we need not address that argument because we do not have the discretion to adopt a different limit than that set b;7 Congress. 321 47 U.S.C. §542(g)(1). 322 47 U.S.C.§542(g)(2)(C). 323 47 U.S.C. § 542(g)(2)(D). 45 Federal Communications Commission FCC 06-180 • to the cap. The legislative history of the 1984 Cable Act, which adopted the franchise fee limit, specifically provides that "lump sum grants not related to PEG access for municipal programs such as libraries,recreation departments, detention centers or other payments not related to PEG access would be subject to the 5 percent limitation."324 97. Definition of the 5 percent fee cap revenue base. As a preliminary matter,we address the request of several parties to clarify which revenue-generating services should be included in the gross fee figure from which the 5 percent calculation is drawn.325 The record indicates that in the franchise application process, disputes that arise as to the propriety of particular fees can be a significant cause of delay in the process and that some franchising authorities are making unreasonable demands in this area 326 This issue is of particular concern where a prospective new entrant for the provision of cable services is a facilities-based incumbent or competitive provider of telecommunications and/or broadband services. A number of controversies regarding which revenues are properly subject to application of the franchise fee were resolved before the Supreme Court's decision in NCTA v. Brand X,327 which settled issues concerning the proper regulatory classification of cable modem-based Internet access service. Nevertheless, in some quarters, there has been considerable uncertainty over the application of franchise fees to Internet access service revenues and other non-cable revenues. Thus,we believe it may assist the franchise process and prevent unreasonable refusals to award competitive franchises to reiterate certain conclusions that have been reached with respect to the franchise fee base. 98. We clarify that a cable operator is not required to pay franchise fees on revenues from non-cable services.328 Section 622(b) provides that the "franchise fees paid by a cable operator with respect to any cable system shall not exceed 5 percent of such cable operator's gross revenues derived in such period from the operation of the cable system to provide cable services.s329 The term"cable service" is explicitly defined in Section 602(6) to mean (i) "the one-way transmission to subscribers of video programming or other programming service,"and(ii)"subscriber interaction,if any,which is required for the selection or use of such video programming or other programming service."330 The Commission determined in the Cable Modem Declaratory Ruling that a franchise authority may not assess franchise fees on non-cable services, such as cable modem service,stating that"revenue from cable modem service would not be included in the calculation of gross revenues from which the franchise fee ceiling is determined."331 Although this decision related specifically to Internet access service revenues, the same 324 H.R.REP.No.98-934,at 65(1984),as reprinted in 1984 U.S.C.C.A.N.4655,4702. 325 Verizon Comments at 63-64;BellSouth Comments at 41-43. 326 See supra paras.43-45. 327 125 S.Ct.2688(2005). See infra note 331. 328 Advertising revenue and home shopping commissions have been included in an operator's gross revenues for franchise fee calculation purposes. See Texas Coalition of Cities for Utility Issues v. FCC, 354 F.3d 802, 806(5th Cir.2003)("A cable operator's gross revenue includes revenue from subscriptions and revenue from other sources- e.g., advertising and commissions from home shopping networks."); City of Pasadena, California The City of Nashville, Tennessee and The City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, 16 FCC Rcd. 18192, 2001 WL 1167612, par. 15 (2001)("There is no dispute among the parties to this proceeding,or in relevant precedent,that advertising revenue and home shopping commissions can be considered part of an operator's gross revenues for franchise fee calculation purposes."). 329 47 U.S.C. § 542(b)(emphasis added). 330 47 U.S.C.§522(6). 331 In re Inquiry Concerning High Speed Access to the Internet Over Cable and Other Facilities, 17 FCC Rcd 4798, 4851 (2002)("Cable Modem Declaratory Ruling"),rev al,Brand X Internet Services v.FCC,345 F.3d 1120(9`h Cir. (continued...) 46 • Federal Communications Commission FCC 06-180 would be true for other "non-cable" service revenues.332 Thus, Internet access services, including broadband data services,and any other non-cable services are not subject to"cable services"fees. 99. Charges incidental to the awarding or enforcing of a franchise. Section 622(g)(2)(D) excludes from the term"franchise fee" "requirements or charges incidental to the awarding or enforcing of the franchise, including payments for bonds, security funds, letters of credit, insurance, indemnification, penalties, or liquidated damages."' Such"incidental"requirements or charges may be assessed by a franchising authority without counting toward the 5 percent cap. A number of parties assert,and seek Commission clarification,that certain types of payments being requested in the franchise process are not incidental fees under Section 622(g)(2)(D) but instead'must either be prohibited or counted toward the cap.334 Furthermore, a number of parties report that disputes over such issues as well as unreasonable demands being made by some franchising authorities in this regard may be leading to delays in the franchising process as well as unreasonable refusals to award competitive franchises. We therefore determine that non-incidental franchise-related costs required by LFAs must count toward the 5 percent franchise fee cap and provide guidance as to what constitutes such non-incidental franchise- related costs. Under the Act, these costs combined with other franchise fees cannot exceed 5 percent of gross revenues for cable service. 100. BellSouth urges us to prohibit franchising authorities from assessing fees that the authorities claim are"incidental"if those fees are not specifically allowed under Section 622 of the Cable Act.33s BellSouth asserts that LFAs often seek fees beyond the 5 percent franchise fee allowed by the statutory provision. The company therefore asks us to clarify that any costs that an LFA requires a cable provider to pay beyond the exceptions listed in Section 622—including generally applicable taxes, PEG capital costs,and"incidental charges"—count toward the 5 percent cap.336 OPASTCO asserts that higher fees discourage investment and often will need to be passed on to consumers.337 Verizon also requests that we clarify that fees that exceed the cap are unreasonable.338 101. AT&T argues that we should find unreasonable any fees or contribution requirements that are not credited toward the franchise fee obligation.339 AT&T also asserts that any financial obligation to the franchising authority that a provider undertakes, such as application or acceptance fees (Continued from previous page) 2003), rev d, NCTA v. Brand X, 545 U.S. 967 (2005). The Commission issued a notice of proposed rulemaking ("Cable Modem NPRM') concurrently with the Cable Modem Declaratory Ruling. Certain questions from the Cable Modem NPRM that are relevant, but not directly related, to this discussion remain pending before the Commission. Cable Modem Declaratory Ruling at 4839-4854. 332 See NATOA Reply at 29(agreeing that non-cable services are not subject to franchise fees). 333 47 U.S.C.§542(g)(2)(D). 334 AT&T Comments at 65-67;BellSouth Comments at 7,38-39. 335 BellSouth Comments at 7. 336 BellSouth Comments at 38-39. 337 OPASTCO Reply at 5. 338 Verizon Reply at 59. 339 AT&T Comments at 64. 47 Federal Communications Commission FCC 06-180 • that exceed the reasonable cost of processing an application, free or discounted service to an LFA, and LFA attorney or consultant fees,should apply toward the franchise fee obligation.34° 102. Conversely, NATOA asserts that costs such as those enumerated above by AT&T fall within Section 622(g)(2)(D)'s defmition of charges "incidental" to granting the franchise.341 NATOA contends that the word "incidental" does not refer to the amount of the charge, but rather the fact that a charge is "naturally appertaining"to the grant of a franchise. Thus,NATOA argues,these costs are not part of the franchise fee and therefore do not count toward the cap 34z 103. There is nothing in the text of the statute or the legislative history to suggest that Congress intended the list of exceptions in Section 622(g)(2)(D) to include the myriad additional expenses that some LFAs argue are"incidental."343 Given that the lack of clarity on this issue may hinder competitive deployment and lead to unreasonable refusals to award competitive franchises under Section 621,we seek to provide guidance as to what is"incidental"for a new competitive application.'" We find that the term "incidental" in Section 622(g)(2)(D) should be limited to the list of incidentals in the statutory provision, as well as other minor expenses, as described below. We fmd instructive a series of federal court decisions relating to this subsection of Section 622. These courts have indicated that (i) there are significant limits on what payments qualify as"incidental"and may be requested outside of the 5 percent fee limitation; and(ii)processing fees, consultant fees, and attorney fees are not necessarily to be regarded as "incidental" to the awarding of a franchise.345 In Robin Cable Systems v. City of Sierra Vista, for example,the United States District Court for the District of Arizona held that"processing costs" of up to $30,000 required as part of the award of a franchise were not excluded under subsection (g)(2)(D)because they were not"incidental,"but rather"substantial"and therefore"inconsistent with the Cable Act."346 Additionally,in Time Warner Entertainment v.Briggs, the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts decided that attorney fees and consultant fees fall within the definition of franchise fees, as defined in Section 622. Because the municipality in that case was already collecting 5 percent of the operator's gross revenues, the Court determined that a franchise provision requiring the cable operator to pay such fees above and beyond its 5 percent gross revenues was preempted and therefore unenforceable.347 Finally, in Birmingham Cable Comm. v. City of Birmingham, the United States District for the Northern District of Alabama stated that "it would be an aberrant construction of 34°AT&T Comments at 65-67. 341 NATOA Reply at 34-35. 342 NATOA Reply at 35(citing Random House Dictionary of the English Language at 720). 343 See infra paras. 105-108. 344 NATOA argues that the Commission is powerless to rewrite the meaning of the statute. NATOA Reply at 35. Yet, Section 622(i)states"[a]ny Federal agency may not regulate the amount of the franchise fees paid by a cable operator,or regulate the use of funds derived from such fees,except as provided in this section." Therefore,we are within our Congressionally mandated authority to provide clarifying guidance regarding the meaning of this provision. 345 See Robin Cable Systems v. City of Sierra Vista, 842 F. Supp.380(D.Ariz. 1993); Time Warner Entertainment Co. v. Briggs, 1993 WL 23710(D. Mass. Jan. 14, 1993);Birmingham Cable Comm. v. City of Birmingham, 1989 WL 253850(N.D.Ala. 1989). 346 Robin Cable at 381. 347 Time Warner at 23710*6. 48 Federal Communications Commission FCC 06-180 the phrase `incidental to the awarding ... of the franchise,' in this context, to conclude that the phrase embraces consultant fees incurred solely by the City."348 104. We fmd these decisions instructive and emphasize that LFAs must count such non- incidental franchise-related costs toward the cap. We agree with these judicial decisions that non- incidental costs include the items discussed above, such as attorney fees and consultant fees, but may include other items, as well. Examples of other items include application or processing fees that exceed the reasonable cost of processing the application,acceptance fees, free or discounted services provided to an LFA,any requirement to lease or purchase equipment from an LFA at prices higher than market value, and in-kind payments as discussed below. Accordingly, if LFAs continue'to request the provision of such in-kind services and the reimbursement of franchise-related costs, the value of such costs and services should count towards the provider's franchise fee payments.'" For future guidance, LFAs and video service providers may look to judicial cases to determine other costs that should be considered "incidental." 105. In-kind payments unrelated to provision of cable service. The record indicates that in the context of some franchise negotiations,LFAs have demanded from new entrants payments or in-kind contributions that are unrelated to the provision of cable services. While many parties argue that franchising authority requirements unrelated'to the provision of cable services are unreasonable,35o few parties provided specific details surrounding the in-kind payment demands of LFAs.351 As discussed further below, most parties generally discussed examples of concessions, but were unwilling to provide details of specific instances, including the identity of the LFA requesting the unrelated services.35z Even without specific details concerning the LFAs involved,however,the record adequately supports a finding that LFA requests unrelated to the provision of cable services have a negative impact on the entry of new cable competitors in terms of timing and costs and may lead to unreasonable refusals to award competitive franchises. Accordingly,we clarify that any requests made by LFAs that are unrelated to the provision of cable services by a new competitive entrant are subject to the statutory 5 percent franchise fee cap. 106. The Broadband Service Providers Association states that an example of a municipal capital requirement can include traffic light control systems.353 FTTH Council states that non-video requirements raise the cost of entry for new entrants and should be prohibited.354 As an example, FTTH 348 Birmingham at 253850. 349 To the extent that an LFA requires franchise fee payments of less than 5 percent an offset may not be necessary. Such LFAs are able to request the reimbursement or provision of such costs up to the 5 percent statutory threshold. 35°Alcatel Comments at 10;FTTH Council Comments at 36;OPASTCO Reply at 4;USTelecom Comments at 48; BPSA Comments at 8;NTCA Comments at 13;South Slope Comments at 15. See also DOJ Ex Parte at 11. 351 Some LFAs argue that commenters'allegations about inappropriate fees fail to identify the LFAs in question. As a consequence, they contend, we should not rely on such unsubstantiated claims unless the particular LFAs in question are given a chance to respond. Communications Support Group Reply at 7;Anne Arundel County Reply at 5. We need not resolve particular disputes between parties,however,in order to address this issue. Our clarification that all LFA requests not related to cable services must be counted toward the 5 percent cap is a matter of statutory construction,and all commenters have had ample opportunity to address this issue. 352 Broadband Service Providers Association Comments at 8;AT&T Comments at 26;Verizon Comments at 57-58. Parties have indicated that they were unwilling to identify specific instances of unreasonable requests,since in many cases these parties are still toying to negotiate franchise agreements with the communities at issue. 353 Broadband Service Providers Association Comments at 8. 354 FTTH Council Comments at 66. 49 Federal Communications Commission FCC 06-180 • Council asserts that in San Antonio, Grande Communications was required to prepay $1 million in franchise fees(which took the company five years to draw down)and to fund a$50,000 scholarship,with an additional $7,200 to be contributed each year. They assert that new entrants agree to these requirements because they have no alternative.355 The National Telecommunications Cooperative Association ("NTCA") also asserts that its members have complained that LFAs require them to accept franchise terms unrelated to the provision of video service.356 NTCA states that any incumbent cable operator that already abides by such a requirement has made the concession in exchange for an exclusive franchise,but that new entrants, in contrast,must fight for every subscriber and will not survive if forced into expensive non-video related projects.357 107. AT&T refers to a press article stating that Verizon has faced myriad requests unrelated to the provision of cable service. These include: a$13 million"wish list" in Tampa,Florida; a request for video hookup for a Christmas celebration and money for wildflower seeds in New York;and a request for fiber on traffic lights to monitor traffic in Virginia.358 Verizon provides little additional information about these examples, but argues that any requests must be considered franchise-related costs subject to the 5 percent franchise fee cap,as discussed above.359 108. We clarify that any requests made by LFAs unrelated to the provision of cable services by a new competitive entrant are subject to the statutory 5 percent franchise fee cap, as discussed above. Municipal projects unrelated to the provision of cable service do not fall within any of the exempted categories in Section 622(g)(2) of the Act and thus should be considered a"franchise fee"under Section 622(g)(1). The legislative history of the 1984 Cable Act supports this finding,providing that"lump sum grants not related to PEG access for municipal programs such as libraries, recreation departments, detention centers or other payments not related to PEG access would be subject to the 5 percent limitation.i360 Accordingly, any such requests for municipal projects will count towards the 5 percent cap. 109. Contributions in support of PEG services and equipment.As further discussed in the Section below, we also consider the question of the proper treatment of LFA-mandated contributions in support of PEG services and equipment. The record reflects that disputes regarding such contributions are impeding video deployment and may be leading to unreasonable refusals to award competitive franchises.361 Section 622(g)(2)(C) excludes from the term "franchise fee" any "capital costs which are required by the franchise to be incurred by the cable operator for public, educational, or governmental access facilities."362 Accordingly, payments of this type, if collected only for the cost of building PEG facilities, are not subject to the 5 percent limit. Capital costs refer to those costs incurred in or associated 355 Id.at 38. 356 NTCA Comments at 4. 357 NTCA Comments at 13. 358 AT&T Comments at 26(citing Dionne Searcey,As Verizon Enters Cable Business, it Faces Local Static,WALL ST.J.,Oct.28,2005,at Al). See also City of Tampa Reply Comments at 5. 359 Verizon Comments at 54. See also USTelecom Comments at 48. 36°H.R.REP.No.98-934,at 65(1984),as reprinted in 1984 U.S.C.C.A.N.4655,4702. 361 See, e.g., FTTH Council Comments at 36(noting how Knology declined to enter the Louisville market after the Louisville LFA requested a PEG grant of$266,000 at the time of franchise grant,with$1.9 million total due over the 15-year term). 362 47 U.S.C.§542(g)(2)(C). 50 Federal Communications Commission FCC 06-180 with the construction of PEG access facilities.363 These costs are distinct from payments in support of the use of PEG access facilities. PEG support payments may include, but are not limited to, salaries and training. Payments made in support of PEG access facilities are considered franchise fees and are subject to the 5 percent cap3" While Section 622(g)(2)(B) excluded from the term franchise fee any such payments made in support of PEG facilities, it only applies to any franchise in effect on the date of enactment.365 Thus, for any franchise granted after 1984, this exemption from franchise fees no longer applies. 4. PEG/Institutional Networks 110. In the Local Franchising NPRM,we tentatively concluded that it is not unreasonable for an LFA, in awarding a franchise, to "require adequate assurance that the cable operator will provide adequate public, educational and governmental access channel capacity,facilities,or financial support"366 because this promotes important statutory and public policy goals.367 However, pursuant to Section 621(a)(1), we conclude that LFAs may not make unreasonable demands of competitive applicants for PEG and I-Net368 and that conditioning the award of a competitive franchise on applicants agreeing to such unreasonable demands constitutes an unreasonable refusal to award a franchise. This finding is limited to competitive applicants under Section 621(a)(1). Yet, as this issue is also germane to existing franchisees, we ask for further comment on the applicability of this and other findings in the Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking attached hereto. The FNPRM tentatively concludes that the findings in this Order should apply to cable operators that have existing franchise agreements as they negotiate renewal of those agreements with LFAs. 111. As an initial matter,we conclude that we have the authority to address issues relating to PEG and I-Net support.369 Some commenters argue that Congress explicitly granted the responsibility for PEG:and I-Net regulation to state and local govemments.370 For example, NATOA contends that we cannot limit the in-kind or monetary support that LFAs may request for PEG access, because Sections 624(a) and (b) allow an LFA to establish requirements "related to the establishment and operation of a cable system," including facilities and equipment.371 In response, Verizon claims that PEG requirements should extend only to channel capacity, and that LFAs can obtain other contributions only to the extent 363 See H.R.REP.No.98-934,at 19(1984),as reprinted in 1984 U.S.C.C.A.N.4655,4656. 364 See Cable TV Fund 14-A v. City of Naperville, 1997 WL 433628(N.D.Ill. 1997)at 13;City of Bowie,Maryland, 14 FCC Rcd.7675(Cable Service Bureau, 1999);as clarified 14 FCC Rcd 9596(Cable Services Bureau, 1999). 365 47 U.S.C.§542(g)(2)(B). 366 47 U.S.C.§541(a)(4)(B). 367 Local Franchising NPRM,20 FCC Rcd at 18590. 368 An I-Net is defined as "a communication network which is constructed or operated by the cable operator and which is generally available only to subscribers who are not residential customers."47 U.S.C. §531(f). 369 See infra Section III.B.2. 370 NATOA Comments at 35; NATOA Reply at 30-31; Hawaii Reply at 2-3; Mercatus Comments at 35; Certain Florida Municipalities Comments at 17-18;Anne Arundel et al Comments at 35;City of New York Comments at 3- 4. 371 NATOA Reply at 30(quoting 47 U.S.C. §544(b)). 51 Federal Communications Commission FCC 06-180 that they are agreed to voluntarily by the cable operator.372 Verizon also asserts that the record confirms that LFAs often demand PEG support that exceeds statutory limits.373 112. Section 611(a)of the Communications Act operates as a restriction on the authority of the franchising authority to establish channel capacity requirements for PEG. This Section provides that"[a] franchising authority may establish requirements in a franchise with respect to the designation or use of channel capacity for public, educational, or governmental use only to the extent provided in this section."374 Section 611(b) allows a franchising authority to require that"channel capacity be designated for public, educational or governmental use," but the extent of such channel capacity is not defined.375 Section 621(a)(4)(b)provides that a franchising authority may require"adequate assurance"that the cable operator will provide "adequate" PEG access channel capacity, facilities, or financial support.s376 Because the statute does not define the term"adequate,"we have the authority to interpret what Congress meant by "adequate PEG access channel capacity, facilities, and financial support," and to prohibit excessive LFA demands in this area, if necessary. We note that the legislative history does not define "adequate," nor does it provide any guidance as to what Congress meant by the term.377 We therefore conclude that"adequate"should be given its plain meaning: the term does not mean significant but rather "satisfactory or sufficient."378 As discussed above, we have also accepted the tentative conclusion of the Local Franchising NPRM that Section 621(a)(1) prohibits not only the ultimate refusal to award a competitive franchise, but also the establishment of procedures and other requirements that have the effect of unreasonably interfering with the ability of a would-be competitor to obtain a competitive franchise. Given this conclusion and our authority to interpret the term"adequate" in Section 621(a)(4), we will provide guidance as to what constitutes"adequate"PEG support under that provision as subject to the constraints of the"reasonableness"requirement in Section 621(a)(1). 113. AT&T asserts that we should shorten the period for franchise negotiations by adopting standard terms for PEG channels.379 We reject this suggestion and clarify that LFAs are free to establish their own requirements for PEG to the extent discussed herein,provided that the non-capital costs of such requirements are offset from the cable operator's franchise fee payments. This is consistent with the Act and the historic management of PEG requirements by LFAs.38° 114. Consumers for Cable Choice and Verizon argue that it is unreasonable for an LFA to request a number of PEG channels from a new entrant that is greater than the number of channels that the community is using at the time the new entrant submits its franchise application.381 We find that it is 372 Verizon Reply at 60-61. 373 Verizon Reply at 60(citing NATOA Comments). 374 47 U.S.C. §531(a). 375 47 U.S.C.§531(b). 376 47 U.S.C. § 541(a)(4)(B). 377 See See H.R.REP.No. 102-862,at 78(1992)(Conf.Rep.),as reprinted in 1992 U.S.C.C.A.N. 1231, 1260. 378 American Heritage Dictionary,Second College Edition(1991). 379 AT&T Reply at 15. 380 See 47 U.S.C.§541(a)(4)(B);Time Warner Cable of New York City v. City of New York,943 F.Supp. 1357, 1367 (S.D.N.Y 1996),aff'd sub nom. Time Warner Cable of New York City v. Bloomberg, L.P., 118 F.3d 917(2nd Cir. 1997). 381 Consumers for Cable Choice Comments at 8;Verizon Comments at 71. 52 • Federal Communications Commission FCC 06-180 unreasonable for an LFA to impose on a new entrant more burdensome PEG carriage obligations than it has imposed upon the incumbent cable operator. 115. Some commenters also asked whether certain requirements regarding construction or financial support of PEG facilities and I-Nets are unreasonable under Section 621(a)(1). Several parties indicate that, as a general matter,PEG contributions should be limited to what is"reasonable"to support "adequate"facilities.382 We agree that PEG support required by an LFA in exchange for granting a new entrant a franchise should be both adequate and reasonable, as discussed above. In addressing each of these concerns below,we seek to strike the necessary balance between the two statutory terms. 116. Ad Hoc Telecom Manufacturers argue that it is unreasonable to require the payment of ongoing costs to operate PEG channels,because a requirement is unrelated to right-of-way management, the fundamental policy rationale for an LFA's franchising authority.383 In response, Cablevision asserts that exempting incumbent LECs from PEG support requirements would undermine the key localism features of franchise requirements, and could undermine the ability of incumbent cable operators. to provide robust community access 384 We disagree with Ad Hoc Telecom Manufacturers that it is per se unreasonable for LFAs to require the payment of ongoing costs to support PEG. Such a ruling would be contrary to Section 621(a)(4)(B) and public policy. We note, however, that any:ongoing LFA-required PEG support costs are subject to the franchise fee cap,as discussed above. 117. FTTH Council, Verizon, and AT&T ask us to affirm that PEG or I-Net requirements imposed on a new entrant that are wholly duplicative of existing requirements imposed on the incumbent cable operator are per se unreasonable.385 AT&T and Verizon argue that Section 621(a)(4)(B) requires adequate facilities, not. duplicative facilities.386 FTTH Council contends that if LFAs can require duplicative facilities, they can burden new entrants with inefficient obligations without increasing the benefit to the public.387 FTTH Council thus suggests that LFAs be precluded,from imposing completely duplicative requirements,and that we require new entrants to contribute a pro rata share of the incumbent cable operator's PEG obligations. For example, if an incumbent cable operator funds a PEG studio, the new entrant should be required to contribute a pro rata share of the ongoing fmancial obligation for such studio,based on the new entrant's number of subscribers.388 118. In addition to advocating a pro rata contribution rule, FTTH Council requests that we require incumbents to permit new entrants to connect with the incumbent's pre-existing PEG channel feeds.389 FTTH Council proposes that the incumbent cable operator and new entrant decide how to accomplish this connection, with LFA involvement if necessary, and that the costs of the connection should be deducted from the new entrant's PEG-related fmancial obligations to the LFA.39° Others agree that PEG interconnection is necessary to maximize the value of local access channels when more than one 382 BellSouth Comments at 8;Verizon Comments at 71. 383 Ad Hoc Telecom Manufacturer Coalition Comments at 4. 384 Cablevision Reply at 29-30. 385 FTTH Council Comments at 66;Verizon Comments at 71;AT&T Comments at 67. 386 AT&T Comments at 67-68;Verizon Reply at 61. 387 FTTH Council Comments at 67. 3881d 389 Id 39°Id 53 Federal Communications Commission FCC 06-180 • video provider operates in a community.391 New entrants seek a pro rata contribution rule based on practical constraints as well. AT&T asserts that, although incumbent cable operators can provide space for PEG in local headend buildings, LEC new entrants' facilities are not designed to accommodate those needs. Thus, if duplicative facilities are demanded, new entrants would have to build or rent facilities solely for this purpose, which AT&T contends would be unreasonable under the statute.392 NATOA counters that AT&T's complaint regarding space mischaracterizes PEG studio requirements that exist in some franchises.393 Specifically, NATOA claims that LFAs generally are not concerned with a PEG studio's location, and that PEG studios are usually located near cable headends simply because those locations reduce the cable operators' costs?" 119. We agree with AT&T, FTTH Council, Verizon, and others that completely duplicative PEG and I-Net requirements imposed by LFAs would be unreasonable.395 Such duplication generally would be inefficient and would provide minimal additional benefits to the public,unless it was required to address an LFA's particular concern regarding redundancy needed for, for example, public safety. We clarify that an I-Net requirement is not duplicative if it would provide additional capability or functionality,beyond that provided by existing I-Net facilities. We note,however, that we would expect an LFA to consider whether a competitive franchisee can provide such additional functionality by providing financial support or actual equipment to supplement existing I-Net facilities, rather than by constructing new I-Net facilities. Finally,we find that it is unreasonable for an LFA to refuse to award a competitive franchise unless the applicant agrees to pay the face value of an I-Net that will not be constructed. Payment for I-Nets that ultimately are not constructed are unreasonable as they do not serve their intended purpose. 120. While we prefer that LFAs and new entrants negotiate reasonable PEG obligations, we find that under Section 621 it is unreasonable for an LFA to require a new entrant to provide PEG support that is in excess of the incumbent cable operator's obligations. We also agree that a pro rata cost sharing approach is one reasonable means of meeting the statutory requirement of the provision of adequate PEG facilities. To the extent that a new entrant agrees to share pro rata costs with the incumbent cable operator,such an arrangement is per se reasonable.396 391 Communications Support Group,Inc.Reply at 12. 392 AT&T Comments at 70. 393 NATOA Reply at 41-42. 394 NATOA Reply at 42. 395 If a new entrant, for technical, financial, or other reasons, is unable to interconnect with the incumbent cable operator's facilities,it would not be unreasonable for an LFA to require the new entrant to assume the responsibility of providing comparable facilities,subject to the limitations discussed herein. 396 To determine a new entrant's per se reasonable PEG support payment, the new entrant should determine the incumbent cable operator's per subscriber payment at the time the competitive applicant applies for a franchise or submits its informational filing,and then calculate the proportionate fee based on its subscriber base. A new entrant may agree to provide PEG support over and above the incumbent cable operator's existing obligations, but such support is at the entrant's discretion. If the new entrant agrees to share the pro rata costs with the incumbent cable operator,the PEG prod ramming provider,be it the incumbent cable operator,the LFA,or a third-party programmer, must allow the new entrant to interconnect with the existing PEG feeds. The costs of such interconnection should be borne by the new entrant. We note that we previously have required cost-sharing and interconnection for PEG channels and facilities in another context. Section 75.1505(d)of the Commission's rules requires that if an LFA and OVS operator cannot reach an agreement on the OVS operator's PEG obligations,the operator is required to match the incumbent cable operator's PEG obligations and the incumbent cable operator is required to permit the OVS (continued...) 54 Federal Communications Commission FCC 06-180 5. Regulation of Mixed-Use Networks 121. We clarify that LFAs' jurisdiction applies only to the provision of cable services over cable systems. To the extent a cable operator provides non-cable services and/or operates facilities that do not qualify as a cable system, it is unreasonable for an LFA to refuse to award a franchise based on issues related to such services or facilities. For example,we find it unreasonable for an LFA to refuse to grant a cable franchise to an applicant for resisting an LFA's demands for regulatory control over non- cable services or facilities.397 Similarly, an LFA has no authority to insist on an entity obtaining a separate cable franchise in order to upgrade non-cable facilities. For example, assuming an entity(e.g.,a LEC)already possesses authority to access the public rights-of-way,an LFA may not require the LEC to obtain a franchise solely for the purpose of upgrading its network.398 So long as there is a non-cable purpose associated with the network upgrade, the LEC is not required to obtain a franchise until and unless it proposes to offer cable services. For example, if a LEC deploys fiber optic cable that can be used for cable and non-cable services, this deployment alone does not trigger the obligation to obtain a cable franchise. The same is true for boxes housing infrastructure to be used for cable and non-cable services. 122. We further clarify that an LFA may not use its video franchising authority to attempt to regulate a LEC's entire network beyond the provision of cable services. We agree with Verizon that the "entirety of a telecommunications/data network is not automatically converted to a `cable system' once subscribers start receiving video programming."399 For instance, we find that the provision of video services pursuant to a cable franchise does not provide a basis for customer service regulation by local law or franchise agreement of a cable operator's entire network, or any services beyond cable services400 Local regulations that attempt to regulate any non-cable services offered by video providers are preempted because such regulation is beyond the scope of local franchising authority and is inconsistent with the definition of "cable system" in Section 602(7)(C)401 This provision explicitly states that a common carrier facility subject to Title II is considered a cable system"to the extent such facility is used in the transmission of video programming. . . .s402 As discussed above,revenues from non-cable services are not included in the base for calculation of franchise fees. 123. In response to requests that we address LFA authority to regulate"interactive on-demand services,"403 we note that Section 602(7)(C) excludes from the definition of"cable system"a facility of a common carrier that is used solely to provide interactive on-demand services404 "Interactive on-demand services" are defined as "service[s]providing video programming to subscribers over switched networks on an on-demand, point-to-point basis, but does not include services providing video programming (Continued from previous page) operator to connect with the existing PEG feeds, with such costs borne by the OVS operator. 47 C.F.R. § 76.1505(d). 397 Verizon Comments at 75. 398 See Verizon Comments at 21. See also South Slope Comments at 11;NCTA Comments at 12. 399 Verizon Comments at 83. 400 Verizon Comments at 75. 4°'47 U.S.C.§522(7)(C). See also Verizon Comments at 82-87. 402 47 U.S.C.§522(7)(C). 403 See BellSouth at 42;NATOA Reply at 27-28. 404 47 U.S.C.§522(7)(C). 55 Federal Communications Commission FCC 06-180 • prescheduled by the programming provider.s405 We do not address at this time what particular services may fall within the definition. 124. We note that this discussion does not address the regulatory classification of any particular video services being offered. We do not address in this Order whether video services provided over Internet Protocol are or are not"cable services."' D. Preemption of Local Laws,Regulations and Requirements 125. Having established rules and guidance to implement Section 621(a)(1), we turn now to the question of local laws that may be inconsistent with our decision today. Because the rules we adopt represent a reasonable interpretation of relevant provisions in Title VI as well as a reasonable accommodation of the various policy interests that Congress entrusted to the Commission, they have preemptive effect pursuant to Section 636(c). Alternatively, local laws are impliedly preempted to the extent that they conflict with this Order or stand as an obstacle to the accomplishment and execution of the full purposes and objectives of Congress.407 126. At that outset of this discussion, it is important to reiterate that we do not preempt state law or state level franchising decisions in this Order.408 Instead,we preempt only local laws,regulations, practices, and requirements to the extent that: (1) provisions in those laws, regulations, practices, and agreements conflict with the rules or guidance adopted in this Order; and (2) such provisions are not specifically authorized by state law. As noted above,409 we conclude that the record before us does not provide sufficient information to make determinations with respect to franchising decisions where a state .is involved, issuing franchises at the state level or enacting laws governing specific aspects of the franchising process. We expressly limit our findings and regulations in this Order to actions or inactions at the local level where a state has not circumscribed the LFA's authority. For example, in light of differences between the scope of franchises issued at the state level and those issued at the local level, it may be necessary to use different criteria for determining what may be unreasonable with respect to the key franchising issues addressed herein. We also recognize that many states only recently have enacted comprehensive franchise reform laws designed to facilitate competitive entry. In light of these facts, we lack a sufficient record to evaluate whether and how such state laws may lead to unreasonable refusals to award additional competitive franchises. 127. Section 636(c) of the Communications Act provides that "any provision of law of any State, political subdivision, or agency thereof, or franchising authority, or any provision of any franchise granted by such authority, which is inconsistent with this Act shall be deemed to be preempted and superseded.s410 In the Local Franchising NPRM,the Commission tentatively concluded that,pursuant to the authority granted under Sections 621 and 636(c),and under the Supremacy Clause,411 the Commission 405 47 U.S.C. §522(12). 4°6 See IP-Enabled Services, 19 FCC Rcd 4863 (2004); Petition of SBC Communications Inc. for a Declaratory Ruling, WC Docket No. 04-36 (filed Feb. 5, 2004); Letter from James C. Smith, Senior Vice President, SBC Services Inc.,to Marlene H.Dortch,Secretary,Federal Communications Commission,WC Docket No.04-36(filed Sept. 14,2005). 4°7 Florida Lime and Avocado Growers v.Paul,373 U.S. 132, 142-43(1963). 408 See supra not 2. 409 Id. 41°47 U.S.C.§556(c). 411 U.S.Const.,Art.VI,c1.2. 56 Federal Communications Commission FCC 06-180 may deem to be preempted any state or local law that stands as an obstacle to the accomplishment and execution of the full purposes and objectives of Title VI.412 For example, we may deem preempted any local law that causes an unreasonable refusal to award a competitive franchise in violation of Section 621(a)(1).413 Accordingly, the Commission sought comment on whether it would be appropriate to preempt state and local legislation to the extent we fmd that it serves as an unreasonable barrier to the grant of competitive franchises. 128. The doctrine of federal preemption arises from the Supremacy Clause, which provides that federal law is the "supreme Law of the Land."414 Preemption analysis requires a statute-specific inquiry. There are various avenues by which state law may be superseded,by federal law. We focus on the two which are most relevant here. First, preemption can occur where Congress expressly preempts state law.415 When a federal statute contains an express preemption provision, the preemption analysis consists of identifying the scope of the subject matter expressly preempted and determining if a state's law falls within its scope.416 Second, preemption can be implied and can occur where federal law conflicts with state law.417 Courts have found implied"conflict preemption"where compliance with both state and federal law is impossible or where state law"stands as an obstacle to the accomplishment and execution of the full purposes and objectives of Congress.°418 129. Applying these principles to this proceeding, we find that local franchising laws, regulations, and agreements are preempted to the extent they conflict with the rules we adopt in this Order. Section 636(c) expressly preempts state and local laws that are inconsistent with the Communications Act 419 This provision precludes states and localities from acting in a manner inconsistent with the Commission's interpretations of Title VI so long as those interpretations are valid.42o It is the Commission's job, in the first instance, to determine the scope of the subject matter expressly preempted by Section 636.421 As noted elsewhere, we adopt the rules in this Order pursuant to our interpretation of Section 621(a)(1)and other relevant Title VI provisions in light of the twin congressional goals of promoting competition in the multichannel video marketplace and promoting broadband deployment.422 These rules represent a reasonable interpretation of relevant provisions in Title VI as well as a reasonable accommodation of the various policy interests that Congress entrusted to the Commission. They therefore have preemptive effect pursuant to Section 636(c). 412 Local Franchising NPRM,20 FCC Rcd at 18589. 413 Id 414 U.S.Coast.Art.VI,cl.2. See also Hillsborough County,Florida v.Automated Med.Labs.,Inc.,471 U.S.707, 712-13(1985). 415 Cipollone V.Liggett Group,Inc.,505 U.S.504,517(1992). 416 Id.at 517. 417 Florida Lime and Avocado Growers,373 U.S.at 142-43. 418 Id. 419 47 U.S.C. §556(c). 420 See, e.g., Liberty Cablevision of Puerto Rico, Inc. v. Municipality of Caguas, 417 F.3d 216 (1st Cir. 2005) (fmding municipal ordinances that imposed franchise fees on cable operators were preempted under Section 636(c) where inconsistent with Section 622 of the Communications Act). 421 See Cipollone,505 U.S.at 517;Capital Cities Cable,467 U.S.691,699(1984). 422 See supra paras.2-4,61-64. 57 Federal Communications Commission FCC 06-180 • 130. Alternatively, we find that such local laws, regulations, and agreements are impliedly preempted to the extent that they conflict with this Order or stand as an obstacle to the accomplishment and execution of the full purposes and objectives of Congress423 Among the stated purposes of Title VI is to (1) "establish a national policy concerning cable communications," (2)"establish franchise procedures and standards which encourage the growth and development of cable systems and which assure that cable systems are responsive to the needs and interests of the local community," and (3) "promote competition in cable communications and minimize unnecessary regulation that would impose an undue economic burden on cable systems.s424 The legislative history to both the 1984 and 1992 Cable Acts identifies a national policy of encouraging competition in the multichannel video marketplace and recognizes the national implications that the local franchising process can have on that policy.425 The national policy of promoting a competitive multichannel video marketplace has been repeatedly reemphasized by Congress, the Commission, and the courts426 The record here shows that the current operation of the franchising process at the local level conflicts with this national multichannel video policy by imposing substantial delays on competitive entry and requiring unduly burdensome conditions that deter entry.427 And to the extent that local requirements result in LFAs unreasonably refusing to award competitive franchises, such mandates frustrate the policy goals underlying Title VI. The rules we adopt today, e.g., limits on the time period for LFA action on competitive franchise applications,428 limits on LFA's ability to impose build-out requirements,429 and limits on LFA collection of franchise fees,43° 423 Florida Lime and Avocado Growers,373 U.S.at 142-43. 424 47 U.S.C. §521 (1),(2)&(6). 425 See H.R. REP.No. 98-934,at 19(1984),as reprinted in 1984 U.S.C.C.A.N.4655,4656; S.REP.No. 97-518,at 14(1982)("free and open competition in the marketplace"and the"elimination and prevention of artificial barriers to entry"are essential to the growth and development of the cable industry);H.R.REP.No. 102-862,at 77-78(1992) (Conf.Rep.),as reprinted in 1992 U.S.C.C.A.N. 1231, 1259-60. 426 See, e.g., 47 U.S.C. § 521(6) (stating that one of the purposes of Title VI is"to promote competition in cable communications");FCC v.Beach Communications,Inc., 508 U.S.307,309(1993)(recognizing"[o]ne objective of the Cable Act was to set out `franchise procedures and standards which encourage the growth and development of cable systems and which assure that cable systems are responsive to the needs and interests of the local community."'(citing 47 U.S.C.§521(2))). 427 See, e.g., AT&T Reply at 6-7 ("today's standardless franchising process, and the anticompetitive substantive conditions demanded of new entrants by many LFAs ... not only delay entry, but often prevent it altogether"); AT&T Comments at 43 (listing several conditions commonly imposed in the local franchising process that raise the cost of entry, deter broadband investment, and deny consumers the benefits of competition and choice); Verizon Comments at iv-vi(the franchising process is often marked by inordinate delay and is often used by many LFAs"as an opportunity to demand all manner of additional concessions,mostly unrelated to the provision of video services or the underlying purposes of franchise requirements, from the would-be competitor"); TIA Comments at 7-15 (many LFAs unreasonably delay the grant of competitive franchises and demand excessive concessions from potential entrants);USTA Comments at 19-20("The single biggest obstacle to widespread competition in the video service market is the requirement that a provider obtain an individually negotiated local franchise in each area where it intends to provide service"); FTTH Council Comments at 59-60 ("the franchising process as implemented by numerous LFAs across the country continues to suffer from numerous flaws that frustrate the twin Congressional objectives of promoting cable competition and fostering deployment of advanced services to all Americans"); Alcatel Comments at 19("[t]he regulatory obstacle of thousands of local video franchises potentially wielding their authority to adopt unreasonable requirements will invariably impede deployment by competitors and negatively impact investment in advanced technologies and services"). 428 See supra Section III.C.1. 429 See supra Section III.C.2. 430 See supra Section III.C.3. 58 • • Federal Communications Commission FCC 06-180 are designed to ensure efficiency and fairness in the local franchising process and to provide certainty to prospective marketplace participants. This, in turn, will allow us to effectuate Congress' twin goals of promoting cable competition and minimizing unnecessary and unduly burdensome regulation on cable systems. Thus, not only are Section 636(c)'s requirements for preemption satisfied, but preemption in these circumstances is proper pursuant to the Commission's judicially recognized ability, when acting pursuant to its delegated authority, to preempt local regulations that conflict with or stand as an obstacle to the accomplishment of federal objectives.4 1 131. We reject the claim by incumbent cable operators and franchising authorities that the Commission lacks authority to preempt local requirements because Congress has not explicitly granted the Commission the authority to preempt 432 These commenters suggest that because the Commission seeks to preempt a power traditionally exercised by a state or local government(i.e., local franchising), under the Fifth Circuit's decision in City of Dallas,433 the Commission can only preempt where it is given express statutory authority to do so.43t However, this argument ignores the plain language of Section 636(c),which states that"any provision of law of any State,political subdivision, or agency therefore,or franchising authority ... which is inconsistent with this chapter shall be deemed to be preempted and superseded."435 .Moreover, Section 621 expressly limits the authority of franchising authorities by prohibiting exclusive franchises and unreasonable refusals to award additional competitive franchises.436 Congress could not have stated its intent to limit local franchising authority more clearly. These provisions therefore satisfy any express preemption requirement!" 132. Furthermore, as long as the Commission acts within the scope of its delegated authority in adopting rules that implement Title VI, including the prohibition of Section 621(a)(1), its rules have preemptive effect.43s Courts assess whether an agency acted within the scope of its authority "without any presumption one way or the other";there is no presumption against preemption in this context.439 As noted above, Congress charged the Commission with the task of administering the Communications Act, 431 See, e.g.,Louisiana Public Service Commission v.FCC,476 U.S.355,369(1986). 432 See Comcast Comments at 36-37;Comcast Reply at 35-37;Bumsville/Eagan Comments at 35-36. 433 City of Dallas, 165 F.3d at 341. 434 See Comcast Comments at 37;Comcast Reply at 36;Bumsville/Eagan Comments at 35-36. 438 47 U.S.C. §556(c). 436 47 U.S.C.§541(a)(1). 437 See Liberty Cablevision of Puerto Rico v. Municipality of Caguas, 417 F.3d 216, 221 (1st Cir. 2005) (Section 636(c)makes clear that Congress"unmistakably"intended to preempt state and local franchising decisions that are inconsistent with the Act, including Section 621); Qwest Broadband Services, Inc. v. City of Boulder, 151 F. Supp. 2d. 1236, 1243 (D.Colo. 2001)(a franchise provision in the Boulder, Colorado charter was preempted by Section 621(a)(1)because it conflicted directly with that provision's mandate that the"franchising authority"be responsible for granting the franchise). 438 See City of New York v.FCC,486 U.S.57,64(1988)("statutorily authorized regulations of an agency will pre- empt any state or local law that conflicts with such regulations or frustrates the purposes thereof');Louisiana Public Serv. Comm.,476 U.S. at 369("a federal agency acting within the scope of its congressionally delegated authority may pre-empt state regulation"); Capital Cities Cable, Inc. v. Crisp, 467 U.S. 691, 699 (1984) (when a federal agency promulgates regulations intended to preempt state law, courts uphold preemption as long as the agency's choice"represents a reasonable accommodation of conflicting policies that were committed to the agency's care by the statute");Fidelity Federal Savings&Loan Ass 458 U.S.at 153("Federal regulations have no less pre-emptive effect than federal statutes"). 439 New York v.FERC,535 U.S. 1, 18(2002). 59 Federal Communications Commission FCC 06-180 • including Title VI, and the Commission has clear authority to adopt rules implementing provisions such as Section 621.440 Consequently,our rules preempt any contrary local regulations.44' 133. We also fmd no merit in incumbent cable operators' and local franchising authorities' argument that the scope of the Commission's preemption authority under Section 636(c)is limited by the terms of Section 636(a)of the Act.442 Section 636(a)provides that nothing in Title VI"shall be construed to affect any authority of any State, political subdivision, or agency thereof, or franchising authority, regarding matters of public health,safety,and welfare,to the extent consistent with the express provisions of this title."443 The very reason for preemption in these circumstances is that many local franchising laws and practices are at odds with the express provisions of Title VI, as interpreted in this Order. Consequently, Section 636(a) presents no obstacle to preemption here. We therefore need not decide whether the state and local laws at issue relate to"matters of public health,safety,and welfare"within the meaning of Section 636(a). 134. We also reject the franchising authorities' argument that any attempt to preempt lawful local government control of public rights-of-way by interfering with local franchising requirements, procedures and processes could constitute an unconstitutional taking under the Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution.444 The "takings" clause of the Fifth Amendment provides: "[N]or shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."TM5 We conclude that our actions here do not run afoul of the Fifth Amendment for several reasons. To begin with, our actions do not result in a Fifth Amendment taking. Courts have held that municipalities generally do not have a compensable "ownership" interest in public rights-of-way,446 but rather hold the public streets and sidewalks in trust for the public 447 As one court explained, "municipalities generally possess no rights to profit from their streets unless specifically authorized by the state."448 Also, we note that 44°See supra paras.53-64. .441 See Fidelity Federal Savings&Loan Assn. v.De la Cuesta,458 U.S. 141, 153-58(1982); City of New York, 486 U.S.at 64. See also AT&T Comments at 41-42. 442 See Comcast Comments at 39(citing 47 U.S.C. § 556(a)). See also Florida Municipalities Comments at 18-19 (the Cable Act provides for limited preemption of local regulatory efforts in certain specific areas,none of which cover competitive franchises). Commenters further point to the legislative history for Section 636(a),which noted that a state may "exercise authority over the whole range of cable activities, such as negotiations with cable operators; consumer protection; construction requirements; rate regulation or deregulation; the assessment of financial qualifications;the provision of technical assistance with respect to cable;and other franchise-related issues —as long as the exercise of that authority is consistent with Title VI." See Comcast Comments at 39-40(citing H.R. REP.No.98-934,at 94(1984),as reprinted in 1984 U.S.C.C.A.N.4655,4731). 443 47 U.S.C.§556(a)(emphasis added). 444 See Texas Coalition of Cities Comments at 29-35;Bumsville/Eagan Comments at 38. Bumsville/Eagan further argues that Fifth Amendment concerns would arise if the Commission were to interfere with the terms under which a competitive franchise is granted,thereby forcing modifications to existing cable franchises,pursuant to state and local level-playing-field requirements,thus depriving LFAs of lawful and reasonable compensation they negotiated with the incumbent cable operators for the use of public rights-of-way. 445 U.S.Const.Amend.V. 446 See Liberty Cablevision, 417 F.3d at 222. "7 See New Jersey Payphone Ass Inc. v. Town of West New York, 130 F.Supp.2d 631,638(D.N.J.2001);see also Liberty Cablevision, 417 F.3d at 222 (recognizing that it is "'a mistake to suppose ... [that] the city is constitutionally and necessarily entitled to compensation"'for use of the city streets). 448 See Liberty Cablevision,417 F.3d at 222. • 60 Federal Communications Commission FCC 06-180 telecommunications carriers that seek to offer video service already have an independent right under state law to occupy rights-of-way.149 States have granted franchises to telecommunications carriers, pursuant to which the carriers lawfully occupy public rights-of-way for the purpose of providing telecommunications service 45o Because all municipal power is derived from the state,451 courts have held that"a state can take public rights-of-way without compensating the municipality within which they are located."452 Given the municipality is not entitled to compensation when its interest in the streets are taken pursuant to state law, it is difficult to see how the transmission of additional video signals along those same lines results in any physical occupation of public rights-of-way beyond that already permitted by the states.453 135. Moreover, even if there was a taking, Congress provided for"just compensation"to the local franchising authorities.454 Section 622(h)(2) of the Act provides that a local franchising authority may recover a franchise fee of up to 5 percent of a cable operator's annual gross revenue.455 Congress enacted the cable franchise fee as the consideration given in exchange for the right to use the public ways.456 The implementing regulations we adopt today do not eviscerate the ability of local authorities to impose a franchise fee. Rather, our actions here simply ensure that the local franchising authority does not impose an excessive fee or other unreasonable costs in violation of the express statutory provisions and policy goals encompassed in Title VI.457 136. Finally,LFAs maintain that the Commission's preemption of local governmental powers offends the Tenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.458 The Tenth Amendment provides that "[t]he powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.s459 In support of their position, commenters argue 449 See Verizon Reply at 25. 45o See Verizon Reply at 25;South Slope Comments at 10-11;NCTA Comments at 12. 451 See St.Louis v. Western Union Telegraph Co., 149 U.S.465,467(1893);Liberty Cablevision,417 F.3d at 221. 452 See City&County of Denver, 18 P.3d 748,761 (Colo.2001). 453 See Verizon Reply at 25-26. See also C/R TY, Inc. v. Shannondale, Inc., 27 F.3d 104, 109 (4th Cir. 1994) (reasoning that the transmission of cable television signals"would not impose an additional burden on[a]servient estate"on which telephone poles,power lines,and telephone wires had previously been installed). 454 See U.S. v.Riverside Bayview Homes, 474 U.S. 121, 128(1985)(the Fifth Amendment does not prohibit takings, only uncompensated ones). Because we find that the statute provides just compensation, we need not address whether the takings clause of the Fifth Amendment encompasses the property interests of state and local governments in the same way that it applies to the property interests of private persons. 45547 U.S.C.§542(h)(2). 456 In passing the 1984 Cable Act,Congress recognized local government's entitlement to"assess the cable operator a fee for the operator's use of public ways,"and established"the authority of a city to collect a franchise fee of up to 5 percent of an operator's annual gross revenues." H.R. REP. No. 98-934, at 26 (1984), as reprinted in 1984 U.S.C.C.A.N.4655,4663. 457 For the reasons stated above,we need not reach the issue of whether a"taking"has occurred with respect to a competitive applicant providing cable service over the same network it uses to provide telephone service,for which it is already authorized by the local government to use the public rights-of-way. 458 See Michigan Municipal League Comments at 24("[a]ny action by the Commission to mandate the granting of a franchise directly or by means of state actions in favor of any party over the objection of the local franchising authority offends the Tenth Amendment of the U.S.Constitution");Anne Arundel County Comments at 50(same). 459 U.S.Const.Amend.X. 61 Federal Communications Commission FCC 06-180 • that the Commission is improperly attempting to override local government's duty to "maximize the value of local property for the greater good" by imposing a federal regulatory scheme onto the states and/or local governments 46° Contrary to the local franchising authorities'.claim, however, they have failed to demonstrate any violation of the Tenth Amendment. ' "If a power is delegated to Congress in the Constitution, the Tenth Amendment expressly disclaims any reservation of that power to the States."462 Thus, when Congress acts within the scope of its authority under the Commerce Clause, no Tenth Amendment issue arises.463 Regulation of cable services is well within Congress' authority under the Commerce Clause 464 Thus, because our authority in this area derives from a proper exercise of congressional power, the Tenth Amendment poses no obstacle to our preemption of state and local franchise law or practices.465 Likewise, there is no merit to LFA commenters' suggestion that Commission regulation of the franchising process would constitute an improper "commandeering" of state governmental power.4G6 The Supreme Court has recognized that"where Congress has the authority to regulate private activity under the Commerce Clause," Congress has the "power to offer States the choice of regulating that activity according to federal standards or having state law preempted by federal regulation.s467 And here,we are simply requiring local franchising authorities to exercise their regulatory authority according to federal standards, or else local requirements will be preempted. For all of these reasons,our actions today do not offend the Tenth Amendment. 137. We do not purport to identify every local requirement that this Order preempts. Rather, in accordance with Section 636(c), we merely fmd that local laws, regulations and, agreements are preempted to the extent they conflict with this Order and the rules adopted herein. For example, local laws would be preempted if they: (1) authorize a local franchising authority to take longer than 90 days to act on a competitive franchise application concerning entities with existing authority to access public rights-of-way, and six months concerning entities that do not have authority to access public rights-of- way;468 (2) allow an LFA to impose unreasonable build-out requirements on competitive franchise applicants;469 or(3) authorize or require a local franchising authority to collect franchise fees in excess of the fees authorized by law.47° 138. One specific example of the type of local laws that this Order preempts are so-called "level-playing-field" requirements that have been adopted by a number of local authorities.471 We fmd 46°See Michigan Municipal League Comments at 25;Anne Arundel County Comments at 51. 461 See Verizon Reply at 27-29. 462 See New York v. U.S., 505 U.S. 144, 156(1992). 463 See id.at 157-58. 464 See Crisp,467 U.S.at 700-701 (holding that cable services are interstate services). 465 See Qwest Broadband Services, Inc. v. City of Boulder, 151 F.Supp.2d 1236, 1245 ("the inquiries under the Commerce Clause and the Tenth Amendment are mirror images,and a holding that a Congressional enactment does not violate the Commerce Clause is dispositive of a Tenth Amendment challenge)(citing United States v.Baer, 235 F.3d 561,563 n.6(10th Cir.2000). See also Verizon Reply at 28. 466 See Michigan Municipal League Comments at 25;Anne Arundel County Comments at 51. 467 See New York v. U.S., 505 U.S.at 167. 468 See supra at Se^tion III.C.1. 469 See supra at Section III.C.2. 470 See supra at Section III.C.3. 471 See, e.g., GMTC Comments at 15. 62 Federal Communications Commission FCC 06-180 that these mandates unreasonably impede competitive entry into the multichannel video marketplace by requiring LFAs to grant franchises to competitors on substantially the same terms imposed on the incumbent cable operators.472 As an initial matter,just because an incumbent cable operator may agree to franchise terms that are inconsistent with provisions in Title VI, LFAs may not require new entrants to agree to such unlawful terms pursuant to level-playing-field mandates because any such requirement would conflict with Title VI. Moreover, the record demonstrates that aside from this specific scenario, level-playing-field mandates imposed at the local level deter competition in a more fundamental manner. The record indicates that in today's market, new entrants face "steep economic challenges" in an "industry characterized by large fixed and sunk costs," without the resulting benefits incumbent cable operators enjoyed for years as monopolists in the video services marketplace.473 According to commenters, "a competitive video provider who enters the market today is in a fundamentally different situation"from that of the incumbent cable operator:"[w]hen incumbents installed their systems,they had a captive market,"whereas new entrants"have to 'win' every customer from the incumbent"and thus do not have "anywhere near the number of subscribers over which to spread the costs.s474 Commenters explain that "unlike the incumbents who were able to pay for any of the concessions that they grant an LFA out of the supra-competitive revenue from their on-going operations,""new entrants have no assured market position.' 75 Based on the record before us, we thus find that an LFAs refusal to award an additional competitive franchise unless the competitive applicant meets substantially all the terms and 472 See FTTH Council Comments at 28-31 ("there is substantial evidence that level playing field requirements have harmed new entrants or simply scared off applicants in the first place");Verizon Comments at 76-80(level-playing- field provisions are"protectionist requirements"for the benefit of the incumbent cable operator and are often cited as a basis for imposing all manner of additional costs and obligations, many of which are unreasonable and/or unlawful, on a would-be new entrant into the market); USTA Reply at 23-26, 32-34 (level-playing-field laws intrinsically limit the ability of LFAs to award franchises); see also, GAO Report, Wire Based Competition Benefited Consumers in Selected Markets (Feb. 2004), GAO-04-241 Report at 21 (noting that one local official indicated that the level-playing-field law in his state was a factor in an interested competitive cable company's retracting a cable application); BSPA Comments at 4-5 (level-playing-field statutes are a superficial appeal to fairness that masks the real intent to protect the incumbent's market position,and such requirements delay or limit the growth of competition by negatively impacting the availability or use of capital);Letter from Lawrence Spiwak, President,Phoenix Ctr. For Advanced Legal and Econ. Pub. Policy Studies,to Marlene Dortch, Secretary,Federal Communications Commission at Attachment, Phoenix Center Policy Paper Number 21: Competition After Unbundling: Entry, Industry Structure and Convergence, 37 ("presence of a `first mover' advantage means that requiring a new entrant to bear an entry cost simply because the incumbent cable operator has already borne it will have the effect of deterring entry substantially, even if such costs did not deter the incumbent cable operator from offering service")(March 13,2006)("Phoenix Center Competition Paper");DOJ Ex Parte at 16. But see Comcast Comments at 40(maintaining that state level-playing-field statutes are a legitimate and well-established exercise of state and local regulatory authority and are not inconsistent with the Communications Act);NATOA Reply at 43-44 (maintaining that there is little or no evidence to suggest that state level-playing-field laws have had anywhere near the draconian effect on the granting of competitive franchises as the telephone industry alleges). 473 See USTA Reply at 24. See also, Verizon Reply at 65 ("In exchange for the costs they incurred to enter the market, the incumbent cable operators generally received exclusive franchises and enjoyed all of the benefits of being monopoly providers for years, often decades."); Mercatus Comments at 40 ("while a second cable operator will have to make the same unrecoverable investment previously made by the incumbent,it will not have the benefit of a monopoly over which to amortize it");FTTH Council Comments at 3("New entrants are highly unlikely to ever obtain and enjoy the fruits of market power. Consequently,the burdens of the pre-existing franchising process from the perspective of these new entrants are not offset by the benefits that the monopolists enjoyed."). 474 See FTTH Council Comments at 30(quoting Andy Sarwal Declaration,para.7);Verizon Comments at 77(new entrants"[face]ubiquitous competition from strong and entrenched competitors,which in turn leads to lower market share and lower profit margins"). 475 See Verizon Reply at 65. See also USTA Reply at 24. 63 Federal Communications Commission FCC 06-180 conditions imposed on the incumbent cable operator may be unreasonable, and inconsistent with the "unreasonable refusal" prohibition of Section 621(a)(1). Accordingly, to the extent a locally-mandated level-playing-field requirement is inconsistent with the rules, guidance, and findings adopted in this Order, such requirement is deemed preempted.476 IV. FURTHER NOTICE OF PROPOSED RULEMAKING 139. As discussed above, this proceeding is limited to competitive applicants under Section 621(a)(1).477 Yet, some of the decisions in this Order also appear germane to existing franchisees. We asked in the Local Franchising NPRM whether current procedures and requirements were appropriate for any cable operator, including existing operators 478 NCTA argues that if the Commission establishes franchising relief for new entrants, we should do the same for incumbent cable operators because imposing similar franchising requirements on new entrants and incumbent cable operators promotes competition.479 Somewhat analogously,the BSPA argues that any new franchise regulatory relief should extend to all current competitive operators and new entrants equally; otherwise, the inequities would effectively penalize existing competitive franchisees simply because they were the first to risk competition with the incumbent cable operator.48° The record does not indicate any opposition by new entrants to the idea that any relief afforded them also be afforded to incumbent cable operators.' ' Some incumbent cable operators discussed the potential impact of Commission action under Section 621 on incumbent cable operators. For example, Charter argues that granting competitive cable providers entry free from local franchise requirements would affect Charter's ability to satisfy its existing obligations; funds that Charter might use to respond to competition by investing in new facilities and services would instead be tied up in franchise obligations not imposed on Charter's competitors,which would undermine the company's investment and render its franchise obligations commercially impracticable482 AT&T 476 We also find troubling the record evidence that suggests incumbent cable operators use "level-playing-field" requirements to frustrate negotiations between LFAs and competitive providers, causing delay and preventing competitive entry. See, e.g., Letter from John Goodman, Broadband Service Providers Association, to Marlene Dortch, Secretary, Federal Communications Commission (March 3, 2006) (explaining that the incumbent cable operator used level-playing-field requirements to bring litigation against the LFA which delayed the negotiation process and made entry so expensive that it no longer became feasible for the new entrant);Texas Coalition of Cities Comments at 13 ("Most delays in competitive franchise negotiations result from the incumbent cable provider's demands that competitive providers' franchises contain virtually identical terms."); Verizon Reply at 65-66 ("incumbents' over-eagerness to support these anticompetitive requirements further evidences the need for the Commission to remove this roadblock to competition"). 477 See supra paras. 1, 113. 478 Local Franchising NPRM,20 FCC Rcd at 18588. 479 NCTA Comments at 13 (quoting Appropriate Framework for Broadband Access to the Internet Over Wireline Facilities,20 FCC Rcd 14853, 14855-56, 14864-65(2005)"[T]reating like services alike promotes competition"by allowing the market to determine the better operator rather than providing one operator "artificial regulatory advantages"). See also Cox Reply at 2-4. 48°BSPA Comments at 2-3. "'See, e.g.,BSPA Col iments at 2-3(any new regulatory relief in franchising should apply to all current competitive operators and potential new entrants). But see FTTH Council Comments at 24 (new entrants are not treated more favorably than incumbents when they are burdened with the same requirements as incumbents but do not have the same market power). 482 Charter Comments at 3-4. 64 Federal Communications Commission FCC 06-180 argues that competition will not harm incumbent cable operators: cable has handled the competition that DBS presents, and analysts predict that the new wave of competition will not put them out of business 483 140. We tentatively conclude that the fmdings in this Order should apply to cable operators that have existing franchise agreements as they negotiate renewal of those agreements with LFAs. We note that Section 611(a) states "A franchising authority may establish requirements in a franchise with respect to the designation or use of channel capacity for public, educational, or governmental use" and Section 622(a) provides "any cable operator may be required under the terms of any franchise to pay a franchise fee." These statutory provisions do not distinguish between incumbents and new entrants or franchises issued to incumbents versus franchises issued to new entrants. We seek comment on our tentative conclusion: We also seek comment on our authority to implement this finding. We also seek comment on what effect, if any, the findings in this Order have on most favored nation clauses that may be included in existing franchises. The Commission will conclude this rulemaking and release an order no later than six months after release of this Order. 141. In the Local Franchising NPRM, we also sought comment on whether customer service requirements should vary greatly from jurisdiction to jurisdiction.484 In response, AT&T urges us to adopt rules to prevent LFAs from imposing various data collection and related requirements in exchange for a franchise.485 AT&T claims that LFAs have imposed obligations that franchisees collect,track, and report customer service performance data for individual franchise areas486 AT&T states that it operates its call centers and systems on a region-wide basis, and that it is not currently possible or economically feasible for AT&T to comply with the various local customer service requirements on a franchise by franchise basis487 AT&T also asks us to affirm that LFAs may not, absent the franchise applicant's consent,impose any local service quality standards that go beyond the requirements of duly enacted laws and ordinances.488 Verizon indicates that some localities have conditioned the grant of a franchise upon the submission of Verizon's data services to local customer service regulation.489 • 142. NATOA opposes AT&T's request for relief from local customer service standards, and argues that the Act and the Commission's rules explicitly provide for local customer service regulation!" Specifically, NATOA asserts that Section 632(d)(2) of the Cable Act allows for the establishment and enforcement of local customer service laws that go beyond the federal standards 491 Other parties assert that customer service regulation is necessary to ensure that consumers have regulatory relief.492 483 AT&T Reply at 5.' 484 Local Franchising NPRM,20 FCC Rcd at 18588. 485 AT&T Comments at 72-73. 486 Id. 487 Id. As discussed in Section III.C.2 above, AT&T's existing call center regions do not mirror local franchise areas. One region can encompass multiple franchise areas, and impose a multitude of regulations upon a new entrant. 488 AT&T Comments at 73. 489 Verizon Comments at 75. 49°NATOA Reply at 4041. See also New York City Comments at 3(citing 47 U.S.C.§552). 491 47 U.S.C.§552(d)(2). Accord 47 C.F.R. §76.309(b)(4). 492 See, e.g., Alliance for Public Technology Comments at 2-3;American Association of People with Disabilities at 2;Cavalier Comments at 6. 65 Federal Communications Commission FCC 06-180 • 143. Section 632(d)(2)states that: [n]othing in this Section shall be construed to preclude a franchising authority and a cable operator from agreeing to customer service requirements that exceed the standards established by the Commission . . . . Nothing in this Title shall be construed to prevent the establishment and enforcement of any municipal law or regulation, or any State law, concerning customer service that imposes customer service requirements that exceed the standards set by the Commission under this section, or that addresses matters not addressed by the standards set by the Commission under this section.493 Given this explicit statutory language, we tentatively conclude that we cannot preempt state or local customer service laws that exceed the Commission's standards, nor can we prevent LFAs and cable operators from agreeing to more stringent standards. We seek comment on this tentative conclusion. V. PROCEDURAL MATTERS 144. Ex Parte Rules. This is a permit-but-disclose notice and comment rulemaking proceeding. Ex Parte presentations are permitted, except during the Sunshine Agenda period, provided that they are disclosed as provided in the Commission's rules. See generally 47 C.F.R. §§ 1.1202, 1.1203,and 1.1206(a). 145. Comment Information. Pursuant to sections 1.415 and 1.419 of the Commission's rules, 47 CFR §§ 1.415, 1.419, interested parties may file comments on or before 30 days after this Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking is published in the Federal Register,and reply comments on or before 45 days of publication. Comments may be filed using: (1) the Commission's Electronic Comment Filing System (ECFS), (2) the Federal Government's eRulemaking Portal, or (3) by filing paper copies. See Electronic Filing of Documents in Rulemaking Proceedings,63 FR 24121 (1998). ■ Electronic Filers: Comments may be filed electronically using the Internet by accessing the ECFS: http://www.fcc.gov/cgb/ecfs/ or the Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. Filers should follow the instructions provided on the website for submitting comments. ■ For ECFS filers, if multiple docket or rulemaking numbers appear in the caption of this proceeding, filers must transmit one electronic copy of the comments for each docket or rulemaking number referenced in the caption. In completing the transmittal screen,filers should include their full name, U.S. Postal Service mailing address, and the applicable docket or rulemaking number. Parties may also submit an electronic comment by Internet e-mail. To get filing instructions, filers should send an e-mail to ecfsafcc.gov, and include the following words in the body of the message, "get form." A sample form and directions will be sent in response. • Paper Filers: Parties who choose to file by paper must file an original and four copies of each filing. If more than one docket or rulemaking number appears in the caption of this proceeding, filers must submit two additional copies for each additional docket or rulemaking number. Filings can be sent by hand or messenger delivery,by commercial overnight courier, or by first- class or overnight U.S. Postal Service mail (although we continue to experience delays in 493 47 U.S.C. §552(d)(2). Accord 47 C.F.R.§76.309(b)(4). 66 Federal Communications Commission FCC 06-180 receiving U.S.Postal Service mail). All filings must be addressed to the Commission's Secretary, Office of the Secretary,Federal Communications Commission. • The Commission's contractor will receive hand-delivered or messenger-delivered paper filings for the Commission's Secretary at 236 Massachusetts Avenue, NE., Suite 110, Washington,DC 20002. The filing hours at this location are 8:00 a.m.to 7:00 p.m. All hand deliveries must be held together with rubber bands or fasteners. Any envelopes must be disposed of before entering the building. • Commercial overnight mail (other than U.S. Postal Service Express Mail and Priority Mail)must be sent to 9300 East Hampton Drive,Capitol Heights,MD 20743. • U.S.Postal Service first-class,Express, and Priority mail should be addressed to 445 12th Street,SW,Washington DC 20554. People with Disabilities: To request materials in accessible formats for people with disabilities (braille, large print, electronic files, audio format), send an e-mail to fcc504@fcc.gov or call the Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau at 202-418-0530(voice),202-418-0432(tty). 146. Initial Paperwork Reduction Act Analysis. This Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking does not contain proposed information collection(s) subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA),Public Law 104-13. In addition,therefore, it does not contain any new or modified"information collection burden for small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees," pursuant to the Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002,Public Law 107-198,see 44 U.S.C.3506(c)(4). 147. Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis. As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act,494 the Commission has prepared an Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis(IRFA)of the possible significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities of the proposals addressed in this Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking. The IRFA is set forth in Appendix C. Written public comments are requested on the IRFA. These comments must be filed in accordance with the same filing deadlines for comments on the Second Further Notice,and they should have a separate and distinct heading designating them as responses to the IRFA. 148. Paperwork Reduction Act Analysis. This document contains new information collection requirements subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), Public Law 104-13. It will be submitted to the Office of Management and Budget(OMB)for review under Section 3507(d)of the PRA. OMB, the general public, and other Federal agencies are invited to comment on the new information collection requirements contained in this proceeding. In addition, we note that pursuant to the Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, Public Law 107-198, see 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(4), we will seek specific comment on how the Commission might "further reduce the information collection burden for small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees." 149. In this present document, we have assessed the effects of the application filing requirements used to calculate the time frame in which a local franchising authority shall make a decision, and find that those requirements will benefit companies with fewer than 25 employees by providing such companies with specific application requirements of a reasonable length. We anticipate this specificity will streamline this process for companies with fewer than 25 employees,and that these requirements will not burden those companies. 4"See 5 U.S.C.§603. 67 Federal Communications Commission FCC 06-180 150. Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act,a95 the Commission has prepared a Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis ("FRFA") relating to this Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking. The FRFA is set forth in Appendix D. 151. Congressional Review Act. The Commission will send a copy of this Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in a report to be sent to Congress and the Government Accountability Office pursuant to the Congressional Review Act,see 5 U.S.C. § 801(a)(1)(A). 152. Additional Information. For additional information on this proceeding, please contact Holly Saurer, Media Bureau at (202) 418-2120, or Brendan Murray, Policy Division, Media Bureau at (202)418-2120. VI. ORDERING CLAUSES 153. IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to the authority contained in Sections 1, 2, 4(i), 303, 303r, 403 and 405 of the Communications Act of 1934,47 U.S.0 §§ 151, 152, 154(i), 303, 303(r), 403 , this Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking IS ADOPTED. 154. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that pursuant to the authority contained in Sections Sections 1, 2,4(i),303, 303a, 303b,and 307 of the Communications Act of 1934,47 U.S.0 §§ 151, 152, 154(i), 303, 303a, 303b, and 307, the Commission's rules ARE HEREBY AMENDED as set forth in Appendix B. It is our intention in adopting these rule changes that, if any provision of the rules is held invalid by any court of competent jurisdiction, the remaining provisions shall remain in effect to the fullest extent permitted by law. 155. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the rules contained herein SHALL BE EFFECTIVE 30 days after publication of the Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in the Federal Register, except for the rules that contain information collection requirements subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act, which shall become effective immediately upon announcement in the Federal Register of OMB approval. 156. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Commission's Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau, Reference Information Center, SHALL SEND a copy of this Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking,including the Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis,to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration. 157. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Commission SHALL SEND a copy of this Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in a report to be sent to Congress and the General Accounting Office pursuant to the Congressional Review Act,see 5 U.S.C. § 801(a)(1)(A). FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Marlene H.Dortch Secretary 495 See 5 U.S.C.§604. 68 Federal Communications Commission FCC 06-180 APPENDIX A List of Commenters and Reply Commenters 1. Abilene,TX 2. Access Channel 5,NY 3. Access Fort Wayne,IN 4. Access Sacramento,CA 5. Ad Hoc Telecom Manufacturer Coalition 6. Ada Township,et al. 7. Advance/Newhouse Communications 8. AEI-Brookings Joint Center for Regulatory Studies 9. Alamance County,NC 10. Albuquerque,NM 11. Alcatel 12. Alhambra,CA 13. Alliance for Public Technology 14. Alpina,MI 15. American Association of Business Persons with Disabilities 16. American Association of People with Disabilities 17. American Cable Association 18. American Consumer Institute 19. American Corn Growers Association 20. American Homeowners Grassroots Alliance 21. Anaheim,CA 22. Angels Camp,CA 23. Anne Arundel County,Carroll County,Charles County,Howard County and Montgomery County 24. Apex,NC 25. Apple Valley,MN 26. Appleton,WI 27. Archdale,NC 28. Arlington Independent Media,VA 29. Asheboro,NC 30. Ashland,KY 31. Ashokie,NC 32. Association of Independent Programming Networks 33. AT&T Inc. 34. Atascadero,CA 35. Bailey,NC 36. Banning,CA 37. Barrington,IL 38. Bellefonte,PA 39. Bellflower,CA 40. BellSouth 41. Benson,NC 42. Berks Community TV,PA 43. Beverly Hills,CA 44. Biddeford,ME 45. Billerica Access TV,MA 46. Billerica,MA 47. Birmingham Area Cable Board,MI 69 Federal Communications Commission FCC 06-180 • 48. Blue Lake,CA 49. Bonita Springs,FL 50. Boston Community Access and Programming Foundation(BCAPF) 51. Boston,MA 52. Bowie,MD 53. Branford Commun. TV,CT 54. Brea,CA 55. Brisbane,CA 56. Broadband Service Providers Association 57. Brunswick,ME 58. Bucks County Consortium of Communities,PA 59. Burlington,NC 60. Burnsville/Eagan Telecommunications Commission; The City of Minneapolis, MN; The North Metro Telecommunications Commission; The North Suburban Communications Commission; and The South Washington County Telecommunications Commission("City of Minneapolis") 61. Cable Access St.Paul,MN 62. Cable Advisory Council of South Central CT 63. Cablevision Systems Corporation 64. Cadillac,MI 65. Calabash,NC 66. California Alliance for Consumer Protection 67. California Farmers Union 68. California Small Business Association 69. California Small Business Roundtable 70. Cambridge Public Access Corp,MA 71. Cambridge,MA 72. Campbell County Cable Board,KY '73. Cape Coral,FL 74. Capital Community TV,OR 75. Carlsbad,CA 76. Carrboro,NC 77. Cary,NC 78. Castalia,NC 79. Caswell County,NC 80. Cavalier Telephone,LLC/Cavalier IP TV,LLC 81. Cedar Rapids,Iowa 82. Center for Digital Democracy 83. Central St.Croix Valley Joint Cable Comm,MN 84. Certain Florida Municipalities 85. Champaign,IL 86. Champaign-Urbana Cable TV and Telecomm Commission,IL 87. Chapel Hill,NC 88. Charlotte,NC 89. Charter Communications,Inc. 90. Chicago Access Corp,IL 91. Chicago,IL 92. Cincinnati Bell,Inc. 93. Cincinnati,OH 94. Citizen's Community TV,CO 95. City and County of San Francisco,CA 96. City of Los Angeles 70 Federal Communications Commission FCC 06-180 97. City of Philadelphia 98. City of St.Louis,Missouri 99. City of Ventura,California 100. Clackamas County,OR 101. Clark County,NV 102. Clay County,FL 103. Clayton,NC 104. Clinton Township,MI 105. Clovis,CA 106. College Twp,PA 107. Comcast Corporation 108. Communications Support Group,Inc. 109. Community Access TV,IL 110. Community Programming Board of Forest Park et al,OH 111. Concord,CA 112. Concord,NC 113. Consumer Coalition of California 114. Consumer Electronics Association 115. Consumers First 116. Consumers for Cable Choice 117. Coral Springs,Florida 118. Coralville,IA 119. Coronado,CA 120. Cox Communications,Inc. 121. Cypress,CA 122. Daly City,CA 123. Dare County,NC 124. Darlington,SC 125. Davis,CA 126. Del Mar,CA 127. Delray Beach,FL 128. Democratic Processes Center 129. Discovery Institute's Technology&Democracy Project 130. Dortches,NC 131. Dublin,CA 132. Durham,NC 133. Eden,NC 134. El Cerrito,CA 135. Elk Grove,IL 136. Elon,NC* 137. Enumclaw,WA 138. Escondido,CA 139. Esopus,NY 140. Evanston,IL 141. Fairfax Cable Access,VA 142. Fairfax County,Virginia 143. Fairfax,CA 144. Faith,NC 145. Fall River Community TV,MA 146. Fargo,ND 147. Farmington,MN 71 Federal Communications Commission FCC 06-180 148. Ferguson,PA 149. Ferndale,CA 150. Fiber-to-the-Home Council 151. Floral Park,NY 152. Florence,Kentucky 153. Florence,KY 154. Fort Worth,TX 155. Fortuna,CA 156. Foster City,CA 157. Foxboro Cable Access,MA 158. Franklin Lakes,NJ 159. Franklin,KY 160. Free Enterprise Fund 161. Free Press(Reply) 162. Free Press,Consumers Union,Consumer Federation of America • 163. Freedomworks 164. Ft.Lauderdale,FL 165. Gainesville,FL 166. Garland,TX 167. Gamer,NC 168. Geneva,IL 169. Georgia Municipal Association(GMA) 170. Gibsonville,NC 171. Gilroy,CA 172. Glenview,IL 173. Graham,NC 174. Grand Rapids,MI 175. Granite Quarry,NC 176. Great Neck/North Shore Cable Comm'n,NY 177. Greater Metro Telecommunications Consortium,et al. (GMTC) 178. Green Spring,K 179. Greensboro,NC* 180. Greenville,NC 181. Guilford County,NC 182. Hamett County,NC 183. Harris Township,PA 184. Haw River,NC 185. Hawaii Consumers 186. Hawaii Telcom Communications,Inc. 187. Henderson County,NC 188. Henderson,NV 189. Hialeah,FL 190. Hibbing Public Access TV,MN 191. High Point,NC 192. High Tech Broadband Coalition 193. Highlands,b'C 194. Hillsborough,NC 195. Holly Springs,NC 196. Huntsville,AL 197. Imperial Beach,CA 198. Independent Multi-Family Communications Council 72 Federal Communications Commission FCC 06-180 199. Indianapolis,IN 200. Institute for Policy Innovation 201. Intergovernmental Cable Comm Auth,MI 202. Iowa City,IA 203. Irvine,CA 204. Irwindale,CA 205. Itasca Comm TV,MN 206. Jackson,CA 207. Jamestown,NC 208. Jefferson County League of Cities Cable Comm'n,Kentucky 209. Jenkins,KY 210. Jersey Access Group,NJ 211. Kansas City,Missouri 212. Kernersville,NC 213. Killeen,TX 214. King County,WA 215. Kitty Hawk,NC 216. Knightdale,NC 217. La Puente,CA 218. Lake Forest, CA 219. Lake Lurie,NC 220. Lake Mills,WI 221. Lake Minnetonka Communications Comm,MN 222. Lake Worth,FL 223. Lakewood,CA 224. Las Vegas,NV 225. LaVerne,CA 226. League of Minnesota Cities(LMC) 227. League of United Latin American Citizens of the Northeast Region+ 228. Leavenworth,KS 229. Lee County,FL 230. Leibowitz&Associates,P.A. 231. Lenexa,KS 232. Lewisville,NC 233. Lexington,NC 234. Lincoln,CA 235. Lincoln,NE 236. Long Beach,CA 237. Longmont,CO 238. Loomis,CA 239. Los Angeles Cable Television Access Corp.,CA 240. Los Banos,CA 241. Lynwood,CA 242. Madison Hts,MI 243. Madison,NC 244. Madison,WI 245. Malverne,NY 246. Manatee County,Florida 247. Manhattan Community Access Corp.,NY 248. Marin Telecomm Agency,CA 249. Martha's Vineyard Comm TV,MA 73 Federal Communications Commission FCC 06-180 250. Maxton,NC 251. Mayodan,NC 252. Mayville,NY 253. Maywood,CA 254. Mecklenburg County,NC 255. Medford,OR 256. Medford,OR 257. Media Action Marin,CA 258. Media Bridges Cincinnati,OH 259. Mercatus Center 260. Metheun Comm TV,MA 261. Metropolitan Area Comm Commix',OR 262. Metropolitan Educational Access Corp,TN 263. Miami Valley Comm Council,OH 264. Miami-Dade County,Florida 265. Michigan Municipal League 266. Microsoft Corporation 267. Middlesex,NC 268. Midland,TX 269. Milpitas,CA 270. Minnesota Telecomm Alliance 271. Minority Media and Telecommunications Council,et al. 272. Missouri Chapter - National Association of Telecommunications Officers and Advisors (MO- NATOA) 273. Mobile,AL 274. Momeyer,NC 275. Monrovia,CA 276. Monterey Park,CA 277. Montrose,CO 278. Morrisville,NC 279. Mount Morris,MI 280. Mt.Hood Cable Regulatory Commission(MHCRC) 281. Murfeesboro,TN 282. Murfreesboro,NC 283. Murrieta,CA 284. National Association of Broadcasters 285. National Black Chamber of Commerce 286. National Cable&Telecommunications Association 287. National Caucus and Center on Black Aged 288. National Grange 289. National Hispanic Council on Aging 290. National Taxpayers Union 291. National Telecommunications Cooperative Association 292. NATOA,NLC,NACO,USCM,ACM,and ACD 293. Naval Media Center,US 294. New Jersey Boa:d of Public Utilities(NJBPU) 295. New Jersey Division of the Ratepayer Advocate 296. New York City 297. New York State Conference of Mayors(NYCOM) 298. Newton Comm Access Cntr,MA 299. Norfolk,VA 74 Federal Communications Commission FCC 06-180 • 300. North Kansas City,MO 301. North Liberty,IA 302. North Richland Hills,TX 303. Northbrook,IL 304. Northern Berkshire Comm TV Corp,MA 305. Northern Dakota County Cable Comm Comm'm 306. Northwest Suburbs Cable Commun Comm'n,MN 307. Norwalk,CA 308. Oceanside Comm TV,CA 309. Onslow Cnty,NC • 310. Ontario,CA 311. Orange County,FL 312. Organization for the Promotion and Advancement of Small Telecommunications Companies 313. Orion Neighborhood TV,MI 314. Oxford,NC 315. Pacific Research Institute 316. Pac-West Telecomm,Inc. 317. Palmetto,FL 318. Palo Alto,CA(on behalf of Joint Powers) 319. Pasadena,CA 320. Patton,PA 321. Peachtree City,GA 322. Pennsville, NJ 323. Perris,CA 324. Philadelphia,PA 325. Pike County,Kentucky 326. Pike County,KY -327. Pikeville,Kentucky 328. Pikeville,KY 329. Pinetops,NC 330. Pittsboro,NC 331. Plainfield,MI 332. Pleasant Garden,NC 333. Pleasant Hill,CA 334. Plymouth,MA 335. Pocatello,ID 336. Post Falls,ID 337. Poway,CA 338. Prince George's Community TV,Inc. 339. Prince George's County,MD 340. Princeton Community TV,NJ 341. Public Cable Television Authority 342. Public Utility Commission of Texas 343. Public,Educational and Government Access Oversight Comm of Metro Nashville 344. Queen Anne's County,MD 345. Quote Unquote,NM 346. Qwest Communications International Inc. 347. Ramsey/Washington Counties Suburban Cable Commun.Comm'n,MN 348. Rancho Cordova,CA 349. Rancho Santa Margarita, CA 350. Randolph County,NC 75 Federal Communications Commission FCC 06-180 • 351. RCN Telecom Services,Inc. 352. Red Oak,NC 353. Redding,CA 354. Reidsville,NC 355. Renton,WA 356. Richmond,KY 357. River Bend,NC 358. Rockingham County,NC 359. Rockwell,NC 360. Rolling Hills Estates,CA 361. Rowan County,NC 362. Sacramento Metro Cable TV Commission,CA 363. Saint Charles,MO 364. Salem,OR 365. Salt Lake City,UT 366. San Diego,CA 367. San Dimas,CA 368. San Jose,CA 369. San Juan Capistrano,CA 370. San Marcos,CA 371. San Mateo County Telecomm Auth,CA 372. Sanford,NC 373. Santa Clara,CA 374. Santa Clarita,CA 375. Santa Cruz County Community TV 376. Santa Rosa,CA 377. Santee,CA 378. Saratoga Springs,NY 379. Scotts Valley,CA 380. Seattle,WA 381. Sebastopol,CA 382. Self-Advocacy Association of New York State,Inc. 383. Shaler,PA 384. Sierra Madre,CA 385. Signal Hill,CA 386. Siler City,NC 387. Simi Valley,CA 388. Sjoberg's,Inc. 389. Skokie,IL 390. Smithfield,NC 391. Solana Beach,CA 392. South Orange Village,NJ 393. South Portland,ME 394. South San Francisco,CA 395. South Slope Cooperative Telephone Company 396. Southeast I Zichigan Municipalities 397. Southwest Suburban Cable Commission(SWSCC) 398. Spring Hope,NC 399. Springfield,MO 400. St. Charles,IL 401. St.Paul,MN* 76 Federal Communications Commission FCC 06-180 402. St.Petersburg,FL 403. Standish,ME 404. State College Bourough,PA 405. State of Hawaii 406. Statesville,NC 407. Sun Prairie Cable Access TV,WI 408. Sunapee,NH* 409. Sunnyvale,CA 410. Susanville,CA 411. Tabor City,NC 412. Tampa,FL 413. Taylor,MI 414. Telco Retirees Association,Inc. 415. Telecommunications Industry Association 416. Temecula,CA 417. Texas Coalition of Cities for Utility Issues(TCCFUI) 418. Texas Municipal League and the Texas City Attorneys Association 419. The Progress&Freedom Foundation 420. Time Warner Cable 421. Tobaccoville,NC 422. Toppenish,WA 423. Torrance,CA 424. Truckee,CA 425. Tulsa,OK 426. Tuolumne,CA 427. Ukiah,CA 428. United States Internet Industry Association 429. United States Telecom Association 430. United States-Mexico Chamber of Commerce 431. URTV Asheville,NC 432. Valley Voters Organized Toward Empowerment 433. Vancouver Educational Telecommunications Consortium(VETC) 434. Vass,NC 435. Verizon 436. Vermont Public Service Board(VPSB) 437. Video Access Alliance 438. Villages of Larchmont&Mamaroneck,NY 439. Virginia Cable Telecommunications Association(VCTA) 440. Vista,CA 441. Wake Forest,NC 442. Walnut Creek,CA 443. Walnut Creek,California 444. Warrenville,lL 445. Washington State Grange 446. Wayland,MA 447. Wendell,NC 448. West Allis,WI 449. West Palm Beach,FL 450. Westport,WI 451. Wheaton,IL 452. Whitakers,NC 77 Federal Communications Commission FCC 06-180 • 453. White Plains Cable Access TV,NY 454. White, SD 455. Whittier,CA 456. Wilbraham,MA 457. Wilson,NC 458. Winchester,KY&KY Regional Cable Comm. 459. Windham Community TV,NH 460. Winston-Salem,NC 461. Wisconsin Association of Public,Educational and Government Access Channels(WAPC) 462. Women Impacting Public Policy 463. Worchester,MA 464. World Institute on Disability 465. Yanceyville,NC 466. Yuma,AZ 467. Zebulon,NC 468. Zeeland,MI 78 Federal Communications Commission FCC 06-180 APPENDIX B Rule Changes Part 76 of Title 47 of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended as follows: Part 76 MULTICHANNEL VIDEO AND CABLE TELEVISION SERVICE 1. Revise Subpart C title to read as follows: Subpart C—Cable Franchise Applications 2. Insert into new Subpart C the following: §76.41 Franchise Application Process (a)Definition. Competitive Franchise Applicant. For the purpose of this section, an applicant for a cable franchise in an area currently served by another cable operator or cable operators in accordance with 47 U.S.C. § 541(a)(1). (b) A competitive franchise applicant must include the following information in writing in its franchise application,in addition to any information required by applicable state and local laws: (1)the applicant's name; • (2)the names of the applicant's officers and directors; (3)the business address of the applicant; (4)the name and contact information of a designated contact for the applicant; (5)a description of the geographic area that the applicant proposes to serve; (6)the PEG channel capacity and capital support proposed by the applicant; (7)the term of the agreement proposed by the applicant; (8)whether the applicant holds an existing authorization to access the public rights-of-way in the subject franchise service area as described under subsection(b)(5); (9)the amount of the franchise fee the applicant offers to pay;and (10)any additional information required by applicable state or local laws. (c) A franchising authority may not require a competitive franchise applicant to negotiate or engage in any regulatory or administrative processes prior to the filing of the application. (d)When a competitive franchise applicant files a franchise application with a franchising authority and the applicant has existing authority to access public rights-of-way in the geographic area that the applicant proposes to serve,the franchising authority must grant or deny the application within 90 days of the date the application is received by the franchising authority. If a competitive franchise applicant does not have existing authority to access public rights-of-way in the geographic area that the applicant proposes to serve, the franchising authority must grant or deny the application within 180 days of the date the application is received by the franchising authority. A franchising authority and a competitive franchise applicant may agree in writing to extend the 90-day or 180-day deadline,whichever is applicable. 79 Federal Communications Commission FCC 06-180 e) If a franchising authority does not grant or deny an application within the time limit specified in subsection (d), the competitive franchise applicant will be authorized to offer service pursuant to an interim franchise in accordance with the terms of the application submitted under subsection(b). f) If after expiration of the time limit specified in subsection (d) a franchising authority denies an application, the competitive franchise applicant must discontinue operating under the interim franchise specified in subsection (e) unless the franchising authority provides consent for the interim franchise to continue for a limited period of time, such as during the period when judicial,review of the franchising authority's decision is pending. The competitive franchise applicant may seek judicial review of the denial under 47 U.S.C. § 555. g)If after expiration of the time limit specified in subsection(d)a franchising authority and a competitive franchise applicant agree on the terms of a franchise, upon the effective date of that franchise, that franchise will govern and the interim franchise will expire. 80 • Federal Communications Commission FCC 06-180 APPENDIX C Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 1. As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, as amended (the "RFA"),' the Commission has prepared this Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis("IRFA")of the possible significant economic impact of the policies and rules proposed in the Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking ("Further Notice")on a substantial number of small entities.' Written public comments are requested on this IRFA. Comments must be identified as responses to the IRFA and must be filed by the deadlines for comments on the Further Notice provided in paragraph 145 of the item. -The Commission will send a copy of the Further Notice, including this IRFA, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration("SBA").' In addition,the Further Notice and IRFA(or summaries thereof)will be published in the Federal Register." A. Need for,and Objectives of,the Proposed Rules 2. The Further Notice continues a process to implement Section 621(a)(1) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, in order to further the interrelated goals of enhanced cable competition and accelerated broadband deployment as discussed in the Report and Order ("Order"). Specifically,the Further Notice solicits comment on whether the Commission should apply the rules and guidelines adopted in the Order to cable operators that have existing franchise agreements, and if so, whether the Commission has authority to do so. The Further Notice also seeks comment on whether the Commission can preempt state or local customer service laws that exceed Commission standards. B. Legal Basis 3. The Further Notice tentatively concludes that the Commission has authority to apply the findings in the Order to cable operators with existing franchise agreements. In that regard, the Further Notice finds that neither Section 611(a) nor Section 622(a) distinguishes between incumbents and new entrants or franchises issued to incumbents and franchises issued to new entrants.' C. Description and Estimate of the Number of Small Entities to Which the Proposed Rules Will Apply 4. The RFA directs agencies to provide a description of, and where feasible, an estimate of the number of small entities that may be affected by the proposed rules, if adopted.6 The RFA generally defines the term "small entity" as having the same meaning as the terms "small business," "small organization," and "small governmental jurisdiction."' In addition, the term "small business" has the ' The RFA,see 5 U.S.C. §§601 —612,has been amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996("SBREFA"),Pub.L.No. 104-121,Title II, 110 Stat.857(1996). 2 See 5 U.S.C. §603. Although we are conducting an IRFA at this stage in the process, it is foreseeable that ultimately we will certify this action pursuant to the RFA,5 U.S.C. §605(b),because we anticipate at this time that any rules adopted pursuant to this Notice will have no significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. 'See 5 U.S.C.§603(a). 4 See 5 U.S.C.§603(a). 5 See 47 U.S.C.,§§531(a),542(a). 6 5 U.S.C.§603(b)(3). '5 U.S.C.§601(6). 81 Federal Communications Commission FCC 06-180 same meaning as the term "small business concern" under the Small Business Act.$ A "small business concern" is one which: (1) is independently owned and operated; (2)is not dominant in its field of operation; and (3)satisfies any additional criteria established by the Small Business Administration ("SBA").9 5. Small Businesses. Nationwide, there are a total of approximately 22.4 million small businesses, according to SBA data.10 6. Small Organizations. Nationwide, there are approximately 1.6 million small organizations." 7. The Commission has determined that the group of small entities possibly directly affected by the proposed rules herein, if adopted, consists of small governmental entities. A description of these entities is provided below. In addition the Commission voluntarily provides descriptions of a number of entities that may be merely indirectly affected by any rules that result from the Further Notice. Small Governmental Jurisdictions 8. The term"small governmental jurisdiction" is defined as "governments of cities, towns, townships, villages, school districts, or special districts, with a population of less than fifty thousand.s12 As of 1997, there were approximately 87,453 governmental jurisdictions in the United States.13 This number includes 39,044 county governments, municipalities, and townships, of which 37,546 (approximately 96.2 percent)have populations of fewer than 50,000,and of which 1,498 have populations of 50,000 or more. Thus, we estimate the number of small governmental jurisdictions overall to be 84,098 or fewer. Miscellaneous Entities 9. The entities described in this section are affected merely indirectly by our current action, and therefore are not formally a part of this RFA analysis. We have included them,however,to broaden the record in this proceeding and to alert them to our tentative conclusions. Cable Operators 10. The "Cable and Other Program Distribution" census category includes cable systems operators, closed circuit television services, direct broadcast satellite services, multipoint distribution systems, satellite master antenna systems, and subscription television services. The SBA has developed small business size standard for this census category,which includes all such companies generating$13.0 million or less in revenue annually.14 According to Census Bureau data for 1997, there were a total of 8 5 U.S.C. §601(3) (incorporating by reference the definition of"small-business concern" in the Small Business Act, 15 U.S.C. §632). Pursuant to 5 U.S.C.§601(3),the statutory definition of a small business applies"unless an agency,after consultation with the Office of Advocacy of the Small Business Administration and after opportunity for public comment,establishes one or more definitions of such term which are appropriate to the activities of the agency and publishes such definition(s)in the Federal Register." 9 15 U.S.C. §632. 1°See SBA,Programs and Services,SBA Pamphlet No.CO-0028,at page 40(July 2002). " Independent Sector,The New Nonprofit Almanac&Desk Reference(2002). 12 5 U.S.C. §601(5). 13 U.S. Census Bureau, Statistical Abstract of the United States: 2000, Section 9,pages 299-300,Tables 490 and 492. 14 13 C.F.R. § 121.201,North American Industry Classification System(NAICS)517510. 82 Federal Communications Commission FCC 06-180 1,311 firms in this category, total, that had operated for the entire year.15 Of this total, 1,180 firms had annual receipts of under $10 million and an additional 52 firms had receipts of$10 million or more but less than $25 million. Consequently, the Commission estimates that the majority of providers in this service category are small businesses that may be affected by the rules and policies adopted herein. 11. Cable System Operators (Rate Regulation Standard). The Commission has developed its own small-business-size standard for cable system operators, for purposes of rate regulation. Under the Commission's rules,a"small cable company"is one serving fewer than 400,000 subscribers nationwide.t6 The most recent estimates indicate that there were 1,439 cable operators who qualified as small cable system operators at the end of 1995.17 Since then, some of those companies may have grown to serve over 400,000 subscribers, and others may have been involved in transactions that caused them to be combined with other cable operators. Consequently, the Commission estimates that there are now fewer than 1,439 small entity cable system operators that may be affected by the rules and policies adopted herein. 12. Cable System Operators (Telecom Act Standard). The Communications Act of 1934, as amended, also contains a size standard for small cable system operators, which is "a cable operator that, directly or through an affiliate, serves in the aggregate fewer than 1 percent of all subscribers in the United States and is not affiliated with any entity or entities whose gross,annual revenues in the aggregate exceed $250,000,000.s18 The Commission has determined that there are 67,700,000 subscribers in the United States.19 Therefore, an operator serving fewer than 677,000 subscribers shall be deemed a small operator, if its annual revenues,when combined with the total annual revenues of all its affiliates, do not exceed $250 million in the aggregate.20 Based on available data, the Commission estimates that the number of cable operators serving 677,000 subscribers or fewer,totals 1,450.21 The Commission neither requests nor collects information on whether cable system operators are affiliated with entities whose gross annual revenues exceed $250 million,22 and therefore is unable, at this time, to estimate more accurately the number of cable system operators that would qualify as small cable operators under the size standard contained in the Communications Act of 1934. 13. Open Video Services. Open Video Service ("OVS") systems provide subscription services.23 As noted above, the SBA has created a small business size standard for Cable and Other 15 U.S. Census Bureau, 1997 Economic Census, Subject Series: Information, "Establishment and Firm Size (Including Legal Form of Organization),"Table 4,NAICS code 513220(issued October 2000). 16 47 C.F.R. §76.901(e). The Commission developed this definition based on its determination that a small cable system operator is one with annual revenues of$100 million or less. See Implementation of Sections of the 1992 Cable Act: Rate Regulation, Sixth Report and Order and Eleventh Order on Reconsideration, 10 FCC Rcd 7393 (1995). 17 Paul Kagan Associates,Inc.,Cable TV Investor,February 29, 1996(based on figures for December 30, 1995). 18 47 U.S.C. §543(m)(2). 19 See FCC Announces New Subscriber Count for the Definition of Small Cable Operator,Public Notice DA 01-158 (2001). 20 47 C.F.R.§76.901(f). 21 See FCC Announces New Subscriber Count for the Definition of Small Cable Operators,Public Notice,DA 01- 0158(2001). 22 The Commission does receive such information on a case-by-case basis if a cable operator appeals a local franchise authority's finding that the operator does not qualify as a small cable operator pursuant to§76.901(f)of the Commission's rules. See 47 C.F.R.§76.909(b). 23 See 47 U.S.C. §573. 83 Federal Communications Commission FCC 06-180 Program Distribution.24 This standard provides that a small entity is one with $13.0 million or less in annual receipts. The Commission has certified approximately 25 OVS operators to serve 75 areas, and some of these are currently providing service.25 Affiliates of Residential Communications Network, Inc. (RCN) received approval to operate OVS systems in New York City, Boston, Washington, D.C., and other areas. RCN has sufficient revenues to assure that they do not qualify as a small business entity. Little fmancial information is available for the other entities that are authorized to provide OVS and are not yet operational. Given that some entities authorized to provide OVS service have not yet begun to generate revenues, the Commission concludes that up to 24 OVS operators (those remaining) might qualify as small businesses that may be affected by the rules and policies adopted herein. D. Description of Projected Reporting, Recordkeeping and Other Compliance Requirements 14. We anticipate that any rules that result from this action would have at most a de minimis impact on small governmental jurisdictions (e.g., one-time proceedings to amend existing procedures regarding the method of granting competitive franchises). Local franchising authorities ("LFAs") today must review and decide upon competitive cable franchise applications, and will continue to perform that role upon the conclusion of this proceeding;any rules that might be adopted pursuant to this Notice likely would require at most only modifications to that process. E. Steps Taken to Minimize Significant Economic Impact on Small Entities and Significant Alternatives Considered 15. The RFA requires an agency to describe any significant, specifically small business, alternatives that it has considered in reaching its proposed approach, which may include the following four alternatives (among others): "(1)the establishment of differing compliance or reporting requirements or timetables that take into account the resources available to small entities; (2)the clarification,consolidation, or simplification of compliance and reporting requirements under the rule for such small entities; (3)the use of performance rather than design standards; and (4)an exemption from coverage of the rule,or any part thereof,for such small entities.s26 16. As discussed in the Further Notice, Sections 611(a) and 622(a) do not distinguish between new entrants and cable operators with existing franchises.27 As discussed in the Order, the Commission has the authority to implement the mandate of Section 621(a)(1)to ensure that LFAs do not unreasonably refuse to award competitive franchises to new entrants,and adopts rules designed to ensure that the local franchising process does not create unreasonable barriers to competitive entry for new entrants. Such rules consist of specific guidelines (e.g., maximum timeframes for considering a competitive franchise application) and general principles regarding franchise fees designed to provide LFAs with the guidance necessary to conform their behavior to the directive of Section 621(a)(1). As noted above, applying these rules regarding the franchising process to cable operators with existing franchises likely would have at most a de minimis impact on small governmental jurisdictions. Even if that were not the case, however, we believe that the interest of fairness to those cable operators would outweigh any impact on small entities. The alternative (i.e., continuing to allow. LFAs to follow procedures that are unreasonable) would be unacceptable, as it would be inconsistent with the Communications Act. We seek comment on the impact that such rules might have on small entities, and on what effect alternative rules would have on those entities. We also invite comment on ways in which 24 13 C.F.R. § 121.201,NAICS code 517510. 25 See http://www.fcc.gov/mb/ovs/csovscer.html (visited December 19, 2006), http://www.fcc.gov/mb/ovs/ csovsarc.html(visited December 19,2006). 26 5 U.S.C.§§603(c)(1)-(4). 27 47 U.S.C. §§531(a),542(a). 84 Federal Communications Commission FCC 06-180 the Commission might implement the tentative conclusions while at the same time imposing lesser burdens on small entities. F. Federal Rules that May Duplicate,Overlap,or Conflict with the Proposed Rules 17. None. 85 Federal Communications Commission FCC 06-180 APPENDIX D Final Regulatory Flexibility Act Analysis 1. As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980,as amended("RFA")' an Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis("IRFA")was incorporated in the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking ("NPRM")to this proceeding.' The Commission sought written public comment on the proposals in the NPRM,including comment on the IRFA. The Commission received one comment on the IRFA. This present Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis("FRFA")conforms to the RFA.3 A. Need for, and Objectives of,the Report and Order 2. This Report and Order ("Order") adopts rules and provides guidance to implement Section 621 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended(the"Communications Act").4 Section 621 of the Communications Act prohibits franchising authorities from unreasonably refusing to award competitive franchises for the provision of cable services.5 The Commission has found that the current franchising process constitutes an unreasonable barrier to entry for competitive entrants that impedes enhanced cable competition and accelerated broadband deployment. The Commission also has determined that it has authority to address this problem. To eliminate the unreasonable barriers to entry into the cable market, and to encourage investment in broadband facilities, in this Order the Commission (1)adopts maximum time frames within which local franchising authorities("LFAs")must grant or deny franchise applications (90 days for new entrants with existing access to rights-of-way and six months for those who do not); (2) prohibits LFAs from imposing unreasonable build-out requirements on new entrants; (3) identifies certain costs, fees, and other compensation which, if required by LFAs, must be counted toward the statutory 5 percent cap on franchise fees; (4) interprets new entrants' obligations to provide support for PEG channels and facilities and institutional networks("I-Nets");and(5)clarifies that LFA authority is limited to regulation of cable services, not mixed-use services. The Commission also preempts local laws, regulations, and franchise agreement requirements, including level-playing-field provisions, to the extent they impose greater restrictions on market entry for competitive entrants than what the Order allows. The rule and guidelines are adopted in order to further the interrelated goals of enhanced cable competition and accelerated broadband deployment. For the specific language of the rule adopted,see Appendix B. B. Summary of Significant Issues Raised by Public Comments in Response to the IRFA 3. Only one commenter, Sjoberg's, Inc. submitted a comment that specifically responded to the IRFA. Sjoberg's, Inc. contends that small cable operators are directly affected by the adoption of rules that treat competitive cable entrants more favorably than incumbents. Sjoberg's Inc. argues that small cable operators are not in a position to compete with large potential competitors. These arguments were considered and rejected as discussed below. 4. We disagree with Sjoberg's Inc. assertion that our rules will treat competitive cable entrants more favorably than incumbents. While the actions we take in the Order will serve to increase ' See 5 U.S.C. § 603. The RFA,see 5 U.S.C. § 601 et. seg.,has been amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996("SBREFA"),Pub.L.No. 104-121,Title II, 110 Stat.847(1996). The SBREFA was enacted as Title II of the Contract With America Advancement Act of 1996("CWAAA"). 2 Implementation of Section 621(a)(1) of the Cable Communications Policy Act of 1984 as amended by the Cable Television Consumer Protection and Competition Act of 1992,20 FCC Rcd 18581 (2005)("NPRM"). 3 See 5 U.S.C.§604. 4 47 U.S.C. §541(a)(1). 51d. 86 Federal Communications Commission FCC 06-180 competition in the multichannel video programming("MVPD")market, we do not believe that the rules we adopt in the Order will put any incumbent provider at a competitive disadvantage. In fact,we believe that incumbent cable operators are at a competitive advantage in the MVPD market; incumbent cable operators have the competitive advantage of an existing customer base and significant brand recognition in their existing markets. Furthermore,we ask in the Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking whether the findings adopted in the Order should apply to existing cable operators and tentatively conclude that they should. C. Description and Estimate of the Number of Small Entities to Which the Proposed Rules Will Apply Entities Directly Affected By Proposed Rules 5. The RFA directs the Commission to provide a description of and, where feasible, an estimate of the number of small entities that will be affected by the rules adopted herein.6 The RFA generally defines the term "small entity" as having the same meaning as the terms "small business," "small organization," and "small government jurisdiction."' In addition, the term "small business" has the same meaning as the term"small business concern"under the Small Business Act.8 A small business concern is one which: (1) is independently owned and operated; (2) is not dominant in its field of operation; and (3) satisfies any additional criteria established by the Small Business Administration (SBA).9 • 6. The rules adopted by this Order will streamline the local franchising process by adopting rules that provide guidance as to what constitutes an unreasonable refusal to grant a cable franchise. The Commission has determined that the group of small entities directly affected by the rules adopted herein consists of small governmental entities(which,-in some cases,may be represented in the local franchising process by not-for-profit enterprises). Therefore, in this FRFA, we consider the impact of the rules on small governmental entities. A description of such small entities, as well as an estimate of the number of such small entities,is provided below. 7. Small governmental jurisdictions. Small governmental jurisdictions are"governments of cities, towns, townships,villages, school districts, or special districts, with a population of less than fifty thousand.s10 As of 1997, there were approximately 87,453 governmental jurisdictions in the United States." This number includes 39,044 county governments, municipalities, and townships, of which 37,546 (approximately 96.2 percent) have populations of fewer than 50,000, and of which 1,498 have populations of 50,000 or more. Thus,we estimate the number of small governmental jurisdictions overall to be 84,098 or fewer. 6 5 U.S.C. §603(b)(3). 7 Id. §601(6). 8 Id. § 601(3)(incorporating by reference the defmition of"small business concern"in 15 U.S.C. § 632). Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 601(3),the statutory definition of a small business applies"unless an agency,after consultation with the Office of Advocacy of the Small Business Administration and after opportunity for public comment,establishes one or more definitions of such term which are appropriate to the activities of the agency and publishes such definition(s)in the Federal Register." 5 U.S.C. §601(3). 9 15 U.S.C. §632. Application of the statutory criteria of dominance in its field of operation and independence are sometimes difficult to apply in the context of broadcast television. Accordingly, the Commission's statistical account of television stations maybe over-inclusive. 1°5 U.S.C.§601(5). " U.S. Census Bureau, Statistical Abstract of the United States: 2000, Section 9, pages 299-300, Tables 490 and 492. 87 Federal Communications Commission FCC 06-180 • Miscellaneous Entities 8. The entities described in this section are affected merely indirectly by our current action, and therefore are not formally a part of this RFA analysis. We have included them,however,to broaden the record in this proceeding and to alert them to our conclusions. Cable Operators 9. The "Cable and Other Program Distribution" census category includes cable systems operators, closed circuit television services, direct broadcast satellite services, multipoint distribution systems, satellite master antenna systems, and subscription television services. The SBA has developed small business size standard for this census category,which includes all such companies generating$13.0 million or less in revenue annually.'2 According to Census Bureau data for 1997, there were a total of 1,311 firms in this category, total, that had operated for the entire year.13 Of this total, 1,180 firms had annual receipts of under$10 million and an additional 52 firms had receipts of$10 million or more but less than $25 million. Consequently, the Commission estimates that the majority of providers in this service category are small businesses that may be affected by the rules and policies adopted herein. 10. Cable System Operators (Rate Regulation Standard). The Commission has developed its own small-business-size standard for cable system operators, for purposes of rate regulation. Under the Commission's rules,a"small cable company"is one serving fewer than 400,000 subscribers nationwide.14 The most recent estimates indicate that there were 1,439 cable operators who qualified as small cable system operators at the end of 1995.15 Since then, some of those companies may have grown to serve over 400,000 subscribers, and others may have been involved in transactions that caused them to be combined with other cable operators. Consequently, the Commission estimates that there are now fewer than 1,439 small entity cable system operators that may be affected by the rules and policies adopted herein. 11. Cable System Operators (Telecom Act Standard). The Communications Act of 1934, as amended, also contains a size standard for small cable system operators, which is "a cable operator that, directly or through an affiliate, serves in the aggregate fewer than 1\percent of all subscribers in the United States and is not affiliated with any entity or entities whose gross annual revenues in the aggregate exceed $250,000,000.s16 The Commission has determined that there are 67,700,000 subscribers in the United States." Therefore, an operator serving fewer than 677,000 subscribers shall be deemed a small operator,if its annual revenues,when combined with the total annual revenues of all its affiliates, do not exceed $250 million in the aggregate.18 Based on available data, the Commission estimates that the 12 13 C.F.R.• § 121.201,North American Industry Classification System(NAICS)code 517510. 13 U.S. Census Bureau, 1997 Economic Census, Subject Series: Information, "Establishment and Firm Size (Including Legal Form of Organization),"Table 4,NAICS code 513220(issued October 2000). 14 47 C.F.R. § 76.901(e). The Commission developed this definition based on its determination that a small cable system operator is one with annual revenues of$100 million or less. See Implementation of Sections of the 1992 Cable Act:Rate Regulation, Sixth Report and Order and Eleventh Order on Reconsideration, 10 FCC Rcd 7393 (1995). 15 Paul Kagan Associates,Inc.,Cable TV Investor,February 29, 1996(based on figures for December 30, 1995). 16 47 U.S.C.§543(m)(2). 17 See FCC Announces New Subscriber Count for the Definition of Small Cable Operator,Public Notice DA 01-158 (2001). 18 47 C.F.R. §76.901(0. 88 Federal Communications Commission FCC 06-180 number of cable operators serving 677,000 subscribers or fewer,totals 1,450.19 The Commission neither requests nor collects information on whether cable system operators are affiliated with entities whose gross annual revenues exceed $250 million,20 and therefore is unable, at this time, to estimate more accurately the number of cable system operators that would qualify as small cable operators under the size standard contained in the Communications Act of 1934. 12. Open Video Services. Open Video Service ("OVS") systems provide subscription services.21 As noted above, the SBA has created a small business size standard for Cable and Other Program Distribution.22 This standard provides that a small entity is one with $13.0 million or less in annual receipts. The Commission has certified approximately 25 OVS operators to serve 75 areas, and some of these are currently providing service.23 Affiliates of Residential Communications Network, Inc. (RCN) received approval to operate OVS systems in New York City, Boston, Washington, D.C., and other areas. RCN has sufficient revenues to assure that they do not qualify as a small business entity. Little financial information is available for the other entities that are authorized to provide OVS and are not yet operational. Given that some entities authorized to provide OVS service have not yet begun to generate revenues, the Commission concludes that up to 24 OVS operators (those remaining) might qualify as small businesses that may be affected by the rules and policies adopted herein. Telecommunications Service Entities 13. As noted above, a "small business" under the RFA is one that, inter alia, meets the pertinent small business size standard(e.g., a telephone communications business having 1,500 or fewer employees), and"is not dominant in its field of operation."24 The SBA's Office of Advocacy contends that, for RFA purposes, small incumbent local exchange carriers are not dominant in their field of operation because any such dominance is not "national" in scope.25 We have therefore included small incumbent local exchange carriers in this RFA analysis,although we emphasize that this RFA action has no effect on Commission analyses and determinations in other,non-RFA contexts. 14. Incumbent Local Exchange Carriers(`LECs'). Neither the Commission nor the SBA has developed a small business size standard specifically for incumbent local exchange services. The appropriate size standard under SBA rules is for the category Wired Telecommunications Carriers.Under that size standard, such a business is small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees.26 According to 19 See FCC Announces New Subscriber Count for the Definition of Small Cable Operators,Public Notice,DA 01- 0158(2001). 20 The Commission does receive such information on a case-by-case basis if a cable operator appeals a local franchise authority's finding that the operator does not qualify as a small cable operator pursuant to § 76.901(f) of the Commission's rules.See 47 C.F.R. §76.909(b). 21 See 47 U.S.C. §573. 22 13 C.F.R. § 121.201,NAICS code 517510. 23 See http://www.fcc.gov/mb/ovs/csovscer.html(visited December 19,2006), http://www.fcc.gov/mb/ovs/csovsarc.html(visited December 19,2006). 24 15 U.S.C. §632. 25 Letter from Jeri'W.Glover,Chief Counsel for Advocacy,SBA,to William E.Kennard,Chairman,FCC(May 27, 1999). The Small Business Act contains a definition of"small-business concern,"which the RFA incorporates into its own definition of"small business."See 15 U.S.C. §632(a)(Small Business Act);.5 U.S.C. §601(3)(RFA).SBA regulations interpret "small business concern" to include the concept of dominance on a national basis. See 13 C.F.R. § 121.102(b). 26 13 C.F.R. § 121.201,NAICS code 517110(changed from 513310 in Oct.2002). 89 Federal Communications Commission FCC 06-180 Commission data,27 1,303 carriers have reported that they are engaged in the provision of incumbent local exchange services. Of these 1,303 carriers, an estimated 1,020 have 1,500 or fewer employees and 283 have more than 1,500 employees. Consequently, the Commission estimates that most providers of incumbent local exchange service are small businesses that may be affected by our action. In addition, limited preliminary census data for 2002 indicate that the total number of wired communications carriers increased approximately 34 percent from 1997 to 2002.28 15. Competitive Local Exchange Carriers, Competitive Access Providers (CAPs), "Shared- Tenant Service Providers,"and "Other Local Service Providers." Neither the Commission nor the SBA has developed a small business size standard specifically for these service providers. The appropriate size standard under SBA rules is for the category Wired Telecommunications Carriers. Under that size standard, such a business is small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees.29 According to Commission data,3o 769 carriers have reported that they are engaged in the provision of either competitive access provider services or competitive local exchange carrier services. Of these 769 carriers, an estimated 676 have 1,500 or fewer employees and 93 have more than 1,500 employees. In addition, 12 carriers have reported that they are "Shared-Tenant Service Providers," and all 12 are estimated to have 1,500 or fewer employees. In addition, 39 carriers have reported that they are "Other Local Service Providers." Of the 39, an estimated 38 have 1,500 or fewer employees and one has more than 1,500 employees. Consequently, the Commission estimates that most providers of competitive local exchange service, competitive access providers, "Shared-Tenant Service Providers," and "Other Local Service Providers" are small entities that may be affected by our action.In addition,limited preliminary census data for 2002 indicate that the total number of wired communications carriers increased approximately 34 percent from 1997 to 2002.31 D. Description of Projected Reporting, Record Keeping and other Compliance Requirements 16. The rule and guidance adopted in the Order will require de minimus additional reporting, record keeping, and other compliance requirements. The most significant change requires potential franchisees to file an application to mark the beginning of the franchise negotiation process. This filing requires minimal information, and we estimate that the average burden on applicants to complete this application is one hour. The franchising authority will review this application in the normal course of its franchising.procedures. The rule will not require any additional special skills beyond any already needed in the cable franchising context. E. Steps Taken to Minimize Significant Impact on Small Entities, and Significant Alternatives Considered 17. The RFA requires an agency to describe any significant alternatives that it has considered 27 FCC,Wireline Competition Bureau,Industry Analysis and Technology Division, "Trends in Telephone Service" at Table 5.3, page 5-5 (June 2005) ("Trends in Telephone Service"). This source uses data that are current as of October 1,2004. 28 See U.S.Census Bureau,2002 Economic Census,Industry Series: "Information,"Table 2,Comparative Statistics for the United States (1997 NAICS Basis): 2002 and 1997, NAICS code 513310 (issued Nov. 2004). The preliminary data indicate that the total number of"establishments"increased from 20,815 to 27,891.In this context, the number of establishments is a less helpful indicator of small business prevalence than is the number of"firms," because the latter number takes into account the concept of common ownership or control.The more helpful 2002 census data on firms,including employment and receipts numbers,will be issued in late 2005. 29 13 C.F.R. § 121.201,NAICS code 517110. 30"Trends in Telephone Service"at Table 5.3. 31 See supra note 28. 90 • Federal Communications Commission FCC 06-180 in reaching its proposed approach,which may include the following four alternatives(among others): (1) the establishment of differing compliance or reporting requirements or timetables that take into account the resources available to small entities; (2) the clarification, consolidation, or simplification of compliance or reporting requirements under the rule for small entities; (3)the use of performance, rather than design, standards; and (4) an exemption from coverage of the rule, or any part thereof, for small entities.32 18. In the NPRM, the Commission sought comment on the impact that rules interpreting Section 621(a)(1) might have on small entities, and on what effect alternative rules would have on those entities. The Commission also invited comment on ways in which the Commission might implement Section 621(a)(1) while at the same time impose lesser burdens on small entities. The Commission tentatively concluded that any rules likely would have at most a de minimis impact on small governmental jurisdictions, and that the interrelated, high-priority federal communications policy goals of enhanced cable competition and accelerated broadband deployment necessitated the establishment of specific guidelines for LFAs with respect to the process by which they grant competitive cable franchises. We agree with those tentative conclusions,and we believe that the rules adopted in the Order will not impose a significant impact on any small entity. 19. In the Order, we provide that LFAs should reasonably review franchise applications within 90 days for entities existing authority to access rights-of way, and within six months for entities that do not have such authority. This will result in decreasing the regulatory burdens on cable operators. We declined to adopt shorter deadlines that commenters proposed(e.g., 17 days, one month) in order to provide small entities more flexibility in scheduling their franchise negotiation sessions. In the Order,we also provide guidance on whether an LFA may reasonably refuse to award a competitive franchise based on certain franchise requirements, such as build-out requirements and franchise fees. As an alternative, we considered providing no guidance on any franchising terms. We conclude that the guidance we provide minimizes any adverse impact on small entities because it clarifies the terms within which parties must negotiate,and should prevent small entities from facing costly litigation over those terms. F. Report to Congress 20. The Commission will send a copy of the Order, including this FRFA, in a report to be sent to Congress pursuant to the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996.33 In addition, the Commission will send a copy of the Order, including the FRFA, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration. A copy of the Order and FRFA(or summaries thereof) will also be published in the Federal Register.34 32 5 U.S.C. §603(c)(1)-(c)(4) 33 See 5 U.S.C.§801(a)(1)(A). 34 See id.§ 604(b). 91 Federal Communications Commission FCC 06-180 STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN KEVIN J.MARTIN Re: Implementation of Section 621(a)(1)of the Cable Communications Policy Act of 1984 as amended by the Cable Television Consumer Protection and Competition Act of 1992(MB Docket No. 05-311) Greater competition in the market for the delivery for multichannel video programming is a primary and long-standing goal of federal communications policy. In passing the 1992 Cable Act, Congress recognized that competition between multiple cable systems would be beneficial, would help lower cable rates, and specifically encouraged local franchising authorities to award competitive franchises. Section 621 of the statute reads,"A franchising authority may not grant an exclusive franchise and may not unreasonably refuse to award an additional competitive franchise." Telephone companies are investing billions of dollars to upgrade their networks to provide video. As new providers began actively seeking entry into video markets, we began to hear that some local authorities were making the process of getting franchises unreasonably difficult, despite clear statutory language. The record collected by the Commission in this proceeding cited instances where LFAs sat on applications for more than a year or required extraordinary in kind contributions such as the building of public swimming pools and recreation centers. Such unreasonable requirements are especially troubling because competition is desperately needed in the video market. As we just found, from 1995 to 2005, cable rates have risen 93%. In 1995 cable cost $22.37 per month. Last year, cable cost $43.04 per month. Today's Communications Daily reports that prices for expanded basic are now about $50 per month. The trend in pricing of cable services is of particular importance to consumers. Since 1996 the prices of every other communications service have declined while cable rates have risen year after year after year. This item appropriately removes such regulatory barriers by giving meaning to the words Congress wrote in section 621 of the Cable Act. Specifically, the Commission fmds that an LFA is unreasonably refusing to grant a competitive franchise when it does not act on an application within a reasonable time period, imposes taxes on non-cable services such as broadband,requires a new entrant to provide unrelated services or imposes unreasonable build-out requirements. The widespread deployment of broadband remains my top priority as Chairman and a major Commission objective. During my tenure as Chairman, the Commission has worked hard to create a regulatory environment,that promotes broadband deployment. We have removed legacy regulations,like tariffs and price controls, that discourage carriers from investing in their broadband networks, and we worked to create a regulatory level playing-field among broadband platforms. And we have begun to see some success as a result of the Commission's policies. High-speed connections to the Internet have grown over 400%since I became Commissioner in July 200. The ability to deploy broadband networks rapidly however, is intrinsically linked to the ability to offer video to consumers. As the Commission stated in the Notice in this proceeding: "The construction of modern telecommunications facilities requires substantial capital investment and such networks, once completed, are capable of providing not only voice and data, but video as well. As a consequence, the ability to offer video offers the promise of an additional revenue stream from which deployment costs can be recovered." Similarly, in a 2005 Policy Paper,the Phoenix Center found that video is "is now the key driver for new fiber deployment in the residential market." The Phoenix Center went on to say that: "If a new 92 Federal Communications Commission FCC 06-180 • entrant cannot readily provide consumers multichannel video over an advanced network, then the prospects for success will be diminished substantially due to a reduction in the entrant's potential revenues. Quite simply,the ability to sell video services over these fiber networks may be a crucial factor in getting those fiber networks deployed." By enhancing the ability of new entrants to provide video services then we are advancing our goal of universal affordable broadband access for Americans, as well as our goal of increased video competition. I am also committed to seeing that consumers are able to realize the benefits of competition in the forms of better services and lower prices. In recent years however, consumers have had limited choice among video services providers and ever increasing prices for those services. But as was just demonstrated in our annual price survey, cable competition can impact cable bills. Again, it found that only in areas where there was competition from a second cable operator did average price for cable service decrease. I am pleased that the steps taken by the Commission today will expressly further this type of competition and.help ensure that lower prices are available to as many Americans as possible as quickly as possible. Addressing build-out requirements was particularly difficult. This item seeks to strike a balance between encouraging as widespread deployment of broadband as possible while not deterring entry altogether. I believed it would have been appropriate to provide examples of build-out requirements that would be reasonable in addition to illustrating those that could not be.' For example,I would have been willing to find that it would seem reasonable for an LFA to require that,beginning five years after the effective date of a new entrant's franchise and every 3 years thereafter, if in the portion of the franchise area where the new entrant has chosen to offer cable service at least 15 percent of the households subscribe to such service,the new entrant increase by 20 percent the households in the franchise area to which the new entrant offers cable service by the beginning of the next 3-year interval,until the new entrant is capable of providing cable service to all households in the franchise area. 93 Federal Communications Commission FCC 06-180 DISSENTING STATEMENT OF COMMISSIONER MICHAEL J.COPPS Re: Implementation of Section 621(a)(1)of the Cable Communications Policy Act of 1984 as amended by the Cable Television Consumer Protection and Competition Act of 1992 (MB Docket No. 05-311) I think that all of my colleagues and I can agree on the central importance of encouraging video competition. It is abundantly clear that cable rates are rising faster than inflation and that wireline cable competition can be helpful in bringing those rates down. Consumers deserve rules that will bring such competition to their doorsteps because consumers are not being well-served by the lack of competition today. I think my colleagues and I can also agree on the central importance of broadband deployment. As I have often pointed out,our nation is falling behind in the international broadband race. Encouraging new entrants into the video market could at least assist in the challenge of building out broadband infrastructure, although it doesn't represent anything near the totality of what a real broadband strategy would look like. But agreeing on the many benefits of video competition is hardly the same thing as coming up with rules that will actually encourage honest-to-goodness competition within the framework of the statutes that Congress has given us. The item before us today doesn't get us there and I cannot support it as written. In recent days we had discussions' attempting to craft an item with which I would feel more comfortable. Chairman Martin engaged in those discussions in good faith and I thank him for that. My goal was to encourage an item that preserves a local authority's statutory right to seek specific and far- reaching build-out requirements, protects each community's ability to negotiate for PEG and I-NET facilities, and maintains truly meaningful local ability to deal with the huge companies that are coming into our cities and towns to build important infrastructure. Throughout the consideration of this item and even as we discussed ways to improve it in recent days, I have been troubled at the lack of a granular record that would demonstrate that the present franchising system is irretrievably broken and that traditional federal-state-local relationships have to be so thoroughly upended. If we are going to preempt and upend the balances inherent in long-standing federal-state-local jurisdictional authorities, we should have a record clearly demonstrating that those local authorities are not up to the task of handling this infrastructure build-out and that competition can be introduced only by preempting and upsetting these long-standing principles of federalism. My colleagues may recall that when we launched the NPRM on this item, I made it very clear how important the compilation of a compelling granular record would be in my consideration of this proceeding. I do not believe that either today's item or the record behind it makes such a showing. The various examples of "unreasonable"franchise requirements that the item enumerates are not closely or carefully supported by the record and often fail to rise beyond isolated episodes or anecdotal evidence. Many people questioned,and continue to question,the Commission's legal authority to do what it is doing today. It is clear that those questions remain and that the Commission has been asked by those with oversight powers to more conclusively demonstrate our authority to undertake the actions we initiate today. I believe it is the better course of wisdom in so far-reaching a proceeding, in light of the concern being expressed by those with oversight responsibilities of this Commission,to thoroughly answer those questions, to lay out the basis of our claimed legal authority, and to explain what legal risks this action entails before taking action. Under the circumstances, proceeding on such a controversial decision today 94 Federal Communications Commission FCC 06-180 does not put an end to this issue. It only invites more delay,more confusion,and more possibility of legal challenge. As we face the challenge of providing ubiquitous high-speed broadband to all our citizens, we need the certainty of a national strategy to get the job done. Right now this nation is hobbled because it has no such strategy, no plan for the infrastructure build-out our people need to be productive and competitive citizens of the world. The United States is ranked number twenty-one in the International Telecommunications Union's Digital Opportunity Index. It is difficult to take much comfort from being twenty-first in the Twenty-first century. The kind of broadband strategy I am talking about demands a level of consensus and national buy-in by the many diverse interests and entities that would be responsible for implementing it. While I have never equated franchise reform as anything remotely equivalent to a national broadband strategy,I do believe a properly-crafted and legally-certain franchising reform could facilitate some level of broadband build-out. That is what I attempted to work toward here. But if our decision is only going to increase concern, increase the questions and increase the risk, then I think we should pause, take a deep breath, answer the questions and reach out for more consensus. I don't say unanimity,of course,but at least a level of comfort that builds an environment wherein the next few years can see the job actually getting done rather than spent in contentious debate or court challenge because our reasoning was deemed inadequate. So I thank my colleagues, and especially the Chairman, for the discussions we have had— discussions that were both in good faith and substantive—but in light of the concerns I have just discussed, I cannot support this afternoon's outcome. Unlike so many other proceedings coming before the Commission, I was nowhere near certain as I came to work this morning how the vote on this item would go. I actually thought that perhaps we would take the short time needed,answer the questions that had been posed,and then reassess where we were as to proceeding with an item. That was my preference. Instead it appears a majority will proceed to approve an item that, as drafted right now, is without important enhancements I have been advocating and without sufficient buy-in from the world beyond the FCC to assure its effectiveness. I must therefore respectfully dissent. 95 Federal Communications Commission FCC 06-180 DISSENTING STATEMENT OF COMMISSIONER JONATHAN S.ADELSTEIN Re: Implementation of Section 621(a)(1)of the Cable Communications Policy Act of 1984 as amended by the Cable Television Consumer Protection and Competition Act of 1992(MB Docket No. 05-311) The policy goals of this Order, to promote competitive video offerings and broadband deployment, are laudable. But while I support these goals, today's item goes out on a limb in asserting federal authority to preempt local governments, and then saws off the limb with a highly dubious legal scheme. It substitutes our judgment as to what is reasonable—or unreasonable—for that of local officials —all in violation of the franchising framework established in the Communications Act. Today's Order is certain to offend many in Congress, who worked long and hard on this important issue, only to have a Commission decision rushed through with little consultation. The result will be heavy oversight after-the-fact, and a likely rejection by the courts. It will solve nothing, create much confusion, and provide little certainty or progress on our shared goal of promoting real video competition and universal broadband deployment. This outcome is disappointing because I believe we must do everything we can to encourage competitive video offerings. As I was driving to work this morning, I saw a line of Verizon trucks installing FiOS in my neighborhood. I must admit,I am very excited about this new service, and plan to subscribe. FiOS is now available because our local county officials approved a franchise for Verizon. If they had not, I imagine many of my neighbors would have complained loudly. Maybe that is why Verizon has repeatedly told Wall Street investors, "[e]ven in those states where we don't have the whole state,places like Pennsylvania,we have become very successful now in getting franchising. So we don't see that as an issue going forward."' I am pleased with their efforts and their success, and want to encourage their continued investment. As I said in the underlying Notice of Proposed Rule Making,"Congress clearly sought to promote competitive cable offerings and to facilitate the approval of competitive cable franchises in the Cable Act of 1992."3 I agree the Commission should do what it can within the current legal framework to facilitate increased video competition because it benefits American consumers, promotes U.S. deployment of broadband networks and services,and enhances the free exchange of ideas in our democratic society. Notwithstanding these worthy goals,I,unfortunately,cannot support this Order because the FCC is a regulatory agency, not a legislative body. In my years working on Capitol Hill, I learned enough to know that today's Order is legislation disguised as regulation. The courts will likely reverse such action because the Commission cannot act when it "does not really define specific statutory terms, but rather takes off from those terms and devises a comprehensive regulatory regimen.... This extensive quasi- legislative effort to implement the statute does not strike [me] as merely a construction of statutory phrases.s3 'Final Transcript, Thomson StreetEvents,VZ-Verizon at UBS 34th Annual Global Media Conference,Dec.6,2006, at page 7,available at,http://investor.verizon.com/news/20061206/20061206_transcript.pdf. 2 Statement of Commissioner Jonathan S. Adelstein, Implementation of Section 621(a)(1) of the Cable Communications Policy Act of 1984,as amended by the Cable Television Consumer Protection and Competition Act of 1992, MB Docket No. 05-311, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, FCC 05-180 (rel. Nov. 18, 2005) ("Local Franchising NPRM"). 3 Kelley v. E.P.A., 15 F.3d 1100, 1108 (DC. Cir. 1994). While the Commission contends that "[d]espite the parameters established by the Communications Act, ... operation of the franchising process has proven far more (continued...) 96 Federal Communications Commission FCC 06-180 Today's Order is disappointing because while there is bipartisan agreement that the current video franchising framework should be refined to better reflect marketplace realities, technological advancement, and consumer demands, the decision skips the fine-tuning and performs an extreme makeover. The majority accomplishes today what the elected representatives of the American people • have tried to do through the legislative process. In doing so,the Commission not only disregards current law and exceeds its authority,but it also usurps congressional prerogatives and ignores the plain meaning of Title VI, the cannons of statutory construction, and the judicial remedy Congress already provided for unreasonable refusals. In crafting a broadly aggressive and legally tenuous solution,the majority attempts the legal equivalent of triple axels and quadruple toe loops that would only impress an Olympic judge who is willing to overlook slips,stumbles,and falls. We might keep in mind former President Ronald Reagan's views on federalism and the role of local governments. In his first State of the Union Address,President Reagan exhorted Americans to give power back to local governments: Together,after 50 years of taking power away from the hands of the people in their states and local communities we have started returning power and resources to them. ... Some will also say our states and local communities are not up to the challenge of a new and creative partnership. Well, that might have been true 20 years ago. ... It's no longer true today. This Administration has faith in state and local governments and the constitutional balance envisioned by the Founding Fathers.4 More recently, President George W. Bush echoed this trust in local government, asserting that "government closest to the people is more responsive and accountable.s5 While the Commission has long viewed the cable franchising process as "a deliberately structured dualism,s6 today's decision is a clear rebuke of this storied relationship with local government. Congressional action in 1984, 1992, and 1996 re-affirmed further that it is Congress' intent that "the franchise process take[s] place at the local level where city officials have the best understanding of local communities' needs and can require cable operators to tailor the cable system to meet those needs."' This is clearly set forth in the purposes of Title 6, wherein Congress made clear that Title 6 would establish the proper local, state and federal roles.' Congress established a framework whereby state and local authorities, within certain federal limits, are primarily responsible for the administration of the franchising process. That process is inherently local and fact-specific. Indeed, a one-size-fits-all (Continued from previous page) complex and time consuming than it should be,"(Order,¶3),the proper inquiry is whether the franchising process is operating as Congress intended. Today's Order ignores this important question. In so doing, the Commission disregards the parameters established in the Cable Act and imposes its view of how the franchising process should be. 4 President Ronald Reagan,State of the Union Address,January 26, 1982,available at, htto://www.reagan.utexas.edu/archives/speeches/1982/12682c.htm. 5 George W.Bush,"What the Congress Can Do For America,"WALL ST.J.,January 3,2007,at A13. 6 Cable Television Report and Order, 36 F.C.C.2d 143,207¶177,recon.,36 F.C.C.2d 326(1972). 'H.R.Rep.No.934,98th Congress,2d Sess.at 24. B 47 U.S.C. §521 (3). 97 Federal Communications Commission FCC 06-180 • approach is antithetical to clear congressional intent that cable systems be "responsive to needs and interests of local community.s9 To be sure, the franchising process is not perfect and, by definition, negotiations may result in some delay. But Congress, after much deliberation, created this process to achieve certain stated policy objectives, which are clearly set out in the Act. 10 Regardless of how commenters now feel about this carefully calibrated and negotiated balance, Congress delegated authority to state and local governments to make certain decisions and to determine the merit of granting cable franchises in their respective communities. It then set forth a judicial remedy if a party is aggrieved by a denial of franchising." While Congress has the power to revisit this scheme, and has strongly considered doing so, until then this Commission must adhere to the law as written. Yet today,the Commission is federalizing the franchising process,taking it upon itself to decide, in every local dispute, what is "unreasonable," without actually looking at specific, local examples to determine the real situation.' Instead of acknowledging the vast dispute in the record as to whether there are actually any unreasonable refusals being made today, the majority simply accepts in every case that the phone companies are right and the local governments are wrong, all without bothering to examine the facts behind these competing claims, or conduct any independent fact-finding. This is breathtaking in its disrespect of our local and state government partners and in its utter disregard for agency action based on a sound record. Today's Order also displays a fundamental misunderstanding about the commitment of franchising authorities to bring competition to their citizens. By law, a franchise under Title 6 confers a right of access to people's property.13 Unlike members of this Commission,many state and local officials are elected and directly accountable to their citizens. Our knee-jerk embrace of everything interested companies say while discounting local elected officials on a matter grounded in local property rights certainly does not inspire a great deal of confidence in the Commission's ability on the federal level to arbitrate every local dispute in the country and fairly decide who is unreasonable and who is not. Even if the Commission had such power, there is no mechanism outlined in this Order to establish how that process would work. Consequently, the end result will likely be litigation, confusion, abuse of the process, and a certain amount of chaos. It is sadly ironic that this agency, which has been recently in violation of one of its own 90 day statutory deadlines,is telling localities to do as I say,not as I do.14 9 47 U.S.C. §521(2). 10 One of the principal purposes of Title VI is to"establish franchise procedures and standards which encourage the growth and development of cable systems and which assure that cable systems are responsive to the needs and interests of the local community."47 U.S.C. §521(2). 11 47 U.S.C. §555. 12 See Letter from David L.Smith,City Attorney,City of Tampa,to Kevin Martin,Chairman,FCC,dated January 5, 2007 (stating "[h]ow disappointing it was to learn that ... the FCC would embrace as truth an allegation in a rulemaking that has such far-reaching implications to so many,without doing any follow-up with the jurisdiction named to confirm it accuracy."). 13 See 47 U.S.C.§541 (a)(2). 14 See,e.g.,In the Matter of Comcast Corporation's Request for Waiver of 47 C.F.R. § 76.120(a)(1),CSR-7017-Z, CS Docket No 97-80,DA-06-2543,CS Docket No 97-80,filed 4/19/06(waiver proceeding placed on public notice 5/17/06 and decided 1/10/2007, well past the statutory "shot clock"); 47 U.S.C. § 549(c) ("the Commission shall grant any such waiver request within 90 days of any application filed under this subsection."). 98 f Federal Communications Commission FCC 06-180 Over the past two years, Congress held nearly two dozen hearings on franchising, and sought to amend the Cable Act in an effort to reform the current franchising process and "strike the right balance between national standards and local oversight.s15 Yet,the Commission has finalized in the dark of night what Congress was unable to resolve in two years of intensive public deliberations. In contrast to the Senate where I used to work, one might call the FCC the world's least deliberative body. And the final product shows it. Congress would not have expended effort on a major piece of legislation had its members believed it was not necessary to grant the Commission explicit authority to do what the majority now contends the Commission can do under existing law. The House bill proposed a national cable franchising regime, while the Senate bill proposed an expedited competitive franchise process which would have required local authorities to issue franchises pursuant to a standard application drafted by the Commission. Today's Order turns federalism on its head by putting the Commission in the role of sole arbiter of what is a `reasonable" or "unreasonable" LFA practice and short-circuiting the franchising process if an arbitrary shot clock has expired. While Congress worked to change federal law to create a role for the Commission in the franchising process,there was and continues to be considerable state and local activity to reform the local franchising process. To date, nearly half of all states have adopted state-wide franchise reform or mandatory state franchise terms, or have engaged in a democratic process to enact meaningful franchise reform legislation.16 Hundreds of other localities have approved new franchises, and many more are in the works. When we launched this proceeding, the central question was "whether the local franchising process truly is a hindrance to the deployment of alternative video networks, as some new entrants assert[ed]."" Indeed, the Local Franchising NPRM explicitly solicited "empirical data" and "concrete examples"regarding problems in the franchising process that FCC could resolve. In response,the record •evidence provides scant, dated, isolated, and unverified examples that fall far short of demonstrating a systematic failure of state and local governments to negotiate in good faith and in a reasonable fashion. According to the Telecommunications Industry Association, "some recent examples of overly- burdensome, and ... `unreasonable,' extraneous obligations"18 included: (1) Merton Group's two year negotiations with Hanover, New Hampshire, which concluded in December, 2004; (2) Knology's negotiations with Louisville, Kentucky in early 2000; (3) Knology's franchise negotiations with the greater Nashville,Tennessee area in March 2000;and(4)Grande Communication's negotiations with San Antonio and Corpus Christi, Texas in 2002. Additionally, Fiber-To-The-Home Council cites the efforts of Guadalupe Valley Telephone Cooperative to seek a franchise in the City of Bulverde, Texas in 2004. The Order itself relies on unconfirmed allegations by Verizon and AT&T about unreasonable demands and negotiations being drawn out over an extended period of time; and complaints by U.S. Telecom 15 H.R.REP.No. 109-470,at 3(2006). . 16 While the Order purportedly refrains from explicitly preempting "statewide franchising decisions" and only addresses "decisions made by [instrumentalities of the state, such as] county — or municipal level franchising authorities," this dubious distinction has a questionable legal basis. Under Title 6, LFAs derive their power by virtue of state law,so such distinctions are not for the FCC to make. Moreover,the Commission's contention that it does not have sufficient information in the record to consider the effect of franchising by states(some of which have had laws in place for a decade),but has sufficient record evidence to preempt 33,000 LFAs,is facially preposterous. 17 Adelstein Statement,Local Franchising NPRM. 18 Letter from Grant Seiffert, to Jonathan S. Adelstein, Commissioner, FCC, MB Docket No. 05-311 (dated December 11,2006). 99 Federal Communications Commission FCC 06-180 • Association, Qwest, and Bell South about new entrants accepting franchise terms that they considered unreasonable in order to avoid further delay in obtaining the franchise, or, in one case, filing a"friendly lawsuit." These examples, based on my review of the record evidence, represent the extent to which competitive video providers argue that LFAs are delaying in acting on franchise applications. However, considering the current franchising process has been in place nearly 15 years and there are over 30,000 LFAs, I find these sporadic examples, individually and collectively, wholly insufficient to justify the Commission's quasi-legislative attempt to federalize the local franchising process. These sparse allegations and anecdotal evidence do not rise to a level that warrants today's drastic, substantive measures. The Commission's blind acceptance of a few alleged instances as illustrative of a much broader problem is a poor and unfortunate reflection of the disregard for proper agency process. The Commission neither attempted to conduct any independent fact-finding or due diligence, nor verify the allegations made by parties who have a vested interest in the outcome of this proceeding.19 Even more shocking,the Commission and the commenters fail to cite to a single actual,present day problem pending with any specific LFA.20 Notwithstanding the scant record evidence to justify agency preemption and the creation of a national, unified franchising process in contravention of federal law, the Commission conjures its authority to reinterpret and, in certain respects, rewrite section 621 and Title VI of the Communications Act, on just two words in section 621(a)(1)21 —`unreasonably refuse." The Commission ignores the verb that follows: "to award." A plain reading section 621(a)(1)does not provide a wholesale`unreasonable" test for all LFA action. Rather,the statutory language focuses on the act of awarding a franchise. While I agree that the Commission has authority to interpret and implement the Communications Act, including Title VI,22 the Commission does not have authority to ignore the plain meaning, structure and legislative history of section 621,and judicial precedent.23 19 Local Franchising NPRM, ¶1 ("potential competitors seeking to enter the multichannel video programming distributor("MVPD") marketplace have alleged that in many areas the current operation of the local franchising process serves as a barrier to entry. Accordingly,this Notice is designed to solicit comment on implementation of Section 621(a)(1)'s directive that LFAs not unreasonably refuse to award competitive franchises.") 20 During the Commission's Agenda Meeting in Keller,Texas,on February 10,2006,one Verizon official identified Montgomery County, Maryland, as an obstinate LFA that was insisting upon unreasonable illegal demand and delaying negotiations. Since that meeting, Verizon has in fact obtained a franchise in Montgomery County. See Press Release,Montgomery Country,Md.,County Negotiates Cable Franchise Agreement with Verizon;Agreement Resolves Litigation, Provides Increased Competition for Cable Service (Sept. 13, 2006) (available at http://www.montgomerycountymd.gov/apps/News/press/PR details.asp?PrID=2582). In fact, this Order blatantly ignores public statements that significantly undermine representations some proponents of this decision have made to the Commission. For example,AT&T has publicly stated that Project Lightspeed will be available to 90%of its "high-value" customers, but to less than 5% of its "low value" neighborhoods, but today the Commission undermines a locality's ability to ensure all residents are served. Leslie Cauley, Cable,Phone Companies Duke it out for Customers, USA Today, May 22, 2005, available at: http://www.usatoday.com/money/media/2005-05-22- telco-tv-cover-usat x.htm?csp=34 (last viewed 12/20/06). As Verizon's CEO of one major new entrant recently noted,"Any place it's come to a vote,we win." Dionne Searcey,As Verizon Enters Cable Business, It Faces Local Static Telecom Giant Gets Demands As It Negotiates TV Deals, Wall St. J., Oct. 28,2005, at Al. Yet in today's Order,the Commission somehow determines that there is widespread bad faith only on the part of the LFAs,not the new entrants,in order to justify this sweeping federal preemption. 21 47 U.S.C.§541(a)(1). 22 Admittedly, however, read together, sections 621(a)(1) and 635(a), clearly vest the courts, not the FCC, with exclusive jurisdiction over the determination of what constitutes "unreasonably refuse." In light of the fact that these two provisions were amended simultaneously in 1992, this is the only rational interpretation. As NATOA pointed out in its Comments,"[i]t is ludicrous to suggest that Congress,having provided that only"final"decisions (continued...) 100 Federal Communications Commission FCC 06-180 While the Commission purports to limit its action today to interpreting`unreasonably refuse,"the Order stretches section 621 well beyond the meaning that the statute can bear and, consequentially, changes the franchising process in fundamental ways. There are certain salient features of today's Order that raise serious legal and policy implications, requiring careful scrutiny. Most notably, the Order: (1) imposes a 90-day shot clock on LFAs to render a decision on the franchise application of a competitive applicant with existing rights-of-way; (2) deems a competitive entrant's franchise application granted after 90-days; (3) prohibits the denial of a competitive entrant's application based upon the entrant's refusal to comply with any build-out obligations; (4) prohibits the denial of a competitive entrant's application based upon the entrant's refusal to build and support PEG and I-net;and(5)authorizes a new entrant to refrain from obtaining a franchise when it is upgrading"mixed use"facilities that will be used for the delivery of video content. The Order fmds that franchising negotiations that extend beyond the time frames created today by the Commission amount to an unreasonable refusal to award a competitive franchise within the meaning of 621(a)(1). This fmding ignores the plain reading of the first sentence of section 621(a)(1), which provides that a franchising authority "may not unreasonably refuse to award an additional competitive franchise."24 On its face, Section 621(a)(1) does not impose a time limitation on an LFA's authority to consider, award, or deny a competitive franchise. The'second and final sentence of section 621(a)(1)provides judicial relief, with no Commission involvement contemplated,when the competitive franchise has been"denied by a final decision of the franchising authority."25 There is no ambiguity here: Congress simply did not impose a time limit on franchise negotiations, as it did on other parts of Title VI (see discussion infra). Hence, whether you read the first sentence alone or in context of the entire statutory provision or title, its plain and unambiguous meaning is contrary to the Commission's interpretation. Section 621(a)(1) provides an expressed limitation on the nature, not the timing, of the refusal to award a competitive franchise.26 (Continued from previous page) of the"denial"of a franchise application may be appealed,somehow intended,sub silentio,to have its own language gutted by allowing parties to bypass the last sentence of§ 621(a)(1)entirely and go directly to the FCC." NATOA Comments at 28. 23 The Senate Report of the 1992 Cable Act concluded that,"[baased on the evidence in the record taken as a whole, it is clear that there are benefits from competition between two cable systems. Thus,the Committee believes that local franchising authorities should be encouraged[not required] to award second franchises. Accordingly, [the 1992 Cable Act,] as reported, prohibits local franchising authorities from unreasonably refusing to grant second franchises."S.Rep.No. 102-92,at 47(1991)(emphasis suppIied). Thus,an LFA's decision to not grant a franchise need only not be unreasonable. As one federal district court observed: The House version contained a specific list of"reasonable"grounds for denial.H.R.Conf.Rep. No. 102-862, at 168-69 (1992). The Senate version, on the other hand, listed "technically infeasible" and left other reasonable grounds undefined. By choosing not to adopt a federally mandated list of reasonable grounds for denial in favor of an open-ended defmition, Congress intended to leave states with the power to determine the bases for granting or denying franchises, with the only caveat being that a denial must be "reasonable." Knology, Inc. v.Insight Communications Co., L.P.,2001 WL 1750839 at*2(W.D.Ky. March 20,2001)(citation omitted)(emphasis supplied). 24 47 U.S.C.§541(a)(1)(emphasis added). 25 Id. (emphasis added). 26 Congressional intent to qualify the nature of an LFA's refusal,not the timing of the refusal, is clear when you consider another provision of Section 621(a). Section 621(a)(4)(A)provides that"franchising authority shall allow (continued...) 101 Federal Communications Commission FCC 06-180 • Even if I were able to move beyond this Order's facially defective reading of 621(a)(1), the Commission's selection of 90 days as the only reasonable time frame for an LFA to consider the franchise application of a competitive provider that already has rights-of-way access before it is "deemed granted" is demonstrably inconsistent with the overall framework of Title VI,unsupported by the record evidence, and quite arbitrary. The franchising framework established in Title VI does not support the Commission's decision to select 90 days as the deadline for a default grant—another Commission creation—to become effective.27 Throughout Part III (Franchising and Regulation) of Title VI, when Congress specifically decided to impose a deadline for LFAs to consider sales of cable systems,modification of franchise obligations, and renewals of existing franchises, in all three instances,Congress chose 120 days.29 In other sections of the Act,the prevalent time frame Congress imposed on LFAs and the Commission is 180 days.29 Today,the Commission, without authority, cannot take the place of Congress and impose a tighter time frame than Congress ever contemplated to impose on LFAs in the franchising process. This is well beyond Commission "line-drawing" authority, which requires the Commission to operate within the established framework of the authorizing legislation. While a 90-day deadline arguably could be considered "reasonable," that is not the statutory standard the Commission is purporting to use as the basis of its authority. We can only define "unreasonable" refusal, 3° which could be "foot-dragging" or "stonewalling" that amounts to a defacto denial of a franchise application. This is not the same as establishing an arbitrary, inflexible 90-day time frame, which overlooks the fact that 120 or 180 days may be reasonable under certain circumstances. While the Commission has line-drawing authority in some cases, the position taken in the Order is untenable on its face, given that Congress set a 120-day deadline for franchise transfers, which tend to be simpler than awarding new franchises, unless one is willing to assert that Congress itself was unreasonable. The aggressive schedule set here, while understandable and even desirable from a policy perspective, is evidence of the legislative nature of the Order. (Continued from previous page) the applicant's cable system a reasonable period of time to become capable of providing cable service to all households in the franchise area." In that case, Congress explicitly qualified timing,not the scope of buildout. As demonstrated in the Order, the Commission's attempt to super-inflate the meaning of"unreasonably refuse" in 621(a)(1), and diminish the significance of"unreasonable period of time" in section 621(a)(4)(A) is transparently inconsistent and blatantly self-serving. 27 The Order imposes a time limit of 90 days on LFAs to decide franchise applications from entities that already have access to public rights-of-way and a time limit of six months for applicants that are not already authorized to occupy the rights-of-way. Such a distinction does not exist in Title 6, notwithstanding the fact that Congress specifically contemplated phone companies—entities that already have access to public rights-of-way—obtaining franchises to provide video service. 28 47 U.S.C. § 537(providing LFAs 120 days to act upon request for approval of sale or transfer on cable systems); 47 U.S.C.§545(providing LFAs 120 days to modify franchise obligations);and 47 U.S.C. §546(providing LFAs a "4-month period" to "renew the franchise or, issue a preliminary assessment that the franchise should not be renewed"). 29 See, e.g., 47 U.S.C. § 543 (authorizing the Commission to "ensure that the rates for the basic service tier are reasonable"and requiring the Commission to develop regulations in 180 days). 30 47 U.S.C. § 541(a)(1). Today's Order specifically adopts rules that prohibit franchising authorities from "unreasonably refusing"to award competitive franchises. Order at¶1. 102 Federal Communications Commission FCC 06-180 To make matters worse,the Commission-created 90-day shot clock seems to function more like a waiting period, during which time the new entrant has little incentive to engage in meaningful negotiations. An objective review of the evidence shows that there is sufficient blame on both sides of the negotiation table. Sometimes, there are good reasons for delay; and at other times, one side might stall to gain leverage.31 While the majority is certainly aware of these tactics, they fail to even mention the need for LFAs and new entrants to abide by, or so much as to have,reciprocal good faith negotiation obligations. The majority also has ignored the apparent need to develop a complaint or grievance mechanism for the parties to ensure compliance. Perhaps Congress might consider imposing on the Commission a binding deadline to resolve complaints, which would inject an incentive for both sides to negotiate,meaningfully and in good faith.3z Without anything other than the asserted authority to interpret "unreasonably refuse," the Commission creates a regulatory reprimand for an LFA's failure to render a fmal decision within the Commission-created time limits. The consequences of the failure to reach agreement within 90 days is that the•LFA will be deemed to have granted the competitive entrant an interim franchise based on the terms proposed in the entrant's franchise application. In practicality,this will confer rights-of-way access over local property. In selecting this remedy, the Commission purportedly "seeks to provide a meaningful incentive for local franchising authority to abide by the deadlines contained in the Order."33 While the policy goal is understandable and arguably consistent with congressional intent to encourage the award of competitive cable franchises,we do not have legal authority to establish punitive,one-sided consequences,in order to create an"incentive." Moreover,the Commission ignores that by establishing a default grant of franchise applications effectively confers local property rights unilaterally and without regard for inherent local police powers and public health,safety and welfare. The Commission cites no credible authority that empowers it to deem a new entrant's franchise application granted by the LFA and thus confer local property rights.34 When construing a statute, principles of construction caution against any interpretation that may contravene existing law or U.S. Constitution. In this case,I am wary of a federal agency,which purports not to preempt any state-based 31 As the July 11, 2006, filing of the Greater Metro Telecommunications Consortium, the Rainer Communications Commission and the City of Tacoma, Washington explained: "[I]t is an oversimplification to believe that competitive entry into video programming can be facilitated by requiring a local government to act on a franchise application within a specific period of time. What the Commission may consider a delay is often a reasonable time for consideration,and indeed,the internal bureaucracies within many large companies often times dwarf the internal processes within local government,so that any rule the Commission might deem appropriate to apply regarding time to respond,must also be imposed upon the other party to negotiations." 32 The Commission purposefully stops short of creating reciprocal good faith obligations because that would authorize the parties to file a complaint with the Commission when negotiations fall apart. Such a complaint process would effectively serve as an enforcement mechanism,which would only increase this Order's litigation exposure as quasi-legislative document. Nevertheless,today's Order cannot be reasonably viewed as mere guidance to LFAs or a clarification of the term"unreasonably refuse"in section 621(a)(1). There is a real,punitive consequence if the LFA does not follow the Commission's dictates — a "deemed granted" franchise, which incurably alters the dynamics of franchise negotiations. 33 Order at¶76. 34 The Commission's reliance on ancillary authority it exercised in the early 1970s, well before congressional enactments in 1984, 1992 and 1996,is unavailing. In fact,such reliance reveals the Commission's need to make too large a reach to justify it actions. See Letter from James L. Casserly,Counsel for Comcast Corporation,to Marlene Dortch,Federal Communications Commission,MB Docket No.05-311 (filed December 13,2006). 103 Federal Communications Commission FCC 06-180 • franchising law,but yet is prepared to step into the shoes of an LFA—an instrumentality of the state—to grant a franchise application with all the attendant rights-of-way privileges.35 The Commission rejected an approach that would have deemed an application"denied"once the shot clock expired without LFA action. This approach, I maintain, would have expedited the judicial review that was Congress' chosen remedy,and is infinitely more consistent with the letter and spirit of the Communications Act, Title VI, and specifically sections 621(a)(1) and 635. Nowhere in the Act is the Commission granted the authority to force localities to grant franchises. Simply put, the Commission's "deemed granted" approach in the Order is not a justifiable choice to fill the perceived gap left open by Congress when it did not provide a specific remedy against LFA action that is short of an outright denial of a franchise application. While it is generally proper for the Commission to exercise its "predictive judgment,"that is only when the Commission has the requisite authority to act within a certain area and it stays within its authority. Neither exists in this case. In terms of build-out, the Commission seems to make a deliberate effort to overlook the plain meaning of the statute and to substitute its policy judgment for that of Congress. The Commission concludes that it is unlawful for LFAs to refuse to grant a competitive franchise on the basis of an applicants' refusal to agree to any build-out obligations. The Commission's analysis in this regard is anemic and facially inadequate. Section 621(a)(4)(A) provides that "[i]n awarding a franchise the franchising authority shall allow the applicant's cable system a reasonable period of time to become capable of providing cable service to all households in the franchise area." Absent express statutory authority, the Commission cannot declare it unreasonable for LFAs to require build-out to all households in the franchise area over a reasonable period of time. The Commission's argument in this regard is particularly spurious in light of the stated objective of this Order to promote broadband deployment and our common goal of promoting affordable broadband to all Americans. In the end, this is less about fiber to the home and more about fiber to the McMansion. The Commission is correct on one point,that section 621(a)(4)(A)is actually a limitation on LFA authority. However, consistent with plain reading of the provision and its legislative history, Section 621(a)(4)(A)surely is not a grant of authority to the Commission and does not impose a limitation on the scope of a competitive provider's build-out obligations. Indeed,section 621(a)(4)(A)explicitly limits the "period of time" to build-out, but an LFA is unrestrained to impose full, partial, or no build-out obligations on all cable service providers. As long as an LFA gives a competitive provider"a reasonable period of time to become capable of providing cable service to all households in the franchise area," section 621(a)(4)(A)essentially shields build-out requirement from constituting an"unreasonable refusal" to grant a competitive franchise. While this policy could be changed by Congress to facilitate competitive entry,that is not the current state of the law. An LFA cannot be prohibited from requiring build-out to all households in the franchise area if an LFA allows "a reasonable period of time" to do so. The Commission has not been ordained with a legislative"blue pencil"to rewrite law. Congress specifically directed LFAs — not the FCC — to allow a reasonable period of time for build-out. As much as the Commission would like it be its role, Congress gave the role to LFAs, and it is Congress' purview to modify that explicit delegation of authority. 35 See generally, Charter Communications v. County of Santa Cruz, 304 F.3d 927 (9`h Cir. 2002) (holding that deference is accorded to legislative action of local government),especially in light of fact that the Commission does not have clear congressionally delegated authority in this case; and local regulations, in this case, are likely explicitly sanctioned by the Cable Act and consistent with the express provisions of the Act,see 47 U.S.C. §556(a). 104 Federal Communications Commission FCC 06-180 Assuredly, Section 621(a)(4)(A) does not impose "universal" or "uniform" build-out requirements on franchise applicants. This may be a reflection of congressional intent to focus on the needs of the locality.36 However, it does not prohibit LFAs from requiring build-out obligations as a condition of franchise approval,so long as the competitive applicant is given a reasonable period of time. The rapid deployment of broadband has been a goal of mine since I joined this Commission. Wireline competition in the video market,particularly, is critical as a means to constrain prices, which in itself is a worthy goal after year upon year of price hikes. It is also critical to the future of our democracy that Americans have access to as many forms of video content as possible so they can make up their own minds about the issues of the day and not remain subject to a limited number of gatekeepers who decide what deserves airing based on their own financial or ideological interests. But, in order for the Commission to promote these goals effectively,we must operate within our legal authority. • Perhaps the majority has failed to consider the real life consequences of today's Order. For instance, in New York City, competitive entrants could file the Commission-mandated informational filing that proposes to serve only Broadway, Madison, or Park Avenue. Under today's Order, the New York City franchising authority would be forbidden from denying the competitive franchise based solely on the fact that the new entrant refuses to certain build-out requirements. The LFA is placed in the difficult position of either denying outright the franchise and absorb the costs and fees for the ensuing litigation,or agree to a franchise that is not responsive to needs and interests of local community. How can the majority declare build-out to be an impediment to entry when one of the major incumbent phone companies,AT&T,claims that it does not need a franchise to operate its video service, and the other,Verizon,has agreed to different,but favorable,build-out obligations with various states and localities? Under the federalist scheme of the Act,different jurisdictions can choose models that best suit their specific needs. For example,in New Jersey,the state-wide franchise reform law correlates build-out principally to population density, while build-out obligations in Virginia principally track the entrant's existing wireline facilities. And in New York City, Verizon and the LFA were actively negotiating universal build-out over a period of a few years. The broad pen with which the majority writes today's Order does not stop with build-out. The Order also uses the Commission's alleged authority under Section 621(a)(1) to determine that any LFA refusal to award a competitive franchise because of a new entrant's refusal to support PEG or I-Net is per se unreasonable. Although the Order purports to provide clarification with respect to which franchise fees are permissible under the Act, it muddles the regime and leaves communities and new entrants with conflicting views about funding PEG and I-Net. Indeed, Congress provided explicit direction on what constitutes or does not constitute a franchise fee,with a remedy to the courts for aggrieved parties. Today's Order should make clear that, while any requests made by an LFA unrelated to the provision of cable service and unrelated to PEG or I-NET are subject to the statutory five percent franchise fee cap, these are not the type of costs excluded from the term "franchise fee" by section 622(g)(2)(C). That provision excludes from the term"franchise fee" any"capital costs that are required by the franchise to be incurred by the cable operator for public, educational, or governmental access facilities." The legislative history of the 1984 Cable Act clearly indicates that"any franchise requirement for the provision of services,facilities or equipment is not included as a`fee."'37 36 See 47 U.S.C. § 521 (2)(stating that the one of the central purposes of Title 6 is to"assure that cable systems are responsive to the needs and interests of the local community.") See also 47 U.S.C. § 521(3)(stating that another central purpose of Title 6 is to establish clear federal,state and local roles). 37 The legislative history of 1984 Cable Act provides"in general, [section 622(g)(2)(C)] defines as a franchise fee only monetary payments made by the cable operator, and does not include as a'fee' any franchise requirement for (continued...) 105 Federal Communications Commission FCC 06-180 PEG facilities and access provide an important resource to thousands of communities across this country. Equally important,redundancy or even duplicative I-Net provides invaluable homeland security and public health, safety and welfare functions in towns, cities, and municipalities across America. It is my hope that today's decision does not undermine these and other important community media resource needs. While my objections to today's Order are numerous and substantial, that should not overlook the real need I believe there is for franchise reform. Indeed, there is bipartisan support for reform in Congress, and most LFAs throughout this country are committed to bring video competition to their jurisdictions. My fundamental concern with this Order is that it is based on such paper-thin jurisdiction, but it is truly broad in scope. It ignores the plain reading of the section 621, usurps congressional prerogative and pre-empts LFAs in certain important respects that directly contradict the Act. The sum total here is an arrogant case of federal power riding roughshod over local governments. It turns federalism on its head. While I can support certain efforts to streamline the process and preclude local authorities from engaging in unreasonable practices,this item blatantly and unnecessarily tempts the federal courts to overturn this clearly excessive exercise of the limited role afforded to us by the law. The likely outcome of being reversed in Federal Court could have pernicious and unintended consequences in limiting our flexibility to exercise our discretion in future worthy endeavors. Accordingly,I dissent. (Continued from previous page) the provision of services, facilities or equipment. As regards PEG access in new franchises, payments for capital costs required by the franchise to be made by the franchise to be made by the cable operator are not defined as fees under this provision." H.R.REP.No.98-934,at 65 reprinted in 1984 U.S.C.C.A.N.4702. 106 Federal Communications Commission FCC 06-180 STATEMENT OF COMMISSIONER DEBORAH TAYLOR TATE Re: Implementation,of Section 621(a)(1) of the Cable Communications Policy Act of 1984 as amended by the Cable Television Consumer Protection and Competition Act of 1992(MB Docket No. 05-311) Today's item, like most we address as an expert agency, is full of sophisticated technical, legal, and policy arguments. At a high level,however,I view this as a continuation down a path of deregulatory policies designed to encourage new market entry, innovation, and investment. Indeed, "encouraging] more robust competition in the video marketplace"by limiting franchising requirements has long been a stated goal of the Commission as well as a driving force behind statutory terms we interpret today. Section 621(a)(1) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the "Act"), states that franchising authorities ("LFAs") may not "unreasonably refuse to award" a competitive franchise to provide cable services. I agree with our conclusion that we have the jurisdictional authority to interpret this section of the Act and adopt rules to implement it. In amending Section 621(a)(1) to include the phrase"unreasonably refuse to award,"Congress explicitly limited the authority of LFAs. However,if an LFA does not make a fmal decision for months on end,or perhaps even years as the record indicates,new entrants are given no recourse. Also, unreasonable demands, similar to long,delays, serve as a further barrier to competitive entry. It is nonsensical to contend that, despite the limitation on LFA authority in the Act, LFAs remain the sole arbiters of whether their actions in the franchise approval process are reasonable. Since the section's judicial review provision applies only to final decisions by LFAs, absent Commission action to identify "unreasonable" terms and conditions, franchise applicants would have no avenue for redress. I conclude that our broad and well-recognized authority as the federal agency responsible for administering the Act, including Title VI, •permits us to identify such terms and conditions,and I support our exercise of that authority. As with most orders, we explored numerous ways to achieve our goals. I ultimately support today's item, because I believe that, by streamlining timeframes for action and providing practical guidelines for both LFAs and new entrants, the item encourages the development of competition in the video marketplace and speeds the deployment of broadband across the country in a platform-neutral manner. These beneficial policy results should not be underestimated. Our annual reports to Congress on cable prices, including the report we adopt today, consistently show that prices are lower where wireline competition is present. And, of course, broadband deployment enhances our ability to educate our children for the jobs of tomorrow and ensures that the United States remains competitive in this global communications age. Additionally, I am pleased that we recognize—and do not preempt—the actions of those states that have reformed their franchise rules. Their efforts to streamline the process for competitive entry are laudable. Finally, it is critical that as we advance pro-competitive policies, we ensure that our policies do not unreasonably create asymmetry in the marketplace. Accordingly,I am encouraged that we resolve to address open issues regarding existing franchise agreements on an expedited basis. I encourage all interested parties to use your energies toward assisting us as we seek a way to apply more broadly our conclusions across all companies. 107 Federal Communications Commission FCC 06-180 • STATEMENT OF COMMISSIONER ROBERT M.MCDOWELL Re: In the matter of Implementation of Section 621(a)(1)of the Cable Communications Policy Act of 1984 as amended by the Cable Television Consumer Protection and Competition Act of 1992 (MB Docket No. 05-311) I have long advocated the Commission doing all that it can to open new opportunities for entrepreneurs to have the freedom to construct new delivery platforms for innovative new services. More delivery platforms mean more competition. More competition means consumers can choose among more innovative offerings. As consumers become more empowered, prices fall and, as a result, new technologies become more available to help improve the lives of all Americans. In short, creating a de- regulatory environment where competition is given the chance to flourish kicks off a virtuous cycle of hope, investment,growth and opportunity. Today,the Commission is taking a step forward in what I hope will be a noble quest to spur more competition across many delivery platforms and,where appropriate,within delivery platforms. While we already have some competition in the video market, American consumers are demanding even more competition. And that's the goal of our action today: more competition through de-regulation. Perhaps President Ronald Reagan foresaw an issue like this one when he said, "We have a healthy skepticism of government, checking its excesses at the same time we're willing to harness its energy when it helps improve the lives of our citizens." That is precisely what we are doing today: checking any government excesses at the local level to unleash free markets which will help improve the lives of all Americans. This order strikes a careful balance between establishing a de-regulatory national framework to clear unnecessary regulatory underbrush, while also preserving local control over local issues. It guards against localities making unreasonable demands of new entrants,while still allowing those same localities to be able to protect important local interests through meaningful negotiations with aspiring video service providers. Local franchising authorities are still free to deny deficient applications on their own schedule, but we are imposing a"shot clock"to guard against unreasonable delay. After the shot clock runs out,if the locality has not granted or denied the application,an interim or temporary authority will be granted to give the parties more time to reach a consensus. If the LFA feels as though it cannot grant a franchise during this period,they are free to deny the application. And unhappy applicants still have the liberty to go to court,as codified under federal law. Additionally, should communications companies decide to upgrade their existing non-cable services networks, localities may not require them to obtain a franchise. However, this order does not address whether video service providers can avoid local or federal jurisdiction over those video services because those services are carried over differing protocols, such as Internet protocol. That question is explicitly left for another docket. In the same spirit of deference to localities, we are not pre-empting recently enacted state laws that make it easier for new video service providers to enter the market. Those important frameworks will remain intact. Similarly,on the important issue of build-out requirements,we preserve local flexibility to implement important public policy objectives, but we don't allow localities to require new entrants to serve everybody before they serve anybody. Many commenting parties, Members of Congress, and two of my distinguished colleagues, have legitimately raised questions regarding the Commission's authority to implement many of these initiatives. I have raised similar questions. However, as the draft of this item has evolved and, I think, improved, my concerns have been assuaged, for the most part. The Commission has ample general and 108 Federal Communications Commission FCC 06-180 specific authority to issue these rules under several sections including, but not limited to, sections: 151, 201, 706, 621, 622, and many others. Furthermore, a careful reading of applicable case law shows that the courts have consistently given the Commission broad discretion in this arena. While I understand the concerns of others, after additional study, I feel as though we are now on safe legal ground. But I know that reasonable minds will differ on this point and that appellate lawyers are already on their way to the court house. That is the American way,I suppose. This order is not perfect. If it were, it would say that all of the de-regulatory benefits we are providing to new entrants we are also providing to all video providers,be they incumbent cable providers, over-builders or others. I want to ensure that no governmental entities, including those of us at the FCC, have any thumb on the scale to give a regulatory advantage to any competitor. But the record in this proceeding does not allow us to create a regulatory parity framework just yet. That's why I am pleased that today's order and further notice contain the tentative conclusion that the relief we are granting to new entrants will apply to all video service providers once they renew their franchises. Also, I have consistently maintained during my time here that if shot clocks are good for others then they are good for the FCC itself. Accordingly,I am pleased that the Chairman has agreed to release an order as a result of the further notice no later than six months from the release date of this order, and regardless of the appellate posture of this matter. Resolving these important questions soon will give much-needed regulatory certainty to all market players, spark investment, speed competition on its way, and make America a stronger player in the global economy. By the same token, it is no secret that I would also like to see the Commission act more quickly on petitions filed by any individual or industry group, especially if those petitions may help spur competition in any market, be it video, voice, data, wireless, or countless others. We should never let government inaction create market distortions. I thank my entire staff, especially Cristina Pauze, for their long hours, dedication and insight regarding this order. I also thank the tireless Media Bureau and the General Counsel's office for their tremendous efforts on this important matter. Lastly,I would like to thank Chairman Martin for his strong leadership on this issue. 109 From: "Michael Bradley" <bradley@bradleyguzzetta.com> To: "Bonnie Walton"<Bwalton@ci.renton.wa.us> Date: 5/14/2007 9:40:48 AM Subject: Renton Franchise Administration Report 2006.pdf-Adobe Acrobat Professional Good morning Bonnie- Here is our cable franchise administration report for 2006. Please let me know if you would like any changes in our reporting. Thanks Bonnie. Mike Bradley • • s g f k 1/ �y CITY OF RENTON CABLE FRANCHISE ADMINISTRATION Bradley, -i Guzzetta,"� Overview of Services G tic (November 2005—December 2006) 444 Cedar Street,Suite 950 The City of Renton(the"City") engaged the cable franchise administrative Saint Paul MN 55101 services of Bradley&Guzzetta, LLC ("B&G"). B&G is a company that works P/(651)379-0900 Fl(65 1)379-0999 only with cities on cable franchising matters. B&G takes calls directly from City residents. B&G has set up a phone line for the exclusive use of City residents and Attorneys at Law when residents call in they are greeted by an automated system customized for the Michael R.Bradleyt City. The City still receives some calls on cable service and is able to Stephen J.(.ilizzetta* electronically forward these messages to B&G for quick responses. Gregory S.Uhl Brian F.Laule Under the cable franchise the City has with Comcast, the City must certify that Legal Assistants residents requesting senior/disabled discounts are eligible. B&G redrafted a Thomas R.Colaizy special form that it now uses to certify eligibility. The City has also provided Josepl,Krueger B&G with City letterhead and envelopes to mail out certification forms. From all Of Counsel appearances, it would appear the City rather than an outside vendor is J.David Abramson administering the cable franchise. In 2006, B&G spoke with at least one hundred (100) citizens regarding cable services within the City of Renton. The majority of phone calls related to questions concerning information and eligibility for a senior/disabled cable discount. All citizens of Renton who requested an application packet and provided an address were supplied applications and self addressed return envelopes. Forty Nine (49)packets with supporting information were returned, reviewed for satisfactory documentation and certified to Comcast to institute the Senior/Disabled cable discount. In addition to certifying subscribers for discount eligibility,we also successfully addressed subscriber complaints and inquiries and assisted the City with obtaining franchise benefits. For example,we addressed complaints related to cable system build-out to a newly annexed portion of Renton. Initially, a Comcast representative told the subscriber to subscribe to satellite service. Once we contacted Comcast, they agreed to build-out to the area. Another subscriber complained about the channel lineup being moved from analog to digital. There were also some complaints concerning poor reception(snow) despite multiple service attempts,which we resolved. In one instance our work resulted in Comcast's technical staff coming to a subscribers home to raise the level of his cable box so that it would not fill with water. Another complaint that we resolved dealt with setup charges for a pre-wired home where service was requested to only one room. Another citizen called to request a copy of the franchise language regarding the discount program. All of the callers' issues were completely addressed. www.bradleyauzzetta.com • (Also admitted in Wisconsin 1 'Also admitted in Massachusetts and the District of Columbia We have also assisted the City in getting the North Highlands Neighborhood Center wired for cable. In addition, we worked with the City and Comcast in resolving permitting issues. We also began receiving quarterly performance and franchise fee reports. These reports are attached for your records. We also advised the City of a NATOA call to action on a FCC local franchising regulatory matter, which the City participated in. If you would like any additional detail on our services,please do not hesitate to call me. Mike Bradley Cable Franchise Administrator 2 Date Name Phone(425) Address Notes 11/1/05 Balance, 206-772- 801 Ranier Ave Lee 6808 N,#A203, Renton,WA 980055 11/8/05 Beach, 235-1363 1201 Anacortes Carol AVE NE, Renton,WA 98059 11/8/05 Phan,Toai 206-227- 2202 NE 10th P1, 3820 #104,Renton, WA 98056 12/1/05 Linda 228-4274 2712 NE 9th 12/20/05 received, reviewed and Perchyk Street submitted completed packet. 12/1/05 Poppie N/A 51 Busnett 1/24/06 received,reviewed and Majoor Avenue Apt. 415 submitted completed packet. Renton,WA 98055 12/1/05 Harold 255-6400 1509 Davis 12/20/05 received,reviewed and Carlson Avenue South submitted completed packet. Renton,WA 98055 12/2/05 Doquette, 390-1268 1151 Olyumpia Cindy AVE NE,#29, Renton,WA 98056 12/7/05 Thelma 228-2593 2901 NE 10th 12/20/05 received, reviewed and Crockett Street Apt. 222 submitted completed packet. Renton,WA 98056 12/8/05 Velma N/A 211 Shattuck 12/22/05 received, reviewed and Smith Apt. 14 Renton, submitted completed packet. WA 98055 12/8/05 Everett 687-5909 2901 NE 10th 12/20/05 received,reviewed and O'Dell Street Apt. 121 submitted completed packet. Renton,WA 98056 12/8/05 Virginia 793-4219 2901 NE 10th 12/20/05 received,reviewed and Green Street Apt. 223 submitted completed packet. Renton,WA 98056 12/8/05 Lottie 687-1767 2901 NE 10th 12/20/05 received,reviewed and Jackson Street Apt. 433 submitted completed packet. Renton,WA 98056 12/10/05 Edna Jelley N/A 2901 NE 10th 12/21/05 received,reviewed and Street Apt. 225 submitted completed packet. Renton,WA 98056 3 • Date Name Phone(425) Address Notes 12/20/05 James E. 227-6628 600 SW 5th 1/4/06 received, reviewed and King Court#I-206 submitted completed packet. Renton,WA 12/20/05 Gloria N/A 417 5th Street 1/23/06 received, reviewed and Sprange Renton,WA submitted completed packet. 98055 1/4/06 Barbara 271-7050 3104 NE 10th St. Denton Renton,WA 98056 1/5/06 Patricia 227-7990 153 Capri Razzore Avenue Northeast Renton,WA 98056 1/5/06 Inex Scarff 51 Burnett Avenue South Apartment 212 Renton,WA 98055 1/11/06 Park 226-6816 4769 Morris Unsook Avenue South Apt. S101 Renton,WA 98055 1/11/06 Joleen 924-2175 14600 176th Unincorporated Address: Referred Berick Street Southeast to King Co. Office of Cable Apt. A4 Renton, WA 98058 1/11/06 Sally 228-9441 17650 134th Unincorporated Address: Referred Phillips Avenue to King Co. Office of Cable. Southeast Apt. F205 Renton, WA 98058 1/12/06 Barbara 687-0344 408 Monroe 1/23/06 received, reviewed and Austin Avenue NE#110 submitted completed packet. Renton,WA 98056 1/13/06 Mr. Felix 226-6281 554 Ferndale Delvillar ' Avenue NE Renton,WA 98056 1/13/06 Joyce TDD Relay 450 Monroe 2/14/06 received, reviewed and Austin Phone Ave.NE,Apt. submitted completed packet. 305 Renton,WA 98056 1/17/06 Shimona 206-334- Left messages for address,no 2774 return calls 1/17/06 Wilson,Elsa 226-4727 Left messages for address,no return calls 4 Date Name Phone(425) Address Notes 1/17/06 Sonja Rivers 271-1083 201 Union (daugther (daughter's Avenue - Angela) number) Southeast Apartment 197 Renton,WA 98059 1/18/06 Robin 206-283- 335 Williams 2/6/06 received, reviewed and Bingham 4629 Avenue North#1 submitted completed packet. Renton,WA 98055 1/20/06 Ms.Friedel 277-2881 201 Union 2/6/06 received, reviewed and Butler Avenue submitted completed packet. Southeast Space 6 Renton,WA 98059 1/20/06 Clara 255-8034 18100 107th Unincorporated Address: Referred Windham Place SE#66 to King Co. Office of Cable Renton,WA 98055 1/23/06 Wendy 226-1811 455 Index 2/16/06 received, reviewed and Hatch Avenue NE submitted completed packet. Renton,WA 98056 1/26/06 Elaine 271-8503 201 Union 2/6/06 received, reviewed and Kerns Avenue SE#239 submitted completed packet. Renton,WA 98059 1/26/06 Anna M. 204-5541 3030 NE 10th Marangon Street Apt. 201 - Renton,WA 98056 1/27/06 Myra 254-0858 5351/2 Traywick Whitworth Avenue South Renton,WA 98055 1/30/06 Emlyn 206-356- 18199 107th Unincorporated Address: Referred Gates 1479 Place Southeast to King Co. Office of Cable Renton,WA 98055 1/31/06 Glen Bors 793-4410 922 Glennwood 2/14/06 form received w/o Acenue NE#3 supporting documentation,letter Renton,WA requesting supporting 98056 documentation sent 1/31/06 Kulwant 10404 SE 187th Unincorporated Address: Referred Kaur Place Renton, to King Co. Office of Cable WA 98055 5 Date Name Phone (425) Address Notes 2/6/06. Harvey 255-0112 836 Jefferson Citizen felt they were over income Sanzahl Avenue Renton, cap/he declined mailing WA 98056 2/6/06 Ben Gupton 227-5155 1425 South 10/18/06 received,reviewed and Puget Drive G1 submitted completed packet Renton,WA 98055 2/6/06 Fanh Duong 351-1123 1476 Hillcrest Lane Renton, WA 98056 2/6/06 Stan Kowis 255-8046 16621 1088th Unincorporated Address: Referred Avenue South to King Co. Office of Cable Renton,WA 98058 2/14/06 Mary Ann 226-0195 calling for her Campbell son. 2/14/06 Fredicik 332-4645 71 SW Victoria Bogel Street Apt. 111 Renton,WA 98055 2/14/06 Joan Webb 713 SW 3/20/06 received,reviewed and Langston Road submitted completed packet Renton,WA 98055 2/14/06 Troy Long 390-0146 1417 Monrroe 2/24/06 received, reviewed and Avenue NE submitted completed packet. Renton,WA 98056 2/14/06 Dorris 255-3048 15744 SE Unincorporated Address: Referred Alexander Renton Issaquah to King Co. Office of Cable Renton,WA 98059 2/16/06 Robert 18604 107th Unincorporated Address: Referred Renton,WA to King Co. Office of Cable 2/20/06 Patricia 255-8353 13205 1058th Unincorporated Address: Referred Smith Avenue Renton, to King Co. Office of Cable WA 2/20/06 Dianne 235-7317 201 Union Christensen Avenue SE#158 Renton,WA 98059 2/20/06. George 3151 NE 16th Citizen felt they were over income Lucas Street cap/he declined mailing Apartment 313 Renton,WA 98056 6 Date Name Phone(425) Address Notes 2/23/06 Emery, 227-8678 2606 Sunset 3/13/06 received,reviewed and Mary Lane NE, submitted completed packet Renton,WA 2/23/06 Mary Enery 2606 Sunset Lane NE Apartment B Renton,WA 98056 3/2/06 Kazia Iszley 2017 SE 17th Citizen felt they were over income Court Renton, cap/he declined mailing WA 98055 3/2/06 Margaret 271-6066 2901 NE 10th 3/29/06 received,reviewed and Andreas Apt. 327 Renton, submitted completed packet WA 98056 3/3/06 Tianna 206-510- Left messages for address,no 9443 return calls 3/3/06 SanDiego, 793-4400 1435 Hillcrest 5/8/06 received,reviewed and Epifanio Lane NE, submitted completed packet Renton,WA 98056 3/6/06 Doung, 793-5477 1476 Hillcrest 3/6/06 received,reviewed and Sanh Thi LN NE,Renton, submitted completed packet WA 98056 3/7/06 Bergsma, 226-3974 15400 SE 1055th Unincorporated Address: Referred Judy Place,#16, to King Co. Office of Cable Renton WA 98058 3/8/06 Nicholson, 206-406- 1901 NE 10th Jim 2766 ST,#432, Renton,WA 98056 3/13/06 Spang, 641-9294 1017 Olympia 9/19/06 received,reviewed and Betty AV NE,Renton, submitted completed packet WA 3/14/06 Kirby,Dale 206-243- 1425 S. Puget 3/20/06 received,reviewed and 2322 Drive,Renton, submitted completed packet WA 98055 3/14/06 Chhoeum, 1436 Hillcrest 5/12/06 received,reviewed and Lem LN NE,Renton submitted completed packet WA 98056 3/15/06 Weenier, 271-2981 14015 SE 177th Unincorporated Address: Referred Bart ST,#M102, to King Co. Office of Cable Renton,WA 3/15/06 Schmelling, 430-9920 11238 SE 182nd Unincorporated Address: Referred James ST,Renton,WA to King Co. Office of Cable 98055 7 Date Name Phone(425) Address Notes 3/17/06 Valente, 255-1482 2523 NE 6th PL, 4/13/06 received,reviewed and Eileen Renton,WA submitted completed packet 98056 4/19/06 Thi,Hong 793-0481 1478 Hillcrest 5/8/06 received,reviewed and Van LN NE,Renton, submitted completed packet WA 98056 4/22/06 Wells,Jerrie 271-8187 450 Monroe Ave 5/12/06 received,reviewed and Lee NE,#107, submitted completed packet Renton,WA 98056 4/22/06 Gilevich, 657-0757 1555 Anacortes 5/8/06 received,reviewed and Boris Ave NE,#G223, submitted completed packet Renton,WA 98059 4/30/06 Sanchez, 201 Union 6/13/06 form received w/o Onecimo Avenue SE,#37, supporting documentation, letter Renton,WA requesting supporting 98059 documentation sent 4/30/06 Davis, 277-9145 14300 Se 171st Unincorporated Address: Referred Annette ST Way,#L3, to King Co. Office of Cable Renton,WA 98058 5/1/06 Bright,Isaac 255-6392 71 SW Victoria 5/15/06 received,reviewed and ST,Renton,WA submitted completed packet 98055 5/15/06 Springstead, 226-5762 450 Monroe AV 5/24/06 received,reviewed and Donald NE,#116, submitted completed packet Renton,WA 98056 5/20/06 Whittacker, 271-4936 821 Duvall P1 Complaint: Comcast will not Stewart NE,Renton,WA provide service in newly annexed 98059 area,resolve,Comcast dug in line. 5/21/06 Ueland, Carl 206-276- 800 Duvall P1 Complaint: Comcast will not 9280 NE,Renton,WA provide service in newly annexed 98059 area,resolve,Comcast dug in line. 5/25/06 Rohnnoser, 226-3842 4200 Smithers Gisela AVE S,#A104, Renton,WA 98055 5/30/06 Clark, 277-7837 2828 NE 3`d ST, 6/26/06 received,reviewed and Beatrice #B303,Renton, submitted completed packet WA 98056 6/2/06 Knudsen, 255-0918 1305 Thomas 6/12/06 received,reviewed and Karen Lane,#1, submitted completed packet Renton,WA 98055 8 Date Name Phone(425) Address Notes 6/18/06 Seitz, 1418 Harrington 6/26/06 received,reviewed and Beatrice AVE,NE submitted completed packet Renton,WA 98056 7/18/06 Trahan, 255-2964 71 SW Victoria 7/24/06 received,reviewed and Gloria ST,Renton,WA submitted completed packet 98055-1920 8/7/06 Sagmo, 255-6431 1711 Index Ave 8/24/06 received,reviewed and Margaret NE,Renton,WA submitted completed packet 98056 8/14/06 Holland, 235-7415 201 Union Ave Complaint: though tech comes Erling SE,#155, out,no resolution for snowing Renton,WA screen,Comcast contacted,new 98059 parts installed,resolved. 8/14/06 Burkhalter, 255-9454 715 Jones Ave S, Margaret Renton,WA 98057 8/17/06 Spaeth, 392-4873 1826 Blain Ave 9/8/06 received,reviewed and Harold NE,Renton,WA submitted completed packet 98056 9/1/06 DeShurley, 17226 120th Unincorporated Address: Referred Carol Terrace SE, to King Co. Office of Cable Renton,WA 9/1/06 Kramnicz, 3318 NE 11th Helena ST,Renton,WA 98056 9/12/06 Homaie'rad, 253-797- 16818 108th Ave Unincorporated Address: Referred Fred 9555 SE,#25,Renton, to King Co. Office of Cable WA 9/12/06 Taylor, 228-1672 2825 NE 12th 9/21/06 received,reviewed and Eugenia ST,#105, submitted completed packet Renton,WA 98056 9/14/06 Peterson, 226-5580 9616 123t Ave Wanda SE,Renton,WA 98056 9/15/06 Duncan, 793-7767 4702 Davis Ave Earline S,MM101, Renton,WA 98055 9/18/06 Connolly, 805-298- 3518 NE 24`1'Ct, Complaint: Requested service, Patrick 0084 Renton,WA tech told must pay for every room prewired or disconnect all, resolved with Comcast for citizen 10/3/06 Heaton, 255-8440 650 Duvall Ave Citizen asked for discount Barbara NE,#614, language,mailed ordinance section Renton,WA 5-17-18 98059 9 Date Name Phone(425) Address Notes 10/4/06 Long, 3151 NE 16th 10/17/06 received,reviewed and Earnest ST,#324, submitted completed packet Renton,WA 98056 10/9/06 Nguyen, 206-250- 3151 NE 16th 10/17/06 received,reviewed and Ngoc 9585 ST,#101, submitted completed packet Renton,WA 98056 10/18/06 Thomas, 235-0869 1600 Blaine CT Clementine SE,Renton,WA 98055 10/25/06 Besser, 687-2824 3151 NE 16t1 11/7/06 received,reviewed and Linda ST,#211, submitted completed packet Renton,WA 98056 11/2/06 Zubar, 271-1617 14600 SE 176t1' Unincorporated Address: Referred Tammy Street,#H3, to King Co. Office of Cable Renton,WA 98058 12/8/06 Fowler, 277-3374 1544 N. Marion 12/8/06 original request, asked for Clarence St,Renton,WA information again, 1/12/07, 98055 1/23/07 received,reviewed and submitted completed packet. 12/11/06 Galer, 277-8830 Unincorporated Address: Referred William to King Co. Office of Cable 12/26/06 Aldrich, 271-7321 609 Shattuck Brenda Ave S,#4, Renton,WA 98055 12/27/06 LaDue, 254-8868 14300 SE 174th Unincorporated Address: Referred Jennifer St.,#F1,Renton, to King Co. Office of Cable WA 98058 10 @orncast. Comcas1 Cable PO.Box 3042 Bothell,WA 98041 July28, 2006 Sent Via US Mail Ms. Bonnie Walton City Clerk/Cable Manager City of Renton 1055 S Grady Way Renton, WA 98055 • RE: Performance Summary Report— 2nd Quarter 2006 Dear Ms.Walton: Enclosed please find the Performance Summary Report for 2nd Quarter 2006. If you have any questions about this report,please contact me at (425) 398-6051. Sincerely, alitc—.1{Mt44-7 Ann Svensson Franchise Contracts Administrator Comcast- WA Market End. Cc: Janet L.Turpen,Comcast Ken Rhoades,Comcast Terry Davis, Comcast Bradley&Guzetta,LLC omcast. PERFORMANCE STANDARDS SUMMARY Everett and Fife Call Centers Combined Report* Performance Standards Apr-06 May-06 Jun-06 2nd Qtr 2006 90% of Calls Answered within 30 seconds 90.88% 90.33% 89.03% 90.03% 3% or less Busy Signal Number of Calls Received 551,937 604,883 650,871 1,807,691 Average Speed of Answer 0:26 0:31 0:37 0:31 Average Handle Time (Includes talk and wrap-up) 5:07 5:15 5:20 5:14 Number of Calls Abandoned by Caller 8,473 13,065 14,789 36,327 7-day Installation (average days out) 6 6.05 7.09 6.38 Service Call Responsiveness (no picture resolved in 24 hours) 87.38% 88.10% 83.97% 86.48% $ l Y/ ✓(��omcast Comcast Cable P.O.Box 3042 Bothell,WA 98041 October 27,2006 -i '°(OF`iE O NOV> 0 2 200l�% Sent Via US Mail Ms. Bonnie Walton City Clerk/Cable Manager City of Renton 1055 S Grady Way Renton, WA 98055 V RE: Performance Summary Report— 3rd Quarter 2006 Dear Ms.Walton: Enclosed please find the Performance Summary Report for 3rd Quarter 2006. If you have any questions about this report,please contact me at (425) 398-6051. Sincerely, Ann Svensson Franchise Contracts Administrator Comcast- WA Market End. Cc: Janet L.Turpen, Comcast Ken Rhoades, Comcast Terry Davis, Comcast Bradley&Guzetta,LLC • • wu i..l 'ems ,.;- PERFORMANCE STANDARDS SUMMARY C t.. ''17?-1 ;ry " 0.4 Everett and Fife Call Centers Combined Report* Performance Standards Jul-06 Aug-06 Sep-06 3rd QTR 90% of Calls Answered within 30 seconds 88.26% 88.57% 93.08% 90.03% 3% or less Busy Signal 0.7% 1.1% 1.3% 1.0% Number of Calls Received 647,120 670,656 640,654 1,958,430 Average Speed of Answer 0:43 0:32 0:32 0:35 Average Handle Time (Includes talk and wrap-up) 5:18 5:18 5:09 5:16 Number of Calls Abandoned by Caller 17,682 12,933 8,263 38,878 7-day Installation 9.1 8.3 8 8.5 (average days out) days days days days Service Call Responsiveness 79% 83% 82% 81 (no picture resolved in 24 hours) Comcast® Comcast Cable P.O.Box 3042 Bothell,WA 98041 January 30,2007 Sent Via US Mail Ms. Bonnie Walton City Clerk/Cable Manager City of Renton 1055 S Grady Way Renton, WA 98055 RE: Performance Summary Report- 4th Quarter 2006 Dear Ms. Walton: Enclosed please find the Performance Summary Report for 4th Quarter 2006. If you have any questions about this report,please contact me at (425) 398-6051. Sincerely, Ann Svensson Franchise Contracts Administrator Comcast- WA Market End. Cc: Janet L.Turpen,Comcast Ken Rhoades,Comcast Terry Davis,Comcast Bradley&Guzetta,LLC @omcast. PERFORMANCE STANDARDS SUMMARY Everett and Fife Call Centers Combined Report" Performance Standards Oct-07 Nov-07 Dec-07 4th QTR 90% of Calls Answered within 30 seconds 85.35% 94.19% 92.25% 90.72% 3% or less Busy Signal 1.38% 0.95% 3.11% 1.81% Number of Calls Received 685,883 685,300 890,061 2,261,244 Average Speed of Answer 0:49 1:03 0:53 0:55 Average Handle Time (Includes talk and wrap-up) 5:17 5:20 5:11 5:16 Number of Calls Abandoned by Caller 19,246 24,149 28,988 72,383 7-day Installation 6.41 5.73 5.86 6 (average days out) Service Call Responsiveness 92.54% 91.02% 85.58% 89.71% (no picture resolved in 24 hours) • Comcas Cable Comcast P.O.Box 042 Bothell,WA 98011 • January 30, 2007 SENT VIA UPS Bonnie Walton City of Renton 1055 S Grady Way Renton, WA 98055 RE: Franchise Fee Report- Fourth Quarter 2006 Dear Ms. Walton: In accordance with our franchise agreement with the City of Renton,please find enclosed the franchise fee report for Fourth Quarter 2006. The figures reported herein should be consistent with the franchise fee check you received from our corporate office in Denver, Colorado. If you have any questions about your franchise fee check or the attached report, please feel free to contact me at(425) 398-6051. Sincerely, Ann Svensson Franchising Contracts Administrator Comcast—WA Market Encls. cc: Janet L. Turpen, Comcast Ken Rhoades, Comcast Terry Davis, Comcast Bradley&Guzzetta, LLC OPERATOR: City of Renton Comcast Period From 10/1/06-12/31/06 i9009 120th rive Ne;5uite 200 Bothell,WA 96011 ,„ : , FRANCHISE FEE PAYMENT WORKSHEET UNITS UNIT PRICE MONTHS IN GROSS FEE% FRANCHISE YTD REVENUE SOURCE (AVE OF PER) (EACH MO) PERIOD REVENUE FEE Installation-(Including Digital) 977 _ :•$16.06 3 47,078.58 5 2,353.93 8,550.19 Rafe Card Price 112.49 Basic Cable Service* 18,845 $9.96 3 563,254.44 5 28,162.72 113,432.48 Pam Expanded Cable Service* 15,350 $31.55 3 1,452,778.06 5 72,638.90 288,497.77 s++;99'• Special Interest(Digital)** 9,033 $17.23 3 467,038.58 5 23,351.93 85,715.59 :'-.3is.99 HBO Customers 3,445 sls.m..,.':.:. Showtime Customers 1,004 Vis.ss Cinemax Customers 766 815.99 TMC Customers 660 E15.99 Starz!Customers 1,836 Encore Customers 1,033 Total Premium 8,744 $8.18 3 214,549.23 5 10,727.46 42,515.71 .: ss.9asats5,- Pay-Per-View 974 $50.52 3 147,571.12 5 • 7,378.56 26,327.40 s1.fs ' Standard Converters 55 s4.79 Addressable Converters 195 `:84:70toss.rA Digital Converters 13,298 saes Remote Units 13,093 Total Equipment 26,642 $0.03 3 2,669.38 5 133.47 808.75 TOTAL SERVICE/INSTALL INCOME 2,894,939.39 5 144,746.97 565,847.89 Advertising Revenue 283,706.88 5 14,185.34 44,012.26 Shopping Services 33,015.99 5 1,650.80 6,561.53 ' s3.s9 Guides 562 $3.25 3 5,475.50 5 273.78 1,146.56 Late Fees 20,526.00 1,026.30 3,110.34 Miscellaneous 5,774.02 5 288.70 1,365.25 TOTAL NON-SUBSCRIBER INCOME 348,498.39 5 17,424.92 56,195.93 Less Refunds/Bad Debts (52,651.99) 5 (2,632.60) (10,777.09) Plus Bad Debt Recovery 0.00 5 0.00 , 0.00 NET BAD DEBTS(-) (52,651.99) 5 (2,632.60) (10,777.09) TOTAL REVENUES 3,190,785.79 5 159,539.29 611,266.74 Franchise Fee Revenue 183,799.83 5 9,189.99 35,787.37 Utility Tax 221,003.96 5 11,050.20 43,020.95 Adjustments* TOTAL DUE CITY 3,595,589.58 5 179,779.48 690,075.06 EXPLANATORY NOTES: t At Basir and Expanded BastcService'revenues are recorded as Standard eabl 9uik/Comm'I revenue'cat orp. _.., T•'ihis includes revenue for digital Additional Outlets as well as Sulk/Cotnmprdal Additional Outlets . , Send to: Prepared by: Ann S nsson • City of Renton Authorized by: L. _ Title: Franchise Contracts Administrator Date: 30-Jan-2006 • FRANCHISE FEE-REVENUE SECTION 1•GENERAL II*DRYATION ENTITY NAME- AUBURN ENTITY NUMBER' P27 FRANCHISE NAME' CITY OF RENTON BILLING AREA' 6498 3400 0050 YEARJTERM. 2000OUARTERLY DAYS DUE: 30 DAYS FRANCHISE EXCLUSIONS: 16144661 SECTION 2.SUBSCRIBER REVENUE Dacrlptlen JANUARY FEBRUARY MARCH OTR TOTAL APRIL MAY JUNE OTR TOTAL JULY AUGUST SEPTEMBER OTR TOTAL OCTOBER NOVEMBER DECEMBER) OTR TOTAL YID TOTAL BAD DEBT/WRITE-OFFS (14,710.12) (16,402271 (11,448.001 (4205544) (21.685321 (18,44004) (24.752601 164881.8131 (21,21727) (23.461.431 110673.741 (55352.431 (15,03288) (18,703.00) (17,820.0 (52051.991 (21554173) BASIC CABLE 18064461 189271.47 10308897 571,30505 121023,88 100,37588 188,711,02 570,110.76 187.30104 186.800.60 180.727.90 563,07044 185,05013 188,409.21 105.00019 563,254.44 2,256040.84 BOTTOM OF THE BILL DISCOUNT DIGITAL CABLE 127,031,60 130,230.00 134.53020 39180095 137,362.05 130,417,00 140,937.51 417.71015 143,308.50 145.81031 143.620.32 437754.13 151.827.10 155670.08 150,740.60 487038 SS 1,714.31181 BLANK FOR FORMATTING PURPOSES EOUIPMENTREVENUE 1,478.50 1,203.33 1,1/32.83 3,86451 1,01685 4,042.78 2014,18 007381 88453 048.09 834.45 2,55707 805,00 B73.53 000,77 2,00038 16.17402 EXPANDED BASIC 400,34500 481,250.54 484690,00 1,432,311.44 484,22243 464.824.06 470,14720 4448.104.65 470,307.73 47030240 481071.05 1,430,671.27 483,55467 483,77081 485,443,78 1,452,77806 5,709055.42 FCC FEE REVENUE 98157 084.63 09362 2.050.92 00805 1,000,40 007.12 2,904.47 00873 190022 1,0663E 3,010,33 1005,34 1,005,13 1,007,82 3,016,00 11,088.51 FRANCHISE FEE REVENUE 58,358.04 50008,80 58,91608 175,28172 5072075 00,252.55 58.73002 177,721.44 58,912.08 58,254.75 50.00473 177,042.40 00,06700 01047.45 82,085.20 183,7E9.83 715,747.45 GUIDE REVENUE 2,015,40 1,05034 1,01080 5,004.63 1,017,51 1,020.78 1,05071 5,808.00 1,041.56 1027.23 1.874,23 5,74302 1,830,04 1807.53 1,8282a 5,47550 22,031.15 WSTALIATION REVENUE 12,503.54 13,803.01 14,708.94 41,43330 14246,22 14,20707 11,705,40 40,339.38 0,78017 17,030.81 14,731.37 42,15235 14,453.00 13,331.62 14,293,07 47,07058 171,03370 LATE FEE REVENUE 4.780.01 4,106.58 4,314.00 13,270.50 4,338.00 4,785.00 1,88016 14003.16 4,548.00 4,045,0 4,914,00 14.407.00 4,78500 Z254.00 8,487DC 20,52600 01206,75 OTHER REVENUE 1.58893 1,739.00 4.211,83 7,50038 632,11 705.45 800.58 2,234.14 501.67 1,35921 89293 175081 740,80 1,274.01 731.52 2,75503 15,31024 PAY REVENUE 70,143.33 71.509.64 7135202 21400070 71,380.05 70.007.04 70802.88 212,15077 6091580 09,581,54 70.180,00 200,51343 ' 70,720.37 71,180,55 72,830.20 214,540.23 8550,31422 PAY PER VIEW REVENUE 38.01221 43.720,40 34.279.90 115,01257 48.048,31 38,02030 43,008,14 130071.84 45.030.09 41,20030 45661 AI 132201,52 42,425.08 40.572.65 55.571.20 147,571.12 525,544.05 UTILITY TAX 70.15002 70,043.25 713,537.27 211,040.15 71,81363 71.24205 70,02450 213680,54 70.507,00 71,1333E 726300 213,704.43 72.230,20 73.403,03 75,37067 221,00106 800,41008 SUBSCRIBER REVENUE TOTAL 1028,06793 1,05134019 1,06458295 3,148,001.73 1,065,85023 1,062,608.68 1040061.33 1177.72025 1,043,974.31 1,050,316A9 1,081146.02 3,167,43661 1,076,506.07 1,004,70692 1,107,572.82 3,275,86631 11700,025.50 SECTION 3•ALLOCATED REVENUE JANUARY FEBRUARY MARCH OTR TOTAL APRIL MAY JUNE OTR TOTAL JULY AUGUST SEPTEMBER OTR TOTAL OCTOBER NOVEMBER DECEMBER OTR TOTAL YTD TOTAL SHOPPING COMMISSIONS 8,771.02 0,71300 7.06270 22,540.01 7,091.72 8,00051 8,33281 25,23103 7,005 CO 10,92828 9.50147 27.42470 (282511 •7,155432 8,55000 15,43131 90,630,01 LEASED ACCESS 671.42 580.24 75944 2.017.10 1,002.51 01843 65004 2.280.97 1460.18 1,433155 1,44470 4.340.43 1,54753 1,45007 1,50103 4.78862 13,433.12 OTHER COMMERCIAL LEASED ACCESS - OTHERREVENUE 2.460,24 800.88 100.34 3.26020 130.80 73155 770.12 14543.56 2.01821 (40021 03604 1 2,90324 12211 7,55514 510.24 8,19740 10,01055 TOWERS RENTAL INCOME 2,109,31 540.75 55101 3,21096 554,39 554.02 55431 1.80352 554,00 40583 027.24 1.67773 3.47812 527.24 59323 4543057 11,15087 ALLOCATED REVENUE TOTAL ' 14011.99 1449.76 • 8.573.40 31.035,2, 0,685.50 1001598 1032018 30830.17 11847.06 1280164 11,500.46 36,348,15 486525 18,70997 11,341.37 33618.00 131,230.56 LOCAL ADVERTISING 48,07021 41,68308 45.437,74 1364101.03 02,870.37 85,034.80 40.32512 171.53030 52.07385 40,13007 45,285,7E 137.405.71 60,40500 04,154,27 58,047.73 191,557.07 042,804.10 NATIONAL ADVERTISING 17,000,45 0,3117.74 12,095.83 40,25402 13.74585 16,13405 17,0EE06 47,54088 21.31212 14,37271 22,87032 58,554.10 38,004,38 27,616.17 25,57055 03,10023 235,405.20 BAD DEBT ON ADVERTISING (1,150211 (70123) 882.54 1074 Oa) (14086) 80.07 1213771 1267.07) 27223 9049 (100 10) 15062 (301711 301. (121551 (61281 (1,144,221 A090000I90 REVENUE TOTAL 64,514,45 50,36940 19.31859 174506.15 79444.36 51,566.72 6072742 224.81061 73,66023 5498536 9766599 196,21948 194,064.63 04132.43 03,504432 263,76620 600345.13 SECTION 4•TOTAL REVENUE 61,105,88437 31,112.16015 31,133,47355 13,352,537.17 31,152,12000 51,155.180,80 E1,128,008.14 33,433.300 CO 5113157000 31,123714.41 51,161,711 40 471 , 33 505,559 58 13,801,531.25 • SECTION 5-FRANCHISE TAX% 5.00% 500% 500% 500% 500% 500% 500% 500% 5.00% 5430% 500% 500% Cable 547453e gm 5110400 53/38008 53,05787 158,55185 53.78170 53,0131.20 52,06453 160,427.52 5306007 53,45506 54.087.27 161,1803D 54,077.81 55,570,81 55,045.71 165 591 14 046,00281 Ad sales 5e44580 Ise 3,240.72 , 2.51848 3015.81 8.775.01 3,82412 4,077.84 3,33888 11,24003 ' 3082.01 2.72076 3,300301 0,610.07 5.403.48 4.60062 4,17524 14,18534' 44 012 20 SECTION 6-TOTAL FRANCHISE FEE OUE • 555,34472 35580845 350.67355 5187.02066 557,80600 557,75004 555,30341 S171,668 45 S50 728 98 15018572 558,08557, 9171 30027 559 481 09 S00,17744 560,12005 $170,770.48 36500i5,96 Amount Pad 848634000050 FFPMT S167,62015 3171,86845 -517100027 $510,295.58 Per/Under 30 CO 50,00 30.00 5170,77048 Ef 10 77048 Comcas Cable @omcast P.O.Box t3042 Bothell,WA 98041 October 28,2006 SENT VIA UPS Bonnie Walton City of Renton 1055 S Grady Way Renton, WA 98055 RE: Franchise Fee Report-Third Quarter 2006 Dear Ms.Walton: In accordance with our franchise agreement with the City of Renton,please find enclosed the franchise fee report for Third Quarter 2006. The figures reported herein should be consistent with the franchise fee check you received from our corporate office in Denver, Colorado. If you have any questions about your franchise fee check or the attached report, please feel free to contact me at(425) 398-6051. Sincerely, ,k:•G'Ce'jt Z:,1...�%��. Ann Svensson Franchising Contracts Administrator Comcast—WA Market Encls. cc: Janet L. Turpen, Comcast Ken Rhoades, Comcast Terry Davis, Comcast Bradley & Guzzetta, LLC OPERATOR: City of Renton Comcast Period From 7/1/06-9/30/06 19909 120th Ave NE,Suite 200 Bothell,WA 98011 FRANCHISE FEE PAYMENT WORKSHEET UNITS UNIT PRICE MONTHS IN GROSS FEE% FRANCHISE YTD REVENUE SOURCE (AVE OF PER) (EACH MO) PERIOD REVENUE FEE Basic Cable Service* Installation-(Including Digital) 875 $16.06 3 42,152.35 5 2,107.62 6,196.26 Rate Card Price $12.48 Basic Cable Service* 17,517 $10.73 3 563,979.44 5 28,198.97 85,269.76 $33.51 Expanded Cable Service* 15,202 $31.50 3 1,436,671.27 5 71,833.56 215,858.87 $11.99 Special Interest(Digital)** 8,502 $17.16 3 ' 437,754.13 5 21,887.71 62,363.66 $15.99 HBO Customers 3,479 s15.S9 Showtime Customers 1,027 515.99 Cinemax Customers 775 $15.89 TMC Customers 674 115.99 Starz!Customers 1,797 $15.99 Encore Customers 1,130 Total Premium 8,881 $7.87 3 209,613.43 5 10,480.67 31,788.25 0.99.544.99 Pay-Per-View 6,351 $6.94 3 132,291.52 5 6,614.58 18,948.85 s1.1a Standard Converters 60 $3.80 Addressable Converters 194 $3.e0 to$6.50 Digital Converters 12,445 $0.15 Remote Units 12,270 Total Equipment 24,968 $0.04 3 2,667.07 5 133.35 675.28 TOTAL SERVICE/INSTALL INCOME 2,825,129.21 5 141,256.46 421,100.92 Advertising Revenue 196,219.50 5 9,810.98 29,826.91 Shopping Services 36,349.16 5 1,817.46 4,910.73 $a.ao Guides 583 $3.28 3 5,743.02 5 287.15 872.78 Late Fees 14,407.00 720.35 2,084.04 Miscellaneous 5,773.14 5 288.66 1,076.55 TOTAL NON-SUBSCRIBER INCOME 258,491.82 5 12,924.59 38,771.01 Less Refunds/Bad Debts (55,352.44) 5 (2,767.62) (8,144,49) Plus Bad Debt Recovery 0.00 5 0.00 0.00 NET BAD DEBTS(-) (55,352.44) 5 (2,767.62) (8,144.49) TOTAL REVENUES 3,028,268.59 5 151,413.43 451,727.45 ' Franchise Fee Revenue 177,942.46 5 8,897.12 26,597.38 Utility Tax 213,794.43 5 '10,689.72 31,970.76 Adjustments*. TOTAL DUE CITY 3,420,005.48 5 171,000.27 510,295.58 EXPLANATORY NOTES: *All Basic and Expanded Basic Service revenues are recorded as Standard Cable,Bulk/Comm'I revenue category. *"This includes revenue for Digital Additional Outlets as well as Bulk/Commercial Additional Outlets Send to: Prepared by: Ann Svensson i1 City of Renton Authorized by: (' 'tom- )d'1 L'i i1Z Title: Franchise Contracts Administrator Date: 28-Oct-2006 FRANCHISE FEE-REVENUE SECTION 1-GENERAL INFORMATIOI ENTITY NAME AUBURN ENTITY NUMBER. P27 FRANCHISE NAME: CITY OF RENTAA BILLING AREA: 8498 3400 0050 YEAR/rERRM. 200610UARTERLY DAYS OUR 30 DAYS FRANCHISE EXCLUSIONS Internal SECTION 2-SUBSCRIBER REVENUE Descnption JANUARY FEBRUARY MARCH QTR TOTAL APRIL MAY JUNE QTR TOTAL JULY AUGUST SEPTEMBER QTR TOTAL BAD DEBT/WRITE-OFFS 84 (14,715.12) (16,492271 (11.448.06) (42,655.44) (21,688.32) (18,44094) (24,752.60) (64.881.86) (21,21727) (23,461.43) (10,67374) (55,352.43) BASIC CABLE 189,044 61 189,271.47 192.968,97 571,305.05 191.023 88 190,375 86 188,711.02 570.110 76 187,391.04 186,660.50 189.727 90 563 979.44 BOTTOM OF THE BILL DISCOUNT DIGITAL CABLE 127,031.69 130.230 00 134,539 26 391,800 95 137.362 95 139,417 69 140,937.51 417,718.15 143,30E50 145,816.31 148,629.32 437,754.13 BLANK FOR FORMATTING PURPOSES EQUIPMENT REVENUE 1,4713.50 1,203.33 1.182 B3 3,864.66 1,91685 4.042.78 1,014.18 6,973.81 884.53 948.09 834.45 2.667 07 EXPANDED BASIC 486,345.90 481,269,54 484,69600 1,432,311.44 484,22243 484,82496 479,147.26 1,448,194.65 476,397.73 478,302.49 401,97105 1,436,671.27 FCC FEE REVENUE 98167 884.63 09362 2,85992 896.05 1,00040 997.12 2,99447 99873 1,009.22 1008-38 3,016.33 FRANCHISE FEE REVENUE 58,358 04 59.008,80 58.916 88 176,283.72 59,720 76 59,252 66 50,739.02 177,721 44 56.682.98 59,264.75 59 994.73 177,942.46 GUIDE REVENUE 2.015 40 1,969 34 1,919,89 5.909.63 1917 51 1,920.78 1,960 71 5,800 00 1.941.56 1,927 23 1,874.23 5,743.02 INSTALLATION REVENUE 12.863 54 13,800,91 14.768.94 41.433.39 14.246 22 14,297.67 11,795A9 40.339 38 9,790.17 17,630 81 14,731.37 42,152.35 LATE FEE REVENUE 4,760 01 4,196,58 4,314 00 13,270.59 4,330 00 4,765 00 4,880,16 14,003 16 4,898.00 4,645 00 4,914.00 14A07.00 OTHER REVENUE 1,586.53 1,739,00 4,24183 7,56936 632.11 705.45 806.58 2.234.14 504.67 1,35921 892.93 2,756.81 PAY REVENUE 70,143,33 71,504.64 72,35262 214.000,79 71,389.95 70,667.94 70,092.88 212,150.77 69,84589 69,581.54 70,18600 209,613.43 PAY PER VIEW REVENUE 39 012 21 43,720.46 34,279.90 116,012 57 46,048.31 38,626.39 43,998 14 130,672 84 45,030 69 41,299.39 45 961,44 132,291.52 UTILITY TAX 70,159 62 70,943.26 70,637 27 211,990 15 71,813.63 71,242.05 70,624 86 213,680.54 70567 09 71.133.38 72.093 96 213.794 43 SUBSCRIBER REVENUE TOTAL 1,028,067,93 1,053,349.89 1,064,583.85 3,146,001.78 1,065,950.23 1,082,808.69 1,048,961.33 3,177,720.25 1,048,974.31 1,056,316.49 1,082,146.02 3,187A36.83 SECTION 3-ALLOCATED REVENUI JANUARY FEBRUARY MARCH QTR TOTAL APRIL MAY JUNE QTR TOTAL JULY AUGUST SEPTEMBER QTR TOTAL SHOPPING COMMISSIONS 8.77102 6,713.09 7,062.79 22,546 91 7,99172 8,90851 8.332.61 25.233.03 7905.00 10,928.28 8,591.47 27.424.76 LEASED ACCESS 67142 58624 759,44 2.017.10 1,002.51 61843 66604 2,286.97 1,46910 1,426.55 1,444.70 4,340.43 OTHER COMMERCIAL LEASED ACCESS - - - - - - - - - - OTHER REVENUE 2.460.24 600.68 199 34 3,260 26 136 89 733 55 776.12 1646 56 2,018.21 (48.02) 936.04 1906 24 TOWER 8 RENTAL INCOME 2,109.31 549.75 551.91 3.210.96 554.39 554.92 554.31 1,66362 554.66 49583 62724 1677.73 ALLOCATED REVENUETOTAI 14,011.09 8,449.76 8,573.49 31,035.24 9,685.50 10,815.39 10,329.28 30,830,17 11,947.06 12,802.64 11,599.46 36,349.15 LOCAL ADVERTISING 48,070.21 41,683.08 46,437 74 136,191 03 62.879.37 65,334.80 49.325 22 177,539.39 52 073 88 40,136.07 45,285 76 137,495.71 NATIONAL ADVERTISING 17.900 45 9,387.74 12,995 83 40.204.02 13,745.85 16,134.95 17,666,08 47 546.88 21 312.12 14,372.71 22.879,32 58,564.16 BAD DEBT ON ADVERTISING ' (1.156 21) (701.231 88254 (974 90) (140.86) 86,97 (213.77) (267 67) 27223 8649 (199 10) 159.62 ADVERTISING REVENUE TOTAI 64,814.45 50,36960 60,316,10 175,500.15 76,484.36 81,556.72 66,777.53 224,818.61 73,6513.23 54,59528 67,96599 196,219.49 SECTION 4-TOTAL REVENUE 01,106,894,37 51.112,16925 01,13347355 93,352,537.17 $1,152 120.09 51.155180,80 91,126061314 53.433.36902 51.13457960 51,123,71441 $1,161.71146 03.42000547 SECTION 5-FRANCHISE TAX 50078 5.00% 500b 500% 500% 606% 5.00% 5009a 50090 Cable franchise tee 52,10400 53,069.98 53,657.87 158,851.85 53,781.79 53,681.20 52,964.53 160,427.52 53,046.07 53,455.96 54,687.27 161,189.30 Ad sales franchise fee 3,240.72 2,518.48 3,015.81 8,775.01 3,624.22 4,077 64 3,338.88 11,240.93 3,682.91 2,729.76 3,398.30 9,610.97 SECTION 6-TOTAL FRANCHISE FEE DUI 84 555 344.72 $55.60846 $56.67368 $167.62686 $57.60600 $57,75904 $56.303.41 517166845 956,728.98 556.18572 $5808557 $171 000.27 Amount Paid 849834000050 FFPMT $167.626 86 5171 668 45 Over/Under $0.00 $0.00 5171,00027 Comcast. Comcast Cable P.O.Box 3042 Bothell,WA 98041 July 28, 2006 SENT VIA UPS Bonnie Walton City of Renton 1055 S Grady Way Renton, WA 98055 RE: Franchise Fee Report- Second Quarter 2006 Dear Ms. Walton: In accordance with our franchise agreement with the City of Renton, please find enclosed the franchise fee report for Second Quarter 2006. The figures reported herein should be consistent with the franchise fee check you received from our corporate office in Denver, Colorado. If you have any questions about your franchise fee check or the attached report, please feel free to contact me at(425) 398-6051. Sincerely, fI� e' 1 �I Ann Svensson Franchising Contracts Administrator Comcast—WA Market Encls. cc: Janet L. Turpen, Comcast Ken Rhoades, Comcast Terry Davis, Comcast Bradley & Guzzetta, LLC OPERATOR: City of Renton Comcast Period From 4/1/06-6/30/06 19909 120th Ave NE,Suite 200 Bothell,WA 98011 FRANCHISE FEE PAYMENT WORKSHEET UNITS UNIT PRICE MONTHS IN GROSS FEE% FRANCHISE YTD REVENUE SOURCE (AVE OF PER) (EACH MO) PERIOD REVENUE FEE Installation-(Including Digital) 837 $16.06 3 40,339.38 5 2,016.97 4,088.64 Rate Card Price $12.49 Basic Cable Service* 17,480 $10.87 3 570,110.76 5 28,505.54 57,070.79 $33.51 Expanded Cable Service* 15,070 $32.03 3 1,448,194.65 5 72,409.73 144,025.30 s11.99 Special Interest(Digital)** 6,555 $21.24 3 417,718.15 5 20,885.91 40,475.96 $15.99 HBO Customers 3,591 $15.95 Showtime Customers 1,076 $15.99 Cinemax Customers 793 $15.99 TMC Customers 688 $15.99 Starz!Customers 1,796 $15.99 Encore Customers 1,203 Total Premium 9,146 $7.73 3 212,150.77 5 10,607.54 21,307.58 93.99-544.95 Pay-Per-View 6,104 $7.14 3 130,672.84 5 6,533.64 12,334.27 $1.18 Standard Converters 65 $4.70 Addressable Converters 194 $4.70 to$6.50 Digital Converters 11,832 60.25 Remote Units 11,668 Total Equipment 23,759 $0.10 3 6,973.81 5' 348.69 541.92 TOTAL SERVICE/INSTALL INCOME 2,826,160.36 5 141,308.02 279,844.46 Advertising Revenue 224,818.61 5 11,240.93 20,015.94 Shopping Services 30,830.17 5 1,541.51 3,093.27 s3.39 Guides 592 $3.27 3 5,808.00 5 290.40 585.63 Late Fees 14,003.16 700.16 1,363.69 Miscellaneous 5,228.61 5 261.43 787.89 TOTAL NON-SUBSCRIBER INCOME 280,688.55 5 14,034.43 25,846.42 Less Refunds/Bad Debts (64,881.86) 5 (3,244.09) (5,376.87) Plus Bad Debt Recovery 0.00 5 0.00 0.00 NET BAD DEBTS(-) (64,881.86) 5 (3,244.09) (5,376.87) TOTAL REVENUES 3,041,967.05 5 152,098.35 300,314.02 Franchise Fee Revenue 177,721.44 5 8,886.07 17,700.26 Utility Tax 213,680.54 5 10,684.03 21,281.03 Adjustments* TOTAL DUE CITY 3,433,369.03 5 171,668.45 339,295.31 • EXPLANATORY NOTES: *All Basic and Expanded Basic Service revenues are recorded as Standard Cable,Bulk/Comm'I revenue category. **This includes revenue for Digital Additional Outlets as well,as Bulk/Commercial Additional Outlets Send to: Prepared by: Ann Svensson City of Renton Authorized by: Zy<'�2-C- _ c0.E^ L4/ 'G Title: Franchise Contracts Administrator Date: 28-Jul-2006 FRANCHISE FEE-REVENUE • SECTION 1-GENERAL INFORMATIOI ENTITY NAME: AUBURN . ENTITY NUMBER P27 FRANCHISE NAME: CITY OF RENTON. BILLING AREA: 8498 3400 0051 YEAR/TERM: 2006/QUARTERL' DAYS DUE: 30 DAYS FRANCHISE EXCLUSIONS Interne) SECTION 2-SUBSCRIBER REVENUE Description JANUARY FEBRUARY MARCH QTR TOTAL APRIL MAY JUNE QTR TOTAL BAD DEBT/WRITE-OFFS (14,715.12: (16,492.27: (11.448.06: (42,655.44: (21.688.32: (18,440.94: (24,752.60: (64,881.86: BASIC CABLE 189,044.61 189.271.47 192,988.97 571,305.05 191,023.8E 190,375.8E 188,711.02 570,110.7E BOTTOM OF THE BILL DISCOUNT - - - - - - - - DIGITAL CABLE 127,031.6S 130,230.0C 134,539.2E 391,800.95 137,362.95 139,417.6S 140,937.51 417,718.15 BLANK FOR FORMATTING PURPOSE; EQUIPMENT REVENUE 1,478.50 1.203.33 1,182.83 3,864.6E 1,916.85 4,042.78 1,014.18 6,973.81 EXPANDED BASIC 466,345.9C 481,269.54 484,696.0C 1,432,311.44 484,222.42 484,824.9E 479,147.2E 1,448,194.65 FCC FEE REVENUE 981.67 984.63 993.62 2,959.92 996.95 1,000.40 997.12 2,994.47 FRANCHISE FEE REVENUE 58,358.04 59,008.8C 58,916.88 176,283.72 59,729.7E 59,252.66 58.739.02 177,721.44 GUIDE REVENUE 2.015.40 1,969.34 1,919.89 5,904.63 1,917.51 1,920.78 1,969.71 5,808.00 INSTALLATION REVENUE 12,863.54 13,800.91 14,768.94 41,433.39 14,246.22 14,297.67 11,795.49 40,339.38 LATE FEE REVENUE 4,760.01 4,196.58 4,314.00 13,270.59 4,338.00 4,785.00 4,880.16 14,003.1E OTHER REVENUE 1,588.53 1,739.00 4,241.83 7,569.36 632.11 795.45 806.58 2,234.14 • PAY REVENUE 70,143.33 71,504.84 72,352.62 214,000.7E 71,369.90 70,667.94 70,092.88 212,150.77 PAY PER VIEW REVENUE 38,012.21 43,720.4E 34.279.9C 116,012.57 48,048.31 38,626.39 43,998.14 130,672.84 UTILITY TAX 70,159.62 70.943.2E 70,837.27 211,940.15 71,813.62 71,242.05 70,624.8E 213,680.54 SUBSCRIBER REVENUE TOTAL 1,028,067.93 1,053,349.86 1,064,583.95 3,146,001.7E 1,065,950.23 1,062,808.69 1,048,961.33 3,177,720.2E SECTION 3-ALLOCATED REVENUE JANUARY FEBRUARY MARCH QTR TOTAL APRIL MAY JUNE QTR TOTAL SHOPPING COMMISSION: 8,771.02 6,713.09 7,062.79 22,546.91 7,991.72 8,908.51 8,332.81 25,233.03 LEASED ACCESS 671.42 586.24 759.44 2.017.1C 1,002.51 618.43 666.04 2,286.97 OTHER COMMERCIAL LEASED ACCESS - - - - - - - - OTHER REVENUE 2,460.24 600.68 199.34 3,260.26 136.89 733.55 776.12 1,646.56 TOWER 8 RENTAL INCOME 2,109.31 549.75 551.91 3,210.96 554.39 554.92 554.31 1,663.62 ALLOCATED REVENUE TOTAL 14,011.99 8,449.76 8,573.49 31,035.24 9,685.50 10,815.39 10,329.28 30,830.17 LOCAL ADVERTISING 48,070.21 41,683.08 46,437.74 136,191.02 62,879.37 65,334.8C 49,325.22 177,539.39 NATIONAL ADVERTISING 17,90045 9.387.74 12,995.83 40,284.02 13,745.85 16,134.95 17,666.08 47.546.88 BAD DEBT ON ADVERTISING (1,156.21; (701.23; 882.54 (974.90; (140.86; 86.97 (213.77; (267.67; ADVERTISING REVENUE TOTAL 64,814.45 50,369.60 60,316.10 175,500.1E 76,484.36 81,556.72 66,777.53 224,818.61 SECTION 4-TOTAL REVENUE $1,106,894.37 $1,112,169.25 $1,133.473.55 53,352,537.17 $1,152,120.05 $1,155,180.8C $1,126,068.14 $3,433,369.02 SECTION 5-FRANCHISE TAX% 5.00% 5.00% 5.00% 5.00% 5.00% 5.00% Cable franchise let 52,104.00 53,089.9E 53,657.87 158.851.85 53,781.79 53,681.2C 52,964.52 160.427.52 Ad sales franchise fee 3,240.72 2,518.48 3.015.81 8,775.01 3,824.22 4,077.84 3,338.88 11,240.93 SECTION 6-TOTAL FRANCHISE FEE DUI $55,344.72 $55,608.4E $56,673.68 $167,626.8E $57,606.00 $57,759.04 $56,303.41 $171,668.45 Amount Paic $167,626.8E $171,668.45 Over/Under $0.00 $0.00 Co 1 1 1 ca t Comcast Cable �+ P.O.Box 3042 Bothell,WA 98041 April 28, 2006 SENT VIA UPS Bonnie Walton City of Renton 1055 S Grady Way Renton,WA 98055 RE: Franchise Fee Report-First Quarter 2006 Dear Ms. Walton: In accordance with our franchise agreement with the City of Renton,please find enclosed the franchise fee report for First Quarter 2006. The figures reported herein should be consistent with the franchise fee check you received from our corporate office in Denver, Colorado. If you have any questions about your franchise fee check or the attached report, please feel free to contact me at(425) 398-6051. Sincerely, Ann Svensson Franchising Contracts Administrator Comcast—WA Market Ends. cc: Janet L. Turpen, Comcast Ken Rhoades, Comcast Terry Davis, Comcast Bradley&Guzzetta, LLC -i OPERATOR: City of Renton Comcast Period From 1/1/06-3/31/06 10909120th Ave NE,Suite 200 Bothell,WA'98011 FRANCHISE FEE PAYMENT WORKSHEET UNITS UNIT PRICE MONTHS IN GROSS FEE% FRANCHISE YiO REVENUE SOURCE (AVE OF PER) (EACH MO) PERIOD REVENUE FEE Installation-(Including Digital) 860 $16,06 3 41,433.39 5 2,071.67 2,071.67 Rate Card Price $12.4e Basic Cable Service* 17,276 $11.02 3 571,305.05 5 28,565.25 28,565.25 . Our Expanded Cable Service* 14,941 $31.96 3 1,432,311.44 5 71,615.57 71,615.57 ` was Special Interest(Digital)** 7,399 $17.65 3 391,800.95 5 19,590.05 19,590.05 ...si5.93 HBO Customers 3,617 flsss Showtime Customers 1,128 stags • Cinemax Customers 826 sisss TMC Customers 709 suss., Starz!Customers 1,723 sisss Encore Customers 1,285 ' Total Premium 9,288 $7.68 3 214,000.79 5 10,700.04 10,700.04 SSSg444.1$" ' Pay-Per-View ' 6,182 $6.26 3 116,012.57 5 5,800.63 5,800.63 sf.ie Standard Converters 69 $4.70. , • Addressable Converters 211 sarotom.w Digital Converters 11,132 3o25 Remote Units 10,983 ' 'Total Equipment 22,396 $0.06 3 3,864.66 5 193.23 193.23 TOTAL SERVICE/INSTALL INCOME 2,770,728.85 5 138,536.44 138,536.44 Advertising Revenue 175,500.15 5 8,775.01 8,775.01 Shopping Services 31,035.24 5 1,551.76 1,551.76 $3.3a; Guides 595 $3.31 3 5,904.63 5 295.23 295.23 Late Fees 13,270.59 663.53 663.53 Miscellaneous 10,529.28 5 526.46 526.46 TOTAL NON-SUBSCRIBER INCOME 236,239.89 5 11,811.99 11,811.99 Less Refunds/Bad Debts (42,655.44) 5 (2,132.77) (2,132.77) Plus Bad Debt Recovery 0.00 5 0.00 0.00 NET BAD DEBTS(-) (42,655.44) 5 (2,132.77) (2,132.77) TOTAL REVENUES 2,964,313.30 5 148,215.67 148,215.66 Franchise Fee Revenue 176,283.72 5 8,814.19 8,814.19 Utility Tax 211,940.15 5 10,597.01 10,597.01 Adjustments* TOTAL DUE CITY 3,352,537.17 5 167,626.86 167,626.86 EXPLANATORY NOTES: 'All Basic and Exµan:A.:d trasoc Iservice rcvenuu5 are recoruled as Standard Cable,Culk/Couml'!revenue category:- s .. ",This indurles revenue fur Dlyital Additiona!Outiets 115 well as @ulk/Coinmercial Additional Outlets Send to: Prepared by: Ann Svensson City of Renton Authorized by: at/,_ Title: Franchise Contracts Administrator Date: 28-Apr-2006 • FRANCHISE FEE-REVENUE •. ..r..t .. YiS' .-..I'n tts'..f..;.•L.:..wfaa...a••.. .. .,...n. r..•.n4v, .,:;:- i •, .. w•e ... ..•. .......v.. . ., /..a . �.. .. l 11- i.rz a, x .. 7, « ai nNi� . . "#red SECTIONSGENERAL INFORMATION ENTITY NAME: AUBURN ENTITY NUMBER. P27 FRANCHISE NAME: CITY OF RENTON BILLING AREA: 8498 3400 0050 YEAR/TERM: 2008/QUARTERLY DAYS DUE: 30 DAYS FRANCHISE EXCLUSIONS: Internet SECTION 2•SUBSCRIBER REVENUE Description JANUARY FEBRUARY MARCH QTR TOTAL APRIL MAY JUNE QTR TOTAL JULY AUGUST SEPTEMBER QTR TOTAL OCTOBER NOVEMBER DECEMBER OTRTOTAL 1 YID TOTAL BAD DEBTANRITE-OFFS 84 (14.715.121 (16,492.271 (11448061 (42.655.441 ACIV/0! ADIV/0! MDIV/0! 801V0! 1/01V/0! ADIV/01 #DIVA! a01V/0! 9OIV/0' ADIV/0! AOIV/01 A01V/01 9DIV/0! 189.044,81 189,271.47 192,988.97 571,305.05 571,305.05 BASIC CABLE - - - - - - BOTTOM OF THE BILL DISCOUNT - - - - - - - - - 127.031,69 130,230.00 134,530.25 391,800.95301,800.95 • DIGITAL CABLE - - - - - N/I FOR FORMATTING PURPOSES 1PMENT REVENUE 1,478.50 1,203.33 1.18283 3,864.66 - - - - • - • - - • - 3,864.66 ANDED BASIC 406.345,90 481,289.5,1 484,696.00 1,432.311 44 - - - - - - - - - - - - 1,432,311.44 FCC FEE REVENUE 981.67 984.83 99362 2.959.92 - - - - - - • - 2959.92 FRANCHISE FEE REVENUE 58,358.04 59,008.80 58,018.88 178,283.72 - - - - - - - • - - 178283,72 GUIDE REVENUE 2,015.40 1,969,34 1,919.89 5,904.83 - - • - - • - - • - - - 5,904.63 INSTALLATION REVENUE 12,863.54 13,800.91 14.768,94 41.433.39 • - - - - - - - - • - 41,433.39 LATE FEE REVENUE 4,760.01 4.196 58 4.314.00 13,270.59 - - - - - - - - - - - • 13,270.50 OTHER REVENUE 1,588.53 1,739.00 4,241.83 7,569 36 - - • - - - - - - 7,569 36 PAY REVENUE 70.143,33 71,504.84 72,352.62 214,000.79 • - - - . - - - - - • - 214,000.79 PAY PER VIEW REVENUE 38,012.21 43,72046 34,279,90 116,01257 - - - . • - - - • - 116,012,57 UTILITY TAX 70,159.62 70,843.26 70,83727 211,940.15 - - . - - - - • 211,940.15 SUBSCRIBER REVENUE TOTAL 1,028,067.03 1,053,349.89 1.064533.95 3.146.001.78 ADIV/O! 9DIV101 0011/101 90IV/01 A0IV/01 1101W01 8DIV101 /MIV/OI RDIV/01 BDIW01 RDIVI01 #511001 001V/01 SECTION 3-ALLOCATED REVENUE JANUARY FEBRUARY MARCH QTR TOTAL APRIL MAY JUNE QTR TOTAL JULY AUGUST SEPTEMBER QTR TOTAL OCTOBER NOVEMBER DECEMBER QTR TOTAL YTD TOTAL SHOPPING COMMISSIONS 8.771.02 0,71309 7.062,76 22,54691 901V10! C0N/0! 9D!V/0! #OPJ/0' #DIVO! ADIV/0' 6'DIV/0! ADIV/O! aDIV/0! aDIV/O! #OIWO! YAIV/0' 6DIViO! LEASED ACCESS 671.42 58624 759.44 2017.10 SDIV/9' /*IWO' ADIV/O' #OIV/'C' OUIV/0! #DIV10' 401V10' MDIV/0! a0IV/0! aDIV/0! ADIV/01 a01Vi0! 8OIV/0! OTHER COMMERCIAL LEASED ACCESS - - - - ADIV/0' #01V/0' #DI0/0! UIV/0' ADIV/0! 8DIV/0! aDIV/0' aDI1./0' 8DIV'0' 9DIViO! 60I1.00! YAIV/01 d)11.10! OTHER REVENUE 2.460.24 600.68 199,34 3,26026 ADIV/0! EOIV/0' OCIV/0! SOIV/0! 6OIWO! #O/V/09 aDIV/0! EOIV/U' #OIV/0! a01V/0! ADIV/0! 90IV/C! 8D!V/O! TOWERS RENTAL INCOME 2,109.31 546.75 55101 3.210.08 #OIVIo! ADIVO! AD/V/0! 60IV/0' 00IV/0' ADIV/0! ADIV/0! 90•IV/0! ADIV/0' ADIV/0! BOIV/0! 8DIV/0I 5CIV/0! ALLOCATED REVENUE TOTAL 14,011,99 8,449.76 8,573,49 31.03524 001V/01 4DIY/0! 001V/01 #DIV/OI #EIV/01 BDIVIO! ADIV/01 AOIVIOI ROIVIO! BDIV/01 a01V/01 #DIVI01 ADIV/01 LOCAL ADVERTISING 48.07021 41,883.08 46.437,74 136,19143 #O111i0! ACAV/0! #DIV/0! 00I'//0' ADIV./0! #CIV/01 ADIV/0! #DIV'0' ADIV.'O! #DIV10! AOIV/0! BDIV/9! 170IV/0! NATIONAL ADVERTISING 17.90045 9.387,74 12.90583 40,284.02 #09//0' #O11/0' #DIV/0! #011,://0' ACIV/0! 8,01V/0! ADIV/0' ADIV:0! AOIV,10! 80IV/0! #DIV/0! ADIV/0! ADIV/0' BAD DEBT ON ADVERTISING 11.156,211 (701.23) 88254 (974.901 ADN/0! /AIVi)' ADIV/0' #10/U! 6DIV/0! //DIVA)! 001V/0! ADIV/O! AOIV/0! aDIV/0' 180IV/0! AOIWO' ACIV/0! ADVERTISING REVENUE TOTAL 64.814.45 50.389,60 60.316,10 175,600.15 00IV/0! #DIV/01 ADIV/01 aDIV/01 AOIV/0I 00IV/01 901V/01 9DIVI01 9DIV/01 ADIV/01 ADIV/01 aDIY/01 #DIV/01 SECTION 4•TOTAL REVENUE $1.106.894.37 51,112169,25 51.133.47355 $3.352.537 IT :ATV/O. ADIV/0! ADIVi0' ADIV.'0! /*IVWO' ADIV/0! #01`//0! 0CIV/0' ADIV/0' A01`//0' 001`J/0! AOIV/0! 0DIV/01 SECTION 5-FRANCHISE TAX% 500% 5.00% 500% 5.00% 5.00% 500% 5,00% 5.00% 5.00% 5.00% 5.00% 5.00% Cable franchise lee 52.10400 53.089,98 53,65787 158,851.85 ADN(! ADIV/0' A0IV/0' 86IV/0! POIV.'O' #DIVi0! ADIV/0! ADN10! #OIV/0! 901V/0! ADIV/0! ACIV/0! #DIV:0' Ad sates franchise lee 3,240.72 2.51848 3,015.81 8.775.01 4DIV/0! ADIV./0! 80/V/0! #OIV/0! #0IV/0' AD!WO' 40IV/0! #OIV/0! 90IV/0! #DIV/O! ADIV/0! ADIV/0! UOIV/0! (9.841 ' SECTION 8-TOTAL FRANCHISE FEE DUE 84 555.34472 $55.608 46 356,873.68 $167.62686 AOIV/0' a0'V/0! ACIV/0! ADIVO' ADIV/0' 9DIV/0' #DIV/0' #DIVA]' #0IV/0! #DIV/0' #OIV/0! _ 00/0/0! 0 #DIV/01 Q Amount Paid 849834000060 FFPMT $167.626.86 5154,200.68 $153,090.52 8157.498.75 0632.434,81 Ooe•Nnde' SO CO 901v/0! AOIV/0' MDIVN' AOIV/0! Cable COmcaS l® O.Boxt 042 Bothell,WA 98011 December 22,2006 Bonnie Walton City Clerk/Cable Manager City of Renton 1055 S Grady Way Renton,WA 98055 Dear Ms.Walton: , Comcast would like to advise you of changes we are making to our channel line-up. On or shortly after January 23,2007,Comcast will add one new Music Choice Latino digital music channel called Mexicana on channel 945.Comcast will also remove eight DMX Latino digital music channels currently on channels 950-957. These changes will be made automatically and will not result in the modification of our current rates. Customers will be notified by DCT message. If you have any questions about these changes,please contact me at(253)288-7496. Sincerely, Terry Davis Director,Franchising and Government Affairs cc: Janet L.Turpen,Corncast Ken Rhoades,Comcast Bradley&Guzzetta,LLC (comcast Comcast Cattle P.O.Box 3042 Bothell.WA 98041 • 4 2t3Gf,} • September 29,2006 T,F t`;P{ ;Ivy cs• {ry m • Ms.Bonnie Walton City Clerk/Cable Manager City of Renton 1055 S. Grady Way Renton,WA 98055 Dear Ms. Walton: In a continuing effort to keep you informed, effective November 1, 2006, Comcast will begin to charge customers who require two CableCARDs for customer-owned digital video recorders("DVRs") such as the recently introduced TiVo Series 3 (S3)DVR, a $1.50 per month rental fee for the second CableCARD. Comcast has not charged any monthly fee to customers who require only one CableCARD for television sets and other customer-owned equipment since introducing CableCARDs in 2004. Until further notice,we will continue to provide one CableCARD for no monthly rental charge. Comcast customers will be informed of this new charge for second CableCARDs by way of a message on upcoming monthly billing statements. Please call me at(253)288-7496 if you have any questions about this matter. Sincerely, i/ Terry Davis Director,Franchising and Government Affairs • TD/jb • cc: Ken Rhoades, Comcast Janet Turpen, Comcast • • +i/7' I1ath1 L4 In jj yp1i, tir General Cable Television Industry and Regulation Information Fact Sheet Page 1 of 35 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION com ,W I{n FACT SHEET } � �: n •1j June 2000 CABLE TELEVISION INFORMATION BULLETIN EVOLUTION OF CABLE TELEVISION Cable television (also called CATV or community antenna television) was developed in the late 1940's for communities unable to receive TV signals because of terrain or distance from TV stations. Cable television system operators located antennas in areas with good reception, picked up broadcast station signals and then distributed them by coaxial cable to subscribers for a fee. In 1950, cable systems operated in only 70 communities in the United States. These systems served 14,000 homes. By October 1998 there were more than 10,700 systems serving more than 65 million subscribers in more than 32,000 communities. Cable systems are operating in every state of the United States and in many other countries, including Austria, Canada, Belgium, Germany, Great Britain, Italy, Japan, Mexico, Spain, Sweden and Switzerland. Most cable systems are technically capable of offering between 36 and 60 channels. Channel capacity in the industry has increased dramatically in recent years; some systems now offer in excess of 100 channels. Most cable subscribers receive service from a system offering more than 54 channels. The channel capacity of a cable system makes it possible for a cable television system operator to provide many services. In addition to over-the-air television broadcast signals, most systems also offer diverse program services, including, for example, news, weather, business information, movies, sports, special entertainment features, and programming designed for specific audiences such as children, women, and ethnic and racial groups. Within the past few years, some cable systems have begun offering a full- range of telecommunications services, including high-speed Internet access and local telephone service. High-speed Internet access allows subscribers to connect to the Internet more than 100 times faster than the fastest standard analog modem. Some cable operators also create their own local programming and provide access channels for public and institutional uses. They also provide leased access channels for "rent" to those wishing to show specific programs. Electronic banking, shopping, utility meter reading, and home security are some of the home services that are possible using the two-way transmission capabilities of cable television systems. INITIAL JURISDICTION AND RULES http://www.fcc.gov/mb/facts/csgen.html 7/11/2007 General Cable Television Industry and Regulation Information Fact Sheet Page 2 of 35 " The Federal Communications Commission first established rules in 1965 for cable systems which received signals by microwave antennas. In March 1966, the Commission established rules for all cable systems (whether or not served by microwave). The Supreme Court affirmed the Commission's jurisdiction over cable in United States v. Southwestern Cable Co., 392 U.S. 157 (1968). The Court ruled that "the Commission has reasonably concluded that regulatory authority over CAN is imperative if it is to perform with appropriate effectiveness certain of its responsibilities." The Court found the Commission needed authority over cable systems to assure the preservation of local broadcast service and to effect an equitable distribution of broadcast services among the various regions of the country. In March 1972, new rules regarding cable television became effective. These rules required cable television operators to obtain a certificate of compliance from the Commission prior to operating a cable television system or adding a television broadcast signal. The rules applicable to cable operators fell into several broad subject areas -- franchise standards, signal carriage,'network program nonduplication and syndicated program exclusivity, nonbroadcast or cablecasting services, cross-ownership, equal employment opportunity, and technical standards. Cable television operators who originated programming were subject to equal time, Fairness Doctrine, sponsorship identification and other provisions similar to rules applicable to broadcasters. Cable operators were also required to maintain certain records and to file annual reports with the Commission concerning general statistics, employment and finances. In succeeding years, the Commission modified or eliminated many of the rules. Among the more significant actions, the Commission deleted most of the franchise standards in 1977, substituted a registration process for the certificate of compliance application process in 1978, and eliminated the distant signal carriage restrictions and syndicated program exclusivity rules in 1980. In 1983, the Commission deleted its requirement that cable operators file financial information. In addition, court actions led to the deletion of the pay cable programming rules in 1977. 1984 CONGRESSIONAL POLICY AND RULES In October 1984, the U.S. Congress amended the Communications Act of 1934 by adopting the Cable Communications Policy Act of 1984. The 1984 Cable Act established policies in the areas of ownership, channel usage, franchise provisions and renewals, subscriber rates and privacy, obscenity and lockboxes, unauthorized reception of services, equal employment opportunity, and pole attachments. The new law also defined jurisdictional boundaries among federal, state and local authorities for regulating cable television systems. 1992 CONGRESSIONAL POLICY AND RULES Following the 1984 Cable Act, the number of households subscribing to cable television systems increased, as did the channel capacity of many cable systems. However, competition among distributors of cable services did not increase, and, in many communities, the rates for cable services far outpaced inflation. Responding to these problems, Congress enacted the Cable Television Consumer Protection and Competition Act of 1992. The 1992 Cable Act mandated a number of changes in the manner in which http://www.fcc.gov/mb/facts/csgen.html 7/11/2007 General Cable Television Industry and Regulation Information Fact Sheet Page 3 of 35 . cable television is regulated. In adopting the 1992 Cable Act, Congress stated that it wanted to promote the availability of diverse views and information, to rely on the marketplace to the maximum extent possible to achieve that availability, to ensure cable operators continue to expand their capacity and program offerings, to ensure cable operators do not have undue market power, and to ensure consumer interests are protected in the receipt of cable service. The Commission has adopted regulations to implement these goals. 1996 CONGRESSIONAL POLICY AND RULES In adopting the Telecommunications Act of 1996, Congress noted that it wanted to provide a pro-competitive, de-regulatory national policy framework designed to accelerate rapidly private sector deployment of advanced telecommunications and information technologies and services to all Americans by opening all telecommunications markets to competition. The Commission has adopted regulations to implement the requirements of the 1996 Act and the intent of Congress. WHAT IS CABLE TELEVISION? Cable television is a video delivery service provided by a cable operator to subscribers via a coaxial cable or fiber optics. Programming delivered without a wire via satellite or other facilities is not "cable television" under the Commission's definitions. A cable television system operator is any person or group of persons who provides cable service over a cable system and directly or through one or more affiliates owns a significant interest in such cable system, or who otherwise controls or is responsible for, through any arrangement, the management and operation of such a cable system. Cable service is the transmission to subscribers of video programming, or other programming service. This definition includes any subscriber selection required in choosing video programming or other programming service. A cable system is a facility, consisting of a set of closed transmission paths and associated signal generation, reception, and control equipment that is designed to provide cable service which includes video programming and which is provided to multiple subscribers within a community. This term does not include a facility that serves only to retransmit the television signals of one or more television broadcast stations; a facility that serves subscribers without using any public right-of-way; a facility of a common carrier which is subject in whole or in part, to the provisions of Title II of the Communications Act, except that such facility shall be considered a cable system to the extent such facility is used in the transmission of video programming directly to subscribers; unless the extent of such use is solely to provide interactive on demand services; an open video system; or any facilities of any electric utility used solely for operating its electric utility system. Cable services are often provided in tiers. A tier is a category of cable service or services provided by a cable operator for which a separate rate is charged by the cable operator. There are three types of cable service: basic service, cable programming http://www.fcc.gov/mb/facts/csgen.html 7/11/2007 General Cable Television Industry and Regulation Information Fact Sheet Page 4 of 35 service, and per-channel or per-program (sometimes called pay-per-view) service. Basic service is the lowest level of cable service a subscriber can buy. It includes, at a minimum, all over-the-air television broadcast signals carried pursuant to the must- carry requirements of the Communications Act, and any public, educational, or government access channels required by the system's franchise agreement. It may include additional signals chosen by the operator. Basic service is generally regulated by the local franchising authority (the local or state entity empowered by Federal, State, or local law to grant a franchise to a cable company to operate in a given area). Cable programming service includes all program channels on the cable system that are not included in basic service, but are not separately offered as per-channel or per-program services. Pursuant to a 1996 federal law, the rates charged for cable programming services tiers provided after March 31, 1999 are not regulated. There may be one or more tiers of cable programming service. Per-channel or per-program service includes those cable services that are provided as single-channel tiers by the cable operator, and individual programs for which the cable operator charges a separate rate Neither of these services is regulated by the local franchising authorities or the Commission. A local exchange carrier (LEC) is a telephone company which provides local telephone service. A multichannel video programming distributor is any person such as, but not limited to, a cable operator, a multichannel multipoint distribution service, a direct broadcast satellite service, or a television receive-only satellite program distributor, who makes available for purchase, by subscribers or customers, multiple channels of video programming. REGISTRATION OF A CABLE SYSTEM Before commencing operation, a cable system operator must send the following information to the Secretary of the Commission for each community to be served: (1) The legal name of the operator, the entity identification or social security number, and whether the operator is an individual, private association, partnership or corporation. If the operator is a partnership, the legal name of the partner responsible for communications with the Commission; (2) The assumed name (if any) used for doing business in the community; (3) The mailing address, including zip code, and the telephone number to which all communications are to be directed; (4) The date the system provided services to 50 or more subscribers; (In order to comply with the requirements relating to aeronautical frequency usage, a system must register in advance of providing service to any subscribers, so that a subsequent aeronautical notification may be timely filed pursuant to § 76.615(b)). http://www.fcc.gov/mb/facts/csgen.html 7/11/2007 General Cable Television Industry and Regulation Information Fact Sheet Page 5 of 35 (5) The name of the community or area served and the county in which it is located; (6) The television broadcast signals to be carried; (7) A certification that the applicant is not subject to a denial of federal benefits pursuant to Section 5301 of the Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1988, 21 U.S.C., 853a, or, in the case of a non-individual applicant (for instance, a corporation, partnership, or other unincorporated association), that no party to the application is subject to a denial of federal benefits pursuant to that section; and (8) For a cable system (or an employment unit) with six or more full-time employees, a statement of the proposed community unit's equal employment opportunity program, unless such program has previously been filed for the community unit or is not required to be filed based on an anticipated number if fewer than six full-time employees. A registration statement must be signed by an authorized representative of the cable television company. The Commission issues a public notice setting forth the details of each registration statement as it is received. The cable television operator is not required to serve the registration statement on any party and may begin operation immediately upon filing the registration statement. However, commencement of operation is entirely at the risk of the system operator. If violations of the rules are subsequently discovered, appropriate regulatory sanctions, including imposition of a monetary forfeiture and/or the issuance of a cease and/or desist order, may be employed. STATE AND LOCAL REGULATION OF CABLE SYSTEMS A variety of laws and regulations for cable television exist at the state and local level. Some states, such as Massachusetts, regulate cable television on a comprehensive basis through a state commission or advisory board established for the sole purpose of cable television regulation. In Alaska, Connecticut, Delaware, Nevada, New Jersey, Rhode Island, and Vermont, the agencies are state public utility commissions. In Hawaii, regulation of cable television is the responsibility of the Department of Regulatory Agencies. In other areas of the country, cable is regulated by local governments such as a city cable commission, city council, town council, or a board of supervisors. These regulatory entities are called "local franchising authorities." In addition, at least 30 other states have one or more laws specifically applicable to cable television, dealing most commonly with such subjects as franchising, theft of service, pole attachments, rate regulation and taxation. The 1992 Cable Act codified, and the Commission has adopted, a regulatory plan allowing local and/or state authorities to select a cable franchisee and to regulate in any areas that the Commission did not preempt. Local franchising authorities have adopted laws and/or regulations in areas such as subscriber service requirements, public access requirements and franchise renewal standards. Under the 1992 Cable Act, local franchising authorities have specific responsibility for regulating the rates for basic cable service and equipment. The Communications Act requires that no new cable operator may provide service http://www.fcc.gov/mb/facts/csgen.html 7/11/2007 General Cable Television Industry and Regulation Information Fact Sheet Page 6 of 35 without a franchise and establishes several policies relating to franchising requirements and franchise fees. The Communications Act authorizes local franchising authorities to grant one or more franchises within their jurisdiction. However, a local franchising authority may not grant an exclusive franchise, and may not unreasonably withhold its consent for new service. Included in the grant of a franchise to a cable system are rights relating to the construction of the system, including the local franchising authority's authorization to use public rights-of-way, easements, and to establish the areas to be served. In addition, the law requires just compensation to property owners who have suffered damages as a result of a cable operator's construction, operation, installation, or removal of its cable television facilities. Moreover, franchising authorities are required to ensure that access to cable service is not denied to any group of potential residential cable subscribers on the basis of income class. Although the Communications Act also generally precludes the regulation of cable systems as common carriers, it authorizes the Commission, to require, if it chooses, the filing of informational tariffs for intrastate communications services, other than cable service, which is provided by a cable system. Franchising authorities may charge the cable operator a fee for the right to operate a cable system in that franchise area; however, the franchise fee paid by the cable system can be no more than five percent of its annual gross revenue. A franchising authority may use the money collected from this fee for any purpose. A cable operator must list any applicable franchise fee as a separate item on the subscriber's bill. RATES FOR SERVICE Prior to passage of the 1992 Cable Act, the Commission did not regulate rates for cable television service. Rates for basic cable service were regulated by local franchising authorities. The 1984 Cable Act permitted local franchising authorities to regulate only if the cable franchise area was served off the air by fewer than three unduplicated broadcast signals; in 1991, the Commission raised this number to six. In passing the 1992 Cable Act, Congress found rates for cable services rose significantly following the 1984 Cable Act. Congress directed the Commission to establish rules to govern rate regulation of cable service tiers offered by cable systems that are not subject to effective competition. These rules are intended to improve service to the cable subscriber and to ensure competitive rates. Each service tier is regulated in a slightly different manner. Local franchising authorities are responsible for regulating the basic service tier and, until March 31, 1999 (as provided by the 1996 Act), the Commission was responsible for regulating cable programming services tiers. Both follow rules set by the Commission, which established a "benchmark" rate based on a number of factors, including the number of subscribers, channels, and a number of other factors. Pay-per-channel and pay-per-program services are not regulated. In addition, under the 1996 Act, small cable operators are partially or wholly exempt from rate regulation. A "small cable operator" is defined to include any operator that serves fewer than 1 percent of all subscribers in the United States and that is not affiliated with entities that have gross annual revenues exceeding $250 million. In any franchise area where a small cable operator serves fewer than 50,000 subscribers, rate regulation does not apply to the operator's cable programming services tiers, or to its http://www.fcc.gov/mb/facts/csgen.html 7/11/2007 General Cable Television Industry and Regulation Information Fact Sheet Page 7 of 35 basic tier if it was the only tier subject to regulation as of December 31, 1994. Rates for a cable system's service tiers and associated equipment may be regulated only if the cable system is not subject to effective competition. There are four separate tests to establish that effective competition exists: (1) the households subscribing to a cable system constitute fewer than 30 percent of the households in its franchise area; or (2) (a) there are at least two unaffiliated multichannel video programming distributors (one of which may be the cable system in question), with each offering comparable video programming to at least 50 percent of the households in the franchise area, and (b) the households subscribing to all but the largest multichannel video programming distributor exceed 15 percent of the households in the franchise area; or (3) the franchising authority is itself a multichannel video programming distributor offering video programming to at least 50 percent of the households in the franchise area; or (4) a local exchange carrier or its affiliate (or any multichannel video programming distributor using the facilities of such carrier or its affiliate) offers video programming services directly to subscribers by any means (other than direct-to-home satellite services) in the franchise area, but only if the video programming services so offered in that area are comparable to the video programming services provided by the unaffiliated cable operator in that area. In the absence of a demonstration to the contrary, a franchising authority may presume that a cable system is not subject to effective competition. In order to exercise its authority to regulate basic cable rates and equipment, a franchising authority must be certified by the Commission. Unless notified otherwise by the Commission, a franchising authority's certification becomes effective 30 days after it is filed with the Commission. A franchising authority whose request for certification has been denied or revoked may petition the Commission for re-certification. In addition, a franchising authority that lacks the resources or legal authority to regulate basic cable service rates may petition the Commission to assume regulation, but the franchising authority must affirmatively demonstrate its inability to regulate to the Commission. The Commission will not intervene to regulate basic cable service rates should a franchising authority choose not to seek certification or choose not to request that the Commission assume jurisdiction. Appeals of local decisions will be heard by the Commission or by state or local courts, depending upon the subject matter involved. The 1996 Act modified the regulation of cable programming services and the rate complaint process established under the 1992 Cable Act. Pursuant to the 1996 Act, the Commission's authority to regulate the rates charged for cable programming services (those are the channels that are not on cable system's basic tier and are not sold on a per-channel or per-program basis) was terminated for services provided after March 31, 1999. Therefore, the rates charged for cable programming services are determined by the cable company and the Commission does not have the authority to review these rates or to investigate allegations that the rates are excessive. The 1996 Act did not modify the local franchising authority's ability to regulate basic cable rates. Therefore, complaints about basic cable rates should be filed with the franchise authority. Rates for channels sold on a per-channel or per-program basis are not regulated. http://www.fcc.gov/mb/facts/csgen.htnnl 7/11/2007 General Cable Television Industry and Regulation Information Fact Sheet Page 8 of 35 CUSTOMER SERVICE GUIDELINES Pursuant to the 1992 Cable Act, the Commission adopted federal guidelines which provide a standard for improving the quality of customer service rendered by cable operators. These guidelines provide minimum levels of service which should be provided by a cable operator. The guidelines address issues such as the cable operator's communications with customers over the telephone, installations, service problems, changes in rates or service, billing practices and information that must be provided to all customers. Although the standards were issued by the Commission, local franchising authorities are responsible for adopting and enforcing customer service standards. Franchising authorities may also adopt more stringent or additional standards with the consent of the cable operator or through enactment of a state or municipal law. Subscriber Calls to a Cable System Under the federal guidelines, each cable system must maintain a local, toll-free or collect-call telephone line available 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. During normal business hours, company representatives must be available to respond to customer inquiries. After normal business hours, (the hours during which most similar businesses in the community are open to serve customers), the cable system may use an answering service or machine so long as messages are answered the next business day. In addition, the cable system's customer service center and bill payment locations must be conveniently located and must be open at least during normal business hours and should include at least one night per week and/or some weekend hours. A call to a cable system must be answered -- including time the caller is put on hold -- within 30 seconds after the connection is made. If the call is transferred, the transfer time may not exceed 30 seconds. Also, cable system customers may receive a busy signal no more than three percent of the time. Although no special equipment is required to measure telephone answering and hold time, cable operators should use their best efforts in documenting compliance. These requirements must be met 90 percent of the time, measured quarterly, under normal operating conditions. Installations, Service Interruptions and Service Calls Federal guidelines state that standard installations -- which are those located up to 125 feet from the existing distribution system -- must be performed within seven days after an order has been placed. Except in situations beyond its control, the cable operator must begin working on a service interruption no later than 24 hours after being notified of the problem. A service interruption has occurred if picture or sound on one or more channels has been lost. The cable operator must begin to correct other service problems the next business day after learning of them. Cable operators may schedule appointments for installations and other service calls either at a specific time or, at a maximum, during a four-hour time block during normal business hours. Cable operators may also schedule service calls outside of normal business hours for the convenience of the customer. No appointment cancellations are permitted after the close of business on the business day prior to the scheduled appointment. If the cable installer or technician is running late and will not meet the specified appointment time, he or she must contact http://www.fcc.gov/mb/facts/csgen.html 7/11/2007 General Cable Television Industry and Regulation Information Fact Sheet Page 9 of 35 the customer and reschedule the appointment at the convenience of the subscriber. These requirements concerning installations, outages and service calls must ordinarily be met at least 95 percent of the time, measured quarterly, under normal operating conditions. Changes in Rates or Service and Billing Practices Thirty days advance written notice (using any reasonable written means) must be given to subscribers and local franchising authorities of any changes in rates, programming services or channel positions, if the change is within the control of the cable operator. Cable operators are not required to provide prior notice of any rate change that is the result of a regulatory fee, franchise fee, or any other fee, tax, assessment, or charge of any kind imposed by a Federal agency, State, or franchising authority on the transaction between the operator and the subscriber. Cable system bills must be clear, concise and understandable, with full itemization. Cable operators should respond to written complaints about billing matters within 30 days. Refunds must be issued no later than either the customer's next billing cycle or 30 days following resolution of the request, whichever is earlier, or upon the return of equipment when service is terminated. Credits must be issued no later than the billing cycle following the determination that a credit is warranted. Information to Customers The following information must be provided to customers at the time of installation and at least annually to all subscribers and at any time upon request: products and services offered; prices and options of programming services and conditions of subscription to programming and other services; installation and service maintenance policies; instructions on how to use the cable service; channel positions of programming carried on the system; and billing and complaint procedures, including the address and telephone number of the local franchising authority's office. UNAUTHORIZED RECEPTION OF CABLE SERVICES The 1984 Cable Act provides damages and penalties of up to two years in prison and/or $50,000 in fines to be assessed against anyone determined to be guilty either of the unauthorized interception or reception of cable television services or of the manufacture or distribution of equipment intended to be utilized for such a purpose. The Commission does not prosecute unauthorized reception of cable services. Rather, cable operators aggrieved by a violation may bring an action in a United States district court or in any other court of competent jurisdiction. Knowledge of violations should be reported directly to the cable system. SIGNAL CARRIAGE REQUIREMENTS The 1992 Cable Act established new standards for television broadcast station signal carriage on cable systems. Under these rules, each local commercial television broadcast station was given the option of selecting mandatory carriage ("must-carry") or retransmission consent ("may carry") for each cable system serving the same market as the commercial television station. The market of a television station is established by its http://www.fcc.gov/mb/facts/csgen.html 7/11/2007 General Cable Television Industry and Regulation Information Fact Sheet Page 10 of 35 • Area of Dominant Influence ("ADI"), as defined by Arbitron and/or modified by the Commission. Every county in the country is assigned to an ADI, and those cable systems and television stations in the same ADI are considered to be in the same market. Upon the request of a television station or a cable system, the Commission has the authority to change the ADI to which a station is assigned. As a result of Arbitron abandoning the television research business, the Commission has determined that, effective January 1, 2000, the market of a television station shall be its Designated Market Area ("DMA") as determined by Nielsen Media Research. Must-Carry/Retransmission Consent Election Every three years, every local commercial television station has the right to elect either must-carry or retransmission consent. The initial election was made on June 17, 1993, and was effective on October 6, 1993. The next election occurred on October 1, 1996, and was effective January 1, 1997. All subsequent elections will occur every three years (October 1 1999, to be effective January 1, 2000; October 1, 2002, to be effective January 1, 2003; etc.). Election of Must-Carry Status Generally, if a local commercial television station elects must-carry status, it is entitled to insist on cable carriage in its local market. Each cable system with more than 12 channels must set aside up to one-third of its channel capacity for must-carry stations. For example, if a cable system has 60 channels, it must set aside 20 of those channels for must-carry stations. If there are 25 stations in the market which elected must-carry, the cable operator may choose 20 to carry. On the other hand, if only 15 stations elected must-carry in the market, the cable system would have to carry all 15 of these stations. A must-carry station has a statutory right to a channel position, usually its over-the-air channel number, or another channel number on which it has historically been carried. Retransmission Consent Election A cable system is not permitted to carry a commercial station without the station's consent. Therefore, if the local commercial television station elects retransmission consent, the cable system must obtain that station's consent prior to carrying or transmitting its signal. Except for "superstations," a cable system may not carry the signal of any television broadcast station that is not located in the same market as the cable system without that broadcaster's consent. Superstations are transmitted via satellite, usually nationwide, and the cable system may carry such stations outside their local market without their consent. The negotiations between a television station and a cable system are private agreements which may, but need not, include some form of compensation to the television station such as money, advertising time or additional channel access. Noncommercial Educational Television Stations Every cable system across the country must carry at least one local noncommercial educational ("NCE") station. A noncommercial station which places a Grade B signal over http://www.fcc.gov/mb/facts/csgen.html 7/11/2007 General Cable Television Industry and Regulation Information Fact Sheet Page 11 of 35 a cable system's principal headend, or whose city of license is within fifty miles of the cable system's principal headend, is considered "local" for this purpose. Cable systems with more than 36 channels may be required to carry all local noncommercial educational television stations which request carriage. Any cable system operating in a market where no local NCE station is available is required to import one NCE station. Low Power Television Stations The 1992 Cable Act provides mandatory carriage for "qualified" low power television stations ("LPTV") in certain situations. A LPTV station has to meet certain qualifications' specified in the Act and incorporated into the Commission's Rules, before it is qualified for the right to must-carry. If a LPTV is qualified, it may assert must-carry rights, and, provided the cable operator has not met its mandatory carriage obligations, the LPTV station must be carried. Otherwise, a LPTV station must negotiate for carriage under the retransmission consent provisions or under the leased commercial access provisions. Radio Programming While the 1992 Cable Act's must-carry provisions only apply to local commercial and noncommercial educational television stations, the Act's retransmission consent provisions apply to all commercial broadcast stations. Many cable systems carry radio stations as an "all-band" offering, meaning that as with any standard radio receiver, all stations which deliver a signal to the antenna are carried on the system. The Commission only requires consent from those radio stations within 57 miles of the cable system's receiving antenna. Thus, even though a cable operator's antenna may pick up a station's signal, operators are not required to obtain the consent of stations outside of the 57 mile zone unless the station affirmatively seeks retransmission consent. Manner of Carriage Subject to the Commission's network nonduplication, syndicated exclusivity and sports broadcasting rules, cable systems must carry the entirety of the program schedule of every local television station carried pursuant to the mandatory carriage provisions or the retransmission consent provisions of the 1992 Cable Act. A broadcaster and a cable operator may negotiate for partial carriage of the signal where the station is not eligible for must carry rights, either because of the station's failure to meet the requisite definitions or because the cable system is outside the station's market. In those situations where the carriage in the entirety rule applies, the primary video and accompanying audio of all television broadcast stations must be carried in full, without alteration or deletion of their content. Ancillary services such as closed captioning and program-related material in the vertical blanking interval must be carried. However, other information contained in the vertical blanking interval need not be carried. Syndicated Program Exclusivity Protection With respect to non-network programming, cable systems that serve at least 1,000 subscribers may be required, upon proper notification, to provide syndicated protection to broadcasters who have contracted with program suppliers for exclusive exhibition rights to certain programs within specific geographic areas, whether or not the cable http://www.fcc.gov/mb/facts/csgen.html 7/11/2007 General Cable Television Industry and Regulation Information Fact Sheet Page 12 of 35 system affected is carrying the station requesting this protection. However, no cable system is required to delete a program broadcast by a station which is either significantly viewed or which places a Grade B or better contour over the community of the cable system. Network Program Nonduplication Commercial television station licensees are entitled to protect the network programming they have contracted for by exercising nonduplication rights against more distant television broadcast stations carried on a local cable television system that serves more than 1,000 subscribers. Commercial broadcast stations may assert these nonduplication rights regardless of whether or not their signals are being transmitted by the local cable system and regardless of when, or if, the network programming is scheduled to be broadcast. Generally, the zone of protection for such programming cannot exceed thirty- five miles for stations licensed to a community in the Commission's list of top 100 television markets or fifty-five miles for stations licensed to communities in smaller television markets. In addition, a cable operator does not have to delete the network programming of any station which the Commission has previously recognized as significantly viewed in the cable community. Sports Programming Blackouts A cable system located within 35 miles of the city of license of a broadcast station where a sporting event is taking place may not carry the live television broadcast of the sporting event on its system if the event is not available live on a local television broadcast station, if the holder of the broadcast rights to the event, or its agent, requests such a blackout. The holder of the rights is responsible for notifying the cable operator of its request for program deletion at least the Monday preceding the calendar week during which the deletion is desired. If no television broadcast station is licensed to the community in which the sports event is taking place, the 35-mile blackout zone extends from the broadcast station's licensed community with which the sports event or team is identified. If the event or local team is not identified with any particular community (for instance, the New England Patriots), the 35-mile blackout zone extends from the community nearest the sports event which has a licensed broadcast station. The sports blackout rule does not apply to cable television systems serving less than 1,000 subscribers, nor does it require deletion of a sports event on a broadcast station's signal that was carried by a cable system prior to March 31, 1972. The rule does not apply to sports programming carried on nonbroadcast program distribution services such as ESPN. These services, however, may be subject to private contractual blackout restrictions. For example, if the Boston Celtics are playing the Atlanta Hawks at Boston Gardens in a National Basketball Association ("NBA") game, and the game is not broadcast live on a Boston television station, and the NBA sends a blackout notice to cable systems within 35 miles of Boston, those systems will have to delete the game which is carried on their systems by "superstation" WTBS from Atlanta. If a sports event were carried, for example, on ESPN or a regional subscription sports network, any blackout would be the result of a private contractual agreement between the holder of the rights to the event and the sports network. http://www.fcc.gov/mb/facts/csgen.html 7/11/2007 General Cable Television Industry and Regulation Information Fact Sheet Page 13 of 35 Copyright The Copyright Act requires cable operators to obtain a compulsory license for the carriage of programming. The cable operator pays the fee to the copyright office, for distribution to the copyright holders of the program material. The fee for each cable system is based on the system's "gross receipts" from the carriage of broadcast signals and the number of "distant signal equivalents" a term identifying non-network programming from distant television stations carried by the system. Under the Commission's must-carry rules, a cable operator is not required to carry a signal of a television broadcast station if that station would be considered a distant signal under the Copyright Act, unless the station agrees to indemnify the cable operator for any increased copyright liability resulting from carriage of the signal. The Copyright Act requires a cable operator to file semi-annually a statement of account, including information about system revenue and signal carriage as well as the royalty fee payment. For further information regarding copyright regulation, contact the Licensing Division, Copyright Office, Library of Congress, Washington, DC 20557; telephone (202) 707-8380. Program Content Regulations Cable television system operators generally make their own selection of channels and programs to be distributed to subscribers in response to consumer demands. The Commission does, however, have rules in some areas that are applicable to programming -- called "origination cablecasting" that is subject to the editorial control of the system operator. The rules generally do not apply to the contents of broadcast signals or access channels over which the system operator has no editorial control. Cable subscribers may request a "lockbox" from cable operators to prevent viewing of any channel on which objectional programming may appear. Cable operators are required to make lockboxes available for sale or lease to customers who request them. Lockboxes can also be purchased from other commercial distributors. The 1996 Act included several provisions that were designed to increase the subscriber's ability to control the programming coming into the home. Section 551 of the 1996 Act required representatives of the broadcast and cable television industries to develop, within one year after enactment of the 1996 Act, voluntary rules to rate programming that contains violence and sexual or other indecent material. The industry proposed the TV Parental Guidelines and the proposal was approved by the Commission on March 12, 1998. The TV Parental Guidelines (labels and content indicators and respective meanings) are: TV-Y -- This program is designed to be appropriate for all children. TV-Y7 -- This program is designed for children age 7 and above. Note: For those programs where fantasy violence may be more intense or more combative than other programs in this category, such programs will be designated TV-Y7-FV. http://www.fcc.gov/mb/facts/csgen.html 7/11/2007 General Cable Television Industry and Regulation Information Fact Sheet Page 14 of 35 TV-G -- Most parents would find this program suitable for all ages. TV-PG -- This program contains some material that parents may find unsuitable for younger children. The program contains one or more of the following: moderate violence (V), some sexual situations (S), infrequent coarse language (L), or some suggestive dialogue (D). TV-14 -- This program contains some material that many parents would find unsuitable for children under 14 years of age. This program contains one or more of the following: intense violence (V), intense sexual situations (S), strong coarse language (L), or intensely suggestive dialogue (D). TV-MA -- This program is specifically designed to be viewed by adults and therefore may be unsuitable for children under 17. This program contains one or more of the following: graphic violence (V), explicit sexual activity (S), or crude indecent language (L). The ratings icons and associated symbols appear for 15 seconds at the beginning of all rated programming. Sports, news, commercials, promotions and unedited movies with a Motion Picture Association of America rating that are aired on premium cable channels are exempt from these ratings. The 1996 Act also required that television receivers manufactured or imported for use in the United States be equipped with circuitry that is capable of identifying all programs with a common rating and blocking individual channels during selected time periods. This is the circuitry commonly referred to as the "V-chip." This requirement applies to all television sets with a least a 13 inch screen. Manufacturers of such equipment were required to include a v-chip on at least 50% of their products by July 1, 1999 and on the remaining 50% by January 1, 2000. The Commission also required that personal computers that include a television tuner and a 13 inch or larger monitor must also include the v-chip. However, the requirement to rate programming applies only to video transmissions that are delivered to the computer by using the television tuner. Video transmissions delivered over the Internet or via computer networks are not required to be rated. Section 504 of the 1996 Act required a cable operator to fully scramble or block the audio and video portions of programming services not specifically subscribed to by a household. The cable operator must fully scramble or block the programming in question upon the request of the subscriber and at no charge to the subscriber. In addition, Section 505 states that cable operators or other multichannel video programming distributors who offer sexually explicit programming or other programming that is indecent on any channel(s) primarily dedicated to sexually-oriented programming must fully scramble or block both the audio and video portions of the channels so that someone who does not subscribe to the channel does not receive it. Until a multichannel video distributor complies with this provision, the distributor cannot provide the programming during hours when a significant number of children are likely to view it. On March 4, 1996, the Commission adopted an Order and Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (FCC 96-84) establishing interim rules to implement Section 505 of the http://www.fcc.gov/mb/facts/csgen.html 7/11/2007 General Cable Television Industry and Regulation Information Fact Sheet Page 15 of 35 1996 Act. The interim rules established the hours of 6:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. as those hours when a significant number of children are likely to have access to and view the programming. However, before the rules could take effect, Section 505 was challenged in the courts and the Commission was subsequently prevented from enforcing the rules because of a temporary restraining order and a number of stays granted by the United States District Court for the District of Delaware. On March 24, 1997, the United States Supreme Court affirmed the District Court's decision to deny the request for a preliminary injunction of section 505. Thus, on April 17, 1997, the Commission adopted an Order establishing May 18, 1997 as the effective date of our rules implementing section 505. However, on December 28, 1998, a federal court in Delaware issued a decision (Playboy Entertainment Group v. U.S.) which determined that Section 505 is unconstitutional. Therefore, the Commission's rules based on Section 505 could not be enforced. An appeal of this decision was filed with the U.S. Supreme Court. On May 22, 2000, the U.S. Supreme Court also determined that Section 505 is unconstitutional. Thus, the Commission's rules implementing Section 505 cannot be enforced. However, persons who wish to prevent the viewing of such programming may do so by obtaining a "lockbox" or by exercising the options provided in Section 504 of the 1996 Act. Finally, Section 506 of the 1996 Cable Act allows cable operators to refuse to transmit any public access or leased access program which contains obscenity, indecency, or nudity. On June 28, 1996, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a decision (Denver Area Educational Telecommunications Consortium, Inc. v. FCC) which held that cable operators may decline to carry indecent programming on leased access channels, but cannot exercise the same control over programming on public access channels. Political Cablecasting Once a cable system allows a legally qualified candidate to use its facilities, it must afford "equal opportunities" to all other candidates for that office to use its facilities. The cable system may not censor the content of the candidate's "equal opportunity" material in any way, and may not discriminate between candidates in practices, regulations, facilities or services rendered pursuant to the equal opportunities rules. Candidate appearances which are exempt from the "equal opportunities" rules include appearances on a bona fide newscast, bona fide news interview, bona fide news documentary, or on- the-spot coverage of a bona fide news event. Cable television systems may charge political candidates only the "lowest unit charge" of the system for the same class and amount of time for the same period, during the 45 days preceding a primary or runoff election and the 60 days preceding a general or special election. Candidates should be charged no more per unit than the system charges its most favored commercial advertisers for the same classes and amounts of time for the same periods. Information concerning the rates, terms, conditions and all discounts and privileges offered to commercial advertisers should be disclosed and made available to candidates. Fairness Doctrine Prior to the Fairness Doctrine's repeal in 1987, cable television system operators engaging in origination cablecasting were required to afford reasonable opportunity for http://www.fcc.gov/mb/facts/csgen.html 7/11/2007 General Cable Television Industry and Regulation Information Fact Sheet Page 16 of 35 the discussion of conflicting views on controversial issues of public importance. Although this requirement still appears in the Commission's rules, the fairness doctrine in its broadcast application and from which the cable rules is derived, is no longer enforced as a consequence of a Commission proceeding and a court decision. Personal Attacks When an attack is made upon the honesty, character, integrity, or like personal qualities of an identified person or group during origination cablecasting concerning controversial issues of public importance, the cable system must give the following to the person or group attacked within one week: (1) notification and identification of the cablecast, (2) a script, tape or accurate summary of the attack, and (3) an offer of a reasonable opportunity to respond over the cable facilities. The rule exempts attacks by political candidates and their associates on other candidates, including attacks that occur during "uses" by candidates such as attacks made during bona fide newscasts, bona fide news interviews and on-the-spot coverage of bona fide news events; and attacks on foreign groups or foreign public figures. Political Editorials Once a cable system carries an editorial endorsing or opposing a legally qualified political candidate, it must give opposing candidates (or the candidate opposed in the editorial) an opportunity to respond. Within 24 hours after the political editorial, the cable system must give to the other candidates or the candidate opposed the following: (1) notification and identification of the editorial, (2) a script or tape of the editorial, and (3) an offer of a reasonable opportunity for the candidate or his or her spokesman to respond over the cable facilities. Where an editorial is cablecast within 72 hours prior to election day, the cable system is obliged to give notice and an opportunity to respond sufficiently far in advance to enable the candidate opposed or not endorsed a reasonable opportunity to prepare a response and to present it in a timely fashion. Lottery Information Like broadcasting stations, cable systems are generally prohibited from transmitting information or advertisements concerning lotteries or other schemes offering prizes dependent upon chance in exchange for consideration. The rule exempts information about a state lottery cablecast by a system located in that state or another state which conducts a state lottery, or by a system which is integrated with a cable system in such a state, if it is technically unable to terminate the transmission to other states. It also permits the cablecast of information about a lottery or similar scheme that is not prohibited by the state in which it is conducted and which is (1) conducted by a not-for- profit or governmental organization or (2) conducted by a commercial organization and which is clearly occasional and ancillary to the organization's primary business. Information about gaming conducted pursuant to the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act is also exempt. On June 14, 1999, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a decision (Greater New Orleans Broadcasting Association, Inc. v. U.S.) which held that this prohibition could not be applied to the advertisements of lawful private casino gambling that are broadcast on http://www.fcc.gov/mb/facts/csgen.html 7/11/2007 General Cable Television Industry and Regulation Information Fact Sheet Page 17 of 35 radio or television stations located in Louisiana, where such gambling is legal. Sponsorship Identification The sponsorship identification rule requires the identification of the sponsor of any origination cablecasting which is presented in exchange for money, service or "other valuable consideration." All political spots must contain a visual sponsorship identification in letters equal to at least four percent of the screen height and which are on the air for at least four seconds. Where the cablecast advertises commercial products or services, a mention of the corporate or trade name is usually considered sufficient. Sponsorship identification announcements must also be made before and after certain material if inducements are given to the cable system in exchange for cablecasting the material. Commercial Limits in Children's Programs Regulations implemented pursuant to the Children's Television Act of 1990 restrict the amount of commercial matter that cable operators may cablecast on programs originally produced and broadcast primarily for children 12 years old and younger. Cable operators may transmit no more than 10.5 minutes of commercial matter per hour during children's programming on weekends and no more than 12 minutes of commercial matter per hour on weekdays. Cable systems must maintain records available for public inspection which document compliance with the rule. Cigarette Advertising Advertisements for cigarettes, little cigars and smokeless tobacco are prohibited on any medium of electronic communication subject to the jurisdiction of the Federal Communications Commission. Laws against these types of advertising have criminal penalties and are administered by the U.S. Department of Justice rather than by the Commission. ACCESS AND ORIGINATION CHANNELS Access channels typically provide community-oriented programming, such as local news, public announcements and government meetings. They are usually programmed by individuals or groups, on either public, educational or governmental access channels or on commercial leased access channels. Origination channels are usually programmed by the cable system and may include many types of specialized program packages such as movies, sports, national news and public affairs, feature entertainment, children's programming or programming for specific ethnic or other minority groups. The Commission's rules do not require cable operators to originate programming. Operators who originate programming, however, are required to comply with the Commission's program content rules. Channels For Public, Educational, Or Governmental Use http://www.fcc.gov/mb/facts/csgen.html 7/11/2007 Ge'neral Cable Television Industry and Regulation Information Fact Sheet Page 18 of 35 Under the 1984 Cable Act, local franchising authorities may require that cable operators set aside channels for public, educational, or governmental ("PEG") use. In addition, franchising authorities may require cable operators to provide services, facilities, and equipment for the use of these channels. Many cable systems include several PEG channels. In general, cable operators are not permitted to control the content of programming on PEG channels. Cable operators may impose non-content-based requirements, such as minimum production standards, and may mandate equipment user training. PEG channel capacity which is not in use for its designated purpose may, with the franchising authority's permission, be used by the cable operator to provide other services. Under certain conditions, a franchising authority may authorize the use of unused PEG channels to carry low power commercial television stations and local noncommercial educational television stations that are required by law. Information relating to PEG channels may be obtained directly from the cable system or the local franchising authority. Leased Commercial Access The statutory framework for commercial leased access was established by the 1984 Act and amended by the 1992 Cable Act. The 1984 Cable Act established leased access to assure access to the channel capacity of cable systems by parties unaffiliated with the cable operator who want to distribute video programming free of the editorial control of the cable operator. Channel set-aside requirements were established in proportion to a system's total activated channel capacity, in order to "assure that the widest possible diversity of information sources are made available to the public from cable systems in a manner consistent with the growth and development of cable systems." A cable system operator was permitted to use any unused leased access channel capacity for its own purposes, until such time as a written agreement for a leased channel use was obtained. Each system operator subject to this requirement was to establish the "price, terms, and conditions of such use which are at least sufficient to assure that such use will not adversely affect the operation, financial condition, or market development of the cable system." The only exception to the leased commercial access channel set-aside provides that up to 33 percent of a system's designated leased commercial access channel capacity may be used for qualified minority or educational programming from sources that may or may not be affiliated with the cable operator. The qualified minority or educational source may be affiliated with the operator. The 1992 Cable Act amendments broadened the statutory purpose to include "the promotion of competition in the delivery of diverse sources of video programming," and the Commission was provided with expanded authority: (1) to determine the maximum reasonable rates that a cable operator may establish for leased access use, including the rate charged for the billing of subscribers and for the collection of revenue from subscribers by the cable operator for such use; (2) to establish reasonable terms and conditions for leased access, including those for billing and collection; and (3) to http://www.fcc.gov/mb/facts/csgen.html 7/11/2007 General Cable Television Industry and Regulation Information Fact Sheet Page 19 of 35 ' establish procedures for the expedited resolution of leased access disputes. The legislative history of the 1992 amendments expresses concern that some cable operators may have established unreasonable terms or may have had financial incentives to refuse to lease channel capacity to potential leased access users based on anticompetitive motives, especially if the operator had a financial interest in the programming services it carried. Any person aggrieved by the failure or the refusal of a cable operator to make commercial channel capacity available or to charge rates as required by Commission rules may file a petition for relief with the Commission within 60 days of the alleged violation. In order to merit relief, the petition must show by clear and convincing evidence that the operator violated the leased access statutory or regulatory provisions or otherwise acted unreasonably or in bad faith. Relief may be in the form of refunds, injunctive relief or forfeitures. The Commission encourages parties to use alternative dispute resolution procedures such as settlement negotiation, conciliation, facilitation, mediation, fact finding, mini-trials and arbitration. The 1992 Cable Act provides for both judicial and Commission review of leased commercial access disputes. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY ("EEO") The Communications Act of 1934 and the Commission's rules prohibit cable operators, satellite master antenna television systems serving 50 or more subscribers and multichannel video programming distributors ("MVPDs") including, wireless cable operators and certain satellite distributors, from discriminating against any job applicant or employee because of the person's race, color, religion, national origin, age or gender. The law also requires that these entities establish, maintain and execute a continuing program to assure equal employment opportunity. Key areas which this program must address include: recruitment of minority and female applicants for job vacancies; promotions of minorities and women to positions of greater responsibility; and assessment of the system's EEO program. The Commission monitors compliance with the EEO rules on a yearly basis. Entities are subject to an annual certification review which begins when employment units (i.e., local cable systems, MVPDs and their headquarters offices) with six or more full-time employees file an Annual Employment Report (FCC Form 395-A or 395-M) with the Commission by May 1st of each year. The purpose of this review is to determine whether the employment units are engaging in good faith EEO efforts. The Form 395-A or 395-M requests information about the entity's EEO program as well as employee profiles, hiring and promotion data, and job title information, by race and gender, for all employees classified among 15 job categories. The Commission also requires operators to respond to selected questions from a Supplemental Investigation Sheet ("SIS") which requires more detailed information regarding the operator's EEO efforts and employee job classifications. SISs are sent out at least once every five years and responses to them allow the Commission to evaluate in greater detail each employment unit's employment practices, including the accuracy of its job classifications. In addition, the Commission conducts random on-site audits. Audits are usually http://www.fcc.gov/mb/facts/csgen.html 7/11/2007 General Cable Television Industry and Regulation Information Fact Sheet Page 20 of 35 conducted by Commission staff and consist of interviews and a review of documents and employment practices at the main office or work-site of the employment unit. The certification process consists of an examination of the information submitted on the Form 395-A or 395-M, and, if applicable, an SIS response or results of an audit. Any additional information that may have been supplied by the operator or requested by the Commission is also considered. Finally, the Commission notes any final decisions reached regarding complaints of discrimination by government agencies and courts established to enforce anti discrimination laws. If the data indicates compliance with the EEO requirements, a certification of compliance is issued for that year. If the data raises questions about the employment unit's efforts, additional information is requested. If an operator violates the cable EEO rules, the Commission has various remedies and sanctions available. Based on the severity and frequency of the violation, the Commission may issue a letter of caution or decertify a unit. If a unit is decertified, the Commission may also impose reporting conditions, impose a fine, or suspend the unit's Cable Television Relay Service ("CARS") license until the violation is corrected. The Commission may also communicate its adverse findings to the local franchising authority. EEO complaints may be filed by an employee, an applicant for employment or any other interested person. An interested person is an individual who lives within the cable system's franchise area. Complaints must be in writing, sworn and signed and must allege facts raising a prima facie case of non-compliance with the EEO provisions. To be timely, a complaint must be filed within 180 days of the alleged EEO violation. In processing EEO complaints, the Commission first determines whether the complaint falls within the jurisdiction of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission or a comparable state or local agency. If it does, the complaint is referred to the appropriate agency and the Commission defers action on the matter until a final decision is reached. If the matter is not referred, the Commission processes the complaint and determines what action or inquiry, if any, is appropriate. Anyone wishing to file a complaint should write to: Federal Communications Commission, Mass Media Bureau, Enforcement Division, EEO Branch, 445 12th Street, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20554. To receive more information about complaint procedures or the cable EEO provisions in general, please contact the EEO Branch at (202) 418-1450. In 1998, a federal court issued a decision (Lutheran Church - Missouri Synod v. FCC) which held that the Commission's EEO requirements for broadcast stations were unconstitutional. However, the court made clear that other requirements of this type could be constitutional and remanded the issue to the Commission. Pursuant to the court's remand, the Commission issued a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking which sought comment on proposals to modify the broadcast EEO rules in a manner that would be consistent with the court's decision. Although the court decision did not specifically address the cable EEO rules, the Notice proposed to modify the cable EEO rules to conform the cable rules to any new broadcast EEO rules. On January 20, 2000, the http://www.fcc.gov/mb/facts/csgen.html 7/11/2007 General Cable Television Industry and Regulation Information Fact Sheet Page 22 of 35 With MMDS, often referred to as "wireless cable," an omnidirectional microwave signal is sent from a central transmission tower to receiving microwave antennas. The signals involve "line of sight" transmission and, as a result, the signals are subject to degradation when obstructed. On the other hand, absent obstacles, the signals can travel up to 70 miles, providing television pictures comparable to those received through cable television. The microwave signal is a high frequency signal which is converted for television use by a converter located on the subscriber's receiving antenna. Vertical Ownership Restrictions To prevent vertically integrated cable systems from unduly favoring their affiliated programmers over non-affiliated program providers, the Commission imposes a 40% limit on the number of channels that can be occupied by video programmers affiliated with the particular cable system. In this context, vertical integration refers to common ownership of both cable systems and program networks, channels, services or production companies. For purposes of determining common ownership, all interests of 5% or greater are recognized unless there is no possibility of such interests exerting control or influence over the cable system. National Subscriber Limits Section 613 of the Communications Act requires the Commission to prescribe rules establishing reasonable limits on the number of cable subscribers served by an individual cable operator through its ownership or control of local cable systems. In 1993, the Commission adopted rules prohibiting any person from reaching, through owned or controlled cable systems, more than 30% of all homes passed nationwide by cable. In 1999, the Commission amended this rule to prohibit any person from serving, through owned or controlled cable systems, more than 30% of all multiple video programming distribution ("MVPD") subscribers nationwide. The Commission concluded that actual subscriber numbers, rather than cable homes passed, more accurately reflected the market power of a multiple system operator ("MSO"). In addition, given that DBS and other non-cable providers have a growing impact on the market, the Commission decided to take into account the number of all MVPD subscribers, rather than cable subscribers alone. For cable operators, the 30% limit includes only those cable subscribers that any one MSO serves through incumbent cable franchises. An "incumbent cable franchise" is one that was in existence on October 20, 1999, and includes all subsequent owners of the franchise. In determining the 30% limit, the MSO must include all subscribers served by the incumbent cable franchise, regardless of when the subscriber actually purchased cable service. By limiting the horizontal concentration of the cable industry, the Commission seeks to prevent the concentration of local cable systems into the hands of only a few large operators and to limit the ability of multiple system operators to exercise undue influence in the program acquisition market. The U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia ruled in Daniels Cablevision, Inc. v. United States, 835 F. Supp. 1 (1993), that governmentally-mandated subscriber limits are unconstitutional under the First Amendment. In light of this ruling and in order to avoid confusion, the Commission stayed the effective date of the subscriber-limit rules and determined that the rules would become effective upon the issuance of a court decision that upheld Section 613. On May 19, 2000, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the http://www.fcc.gov/mb/facts/csgen.html 7/11/2007 General Cable Television Industry and Regulation Information Fact Sheet Page 23 of 35 D.C. Circuit ruled in Time Warner v. U.S. that Section 613 is constitutional. This court decision means that the Commission's rules imposing a national limit on the number of cable subscribers that may be served by a single cable operator may be enforced. The Commission has determined that affected parties must comply with these rules no more than 180 days following the issuance of the court decision. TECHNICAL REQUIREMENTS Cable systems distribute TV signals either through optical fiber or through coaxial cable strung on existing poles owned by telephone or electric utility companies. Cable operators also may use their own poles, place their cable underground or use transmission facilities or rights-of-way owned or controlled by a utility or municipality. Some may use combinations of these arrangements. Sometimes conflicts arise between cable television systems and utility companies over pole attachment issues, particularly the rates for use of utility facilities. The Communications Act Amendments of 1978 authorized the Commission to resolve such disputes by regulating the rates, terms, and conditions for cable TV pole attachments to ensure they are just and reasonable unless a state regulates such factors. In 1985, the Commission adopted rules requiring each state to certify that: it has issued, and made effective, rules implementing the state's regulatory authority over pole attachments; its rules and regulations include a specific methodology for regulating pole attachments, and; the methodology has been made publicly available in the state. Local pole attachment requirements may be obtained from local franchising authorities. The amended rules also require that jurisdiction revert to the Commission unless a state acts on a complaint in a timely fashion. The Commission periodically issues public notices listing those states which have filed pole attachment regulation certifications. The 1996 Act made the existing maximum just and reasonable pole attachment rate formulas temporary applicable to telecommunications carriers and cable operators providing telecommunications services. The 1996 Act also created a distinction between pole attachments used by cable operators solely to provide cable service and pole attachments used by cable operators or by any telecommunications carrier to provide any telecommunications service. The Act prescribed a new methodology for determining pole attachment rates for the latter group. The new formulas will require that, in addition to paying their share of a pole's usable space, these telecommunications service providers also must pay their share of the fully allocated costs associated with the unusable space of the pole, duct, conduit, or right-of-way. In order to implement these new formulas, Congress directed the Commission to issue new pole attachment regulations relating to telecommunications carriers within two years after the date of enactment of the 1996 Act, to become effective 5 years after enactment. Technical Standards To ensure the delivery of satisfactory television signals to cable subscribers, the Commission has adopted various technical performance standards which local franchising authorities are generally authorized to enforce through their franchising process. Cable operators are required to establish a complaint resolution process and to advise their subscribers about it annually. http://www.fcc.gov/mb/facts/csgen.html 7/11/2007 General Cable Television Industry and Regulation Information Fact Sheet Page 24 of 35 In addition to establishing new standards for the delivery of color signals and of closed captioned data, the Commission generally preempted conflicting local standards. Cable systems with fewer than 1,000 subscribers, as well as those serving rural areas, may negotiate with their respective franchising authorities for certain lower standards. Prohibited Frequencies No cable television system may utilize a frequency at power levels equal to or exceeding 10 microwatts within 100 kHz plus tolerance of the emergency aircraft locator frequency 121.5 MHz or within 50 kHz plus tolerance of the distress signal frequencies 156.8 MHz and 243.0 MHz. Use of Aeronautical Frequencies The Commission's technical rules include standards to control signal leakage from cable systems. Any cable system, regardless of its size, which intends to use a frequency in the band 108-137 MHz or 225-400 MHz above a power level of 100 microwatts, must first notify the Commission of its intention to do so before using the proposed frequencies. This requirement permits Commission review of the proposed frequency usage and insures that cable operations are on frequencies which are offset from the air navigation and communications functions of local aeronautical radio services. The standards used to determine the permissibility of proposed frequency usage are based on frequency separation between the proposed cable frequencies and aeronautical station assignments. Certain logging and leakage monitoring obligations are also imposed on operators using frequencies within the above-mentioned bands. The requirements on the use of aeronautical frequencies are contained in 47 C.F.R. §§ 76.611 - 76.617. All cable systems using aeronautical frequencies must file a yearly report demonstrating compliance with these rules. Microwave Facilities Cable systems obtain certain signals, sometimes from distances impractical to serve by cable, through microwave relay stations. Microwave systems may also be used by cable operators for distribution of signals within the cable system where it is impractical to run cable due to its cost or due to potential signal deterioration. Cable operators may purchase microwave relay service from companies providing such common carrier services, or they may operate their own relay stations licensed by the Commission as CARS stations. The rules for CARS stations also authorize licensing of mobile remote pick-up stations for the transmission of programming from the scenes of events outside a studio back to the cable studio or headend. In addition, they provide for the licensing of studio-to-headend link stations. A license is necessary to operate a CARS Station. An applicant must file FCC Form 327 for a license. Cable system owners or cooperative enterprises and cable networks with at least 5 million subscribers are eligible to become CARS licensees. A CARS licensee also may serve nonaffiliated cable systems based on a cost-sharing, nonprofit arrangement. These arrangements permit the delivery of cable programming where economies might otherwise prevent a small system from using microwave transmission. Broadcast microwave facilities, are also permitted to provide signals to http://www.fcc.gov/mb/facts/csgen.html 7/11/2007 General Cable Television Industry and Regulation Information Fact Sheet Page 25 of 35 cable television systems on a similar nonprofit, cost-sharing basis. The advent of satellite-earth station transmission capability adds another dimension to microwave communications. The interface between a receive-only earth station and a CARS network now offers greater flexibility in the distribution of programming to cable systems and a relatively inexpensive means of providing a long-haul transmission capability. The rapid growth of the cable industry has led to increased demand for CARS band frequencies. In 1979, the Commission expanded the band from 12.7-12.95 GHz to 12.7- 13.20 GHz. In 1983, the Commission allowed cable system operators to use frequencies in the 18 GHz area (specifically 17.7-18.58 GHz and 19.26-19.7 GHz). The Commission added the 31 GHz band for microwave services including CARS and provided access by cable operators and networks to the 2 and 6 GHz Bands (specifically 1.990-2.190, 6.425-6.525 and 6.875-7.125 GHz) for CARS mobile use only. HOME WIRING The home wiring rules are intended to encourage competition between multichannel video delivery services by allowing a consumer who voluntarily terminates cable service to use the wiring to receive a competing multichannel video delivery service, such as direct broadcast satellite, wireless cable ("MMDS"), or a different cable service, without the expense and inconvenience of installing new wire. Under the Commission's rules, cable subscribers may provide and install their own cable home wiring within their premises and may connect additional home wiring within their premises to the wiring installed and owned by the cable operator prior to the termination of cable service. Under this rule, customers may select who will install their home wiring (e.g., themselves, the cable operator or a commercial contractor). In addition, customers may connect additional wiring, splitters or other equipment to the cable operator's wiring, or redirect or reroute the home wiring, so long as no electronic or physical harm is caused to the cable system and the physical integrity of the cable operator's wiring remains intact. Cable subscribers are not permitted to physically cut, improperly terminate, substantially alter or otherwise destroy cable operator-owned inside wiring. To protect the cable system from signal leakage, electronic and physical harm and other types of degradation, the cable operator may require that any home wiring (including passive splitters, connectors and other equipment used in the installation of home wiring) meets reasonable technical specifications, not to exceed the technical specifications of such equipment installed by the cable operator. However, if the subscriber's connection to, redirection of or rerouting of the home wiring causes electronic or physical harm to the cable system, the cable operator may impose additional technical specifications to eliminate such harm. When a subscriber who does not own the cable wiring within the subscriber's home voluntarily terminates cable service, the cable operator may leave the wiring in place, or may notify the subscriber that it will remove the home wiring unless the subscriber purchases the wire from the operator (on a replacement cost basis). When the subscriber contacts the cable operator to terminate cable service voluntarily, the cable operator, if it owns and intends to remove the home wiring, must inform the subscriber: http://www.fcc.gov/mb/facts/csgen.html 7/11/2007 General Cable Television Industry and Regulation Information Fact Sheet Page 26 of 35 • (1) that the cable operator owns the cable home wiring; (2) that the cable operator intends to remove it; (3) that the subscriber has the right to purchase it; and (4) what the per-foot replacement cost and the total charge for the wiring would be. If the consumer declines to purchase the wiring, the cable operator must remove the wiring at no charge to the subscriber within seven days of the subscriber's decision, under normal operating conditions. If the cable company fails to remove the wiring within the seven business day period, it forfeits its right to remove the wire or restrict its use at any later time. The cable company must pay for any damage done to the subscriber's home while removing the wire. COMPATIBILITY BETWEEN CABLE SYSTEMS AND CONSUMER EQUIPMENT Televisions and videocassette recorders ("VCRs") have many special features and functions that may not work when consumers are connected to cable services. The Commission has proposed regulations to allow consumers to use and enjoy the enhanced features of their TVs and VCRs such as "picture-in picture", viewing a program on one channel while simultaneously recording a program on another channel, and recording two or more consecutive programs that appear on different channels. The proposed rules do allow cable operators to protect their premium services from receipt by non-subscribers. The Commission has established rules to assure compatibility between home electronic equipment and cable television systems so the advanced features of television receivers (TVs) and VCRs will function when connected to cable service. These rules were adopted in accordance with the provisions of Section 17 of the 1992 Cable Act. The compatibility rules specify a number of measures to promote improved compatibility between existing cable system and consumer electronics equipment. They also include provisions for achieving additional improvements in compatibility through new cable and consumer equipment. These compatibility standards facilitate the recording of one program while viewing another, recording consecutive programs that appear on different channels, use of "picture-in-picture" and other advanced features of newer television sets, and operation of subscriber-owned remote control units. In addition, the Commission intends to adopt standards for a Decoder Interface connector in new "cable ready" equipment and requirements for cable systems to support its use. This feature of consumer equipment will eliminate the need for set top converters, allowing them to be replaced with electronic components that plug into a special plug in the back of "cable ready" TV equipment. With respect to existing equipment, the rules address problems associated with the existing universe of cable system and consumer electronic equipment. They require cable systems that use scrambling technology to offer their subscribers supplemental equipment that will enable subscribers to use the extended features of their TVs and VCRs such as "picture-in-picture" and timed recording. To meet such a requirement, the operator can offer to provide subscribers: (1) a single integrated device with dual descramblers/decoders and/or timers and bypass switches or (2) two independent set- top devices which support similar functionalities. The rules further provide that cable operators must offer subscribers the option of having all signals whose reception does not require use of a converter to pass those signals directly to the subscriber's TV or http://www.fcc.gov/mb/facts/csgen.html 7/11/2007 General Cable Television Industry and Regulation Information Fact Sheet Page 27 of 35 VCR, without passing through the set-top device. This capability can be provided through a by-pass switch or through internal by-pass circuitry in a set-top box. Cable operators are required to provide supplemental equipment on the request of individual subscribers and may charge for equipment provided under these requirements in accordance with the rate regulations for customer premises equipment. The rules prohibit cable operators from scrambling signals on the basic tier of cable service. This prohibition ensures that consumers who have TVs and VCRs capable of tuning basic service channels are able to continue to receive service on those channels without a set-top device. Cable operators who employ set-top devices that incorporate remote control capability must permit such operation with commercially available remote control units, or otherwise take no action that would prevent the use such remote control units. Upon a subscriber's request, a cable operator is, however, allowed to disable the remote control functions of a subscriber's set-top box. The rules require cable operators to provide a consumer education program on compatibility matters to their subscribers. This information must be presented in writing and provided to consumers at least annually and when they first subscribe to the cable service. The consumer education program must alert subscribers that where a set-top device is used to receive service, subscribers may be prevented from using some of the special features and functions of their TVs. These functions include those that allow subscribers to: view one program on one channel and record a program on another channel; record two or more consecutive programs on different channels; and use advanced picture generation features such as "picture-in-picture," channel review and other functions that necessitate channel selection by the consumer device. Under the consumer education program requirements, cable operators must also inform subscribers that: certain TVs and VCRs simply may not be able to receive all of the channels offered by the cable system once they are connected directly to the cable system; there are various types of channelization (tuner reception) incompatibilities; and offer suggestions for resolving channelization problems, e.g., use a set-top channel converter device that could be obtained from either the cable system or a retailer (in the latter case, only simple channel converter devices that do not include descrambling capability); and subscribers may purchase compatible remote control units from other sources. With respect to this last element, cable systems must provide a list of the models of set-top devices they provide to subscribers and a representative list of the remote control units currently available from retailers that are compatible with the set- top devices they employ. The rules provide standards for new consumer TVs and VCRs marketed as "cable ready" (or "cable compatible") and are intended to provide the necessary flexibility for the transition from the existing analog cable to the new digital systems. The technical standards for "cable ready" consumer electronics equipment only apply to TVs and VCRs specifically marketed as "cable ready" or "cable compatible." The rules specify that new TVs and VCRs marketed using the terms "cable ready" or "cable compatible" after June 30, 1997, must comply with the "cable ready" equipment standards. The rules further prohibit use of the terms "cable ready," "cable compatible" and other terms and descriptors that convey the impression a device is fully compatible with cable service, in http://www.fcc.gov/mb/facts/csgen.html 7/11/2007 General Cable Television Industry and Regulation Information Fact Sheet Page 28 of 35 the labeling and packaging of consumer TVs and VCRs manufactured or imported for sale to consumers in this country after October 31, 1994, unless the equipment complies with the "cable ready" technical standards. RECORD RETENTION The Commission requires cable operators to maintain various documents and records of their authorization and operation for inspection by the Commission, local franchising authorities and/or the public. Cable operators must maintain a number of records for Commission inspection. These include a political file, sponsorship identification records, equal employment opportunities ("EEO") records, commercial records for children's programming, records demonstrating compliance with the Commission's leased access provisions, ownership records, the designation and location of the cable system's principal headend, and a list of broadcast television stations carried in fulfillment of the Commission's must-carry provisions. Records required to be maintained primarily for inspection by the Commission or by local franchising authorities include evidence of compliance with the Commission's technical standards, a current list of channels offered to subscribers, proof-of-performance test data, signal leakage logs and repair records, a copy of the Commission's cable television regulations, records of subscribers (aggregate information used for assessing fees), and records of subscriber complaints on signal quality. In addition to the above-listed files, cable systems with 1000 subscribers or more must maintain a public inspection file. This file must contain a copy of records to be maintained as part of the political file, sponsorship identification records, EEO documents, commercial records for children's programming, leased access records, ownership records, required proof-of-performance test data, and required signal leakage and repair logs. The public inspection file must be kept at the office which the system operator maintains for business purposes, such as the place where the operator ordinarily collects subscriber charges, resolves subscriber complaints and conducts other business, or at any accessible place in the community served by the system (such as a public registry for documents or an attorney's office). The public inspection file must be available for public inspection at any time during regular business hours. However, if the cable system serves at least 1,000 but fewer than 5,000 subscribers, these records must only be provided upon request. Cable operators have the option of maintaining all or part of the public inspection file in a computer database rather than in a paper file. If a cable operator chooses to exercise this option, the cable operator must provide a computer terminal for public use and make paper copies available upon request. Cable operators must make copies of any materials in the public inspection file available for photocopying at the time of an in-person request. Cable operators may charge a reasonable fee for photocopying. Requests for photocopies must be fulfilled at a location http://www.fcc.gov/mb/facts/csgen.html 7/11/2007 General Cable Television Industry and Regulation Information Fact Sheet Page 29 of 35 specified by the cable operator, within a reasonable time not to exceed seven days. System operators are not required to honor requests for photocopying by mail but may do so at their discretion. PROTECTION OF SUBSCRIBER PRIVACY Cable operators generally are prohibited from using their cable systems to collect personally identifiable information concerning any subscriber without the prior written or electronic consent of the subscriber. However, cable operators may collect this information if necessary to render cable television or other service to the subscriber or to detect unauthorized reception of cable communications. Cable operators generally are also prohibited from disclosing personally identifiable information without the prior written or electronic consent of the subscriber. However, there are certain circumstances where the cable operator may do so. A cable operator may disclose this information if such disclosure is necessary to render, or conduct a legitimate business activity related to, cable television or other service provided to the subscriber. The operator may also disclose such information pursuant to a court order authorizing the disclosure, however, the subscriber must be notified of such an order by the person to whom the order is directed (such as a government agency or the cable operator). Finally, the cable operator may disclose the names and addresses of subscribers, but the cable operator must provide the subscriber the opportunity to prohibit or limit such disclosure. Moreover, the cable operator must ensure the disclosure does not reveal, directly or indirectly, the extent of any viewing or other use by the subscriber or the nature of any transaction made by the subscriber over the cable system. At the time of entering into an agreement to provide cable service or any other service to a subscriber, cable operators must notify the subscriber of the following: the nature of any personally identifiable information collected, or that will be collected, regarding the subscriber; the nature of the use of such information; the nature, frequency, and purpose of any possible disclosure of such information; including an identification of the types of persons to whom the disclosure may be made, the period during which such information will be maintained by the cable operator, the times and place at which the subscriber may gain access to such information, and the limitations with respect to collection and disclosure of information by a cable operator and the right of subscribers to enforce these limitations. Notice to the subscriber must be in the form of a separate, written statement and must be clear and conspicuous. Notice must also be given at least once every year that the agreed upon service is provided. "Personally identifiable information" does not include any record of aggregate data which does not identify particular persons. Cable operators must provide a subscriber access to all personally identifiable information regarding that subscriber. Such information must be made available to the subscriber at reasonable times and at a convenient place designated by the cable operator. The subscriber must be provided a reasonable opportunity to correct any error in such information. Cable operators must destroy personally identifiable information if such information is no longer necessary for the purpose for which it was collected and there are no pending requests or orders for access to such information. http://www.fcc.gov/mb/facts/csgen.html 7/11/2007 General Cable Television Industry and Regulation Information Fact Sheet Page 30 of 35 Any person aggrieved by a cable operator's violation of these provisions may bring a civil action in a United States district court. As a remedy, the court may award actual damages, punitive damages, and reasonable attorneys' fees and other litigation costs reasonably incurred. A government entity may obtain personally identifiable information concerning a cable subscriber pursuant to a court order only if the entity offers clear and convincing evidence that the subject of the information is reasonably suspected of engaging in criminal activity and that the information sought would be material evidence in the case. In addition, the subject of the information must be afforded the opportunity to appear and contest the entity's claim. COMPLAINTS, INVESTIGATIONS AND INQUIRIES Under the dual jurisdictional approach to cable television regulation, several important areas of regulation are administered by local franchising authorities rather than by the Commission. These include subscriber rates for basic cable service, installation fees, equipment and customer service, where the local franchising authority has chosen to regulate; bills and billing practices; extension of cable service to individual homes and businesses; repairs; improper wiring; theft of service; and false or misleading advertising concerning the cable system's capabilities. Complainants are urged to make their complaints by letter, directed to local officials responsible for regulation of their cable system. In most cases, the local franchising authority will review the charges for basic cable service and equipment to determine if the charges are justified. Pursuant to the 1996 Act, the Commission's authority to regulate the rates charged for cable programming service was terminated on March 31, 1999. Therefore, the cable company determines the rate for this service and the Commission does not have the authority to review the rate or to accept complaints about the rate. The Commission is particularly interested in interference problems to cable service generated by citizens band or amateur radio operations. These problems may be addressed to the Commission field office located closest to the affected cable system or to the Commission headquarters in Washington, D.C. REQUESTS FOR SPECIAL RELIEF A cable system operator, broadcaster, franchising authority and, under certain circumstances, individuals, by filing a petition for special relief with a filing fee, may seek special relief or a waiver of any rule relating to cable television. Requests for declaratory orders seeking Commission interpretation of a disputed question about the rules may be treated as petitions for special relief or rulemaking. Neither complaints related to the mandatory carriage provisions, nor petitions for declaratory ruling are subject to a filing fee. A petitioner may submit the request by letter, accompanied by a certification that all interested parties who may be directly affected by any Commission action have been given a copy of the request. In addition to stating the relief requested, the petition should contain the facts demonstrating the need for relief and should show how granting the request would serve the public interest. An original and two copies of the petitions not requiring a filing fee must be filed with the Office of the Secretary, Federal http://www.fcc.gov/mb/facts/csgen.html 7/11/2007 General Cable Television Industry and Regulation Information Fact Sheet Page 31 of 35 Communications Commission, 445 12th Street, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20554. Any petition requiring a fee must be submitted, along with a check or money order, to: Federal Communications Commission, Cable Services Bureau, P.O. Box 358205, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15251. Notification about the filing of petitions for special relief is given to the general public through Public Notices published by the Commission. These Notices are accessible through the Internet at: Web site: http:.//www.fcc.g_oV. Any person may submit comments in opposition to or in support of the petition generally within 20 days after it is filed. These pleadings also must be served on the petitioner and on all persons listed in the petitioner's certificate of service, and an original and two copies should be submitted to the Secretary. The petitioner may then file reply comments within generally 10 days after the submission of comments or oppositions. SHOW CAUSE ORDERS AND FORFEITURE ACTIONS In response to a petition, or on its own motion, the Commission may issue an order to show cause or initiate a forfeiture proceeding. This action begins a proceeding similar to a civil suit for an injunction; if the complainant prevails at the hearing, the Commission issues a cease and desist order and/or a forfeiture. Such a proceeding may be started by filing an original and two copies of a petition that the Commission subsequently places on public notice. Comments or oppositions may be submitted within 30 days and replies within 20 days. In the case of a forfeiture, a hearing may be held, but in almost all cases, a decision on a forfeiture is made without a hearing. Such petitions usually seek to remedy an alleged violation of the Commission's rules. A copy of the petition should be sent to the cable system operator and to other interested parties. It is possible, however, for an individual or group to join a cable system in opposing a request for an order to show cause. Once all the pleadings have been submitted, the Commission reviews the arguments and determines whether an order to show cause should be issued or a forfeiture proceeding should be initiated. Forfeiture Authority The Commission has the authority to impose monetary forfeitures on cable television systems or CARS licensees found to be in violation of the Commission's Rules, terms or conditions of a certificate or license, any Commission order, or any provision of the Communications Act. The Commission may impose forfeitures on cable systems by issuing either a notice affording an opportunity for hearing or a notice of apparent liability. The maximum fine imposed on cable system operators for each separate offense is $25,000 for each day, the total fine not to exceed $250,000 for each notice of apparent liability or hearing. Each day of a continuing violation is considered a separate offense. In the case of cable systems, the Commission must issue any such notice within one year of the offense. RULEMAKING PROCEEDINGS The Commission is continually in the process of adopting new rules or amending existing ones to ensure its regulations serve the public interest. Since many of these rules have widespread impact, the public may want to participate in the rulemaking process. http://www.fcc.gov/mb/facts/csgen.html 7/11/2007 General Cable Television Industry and Regulation Information Fact Sheet Page 32 of 35 Anyone may petition the Commission to adopt a rule at any time. A petition should include the text or substance of the proposed rule and provide supporting arguments, rationale, and data for the proposed new rule. If the Commission initiates a rule making proceeding, it will issue a "Notice of Proposed Rulemaking" inviting public comment for a limited time period -- usually 30 days or more. A summary of the notice is published in the Federal Register which is available in many large libraries. In addition, trade publications also report the issuance of rulemaking notices. The rules require that an original and five copies of all petitions and comments be filed. Participants who want each Commissioner to have a copy may submit 12 copies (an original and 11 copies). Members of the public may participate informally in rulemaking proceedings by submitting a single copy of their comments. This information should be mailed or delivered to the Office of the Secretary, Federal Communications Commission, 445 12th Street, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20554. CITIZEN PARTICIPATION IN COMMISSION REGULATION The Commission encourages and invites input from the public in all phases of its regulatory proceedings. Persons interested in participating by filing comments but who are unfamiliar with Commission procedures may contact the FCC's Call Center at no charge by dialing 1-888-CALLFCC (1-888-225-5322). The Call Center offers Commission information and outreach to individual consumers, public interest and consumer organizations, and other interested persons. Any member of the public may participate in the Commission's regulatory proceedings. The Consumer Assistance Branch maintains and disseminates general information bulletins on the functions and organization of the Commission, historical information on Commission actions and policies as they relate to its minority ownership policies, and fact sheets that provide concise information on policy changes and information concerning new telecommunications services. As part of its ongoing outreach activities, the Commission holds a monthly "brown bag" luncheon series on issues and recent policy changes. It conducts other workshops and seminars designed to keep the public informed. It conducts briefings for visitors, colleges and universities with an interest in learning more about the Commission and its regulatory authority. The Commission's Office of Public Affairs issues public notices of the filings of cable TV registration statements, petitions, comments and Commission actions. Copies of FCC decisions and comments filed may be obtained from the Commission's duplicating contractor, International Transcription Service, telephone (202) 857-3800. Selected documents may be obtained through the Internet at the following address: Web site: http:_//www.fcc.gov. Several commercial distributors will send copies of all, or selected, public notices and news releases on a regular basis for a fee. A list of these distributors is available from the Public Service Division. Other sources of information include trade publications, such as Broadcasting & Cable, Cablevision, Communications Daily, Television Digest, Electronic Media and Multichannel News. http://www.fcc.gov/mb/facts/csgen.html 7/11/2007 General Cable Television Industry and Regulation Information Fact Sheet Page 33 of 35 REPORTS AND FORMS The Commission uses a variety of forms for specific purposes. Below is a list of the most frequently requested forms relating to cable television, and those which are required to be filed under our rules. Unless otherwise indicated, copies of these forms may be obtained by calling the Commission at: (202) 418-FORM (3676). Cable System Forms: Form 320 - Signal Leakage - At least once annually, every cable system must file a Form 320 which reports the results of signal leakage tests conducted by the operator. This form can be downloaded from the following Internet address: Web site: http://www.fcc.gov/formpage.html. Form 325A - Annual Report - This report is required to be filed by every cable system on an annual basis. The Commission sends these forms to the operator and requests verification of the accuracy of the information on the form. Form 394 - Application for Franchise Authority Consent to Assignment or Transfer of Control of Cable Television Franchise - This form is required to be filed by a cable system with its local franchising authority, for its approval prior to the cable system transferring ownership and/or control. This form can be downloaded from the following Internet address: Web site: http_.//www.fcc..g.ovJform.page.htm_I. Form 395A- Employment Report - At least once annually each cable operator must file an annual employment report. These forms are sent to the operator by the Commission for the operator to verify the accuracy of information. To request a copy of this form, call the Commission at (202) 418-1450. *****The following 1200 series forms can be downloaded from the following Internet address: Web site: http://www.fcc.gov/formpage.html.***** Form 1200 Setting Maximum Initial Permitted Rates for Regulated Cable Services Pursuant to Rules Adopted February 22, 1994 -- "First Time Filers Form" This form is used by operators the first time they filed any form to calculate maximum permissible rate under the rules. Form 1205 Determining Regulated Equipment and Installation Costs -- "Equipment Form". This form is used to calculate allowable equipment costs. Generally, this form is submitted with a Form 1200 and then on an annual basis. Form 1210 Updating Maximum Permitted Rates for Regulated Cable Services and Equipment -- "Update Form". This form is used to update the maximum permissible rate calculated using Form 1200 or a previous filing of Form 1210. Form 1215 A La Carte Channel Offerings. This form is filed with each Form 1200 and each Form 1210 that you file to provide information on your a la carte service offerings. Form 1220 Cost of Service Filing for Regulated Cable Services. Generally, this http://www.fcc.gov/mb/facts/csgen.html 7/11/2007 General Cable Television Industry and Regulation Information Fact Sheet Page 34 of 35 form is used by operators who believe their costs exceed the rates they would be permitted to charge under Form 1200 or 1210. Form 1225 Cost of Service Filing for Regulated Cable Services for Small Systems. This form is used to file a streamlined cost of service showing by a small system, as defined in the Form, whose costs exceed maximum permissible rates. Form 1230 Establishing Maximum Permitted Rates for Regulated Cable Services on Small Cable Systems. Pursuant to Commission rules adopted May 5, 1995, qualifying small cable systems owned by a small cable company may use this simplified cost-of-service procedure to set maximum permitted rates. Form 1235 Abbreviated Cost-of-Service Filing for Cable Network Upgrades. This form enables cable operators to justify rate increases for significant network upgrades used to improve services to regulated cable subscribers. Form 1235 permits operators seeking rate increases to cover the costs of upgrades to submit only the costs of the upgrade instead of all current costs normally submitted in a cost-of-service filing. Form 1240 Annual Updating of Maximum Permitted Rates for Regulated Cable Services. This form enables cable operators to adjust rates once per year to reflect reasonably certain and reasonably quantifiable changes in external costs, inflation, and the number of regulated channels that are projected for the 12 months following the rate change. Franchise Authority Form: Form 328 - Certification of Franchise Authority to Regulate Basic Service Rates and Initial Finding of Lack of Effective Competition - This form must be filed by any local franchising authority which intends to regulate basic cable service rates within the franchise area. The form requests information relating to the cable system to be regulated, requests the franchise authority certify that there is no effective competition, and requests that the franchise authority certify that it will adopt rate regulations and procedural regulations consistent with those of the Commission. This form can be downloaded from the following Internet address: Web site: http://www.fcc.gov/formpage.html. Cable System Additional Reporting Requirements (No Form Required) Whenever a change occurs in a system's mailing address, operator legal name or operational status, the operator must notify the Commission of the change within 30 days. The operator must furnish its legal name and type (individual,. private association, partnership, or corporation), including the Employment Identity number or the Social Security number (if the company is an individual or partnership); the assumed name, if any; the mailing address; the nature of the operational status change; and the names of the communities affected and their FCC community unit identifier numbers. HOW TO OBTAIN INFORMATION Every cable operator serving 1,000 or more subscribers is required by the Commission http://www.fcc.gov/mb/facts/csgen.html 7/11/2007 General Cable Television Industry and Regulation Information Fact Sheet Page 35 of 35 to have an up-to-date copy of the Cable Television Rules and Regulations (47 C.F.R. Part 76 and 78) and to keep track of Commission actions that might alter the rules. Due to budgetary constraints, the Commission is unable to supply copies of its regulations and orders free of charge. We regret that we are unable to do so. However, photocopies of the Commission's rules and orders may be obtained from International Transcription Services (ITS) at (202) 857-3800, or through the Internet at the following addresses: Gopher site: gopher.fcc.gov; Web site: http...:_//wwwfcc.g_ov/; and FTP site: ftp://ftp.fcc.gov/. Copies of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, the Cable Television Consumer Protection and Competition Act of 1992, the Cable Communications Policy Act of 1984, and the entire Communications Act in the form of a Compilation of Communications Laws, the Code of Federal Regulations (47 C.F.R. Parts 70-79, including Part 76-Cable Regulations), or the Federal Register Summaries of decisions by published date, may be purchased from the Government Printing Office (GPO) in Washington, D.C. at (202) 512- 1800. GPO outlets are also located in many major cities. Copies of Fact Sheets on Cable Television Regulation may be obtained via the Internet at http://www.fcc.gov/csb/facts/csogpofa.html, from the Call Center at 1-888-225-5322, or through the use of Fax-on-Demand, or the Internet at the following electronic addresses: Gopher site: gopher.fcc.gov; Web site: http://www.fcc.gov/; and FTP site: ftp://ftp,fcc.gov/. OBTAINING FURTHER INFORMATION FROM THE COMMISSION The Cable Services Bureau is located at 445 12th Street, S.W., Washington, D.C. General inquiries should be directed to the Federal Communications Commission, 1-888- 225-5322 (1-888-CALLFCC). This is a toll-free call. Commission offices are normally open from 8:00 a.m. to 5:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding federal holidays, unless otherwise stated. - FCC - http://www.fcc.gov/mb/facts/csgen.html 7/11/2007 Public Access Awareness Association...Cable Communications Act of 1984 Page 1 of 1 Any channel capacity which has been designated for public, educational, or governmental use may not be considered as designated under this section for commercial use for purpose of this section . http://www.publicaccess.org/cableact.html 7/11/2007 CITY OF RENTON ti`SY 0� PLANNING/BUILDING/ JUL 1 2 20.07 ;;• ® , PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT RECEIVED uLL CITY CLERK'S OFFICE -NrVO MEMORANDUM DATE: July 12, 2007 TO: Bonnie Walton, City Clerk FROM: Carolyn Currie,Airport Secretary SUBJECT: 6-27-07 Paholke Request for Records Hello Bonnie, Per our phone conversation this week,Ryan Zulauf spoke directly with Diane Paholke to clarify her request for documentation from our office. The scope of documentation has been reduced from"all documentation from City of Renton employees, etc. to Pro-Flight for 2004, 2005, 2006, and 2007,"to documentation to Pro-Flight regarding their fueling and fuel tanks. I have attached the relevant documents,however per Ryan, one of the documents that Mrs. Paholke may want regarding fuel/fueling would actually be filed with Development Services. Please free to contact me if you or Mrs. Paholke need anything else. Thanks again for your assistance, • Carolyn cc: Linda Moschetti,PBPW Administrative Secretary File h:\tile sys\air-airport,transportation services division\01 administration\12 real property management\leases and operating permits\proflight\corresp\6-26-07 paholke request for records response.doc CITY JF RENTON ♦ " ♦ Planning/Building/Public Works Department Municipal Airport Kathy Keolker,Mayor March 8, 2006 Ms. Diane Paholke,President Pro-Flight Aviation, Inc. 243 W. Perimeter Rd Renton,WA 98055 SUBJECT: LETTER OF WARNING(LOW)FOR UNSAFE FUELING OPERATIONS Dear Ms. Paholke: Attached as Enclosure (1), is a copy of a letter regarding fueling operations that I sent to you and Mr. Dave Wunsch on July 13, 2005. You will note that the first item specifically prohibits truck-to-truck transfers of petroleum products anywhere on this airport. The third item states that your fuelers shall receive proper training in the safe loading, transport, and dispensing, of petroleum products. Yesterday, March 7 at approximately 1 p.m., one of your aircraft fuelers was observed by Bruce Fisher, and me, inserting a hose into the top fill port of the Jet A fuel truck owned by Mr. Bruce Leven. This type of fueling operation is extremely dangerous and is prohibited under the National Fire Protection Association(NFPA) Code 407 (Standard for Aircraft Fuel Servicing) and violates the terms of your Lease Agreement Part 7 (7e). As stated in my previous letter to you and Mr. Wunsch, any violation of fueling regulations here on the airport would result in an LOW. Please ensure that this is the last time that anything like this takes place or you will force me to terminate future fueling operations. It is imperative that all of your personnel are informed of this LOW and trained in proper and safe fueling procedures. Sincerely, 9 Ryan Zulauf Airport Manager cc: Ms. Camille Walls, City of Renton Fire Inspection Office Mr. Bruce Leven, Tenant Ms. Susan Campbell-Hehr/Ms. Carolyn Currie, Airport Secretary Enclosure: (1) Fueling Operations ltr dtd 13Jul05 FILE 616 West Perimeter Road-Renton,Washington 98055-(425)430-7471 /FAX(425)430-7472 RENTON AHEAD OF THE CURVE • ►� yam=' + . CITY ,IF l7STTONNT Planning/Building/Public Works Department. .. Kathy Keolt ei-Wheeler;Mayor Municipal Airport . - July 13,2005 • . • Mr.Dave Wunsch,Manager Ms. Diane Paholke,President Air-O,.Inc:, Pro-Flight sAViation,Inc., -800 West;Perimeter Road 243'West,Perimeter Road • Renton,WA 98055. '- Renton,.WA 98055 ' SUBJECT:' FUELING OPERATIONS Dear Mr. Wunsch and Ms.Palolke, : : As a reminder to both of you engaged in the storage and dispensing:of fuel on the.airport, : the following requirements must be-strictly adhered4o for the continued operation of your businesses and-the safety ofyour"�personnei • .-1) Truck-to-truck transfers of.petroleum product's shall not,be conducted; - 2) Mobile.fueling facilities(fuel trucks);parked outside:of designated/approved " • contai•nment areas shall• not be:used for long�terntstorage of petrole• umdproduct(s); -. 3) All personnel employed.;as fiielers,shall receive proper training, (as_determined by • each of you) in the'safe loading tr'ans•port,.a id`dispensing of petroleum-products; • 4) All'fuelers shall..be intimately familiar.`with the Airport'S Ground`Vehicle' • : Operating.Rules handbook and ob• serve the::1�5 mph speed-1 riiit at all times;. . . • - 5) Product spills in any'.amount shall be promptly.reported,to both the Boeing Fire.` . Department'and the�Airport-'Operations Office and all means:to contain and • mitigate the:spill`shall;be;immediately employed: please be forewarned that if violations of any of:the'ibove regulations are observed; a . Letter of Warmng will be issued A subsequent:violation of the same will be grounds for termination-Of operations,until the violation is resolved: Thanking both ofyou in advance for your:cooperation: ; Sine- V at Ryan` auf ; Manager,Renton.Airport.; Cc: Mr,. Eric Chapman, Hazardous.Materials Specialist,Renton Fire Dept: Ms. Susan:Campbell-Hehr-/Ms::'Katherine Nye. 616 West Perimeter Road Renton,Washington 98055-(425)430-7471/.FAX(425).430-7472 RE E 1 V .'1 0 1 V AHEAD.oy THE CURVE :.1 This paper'cdMains 50%recyded material,30%post consumer ., 4► :�.K,..;- CITY ..IF RENTON Fire Department 'rF.� Kathy Keolker-Wheeler, Mayor A.Lee Wheeler,Chief February 14, 2005 Ms. Diane Paholke . ProFlight Aviation 243 W. Perimeter Road Renton,Washington 98055 Dear Ms. Paholke: Subject: Proposal for Self-service Fueling at Renton Airport We received your proposal to install a self-service aircraft fueling system at the Renton Airport. This project has been discussed with both the Fire Marshal and Assistant Fire Marshal, and no objections were raised. We will,however,require a permit application and additional information before the project can be approved. Aircraft fueling is regulated by the International Fire Code (Chapters 11 & 34) and the National Fire Codes (NFPA 407). The codes require the following: • Listed or Approved Dispensing Devices • Fire Extinguishers. • Emergency Phone • Fueling Hose without Couplings on Rigid Piping or Reel • Fuel Limiting Devices (25 gallons max without reset) • Lighting .. • Bonding Devices • A permit application is enclosed. The information submitted with the permit application must be of sufficient detail to allow for a complete review of the project. Provide the manufacturer's cut sheet for all devices that are to be installed, including dispenser,hose,pressure limiting devices, pumps, nozzle, etc. The cut sheets must include a listing from Underwriters Laboratory (UL) or other nationally recognized testing company. • We look forward to working with you on this project. If you have any questions,please contact me at(425) 430-7081. Sincerely, Eric K. Chapman Hazardous Materials Specialist EKC/jh • cc: Ryan Zulauf,Airport Director Enclosure: Permit Application RENTON 1055 South Grady Way-Renton,Washington 98055-(425)430-7000/FAX(425)430-7044 COHEAD OF THE CURVE _, This paper contains 50%recycled material,30%post consumer • • CIT',. OF RENTON .,u Planning/Building/Public Works Department Kathy Keolker-Wheeler, Mayor Municipal Airport • November 15, 2004 Ms.Diane Paholke • Pro-Flight Aviation 540 W.Perimeter Rd Renton,WA 98055 RE: Lease Addendum"01-04 Dear Ms.Paholke, Enclosed is your executed original lease addendum for the fuel farm in Apron B. Please keep this document for your records. " The Finance Department has been notified of"the change in square footage, and you will see a change in your rent amount on your next invoice. Since the Airport will be reimbursing you for the cost"of removing:the.air compressor vault, your account will • receive a credit. Please forward me a copy of the invoice for the vault removal,once you • receive it, and_I wili.have the Finance Department credit your account.. If you have any questions,please give me a call. Sincerely, Susan Campbell-Hehr Airport Secretary Enclosure(1) 616 West Perimeter Road-Renton,Washington 98055-(425)430-7471/FAX(425).430-7472. R E 1 V T o N AHEAD OF THE CURVE :�� This paper contains 50%recycled material,30%post consumer CITE F RENTON ammo • Fire Department Jesse Tanner,Mayor A.Lee Wheeler,Chief:. • • December 4,2003 .. •• Filed • Ms.Diane Paliolke • - . . • Pro-Flight Aviation,Inc:. . 243 W::Perimeter Road . • : •Renton,WA•.98055 Dear Ms.Paholke: . , • • Subject: Temporary Aircraft Refueling Permit . The temporary permit allowing truck-trick-transfers°,of:Jet A fuel issued in April 2003 has expired.:This permit has been extended several times to allow Pro-Flight°to arrange.for a:permanent solution:for.the • fuel needs at theairport. We realizetl at'Pro-Fliight had been working with Boeing to lease an. . • underground storage tank locate`d•in the airport'.fuel farm,but because of insurance issues•an agreement. • could not be reached. ... •It is our understanding that Pro-Flight is=now`planning to.=install an aboveground storage tank for the Jet • A fuel:..A permit from our office•is'requited,for;the tankinstallation. The tank and fueling area must . meet all applicable requirements of the Unifonire:Code. The Renton Fire.Department and the:. • Airport Director must approve the location of the tank and fueling area, .. • . • •The fire department will continue:t i--allow truck-to-truck=fuet transfers during the permitting and tank installation process. .Subinittal of the,permit.application,is expected within 10 days of receipt of this • ' . letter,:but no later than December17,.2003:'It:is expectedthatthe tank installation can be completed .. • within 60-days once the permit application has b°eenapproved - An application for the aboveground storage tank installation and:fee schedule is enclosed: If you have. :. any questions,please call`me.at(425).430-.7081. • : • . . • Sincerely, • Eric K.:Chapman;CHMM . Hazardous Materials Specialist •' . • " . Enclosures : cc: Lawrence Rude,Fire Marshal.• : A: Lee Wheeler,Fire Chief . • Ryan Zulauf,Airport Director 1055 South Grady Way Renton,Washington 98055-(425)430-7000/FAX(425)430-7044 R.E 1V T.O N • AHEAD OF THE CURVE 0Thispapercontains50%recycledmaterial,30%'pastconsumer nefiSe ado 1 ' r't, r • - , CITX OF RENTON c. Fire Department • A.Lee Wheeler,Chief Jesse Tanner,Mayor • November 4,2003 • • Ms. Diane Paholke Pro-Flight Aviation,Inc. • 243 W.Perimeter.Road Renton,Washington 98055 • Dear Ms. Paholke: Subject Request for Extension-Temporary Aircraft Refueling Permit Based on our recent telephone conversations and your letter dated October 21,2003,it is our understanding that Pro-Flight Aviation is still working out the details with Boeing to lease an underground storage tank for fuel storage. To allow time for this process,the Renton Fire Department grants a 30-day extension to conduct truck-to-truck fuel transfers of`Jet-A' aviation. fuel at your facility. Fuel transfer activities may be conducted until December 4,2003, following the conditions described in our letter.dated April 3,2003. This extension will hopefully allow enough time to finalize the agreement with Boeing. However,this temporary permit cannot be extended indefinitely. If the agreement with Boeing is not finalized by this date,further extensions may not be granted. It is recommended that if you anticipate any complications with the lease process, our office should be contacted before . December 4,2003. Requests for additional time extensions will be evaluated at that time. We appreciate your cooperation on this project. If you have any questions,please call me at (425)430-7081. Sincerely,.1"-E " Eric K. Chapman,CHMM Hazardous Materials Specialist cc: Lawrence Rude,'Fire Marshal A. Lee Wheeler,Fire Chief Ryan Zulauf,Airport Director 1055 South Grady Way-Renton,Washington 98055=(425)430-7000/FAX(425)430-7044 R E N T O N AHEAD OF THE CURVE :.� This paper contains 50%recycled material,30%post consumer LICENSE AGREEMENT THIS LICENSE AGREEMENT ("License" or"License Agreement"), is made and entered into this day of , 2003, by and between The • Boeing Company, a Delaware corporation("Licensor"), and ("Licensee"). For and in consideration of the mutual benefits to be derived and other valuable consideration the sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged, the parties hereby agree as follows. 1. THE LICENSE Licensor does hereby grant to Licensee a non-exclusive license to use, subject to the terms and conditions of this License, Tank 1 located in the fuel farm described in Exhibit A (the "Licensed Property"), such property to be used by Licensee solely for the purposes described in Paragraph 2 of this License. Licensee hereby accepts this License and agrees that Licensee's use of the Licensed Property shall conform to the terms and conditions of this License. The license granted by this License is personal to Licensee and may not be assigned or sublicensed by Licensee in any way. Licensee shall not grant permission to any other person to use the Licensed Property. 2. USE Licensee shall use the Licensed Property solely for storage of jet fuel, subject to the following limitations: (a) All jet fuel to be stored in the Licensed Property shall be delivered by Lee and Estes Tank Lines, Inc. (the "Fuel Vendor"). Licensee may not place jet fuel (or anything else) on or in the Licensed Property and may not removed any jet fuel (or anything else) from the Licensed Property. Only Licensor's personnel will be allowed to pump fuel from the Fuel Vendor's vehicle into Tank 1, and only Licensor's personnel will be allowed to pump fuel out of Tank 1 into Licensee's vehicles that will remove fuel from the Licensed Property. Licensee's employees, agents, and contractors will under no circumstances be permitted to handle fuel or fuel pumps on the Licensed Property. (b) Licensee shall exercise all reasonable efforts to assure any activities on the Licensed Property pursuant to this License shall not result in any damage or injury to the Licensed Property. Licensee shall be responsible for any damage arising from the activity of Licensee on the Licensed Property in the exercise of the rights of Licensee hereunder, and Renton Fuel Farm Agreement(Marked 101303) Page 1 of 15 shall repair such damage or, in lieu thereof if mutually agreed by Licensor and Licensee, make a cash settlement therefor. (c) Licensee shall not make any improvements or alterations to the Licensed Property. Licensee shall hold Licensor and the Licensed Property harmless from and against any liens of contractors, subcontractors, or other persons supplying goods, equipment, materials, or labor to or on behalf of Licensee at the Licensed Property. At the request of Licensor, Licensee shall discharge any such liens. (d) In its use of the Licensed Property, the Licensee shall not violate any applicable law, ordinance, deed,restriction or regulation affecting the Licensed Property or any part thereof. Licensee is solely responsible for obtaining all necessary permits, licenses, and approvals required from any governmental authority or agency and shall conduct its business at the Licensed Property strictly in conformance with all requirements of any applicable permits, licenses, and approvals. (e) Licensee may erect signs or barricades on the Licensed Property only with the prior written consent of Licensor,which Licensor may withhold in its sole discretion. Any signs or barricades allowed by Licensor shall be removed by Licensee at the termination of this License. 3. TERM This License shall commence on (the"Commencement Date") and shall continue for a period of five (5) years (unless sooner terminated pursuant to this License) ending on . The date on which this License shall terminate is referred to here as the"Termination Date" and the five year period of time commencing on the Commencement Date and ending on the Termination Date is referred to here as the "Initial Term" or the"Term". Licensee shall have the right to extend the Term for a period of five years, commencing on the date falling five years form the Commencement Date (the "Extended Term"), subject to the following: (a) Licensee shall have given Licensor not more than twelve (12)months advance notice and not less than six (6)months advance notice of the exercise of such option and (b) Licensee and License shall have agreed in writing on the amount of the License Fee payable by Licensee during the Extended Term. If the license continues beyond the end of the Initial Term,the"Term" shall be deemed to include the Extended Term and the Termination Date shall be the last day of the five-year Extended Term. Notwithstanding any other provision of this Agreement, Licensor and Licensee may each at any time and for any reason(or for no reason) terminate this License for Licensor's or Licensee's own convenience (as the case may be)by giving written notice of such termination to Licensee or Licensor(as the case may be) not less than 90 days prior to the Renton Fuel Farm Agreement(Marked 101303) Page 2 of 15 effective date of such termination. Upon the termination of this License by Licensor or Licensee for its own convenience, Licensee shall quit the Licensed Property and remove its fuel therefrom. Licensor shall have no liability to Licensee for any damages, losses or costs incurred by Licensee in connection with or as a result of such termination. However, any fees paid by Licensee for the year in which such termination occurs shall • be pro-rated to the date of termination on the basis of a year of 365/366 days and any excess shall be returned to Licensee (less any amounts owing to Licensor by Licensee). If the City of Renton ("City"), the owner of the underlying fee interest in the land on which the Fuel Farm is located, determines that its consent to this License Agreement is required, then(A) Licensor shall use commercially reasonable good faith efforts to obtain the written consent of the City to this License Agreement and(B) this License Agreement will not be effective until Licensor obtains such consent in writing. 4. LICENSE FEE Licensee shall pay to Licensor an annual license fee ("License Fee") during each year of the Term as follows: Year One $6,900.00 Year Two $7,200.00 Year Three $7,500.00 Year Four $7,800.00 Year Five $8,100.00 The License Fee is payable annually in advance. The payment of the first installment of the License Fee is due on the date of execution of this License Agreement. Subsequent installments of the License Fee are due and payable on the each anniversary of the Commencement Date. The License Fee shall be paid by Licensee in full, without set-off, deduction, or withholding of any kind or for any reason. 5. SERVICES AND UTILITIES Licensor shall accept the delivery of fuel from the Fuel Vendor into the Licensed Property. Licensor shall pump fuel from the Licensed Property into Licensee's trucks. Licensee may not under any circumstances pump fuel into or out of the Licensed Property. Licensor shall use the same care in storing Licensee's fuel that Licensor uses in storing its own fuel,but shall have no other responsibility to Licensee with respect to the storage or handling of Licensee's jet fuel. 6. CONDITION; "AS IS"; DISCLAIMER 6.1 Warranty. Licensor warrants that it is the owner, lessee, or licensee of the Licensed Property and that Licensor has the power and right to grant the License hereunder to Licensee. Renton Fuel Farm Agreement(Marked 101303) Page 3 of 15 6.2 DISCLAIMER AND RELEASE. EXCEPT FOR THE WARRANTY IN PARAGRAPH 6.1, THE LICENSED PROPERTY, AND ALL OTHER GOODS OR SERVICES PROVIDED OR TO BE PROVIDED IN CONNECTION WITH THIS CONTRACT ARE BEING PROVIDED TO THE LICENSEE "AS IS, WHERE IS"WITH ALL FAULTS AND WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND. THE WARRANTIES, OBLIGATIONS AND LIABILITIES OF LICENSOR AND THE REMEDIES OF THE LICENSEE SET FORTH IN THIS CONTRACT ARE EXCLUSIVE AND IN SUBSTITUTION FOR, AND EACH PARTY HEREBY WAIVES, RELEASES AND RENOUNCES ALL OTHER WARRANTIES, OBLIGATIONS AND LIABILITIES OF LICENSOR AND ALL OTHER RIGHTS, CLAIMS AND REMEDIES OF THE LICENSEE AGAINST LICENSOR, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, ARISING BY LAW OR OTHERWISE, WITH RESPECT TO ANY NONCONFORMANCE OR DEFECT IN THE LICENSED PROPERTY, ANY SERVICES, OR ANY OTHER ITEM PROVIDED UNDER THIS CONTRACT, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO: 6.1.1 ANY IMPLIED WARRANTY OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS; 6.1.2 ANY IMPLIED WARRANTY ARISING FROM COURSE OF PERFORMANCE, COURSE OF DEALING OR USAGE OF TRADE; 6.1.3 ANY OBLIGATION,LIABILITY,RIGHT, CLAIM OR REMEDY IN TORT, WHETHER OR NOT ARISING FROM THE NEGLIGENCE OF ANY PARTY (WHETHER ACTIVE, PASSIVE OR IMPUTED); AND 6.1.4 ANY OBLIGATION, LIABILITY, RIGHT, CLAIM OR REMEDY FOR LOSS OF OR DAMAGE TO ANY PROPERTY. EXCLUSION OF CONSEQUENTIAL AND OTHER DAMAGES. NEITHER PARTY SHALL HAVE ANY OBLIGATION OR LIABILITY TO ANY OTHER PARTY, WHETHER ARISING IN CONTRACT (INCLUDING WARRANTY), TORT (INCLUDING ACTIVE, PASSIVE OR IMPUTED NEGLIGENCE) OR.OTHERWISE, FOR LOSS OF USE, REVENUE OR PROFIT OR FOR ANY OTHER INCIDENTAL OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES. 7. INDEMNIFICATION AND INSURANCE A. Indemnity. Licensee shall be liable to Licensor, its subsidiaries, and its and their respective officers, directors, employees, agents, successors, and assigns (the"Indemnified Parties") for and does hereby agree to indemnify and hold harmless the Renton Fuel Farm Agreement(Marked 101303) Page 4 of 15 Indemnified Parties from and against any and all Licensor, its subsidiaries and their respective directors, officers, employees, agents, attorneys, and assigns (hereinafter "Indemnitees") from and against all other actions, causes of action, liabilities, claims, suits,penalties, fines,judgments, liens, awards, and damages of any kind whatsoever(hereinafter"Claims"),arising out of or in any way connected with: (a) any defect, impurity, or noncomformance in any fuel or any other item, including any claim related to bodily injury or property damage, including loss of or damage to any aircraft, consequent upon the use of any fuel stored by Licensee in Tank 1; and (b) any release of fuel into the environment (but excluding any release from Tank 1 or any release occurring while fuel is being pumped into or out of Tank 1 by Licensor's employees, except to the extent caused by the negligence of the Fuel Vendor or Licensee or their respective employees), whether or not such Claims under clause (a) or(b) arise out of the negligence of Licensor. In addition, Licensee will indemnify, defend, and hold harmless the;_Licensor, its , and assigns (hereinafter "Indemnitees9 from and against all other actions, causes of action, liabilities, claims, suits,penalties, fines,judgments, liens, awards, and damages of any kind whatsoever(hereinafter "Claims"), for injury to or death of any person(including without limitation claims brought by employees or invitees of Licensee or employees or invitees of any contractor of Licensee(hereinafter "Contractor," which term includes the Fuel Vendor)) or damage to or loss of any property or clean up of any discharge or release by Licensee or any Contractor, and expenses, costs of litigation, and reasonable attorneys fees related thereto, or incident to establishing the right to indemnification, to the extent such Claims arise out of or are in any way related to this permit or the presence on the Licensed Property of Licensee, any Contractor or their respective employees or invitees. Licensee expressly waives any immunity under industrial insurance whether arising from Title 51 of the Revised Code of Washington or any other statute or source, to the extent of the indemnity set forth in this paragraph. In the event that Licensee is successful in proving that the foregoing indemnity is limited by RCW 4.24.115, Licensee shall defend, indemnify and hold harmless the Indemnitees to the full extent allowed by RCW 4.24.115. —In no event shall Licensee's obligations hereunder be limited to the extent of any insurance available to or provided by Licensee. Licensee shall require each Contractor who desires access to the Licensed Property to provide an indemnity, enforceable by and for the benefit of the Indemnitees, to the same extent required of the Licensee. Each of the foregoing indemnities Such indemnity shall include all reasonable costs, attorneys' fees and expenses incurred in the defense of any such claim or any action or proceeding brought thereon. The ^ rt o f T i _nsee'^ reemnity obligation will be equitably adjusted if Licensee is prejudiced by reason of Licensor's failure to: Renton Fuel Farm Agreement(Marked 101303) Page 5 of 15 (i) notify Licensee of the claim or liability in writing within a reasonably period of time after the Licensor receives notice of the claim or liability; !"\ t T ' to 11.�F_n r ettle ag instthe_cln r liability. .,, (iii)cooperate with Licensee in any defense or settlement against the claim or liability. B. Insurance. Licensee shall carry and maintain;and shall ensure that any Contractor carries and maintains; (a) Airport Premises Liability coverage with limits of not less than One Million Dollars ($1,000,000) combined and excess coverage of not less than Fifty Million Dollars ($50,000,000), covering Premises, Products, Completed Operations, and Contractual Liability for Bodily Injury and Property Damage; (b) Commercial General Liability Insurance with available limits of not to tl, O Mill' D 11., s ($1 000 nnm per� e for bodily in u , general aggregate Any and all environmental liability coverage required by the Environmental Protection Agency and/or any other governmental agency. (c) —Automobile Liability insurance covering all vehicles,whether owned, hired, rented, borrowed or otherwise, with limits of liability of not less than One Million Dollars ($1,000,000)per occurrence combined single limit for bodily injury and property damage. (d) Insurance in accordance with the applicable laws relating to workers' compensation, with respect to all of their respective employees working on or about the Licensed Property, regardless of whether such'coverage of insurance is mandatory or merely elective under the law. Such insurance shall be in a form and with insurers acceptable to Licensor and shall contain coverage for all premises and operations, broad form property damage and contractual liability(including without limitation, that specifically assumed herein). Any policy which provides the insurance required under this paragraph (and any Automobile Liability policy required by the next paragraphexcept for workers compensation coverage) shall: (a) be endorsed to name The Boeing Company and its subsidiaries and their respective directors, officers, employees, agents, attorneys and assigns" as additional insureds (hereinafter "Additional Insured")with respect to any liability arising out of Licensee's presence on the Licensed Property and any matters covered by the indemnity set out in Paragraph 7.A, (b)be endorsed to be primary to any insurance Renton Fuel Farm Agreement(Marked 101303) Page 6 of 15 maintained by The Boeing Company, (c) contain a severability of interest provision in favor of the Additional Insured and (d) contain a waiver of any rights of subrogation against the Additional Insured. If licensed vehicles will be used in connection with this permit, Licensee vehicles in connection with this permit carries and maintains, Automobile Liability otherwise, with limits of liability of not less than One Million Dollars ($1,000,000) per occurrence combined single limit for bodily injury and property damage. Licensee shall cover or maintain, and shall ensure that the Fuel Vendor and any other Contractor covers or maintains, insurance in accordance with the applicable laws relating to workers'compensation, with respect to all of their respective employees working on or about the Licensed Property,regardless of whether such coverage of insurance is mandatory or merely elective and r the lawprovides and maintains the coverage provided for in paragraphs (b), (d), and(e) above. Licensee shall not access the Licensed Property unless Licensee shall have first provided for Licensor's review and approval, a certificate of insurance reflecting full compliance with the requirements set forth herein. Such certificate shall list The Boeing Company as certificate holder and shall be kept current and in compliance throughout the period of this permit and shall provide for thirty(30) days advance written notice to Licensor in the event of cancellation. 8. ENVIRONMENTAL MATTERS A. Compliance with Laws and Requirements. Licensor shall be responsible for any release of fuel into the environment from Tank 1 and for any release of fuel into the environment caused by the employees of Licensor removing fuel from the vehicle of the Fuel Vendor or pumping fuel into the vehicle(s) of the Licensee, except to the extent caused by the negligence or willful misconduct of Licensee, the Fuel Vendor or their respective employees. Licensee shall be responsible for all other releases of fuel into the environment, except to the extent caused by the negligence or willful misconduct of Licensor and its employees. Except as otherwise agreed by Licensor in writing, Licensee shall be solely responsible at its expense for obtaining any permits, licenses or approvals, and for preparing,maintaining and submitting any records or reports, as required under applicable Environmental Laws and Requirements for its operations hereunder. Licensee shall comply with any and all Environmental Laws and Requirements and shall not cause, permit or allow the presence of and shall not generate, release, store, or deposit any Hazardous Substances on or about the Licensed Property in violation of any Environmental Laws and Requirements, or in a manner which may give rise to liability for environmental cleanup, damage Renton Fuel Farm Agreement(Marked 101303) Page 7 of 15 to property, or personal injury to Licensor, or any other person. Licensee shall not release any Hazardous Substances into the soil,water(including groundwater) or air of the Licensed Property or onto any other adjoining property in violation of Environmental Laws and Requirements, or in a manner which may give rise to liability for environmental cleanup, damage to property, or personal injury to Licensor or any other person. In the event of a spill or other release of Hazardous Substances caused by Licensee, its agents, employees, contractors or invitees at or from the Licensed Property, Licensee shall undertake immediate response as required by law, including but not limited to reporting to appropriate agencies, and shall notify Licensor of same as soon as possible. B. Definitions. As used herein, the term"Hazardous Substances"means any hazardous, toxic, chemical, or dangerous substance, pollutant, contaminant, waste or material, including petroleum,which is regulated under any and all federal, state, or local statute, ordinance, rule, regulation, or common law relating to chemical management, environmental protection, contamination, or cleanup including, without limitation,the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 as amended(42 U.S.C. § 9601 et seq.), the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act as amended (42 U.S.C. § 6901 et seq.) or any other federal, state, county, or city law, or any other ordinance or regulation existing or which may exist. As used herein the term"Environmental Laws and Requirements"means any and all federal, state, local laws, statutes (including without limitation the statutes referred to in Paragraph 8 (B) above), ordinances, rules,regulations and/or common law relating to environmental protection, contamination, the release, generation, production,transport, treatment, processing, use, disposal, or storage of Hazardous Substances, and the regulations promulgated by regulatory agencies pursuant to these laws, and any applicable federal, state, and/or local regulatory agency-initiated orders, requirements, obligations, directives, notices, approvals, licenses, or permits, including but not limited to those for the reporting, investigation, cleaning, or remediation of Hazardous Substances on the Licensed Property. C. Remediation. Should Licensee fail to perform any of its obligations pursuant to this License or to any and all Environmental Laws and Requirements, Licensee shall at its own expense promptly remedy such noncompliance. Licensee shall at its own expense remove or remediate any unsafe condition that Licensee has caused to occur and clean up or remediate any Hazardous Substance which Licensee has caused to be released at or from the Licensed Property. Should Licensee fail so to do, Licensor shall have the right,but not the duty,to enter the Licensed Property personally or through its agents, consultants, or contractors to perform the same. Further, Renton Fuel Farm Agreement(Marked 101303) Page 8 of 15 Licensee shall hold Licensor harmless from any losses, including claims of third parties, resulting from any noncompliance with Environmental Laws and Requirements, or from any unsafe condition or release of Hazardous Substances caused by Licensee. D. Documentation and Right to Inspect. Licensee shall provide copies to Licensor of any reports regarding its operations at the Licensed Property which are submitted to governmental agencies pursuant to any Environmental Laws and Requirements. Licensee shall also make available to Licensor upon request all permits and approvals, and all records maintained by Licensee pursuant to any Environmental Laws and Requirements. During the Term of this License, Licensor and/or its agents or employees shall have the right to periodically inspect the Property at reasonable times to confirm that Licensee is compliance with the terms of this License, including compliance with any and all Environmental Laws and Requirements. Further, if Licensor at any time should have any cause to believe that any Hazardous Substances are or at any time during the term of this License have been released at or from the Property without strict compliance with all Environmental Laws and Requirements or in a manner which may give rise to liability for environmental cleanup, damage to property, or personal injury to Licensor or any other person, Licensor shall have the right at its discretion,but not the duty, to enter, at any reasonable time, and conduct an inspection of the Property including invasive tests to determine whether, and the extent to which, Hazardous Substances have been released. Licensee hereby grants to Licensor, and its employees, agents, employees, consultants, and contractors the right to enter the Property upon reasonable notice to Licensee and to perform such tests on the Property as are reasonably necessary in the opinion of Licensor to conduct such investigations. Licensor may retain any independent qualified professional consultant to enter the Property to conduct such inspections. Such consultant's reasonable fee shall be payable by Licensee if such consultant determines that Licensee's activities constitute a material violation of Environmental Laws and Requirements or have resulted in the release of Hazardous Substances into the environment which may give rise to liability for environmental cleanup, damage to property, or personal injury to Licensor or any other person; otherwise such fee shall be payable by Licensor. E. Indemnification. Each party shall indemnify the other and their subsidiaries and their respective Licensee shall indemnify,hold harmless, and defend Licensor, and its directors, officers, employees, agents, assigns, and attorneys from any and all claims, losses, damages,response costs, and expenses arising out of or in any way relating to the violation of any Environmental Laws and Requirements by the indemnifying party, or to the generation,release, storage, deposit or disposal of Hazardous Substances, to the extent caused by Licenseethe indemnifying party, its agents, Renton Fuel Farm Agreement(Marked 101303) Page 9 of 15 employees, contractors and invitees at any time during the term of this License is responsible therefor pursuant to Paragraph 8.A, including but not limited to: (1) claims of third parties, including governmental agencies, for damages (including personal injury and/or property damage),response costs, fines, penalties, injunctive or other relief; (2) the cost, expense, or loss to Licensor of any injunctive relief, including preliminary or temporary injunctive relief, applicable to the Licensor or the Licensed Property; and (3) the expense of reporting the existence of Hazardous Substances to any agency of any state government or the United States as required by applicable laws or regulations, before and after any trial or appeal therefrom whether or not taxable as costs; all of which shall be paid by Licensee when accrued. 9. DEFAULT OF LICENSEE The following shall constitute events of default by Licensee: (a) Licensee's failure to pay the License Fee when due. (b) Licensee's failure to maintain in force or pay the premium for any policy of insurance required to be obtained or maintained by Licensee pursuant to this License; or (c) Any default by Licensee of its obligations under Paragraph 8 (Environmental Matters); or (d) Licensee's failure to observe and perform any other provision, term or condition in this License within thirty(30) days after Licensor delivers written notice of the failure to Licensee, or if the cure cannot reasonably be concluded within thirty(30) days, then if Licensee fails to commence to cure the failure within such thirty(30) day period and thereafter proceed diligently to complete the cure. 10. REMEDIES OF LICENSOR A. Termination and Removal by Licensor. In the event of a Licensee default, Licensor may in addition to all other legal or equitable remedies, (a) terminate this License and Licensee's right to use of the Licensed Property by delivering written notice of termination to Licensee, and that action shall concurrently terminate the rights of Licensee under this License, or(b)with or without terminating this License, remove Licensee's jet fuel from the Licensed Property into such other containers, vessels, or vehicles as Licensor deems appropriate. Renton Fuel Farm Agreement(Marked 101303) Page 10 of 15 B. Payment of Costs. Licensee agrees to be liable for and to pay Licensor all costs incurred by Licensor in connection with the enforcement of Licensor's rights hereunder, including the reasonable fees and disbursements of Licensor's attorneys. Such liability shall survive the termination of this License, the re-entry into the Licensed Property by Licensor, and the commencement of the action to secure possession of the Licensed Property. All amounts not paid to Licensor when due shall bear interest at the annual rate of twelve percent (12%) or, if less, the maximum rate permitted by law. 11. ENFORCEMENT A. Nonwaiver. No failure by either party to insist upon the strict performance of any agreement, term, covenant or condition hereof or to exercise any right or remedy consequent upon a breach thereof, and no acceptance of full or partial rent by Licensor during the continuance of any such breach, shall constitute a waiver of any such breach or of such agreement,term, covenant, or condition. No agreement, term, covenant, or condition hereof to be performed or complied with by either party, and no breach thereof, shall be waived, altered or modified except by a written instrument executed by the parties. No waiver of any breach shall affect or alter this License,but each and every agreement,term, covenant and condition hereof shall continue in full force and effect with respect to any other then existing or subsequent breach thereof. B. Remedies Cumulative. Each right and remedy provided for in this License shall be cumulative and shall be in addition to every other right or remedy provided for in this License or now or hereafter existing at law or in equity or by statute or otherwise, and the exercise or beginning of the exercise by either party of any one or more of the rights or remedies provided for in this License or now or hereafter existing at law or in equity or by statute or otherwise shall not preclude the simultaneous or later exercise by such party of any or all other rights or remedies provided for in this License or now or hereafter existing at law or in equity or by statute or otherwise. 12. MISCELLANEOUS A. Successors and Assigns. Subject to the provisions of this Paragraph 12, all of the provisions of this License shall bind and inure to the benefit of the parties and their respective heirs, legal representatives, successors and assigns,but Licensee shall not assign this License nor grant any right of possession of the Licensed Property in whole or in part Renton Fuel Farm Agreement(Marked 101303) Page 11 of 15 without the prior written consent of Licensor, which Licensor may withhold iri its sole discretion. B. Notices. Where provision is made herein for notice of any kind, it shall be deemed sufficient, if such notice is addressed as shown below: Licensor: Licensee: All such notices shall be given either by hand or by recognized overnight delivery service, with all fees for next business day delivery prepaid. Notices shall be deemed given when delivered if given by hand or 24 hours after delivery to an overnight delivery service with next business day delivery charges prepaid. C. Severability. If a court of competent jurisdiction shall determine, to any extent,that any provision, term or condition of this License shall be invalid or unenforceable, that determination shall not affect the remainder of this License, and each provision, term or condition in the remainder of this License shall be valid and enforceable to the extent permitted by law. D. Licensee's Interest., Holdover. Licensee has no right in the Licensed Property other than the license to use the Licensed Property as set out in this License. Licensee has no right to hold over after the end of the Term and agrees that Licensor may use all legal means to remove Licensee and its property and all Licensee Vehicles from the Licensed Property at and following the end of the Term, and that Licensee shall reimburse Licensor for all of Licensor's reasonable out-of-pocket expenses in so doing. E. Attorneys' Fees and Disbursements. Renton Fuel Farm Agreement(Marked 101303) Page 12 of 15 If either party brings an action to enforce the provisions, terms, conditions in this License or to declare rights hereunder,the substantially prevailing party in that action shall be entitled to reimbursement for reasonable attorneys' fees and costs to be paid by the other party. F. Captions. The marginal headings or titles to the sections of this License are not a part of the License but are inserted only for convenience. They shall have no effect on the construction or interpretation of any part of this License. G. Time is of the Essence. Time is of the essence in the performance of all covenants and conditions of this License in which time is a factor. H. Counterparts. This License may be executed in any number of counterparts, each of which when executed and delivered shall constitute an original License,but all of which together shall constitute one and the same License. I. Choice of Law. This License shall be governed by the Laws of the State of Washington, without reference to its choice of law rules. J. Agents and Brokers. Each party represents that it has hired or retained no agent or broker in connection with this License and shall hold the other party harmless from any claim by any agent or broker claiming payment of any commission, finders' fee or the like in connection with this License. K. No Recording. Neither party shall record this License,nor any memorandum of this License. L. Complete Agreement. This License, including Exhibit A, contains the entire and complete agreement between the parties hereto,with all previous negotiations,warranties, covenants, conditions and promises being merged herein. Licensor and Licensee further agree that no alteration, amendment or modification to this License shall be binding upon Licensor or Licensee unless same is first reduced to writing and signed by both Licensor and Licensee. Renton Fuel Farm Agreement(Marked 101303) Page 13 of 15 Executed in duplicate as of the date first written above. LICENSOR: LICENSEE: The Boeing Company {{NAME}} By: By: Title: Title: Renton Fuel Farm Agreement(Marked 101303) Page 14 of 15 EXHIBIT A Renton Fuel Farm Agreement(Marked 101303) Page 15 of 15 CIT'1c. OF RENTON Fire Department Jesse Tanner,Mayor A.Lee Wheeler,Chief July 17,2003 Ms.Diane Paholke Pro-Flight Aviation,Inc. • 243 W.Perimeter Road Renton,Washington 98055 Dear Ms. Paholke: Subject: Request for 30-day Extension,Aircraft Refueling In response to your request for time extension dated July 16,2003,the Renton Fire Department grants a 30-day extension to conduct truck-to-truck fuel transfers of`Jet-A' aviation fuel at your facility. _Fuel transfer activities may be conducted until August 16,2003,following the conditions described in our letter dated April 3,2003. We understand that Proflight is currently negotiating with Boeing to lease an existing underground fuel storage tank located in the tank farm. Once this lease is finalized,Proflight will use the contained tank farm area for refueling. Please send a copy of the lease agreement to our office once it is finalized. One of the issues addressed in our letter dated April 3,2003 was that the current transfer of aviation gas, from the aboveground tank at Proflight is being conducted without any spill control or containment. As a condition of the temporary fueling permit,Proflight was to either install a containment area or purchase a portable containment device. To our knowledge,this has not been done. Provisions for containment during aviation gas transfer must be made immediately or fueling activities will be halted until this situation is corrected. Another issue that has been brought to our attention is the parking of refueling vehicles near buildings. In accordance with UFC 2402.5.2,aircraft refiteler units shall be stored outside of and not less than 50 feet from, any building at a location approved by the manager of the airport and the chief. During non-work hours,the aviation gas truck is to be parked in the containment area on the northwest side of Proflight's building. At all other times,the truck should either be parked in the containment area or at a location that is at least 50 feet from any building. It is our hope that the Jet-A truck can be parked at the Boeing fuel farm during non-business hours, once the lease agreement is finalized. Otherwise,a separate containment area for the truck is required. We appreciate your cooperation on this project. If you have any questions,please call me at(425)430- 7081. Sincerely, Eric K. Chapman, CHMM Hazardous Materials Specialist cc: Lawrence Rude,Fire Marshal A. Lee Wheeler,Fire Chief Ryan Zulauf,Airport Director 1055 South Grady Way-Renton,Washington 98055-(425)430-7000/FAX(425)430-7044 R E N T O N e:1 AHF AT AP THE f:i74VF. F;yan Zulauf- Re: Fuel Spill 6-6-03 Page 1 From: Eric Chapman To: Zulauf, Ryan Date: 6/9/03 7:58AM Subject: Re: Fuel Spill 6-6-03 Hi Ryan: Thanks for the report. It sounds like the amount of fuel spilled was fairly small, and due to the unbelievably hot weather, it probably evaporated quickly. Ecology would view that as a"de minimus"spill, which does not require reporting. The only thing that may need to be done is repair the section of affected asphalt. I will keep a copy of your e-mail in Proflight's business file. Let me know if there is anything else you would like from us. Thanks! Eric K. Chapman, CHMM Hazardous Materials Specialist City of Renton Fire Department (425)430-7081 echapman@ci.renton.wa.us >>> Ryan Zulauf 06/06/03 05:25PM >>> Proflight filled at King Air on Friday afternoon about 1:30 PM or so with Jet A. _The fuel truck was completely full, and with the hot day experienced a"tank burp"causing about 1-2 gals of jet A to spill on the asphalt. Proflight fuel staff indicated that they cleaned the spill up with absorbent pads and a visual inspection indicated that there was no additional fuel to wipe up, however, the asphalt was softening in the heat. The attached picture was taken about 4:30 PM on Friday. The picture size can be scaled for easy viewing. Please advise as to how to proceed. Thanks. Ryan C. Zulauf Airport Manager City of Renton (425)430-7471 (425)430-7472 (fax) rzulauf@ci.renton.wa.us Filed In: June 6, 2003 Pro-Flight Aviation, Inc. 243 W. Perimeter Road Renton, WA 98055 Dear Diane, I need a couple of details from you in order to complete the operating permit between you and Boeing,below are those items; 1. A legal description of the tank, i.e., tank number, gallons it holds, and location in conjunction with the other tanks. 2. Term of sublease and number of days notice required in order to evacuate the tank. 3. Monthly rental rates. I believe this is all that I need,if you have any questions please call me. Thanks, Matt Braswell Airport Operations Specialist 0 CONCUA5PEI: i 4A , / ;'a T EAL/D ;ram � (,'�� ✓ March 28,2003 HAND DELIVE" _ 1 Diane Paholke,President Proflight/A-1 Fuel Service,Inc. 540 West Perimeter Road Renton,WA 98055 SUBJECT: NOTIFICATION TO PROVIDE JET A FUEL SALES TO PUBLIC Dear Ms.Paholke: This letter is to formally request that Proflight/A-1 Fuel Service begin providing Jet A fuel sales to the public as soon as possible. The current provider of Jet A fuel on Renton Municipal Airport has been sent a certified letter stipulating that fuel sales to the public shall be discontinued until a lease or an operating permit and agreement is approved by the City. Section 6.3 of the approved Operating Permit and Agreement for Proflight/A-1 Fuel Services, Inc. specifies: 6.3. Provision of Fuel Service: ". . .In the event that the sole provider of Jet A fuel permanently discontinues operations at Renton Municipal Airport, or otherwise experiences a catastrophic event that prevents the distribution of Jet A fuel,A-1 Fuel Services,Inc.will be required to provide Jet A fuel to airport tenants within thirty calendar(30)days while a long term solution is sought by the Permittor." It is critically important that no gap occurs in the availability of Jet A fuel on the airport. With that said,I will work with you to the best of my abilities to ensure that Proflight/A-1 Fuel Service, Inc. is able to meet the specified commitment of the approved Operating Permit and Agreement. Please provide me a response to this letter as soon as possible and please indicate in your letter the current estimate of when Proflight/A-1 Fuel Services, Inc. can provide Jet A fuel to the public. Sincerely, Ryan Zulauf Airport Manager cc: Gregg Zimmerman Sandra Meyer Susan Campbell-Hehr Eric Chapman File FCC Consumer Alert: FCC Role in Cable Rate Regulation Endsr Page 1 of 2 This Alert: Text I WordPerfect FCC Order: CS Docket No. 96-85, FCC99-57 Cable Consumer Bill of Rights Campaign: English. I Espanol. a�.. , F C C p mi ��. CONSUMER ALERT Office of Public Affairs, Public Service Division, The Portals, 445 12th Street SW,Washington, DC 20554 202-418-0200/TTY 202-418-2555 March 1999 FCC Role in Cable Rate Regulation Ends As of March 31, 1999, the Federal Communications Commission will no longer have the authority to receive or act upon consumer complaints regarding cable television service. As required by Congress in the 1996 Telecommunications Act, after that date,the Commission will no longer be able to accept and process consumer complaints about rates on the cable programming service tier on your cable system. That is the service tier that includes the cable networks. Local communities will continue to have the authority to regulate rates on the basic service tier(the tier that includes over-the-air broadcast stations). The 1992 Cable Act established a process whereby cable equipment and "basic"tier cable rates would be subject to regulation by state and municipal governments in those areas where effective competitive was absent. For regulatory purposes, basic tier service includes broadcast signals, local public, educational, and government access channels and other services the system operator chooses to include in the same package with these channels. Basic tier service is typically the lowest price tier of service that all subscribers receive. The cable programming service tier, includes all video programming distributed over a system that is not on the basic service tier. It is this cable programming service tier that will no longer be subject to regulation after March 31, 1999. The Commission will continue to process complaints regarding service offered prior to March 31, 1999. FCC Chairman William E. Kennard has launched a Cable Consumer Bill of Rights campaign to inform consumers of their options regarding.their cable service in the new deregulated era. Information on the Cable Consumer Bill of Rights campaign can be found at http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Miscellaneous/News Releases/1999/nrmc9015.wp. Since 1993, the Commission's Cable Services Bureau has been receiving and disposing of complaints from cable television subscribers regarding rates on the cable programming service tier("CPST"). In that period of time, the Bureau has resolved more than 18,000 complaints involving more than 5700 cable communities. The Commission has ordered nearly $100 million in consumer refunds during the nearly six years of cable rate regulation to 40 million cable consumers. Included in these figures are a number of"Social Contracts"and "Rate Resolutions"that resolved large numbers of rate complaints pending involving some of the nation's largest multi-system cable operators. With the sunset of federal cable rate regulation, the FCC will no longer be able to act upon rate increases that occur after March 31st. Only new Congressional action can extend the Commission role, or provide new cable rate regulations. The Commission will continue work on a number of matters related to increasing competition in the video programming marketplace. Both the Cable Act of 1992 and the 1996 Telecommunications Act included provisions directing the FCC to take aggressive steps to improve competition in the video programming marketplace. Competition is growing, but at a slow pace. The Commission's own 1998 Cable Competition Report shows that cable operators still have 85 percent of those consumers who subscribe to multichannel video programming. The Commission believes that, as competition to cable and choice in the video programming marketplace develop, consumers will have access to more services and that prices will be controlled by competition. For more information on cable television issues, contact the FCC Call Center toll free at 1-888-CALL-FCC or visit the FCC's web site at http://www.fcc.gav/csbI. TTY: 1-888-835-5322. http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Miscellaneous/Factsheets/cblrate.html 7/11/2007 Federal Communications Commission FCC 01-1 (2)either require strict justification of volume discounts or ask Congress to clarify the language in the statute."$ E. Satellite Master Antenna Television Systems 91. SMATV systems, also known as private cable operators, are video distribution facilities that use closed transmission paths without using any public right-of-way. 39 SMATV systems are usually satellite-based and distribute television signals to households located in one or more adjacent buildings, primarily serving urban and suburban multiple dwelling units ("MDUs").320 In general, SMATV operators are subject to less regulatory oversight than traditional cable systems.321 Some SMATV systems use microwave transmissions and wires to serve multiple buildings that are not commonly owned.'" Under the 1996 Act, SMATV operators may use wires to connect separately owned buildings, as long as the wires do not traverse public rights-of-way.'" 92. SMATV operators consist of hundreds of small and medium size firms throughout the nation.324 Among the largest SMATV operators as of December 1999 were MidAtlantic Communications, Global Interactive Communications,Pace Electronics,Future Trak,LyncStar Integrated Communications, and OnePoint Communications Corp.' These relatively large SMATV operators serve between 15,000 and 55,000 subscribers each.326 Most SMATV operators serve approximately 3,000-4,000 customers?' 318 Id. at 7-9. See also WCA Comments at 4-8(requesting a thorough inquiry into the effects of a sunset)and 13-14. 319 1996 Act, sec. 301(a)(2), 47 U.S.C. § 522(7). SMATV systems do not use public rights-of-way, and thus fall outside of the Communications Act's definition of a cable system. 32° SMATV providers receive and process satellite signals directly at an MDU or other private property with an on-site headend facility consisting of receivers, processors and modulators, and distribute the programming to individual units through an internal hard-wire system in the building. Regulatory changes in 1991 made 18 GHz technology available for the point-to-point delivery of video programming services, allowing operators to free themselves from large networks of coaxial or fiber optic cable and amplifiers. Operators using this technology are known as enhanced SMATV operators, and because of efficiency savings, they are more competitive with cable operators than standard SMATV operators. 1999 Report, 15 FCC Rcd at 1022¶92. 321 1996 Act, sec. 301(a)(2), 47 U.S.C. § 522(7). For example, private cable and SMATV operators: (a) are not required to obtain cable television franchises;(b)do not face regulatory constraints on the geographic areas in which they may offer video services; (c) do not pay franchise and Federal Communications Commission subscriber fees; (d) are not obligated to pass every resident in a given area; (e) are not subject to rate regulation; and (f) are not subject to must carry and local government access obligations. 1997 Report, 13 FCC Rcd at 1085¶82,n.296. 322 Id. at 1085 1182. The Commission held in 1991 that microwave transmissions do not"use"public rights-of-way. Amendment of Part 94 of the Commission's Rules to Permit Private Video Distribution Systems of Video Entertainment Access to the 18 GHz Band, PR Docket No. 90-5, Report and Order, 6 FCC Rcd 1270, 1271 ¶ 10 (1991). 323 1996 Act sec.301(a)(2),47 U.S.C. § 522(7). Prior to the 1996 Act,to qualify for this exception the buildings had to be under common ownership,control,or management. 1997 Report, 13 FCC Rcd at 1085¶82,n.297. 324 Id. at 1085 1183. 325 Ten Largest Private Cable Operators/Multiple System Operators, Private Cable &Wireless Cable, Dec. 1999, at 4. 326 Id. 327 1999 Report, 15 FCC Rcd at 1023¶94. 42 FCC Fact Sheet on Small Systems Page 1 of 2 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION r. trii.:„ c. '''..) y Z Li .•t *�.{ q ,� March 11, 1996 fC�xV:4594.!SOY ^11:2Xf CABLE TELEVISION FACT SHEET SMALL CABLE OPERATORS AND THE 1996 TELECOMMUNICATIONS ACT Pursuant to the Telecommunications Act of 1996 ("1996 Act"), many small cable operators are now exempt from rate regulation with respect to some or all of their programming services. These provisions became effective February 8, 1996, the day on which the statute was signed into law. This fact sheet provides general answers to common questions regarding the new statutory provisions governing smaller systems. Although these provisions are already effective, in the near future the Federal Communications Commission will evaluate to what extent it needs to establish rules providing more specific guidance as to their implementation. As decisions are made by the Commission, additional questions & answers will be provided. Q: What systems are affected by the new statutory provisions? A: To qualify for deregulation under the 1996 Act, the cable operator must serve fewer than 1% of all cable subscribers in the United States and must not be affiliated with any entity or entities whose gross annual revenues in the aggregate exceed $250 million. If a cable operator meets these criteria, it qualifies for rate deregulation in any franchise area in which it serves no more than 50,000 subscribers. Q: If a cable operator qualifies under these standards, is the operator deregulated as to all of its programming services? A: To explain the scope of deregulation under the 1996 Act, it is necessary to summarize the regulations that were in place prior to its enactment. As mandated by a 1992 cable statute, the Federal Communications Commission has promulgated rules governing the rates charged by a regulated cable operator for its basic service tier and its cable programming services tiers, also known as enhanced basic services: All regulated cable operators must offer a basic service tier. The basic service tier includes all of the local broadcast television stations carried by the cable operator and all of the public, educational, and government access channels that the operator is required to carry under the terms of its local franchise agreement. These are minimum requirements; the operator may add additional channels to the basic service tier. At its option, an operator also may offer one or more expanded tiers of http://www.fcc.gov/mb/facts/sma1196.html 7/11/2007 F€C Fact Sheet on Small Systems Page 2 of 2 programming known as the cable programming services tiers. In general, a cable programming services tier is any package of programming other than the basic service tier. Only the basic service tier and cable programming services tiers are subject to rate regulation. Thus, rate regulation does not apply to programming offered on a per- channel basis, such as premium channels, or to programming offered on a per-event basis, such as pay-per-view movies and sporting events. For a cable operator that qualifies under the subscriber and revenue criteria of the 1996 Act, the scope of deregulation depends upon how many tiers of cable service the operator offers. If the operator offers both a basic service tier and a cable programming services tier, the cable programming services tier is deregulated. If the operator has only a single tier (which by definition is a basic service tier), which was the only tier offered and subject to rate regulation as of December 31, 1994, then that tier is deregulated. Q: How do these new statutory provisions affect existing rules that the Commission previously adopted with respect to smaller cable operators? A: Prior to enactment of the 1996 Act, no cable system was subject to rate deregulation based solely upon its size. However, the Commission had established separate regulatory methodologies for certain smaller cable operators. Among other things, the Commission created the small system cost-of-service approach to rate regulation. This approach relaxes some of the substantive and procedural restrictions that apply to larger cable operators. Under this approach, an eligible cable operator establishes rates by submitting a streamlined one-page form (FCC Form 1230) to the appropriate regulatory authority. To qualify for this method of rate regulation, the cable system must serve no more than 15,000 subscribers and must not be owned by an operator that serves over 400,000 subscribers across all of its systems. A system that does not qualify under these criteria, but that bears relevant similarities to qualifying systems, may file a petition for special relief seeking authority to establish rates under the small system cost-of-service approach. The 1996 Act does not mandate any modifications to the small system cost-of-service approach or to any of the other pre-existing rules applicable to smaller cable operators, except to the extent such operators are now deregulated in the manner described above. - FCC - http://www.fcc.gov/mb/facts/sma1196.html 7/11/2007 Page 1 of 2 Consumer Alert Office of Public Affairs, Public Service Division, The Portals, 445 12th Street SW, Washin 20554 202-418-0200/TTY 202-418-2555 March 1999 FCC Role in Cable Rate Regulation Ends As of March 31, 1999, the Federal Communications Commission will no longer have the author to receive or act upon consumer complaints regarding cable television service. As required by Congress in the 1996 Telecommunications Act, after that date, the Commissio will no longer be able to accept and process consumer complaints about rates on the cable programming service tier on your cable system. That is the service tier that includes the networks. Local communities will continue to have the authority to regulate rates on the service tier (the tier that includes over-the-air broadcast stations) . The 1992 Cable Act established a process whereby cable equipment and "basic" tier cable ra would be subject to regulation by state and municipal governments in those areas where eff competitive was absent. For regulatory purposes, basic tier service includes broadcast s local public, educational, and government access channels and other services the system op chooses to include in the same package with these channels. Basic tier service is typical lowest price tier of service that all subscribers receive. The cable programming service includes all video programming distributed over a system that is not on the basic service this cable programming service tier that will no longer be subject to regulation after Mar 1999. The Commission will continue to process complaints regarding service offered prior March 31, 1999. FCC Chairman William E. Kennard has launched a Cable Consumer Bill of Rights campaign to inform consumers of their options regarding their cable service in the new deregulated era Information on the Cable Consumer Bill of Rights campaign can be found at http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Miscellaneous/News_Releases/1999/nrmc9015.wp. Since 1993, the Commission's Cable Services Bureau has been receiving and disposing of complaints from cable television subscribers regarding rates on the cable programming sery ("CPST") . In that period of time, the Bureau has resolved more than 18, 000 complaints inv more than 5700 cable communities. The Commission has ordered nearly $100 million in consumer refunds during the nearly six years of cable rate regulation to 40 million cable consumers. Included in these figures are a number of "Social Contracts" and "Rate Resolutions" that resolved large numbers of rate complaints pending involving some of the nation' s largest multi-system cable operators. With the sunset of federal cable rate regulation, the FCC will no longer be able to act up increases that occur after March 31st. Only new Congressional action can extend the Commission role, or provide new cable rate regulations. The Commission will continue work a number of matters related to increasing competition in the video programming marketplace Both the Cable Act of 1992 and the 1996 Telecommunications Act included provisions directi the FCC to take aggressive steps to improve competition in the video programming marketpla Competition is growing, but at a slow pace. The Commission's own 1998 Cable Competition Report shows that cable operators still have 85 percent of those consumers who subscribe t multichannel video programming. The Commission believes that, as competition to cable and choice in the video programming marketplace develop, consumers will have access to more http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Miscellaneous/Factsheets/cblrate.txt 7/11/2007 Page 2 of 2 services and that prices will be controlled by competition. For more information on cable television issues, contact the FCC Call Center toll free at 1-888-CALL-FCC or visit the FCC's web site at http://www.fcc.gov/csb/. TTY: 1-888-835-5322 . -FCC- (2) • http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Miscellaneous/Factsheets/cblrate.txt 7/11/2007 Page 1of2 Consumer Alert Office of Public Affairs, Public Service Division, The Portals, 445 12th Street SW, Washin 20554 202-418-0200/TTY 202-418-2555 March 1999 FCC Role in Cable Rate Regulation Ends As of March 31, 1999, the Federal Communications Commission will no longer have the author to receive or act upon consumer complaints regarding cable television service. As required by Congress in the 1996 Telecommunications Act, after that date, the Commissio will no longer be able to accept and process consumer complaints about rates on the cable programming service tier on your cable system. That is the service tier that includes the networks. Local communities will continue to have the authority to regulate rates on the service tier (the tier that includes over-the-air broadcast stations) . The 1992 Cable Act established a process whereby cable equipment and "basic" tier cable ra would be subject to regulation by state and municipal governments in those areas where eff competitive was absent. For regulatory purposes, basic tier service includes broadcast s local public, educational, and government access channels and other services the system op chooses to include in the same package with these channels. Basic tier service is typical lowest price tier of service that all subscribers receive. The cable programming service includes all video programming distributed over a system that is not on the basic service this cable programming service tier that will no longer be subject to regulation after Mar 1999. The Commission will continue to process complaints regarding service offered prior March 31, 1999. FCC Chairman William E. Kennard has launched a Cable Consumer Bill of Rights campaign to inform consumers of their options regarding their cable service in the new deregulated era Information on the Cable Consumer Bill of Rights campaign can be found at http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Miscellaneous/News_Releases/1999/nrmc9015.wp. Since 1993, the Commission's Cable Services Bureau has been receiving and disposing of complaints from cable television subscribers regarding rates on the cable programming sery ("CPST") . In that period of time, the Bureau has resolved more than 18, 000 complaints inv more than 5700 cable communities. The Commission has ordered nearly $100 million in consumer refunds during the nearly six years of cable rate regulation to 40 million cable consumers. Included in these figures are a number of "Social Contracts" and "Rate Resolutions" that resolved large numbers of rate complaints pending involving some of the nation's largest multi-system cable operators. With the sunset of federal cable rate regulation, the FCC will no longer be able to act up increases that occur after March 31st. Only new Congressional action can extend the Commission role, or provide new cable rate regulations. The Commission will continue work a number of matters related to increasing competition in the video programming marketplace Both the Cable Act of 1992 and the 1996 Telecommunications Act included provisions directi the FCC to take aggressive steps to improve competition in the video programming marketpla Competition is growing, but at a slow pace. The Commission's own 1998 Cable Competition Report shows that cable operators still have 85 percent of those consumers who subscribe t multichannel video programming. The Commission believes that, as competition to cable and choice in the video programming marketplace develop, consumers will have access to more http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Miscellaneous/Factsheets/cblrate.txt 7/11/2007 Page 2 of 2 services and that prices will be controlled by competition. For more information on cable television issues, contact the FCC Call Center toll free at 1-888-CALL-FCC or visit the FCC's web site at http://www.fcc.gov/csb/. TTY: 1-888-835-5322 . -FCC- (2) http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Miscellaneous/Factsheets/cblrate.txt 7/11/2007 Public Access TV - What is Public Access Television Page 1 of 1 Public Access Television Home What is Public Access TV? What is Public Access TV History of Public Access TV In the simplest of terms it is the availability of a Television Station to the general public. What is Get Started in Public Access TV available are all things connected to a Television The Future of Public Access TV Station. This includes the studio, the equipment, and the staff. Your local Cable Television Company will make available one channel or more for use by the public. The channel is usually adminstrated by the cable company or a third party designated by the franchising authority. The cable company cannot control the material shown on the public access channel. According to the Supreme Court of the United States, it is unconstitutional. Public Access Television is made up of three areas • Public • Educational • Government These are commonly known as PEG Public Access is the production of videos by the community to be shown to the community. These videos come from individuals as well as community groups. Many public access programming centers around politics and religion and are passed around from group to group, state to state. Educational Access programming is centered around the educational community. Programs that notify the community of upcoming events and activities or programs focused on learning. Government Access is similar to Educational Access but instead it is produced by the local government. It provides information on local government meetings, activities, and community programs. Elected officials can use the Govt. Access as well as Regional and State Govts. http://www.publicaccessty.net/whatispatv.html 7/11/2007 J POLICY & PROCEDURE Subject: Index: Administration Access of Renton Government Access Channel and Use of Character Generator Number: 100-09 Effective Date Supersedes Page Staff Contact Approved By 7/1/95 1/1/87 1 of 4 Marilyn Petersen (a.,,Q��1 • 1.0 PURPOSE To establish policy and procedural guidelines for the use of City-operated telecommunications equipment. This equipment is used to communicate non-editorial public information in a video and text format on the City of Renton's Government Access Channel. 2.0 ORGANIZATIONS AFFECTED All departments and divisions. 3.0 REFERENCES [To be determined.] 4.0 DEFINITIONS 4.1 Access Channel. Free composite cable television channel used by government and public agencies and/or their representatives for local carriage of municipal and public services information. 4.2 Character Generator. A device used to generate messages in text, such as announcements of community events, on the access channel. 4.3 Live Local Programs. Live programming of meetings and selected other public events of general community interest. 4.4 Tape Delayed Local Programs. Cablecast of pre-recorded live local programming. 4.5 City of Renton Produced Programs. Programs produced by the City to illustrate the functions or operations of an agency or other part of City government, or otherwise consistent the objectives of the Renton Government Access Channel ("RGAC"). 4.6 Outside Source Programs. Programming produced other than by the City which focuses on local government issues, concerns, and operations, or which is otherwise consistent with the objectives of the RGAC. • Page 2 4.7 Character Generated Messages. Messages suitable for cablecast and displayed using the character generator. Audio entertainment during the display of messages using the character generator may be provided by radio signals from stations that have been approved by the City Clerk. 5.0 POLICY The Renton Government Access Channel is not the same as a public access channel. Access to the Renton Government Access Channel ("RGAC") shall be limited to City meetings,hearings, functions, operational information,training, and other uses as are deemed to be consistent with these policies and procedures. Specific policies include the following: 5.1: No Vested Rights. Decisions regarding the use of the municipal channel will be made by the City Clerk,taking into account the objectives of the policies,the available cable television technologies, directives by the Renton City Council, and technical, financial, labor and other resources available to the City. No decision to cablecast a particular program or message shall be considered to create a right to have any other programs or messages cablecast,whether identical with, similar to, or different from, the original program or message. 5.2 Responsibility. The Renton City Clerk's office shall be responsible for gathering, formatting, and programming the information submitted by City departments and external organizations for cablecast. 5.3 Used for Information:Not Official Record. This communication tool is intended to serve as a supplement to existing public notification activities. It does not substitute for existing publication requirements mandated by law. 5.4 Limitations of Use. Information that is transmitted shall be limited to news and announcements that are locally oriented (cablecast area) and of interest and benefit to the general public (i.e. public meetings, schedules, community, and cultural event calendars.) 5.5 No Commercial Purposes. No message shall be transmitted which involves any advertising material designed to promote the sale of commercial products or services. This shall include, but not be limited to,the following: advertising by or on behalf of candidates for political office; advertising for events which will produce profits benefiting a private enterprise or individual;job announcements for other than public agencies. 5.6 Other Prohibited Uses. The following other programming shall not be allowed: Indecent or obscene matters. 6.0 PROCEDURES 6.1 Request for use forms to place textual information on the Government Access Cable Channel must be submitted to the City Clerk at least three days before the cablecast date. Page 3 6.1.1 Forms submitted by City of Renton departments or divisions must be signed by the appropriate department director. 6.1.2 Each public entity or community group desiring to use the character generator on an ongoing basis must provide the City Clerk's office with a list of those individuals authorized to submit messages, a sample signature for each individual, and their telephone number. 6.1.3 There is room for three separate messages on each form. Each message on a form should be scheduled to begin and end on the same dates. If events occur on various dates, a separate form should be used for each message. 6.1.4 When composing each message,be brief. Use standard abbreviations whenever possible. 6.1.5 Each message should contain.a headline. The headline should briefly convey the main idea of the message. It should attract attention and encourage the viewer to read the message. Examples: FREE CONCERT Monday,June 7 - Liberty Park Noon- 1:30 p.m. - Questions 235-2560. HOME IMPROVEMENT LOANS - Available to rehabilitate existing housing. Seniors and low income may apply. Further information 235-2553. 6.1.6 The City Clerk's office will review each form and, when necessary, conform the message to accommodate page format and style. 6.1.7 If the Clerk determines that the contents of any message submitted conflict with the intent of this policy,that message must be submitted to the Mayor's office for a review and final determination. 6.2 Requests to cablecast videos or schedule live programming must be submitted to and scheduled by the City Clerk. The following programming is specifically authorized: 6.2.1 Public Meetings - City. All public hearings,public meetings, and work sessions of the City Council and of City boards, commissions, committees, and subcommittees (except executive sessions thereof). 6.2.2 Promotions. Promotional announcements for City sponsored events and public service announcements for City agencies. Promotional announcements for events, charities, or outside nonprofit organizations in which the City has no official interest or sponsorship must be approved for cablecast by the City Clerk. 6.2.3 Departmental Programming. Requests of City departments for programming, if consistent with these policies and procedures, and if authorized by the City Clerk. 1,4 Page 4 6.2.4 Individual Statements -Mayor. Individual statement by the Mayor of the City of Renton or the Mayor's designee, if consistent with these policies and procedures fi. and after consultation with the City Clerk. 6.2.5 Individual Statements- Council. Individual statements by the President of the City Council, or the Council President's designee, if consistent with these policies and procedures and after consultation with the City Clerk. 6.2.6 Emergency Cablecasts. Cablecasts during any type of emergency if authorized by the Mayor or designee,pursuant to the City's Emergency Management Operations Plan. 6.3 Editing Policy: Public Meetings. Any public meeting,hearing, or work session which is cablecast shall not be edited in any material manner or subjected to editorial comment, except that minor editing, and editing of technical flaws or problems is permitted. Introductory or supplementary information which will aid the viewer in understanding the context or issues may be provided. Videotapes shall not be considered an official record of meetings and there shall be no liability for inadvertent erasure or omissions. Departmental Programs. Any programming prepared or provided by an individual City department or outside services may be modified or edited as appropriate for cablecast. Legal Review. If deemed necessary by the City Clerk, any video may be subject to review and approval by the City Attorney. Errors. Should an error result in the cablecast or incorrect information, the City of Renton and the employee responsible therefor shall not be liable for the inaccuracy of the information or for actions taken by anyone in reliance thereon. Program Schedules. Program schedules will be cablecast daily on the RGAC, and published weekly in the local news. 7.0 APPEAL Any party aggrieved by a decision of the City Clerk pursuant to these policies and procedures may appeal the decision to the Mayor, within ten(10) days of notification of the decision being appealed. The decision by the Mayor shall be binding and conclusive on all parties. 8.0 NO LIABILITY The Mayor,the City Council, and the employees of the City of Renton shall have no liability for any decisions made, any actions taken, or any failure to act, in connection with the operations of the access channel. None of the described persons or entities shall have any legal liabilities as a consequence of any cablecast program or message. RENTON COMMUI ACCESS CHANNEL ' REQUEST FOR USE OF CHARACTER GENERATOR AGENCY DEPT/DIV FOR PRERECORDED (VIDEO) CABLECAST REQUESTS SUBMITTED BY PHONE Program title User agrees to hold harmless the City of Renton, its officials, Producer name employees, agents and operators for any and all liability, damages or Address losses incurred because of actions, errors or omissions related to the Format Length (exact running time) use of the Character Generator. Cablecast time • Brief Description Signature Date DIRECTIONS All messages must be typewritten. Compose the message the way Intended audience. • you would like it displayed. Type the message within the margins set below. Use separate forms for messages with different start I hereby assume all responsibility for the content of this video and and/or end dates. Attach any photo or graphic to be used as assume all liability that may arise from the cablecasting of this background for the message. product. I further certify that the content is comprised of no material prohibited by the Federal Communications Commission MESSAGE Rules and that I am authorized to permit cablecasting of the above described product. Name Organization Address • Phone Signature Date Display dates for messages/videos on this form: Begin End ......:.: :. .:.......:. CITY OF RENTON VIDEO RELEASE FORM GOVERNMENTAL ACCESS, CHANNEL 28 For valuable consideration received, I hereby give the CITY OF RENTON the following absolute and irrevocable rights and permission,with respect to the audio and video recording, and to the audio and video tapes that he/she has taken of me, or in which I may be included with others. Also any video tapes he/she has taken of my property, structures, vehicles and/or equipment. This release shall apply to all interactions, processes and products associated with, or resulting from, this video tape. (a) To copyright the same in his/her own name or any other name he/she may choose. (b) To use, reuse, publish and republish the same in whole or in part, individually or in conjunction with any other audio or video tape in any medium and for any purpose whatsoever, including but not limited to illustration, promotion, advertising and trade, and graphics. (c) To include my name in the credits at the end of the video tape if he/she chooses. The individuals may be acknowledged as a group, with no use of individual names. I hereby release and discharge the CITY OF RENTON from any and all liability claims and demands arising out of or in connection with audio or video tapes, or any other process, product . or interaction arising from the video tapes. This authorization and release shall also insure to the benefit of the legal representatives, licensees and assigns of the CITY OF RENTON. I hereby release and absolve the CITY OF RENTON from any and all damages, responsibility, loss injury, accident, and any and all forms of consequential and incidental damages for myself in connection with travel to and from location sites for recording. I am over the age of eighteen years. I have read the foregoing and fully understand the contents thereof. NAME (Please print) ADDRESS SIGNATURE DATE PHONE If subject is under eighteen (18)years of age, the name and signature of a consenting parent or legal guardian is required. Said party warrants and represents that they have the authority to execute this release. • NAME OF GUARDIAN (Please print) ADDRESS SIGNATURE OF GUARDIAN T e• From: Bonnie Walton To: Jasmeet_K. Seehra@omb.eop.gov; PRA@FCC.gov Date: 6/20/2007 8:04:57 AM Subject: Deny FCC submission/Inaccurate burden estimates June 20, 2007 Jasmeet K. Seehra Office of Management and Budget Room 10236 NEOB 725 17th Street, NW Washington, DC 20503 Re: Public Comments with respect to the Submission of an Information Collection for Approval to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs of the Office of Management and Budget In the Matter of (47 C.F.R.)Section 76.41, Franchise Application Process As Adopted by the FCC in Docket 05-311 on December 20, 2006 Via Email: Jasmeet K. Seehraa,omb.eop.c ov Dear Ms. Seehra: Please accept these comments on behalf of the City of Renton, Washington, in response to the Federal Communications Commission's recent Paperwork Reduction Act Submission titled Section 76.41, Franchise Application Process. These comments respond specifically to the request for comments regarding whether the collection of information is necessary to the proper performance of the FCC and respond to the solicitation of comments regarding the accuracy of the FCC's burden estimate. We request that OMB disapprove the proposed collection of information. We join in and reiterate the Comments filed by NATOA and others. In addition, we write to state that, while we have no idea whether we are included in the 6000 respondents the FCC assumes will receive franchise applications from the 2 identified but unnamed competitive providers,we certainly hope we and our citizens are included. Nonetheless, while we are hopeful of competition, we object to the FCC's proposed information collection as unnecessary and in error. There are many more than 6000 local franchising authorities. There are many more than 6 potential competitive providers.And, the FCC's burden estimate of 4 hours is divorced from reality because there is simply no basis for the calculation. Further, the information collection is completely unnecessary and duplicative of processes already engaged in by local franchising authorities. For instance, the City of Renton has a franchise application process in place. It requests the items contained in the FCC's proposed information collection, as well as additional information which we deem crucial to making an informed and responsible decision.The FCC cannot justify its proposed information collection and its submission should be disapproved. Sincerely, Bonnie I. Walton City Clerk/Cable Manager 1055 S. Grady Way Renton, WA 98057 Ph. 425-430-6502 Fax 425-430-6516 i bwalton(c�ci.renton.wa.us www.rentonwa.gov CC: Info@natoa.org From: Jason Seth To: Bonnie Walton Date: 6/20/2007 8:08:20 AM Subject: Fwd: FW:Velocity Express Bonnie, I just got this email. I haven't responded. It appears that the$17.97 fee for service doesn't always cover the actual cost of the service. It looks that their corporate office may not be aware that we were told to pay a flat$17.97. They are also still trying to collect on some of the older fees. I think we should send her a note back that says to call the local Seattle office. -Jason From: Libby Beaty<Ibeaty@natoa.org> To: <bwalton@ci.renton.wa.us> Date: 6/19/2007 9:25:56 PM Subject: Forget 90 days! FCC says LFAs need only 4 hours to review franchise for grant or denial! URGENT ACTION REQUESTED Forget 90-days! FCC's OMB Submission Says 4 Hours to Review a Franchise Application for Grant or Denial June 19, 2007 Dear Bonnie, As you may know, the FCC was required to submit its new franchise application rule for approval under the Paperwork Reduction Act, prior to its becoming effective. In reviewing that submission, NATOA found that the FCC indicates that an LFA should be able to review the application in no more than 4 hours time. The FCC also came up with other burden estimates that are wholly unrealistic and without explanation. We need to tell OMB NOT to approve this rule! NATOA has prepared draft comments for your use, and we've placed our own comments on the NATOA website. The comment deadline is Friday, June 22, 2007. Please- help us encourage the OMB to deny the FCC submission as a result of the substantial inaccuracy of the burden estimates. Please file comments on behalf of your client or community today! I've pasted the Press Release issued today, a link to NATOA's comments to OMB, a link to sample comments in Word format for use by LFAs, and the links to the Paperwork Reduction information on the FCC's website below. Members are encouraged to file comments with OMB no later than Friday, June 22, 2007. Or, you can send an e-mail to OMB (copied to the FCC) no later than Friday requesting more time to provide comment. NATOA has prepared sample comments for your use. Please be sure to fill in the date and the appropriate community information. Comments and/or extension requests should be e-mailed to: Jasmeet_K._Seehra@omb.eop.gov [mailto:Jasmeet_K._Seehra@omb.eop.gov] and to PRA@FCC.gov [mailto:PRA@FCC.gov] Please also copy NATOA at info@natoa.org [mailto:info@natoa.org]. Draft Comments are available in Word format here: www.natoa.org/public/articles/LFA_Comments_to_OMB.doc [http://rs6.net/tn.jsp?t=nmrojbcab.0.x5hsjbcab.sbxga7bab.840&ts=S0254&p=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.natoa .org%2Fpublic%2Farticles%2FLFA Comments to_OMB.doc] Link to NATOA's comments [http://rs6.net/tn.jsp?t=nmrojbcab.0.y5hsjbcab.sbxga7bab.840&ts=S0254&p=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.natoa .org%2Fpublic%2Farticles%2FNATOA_PRA_Comments_OMB_.pdf] as filed with OMB and the FCC. www.natoa.org/publidarticles/NATOA_PRA_Comments_OMB_.pdf Information on the Paperwork Reduction Act Requirements and the FCC's submission are available at: [http://rs6.net/tn.jsp?t=nmrojbcab.0.z5hsjbcab.sbxga7bab.840&ts=S0254&p=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.fcc.g ov%2Fomd%2Fpra%2F3060-xxxx.html] http://www.fcc.gov/omd/pra/3060-xxxx.html [http://rs6.net/tn.jsp?t=nmrojbcab.0.z5hsjbcab.sbxga7bab.840&ts=S0254&p=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.fcc.g ov%2Fomd%2Fpra%2F3060-xxxx.html] For Immediate Release Contact: NATOA Headquarters Phone: (703) 519-8035 NATOA Determines the FCC's Submission of Information Collection to the Office of Management and Budget Inaccurate and Highly Questionable Says the FCC's Application is a "Work of Fantasy, Pulled Out of Thin Air" Alexandria, VA-June 18, 2007-A review by NATOA of the Federal Communications Commission's (FCC) recent Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) submission to the Office of Management and Budget(OMB) reveals that the submission is full of highly flawed assumptions and inaccuracies. The submission titled "Section 76.41, Franchise Application Process,"was made pursuant to the FCC's Franchising Order adopted on December 20, 2006. The Order requires all new competitive video franchise applicants to submit required information and for local franchise authorities to respond within either a 90 or 180-day time frame. However, in the OMB submission the FCC now asserts that such an application can be reviewed by the affected locality in four(4) hours or less. Further, the FCC estimates that it will take an applicant only one-half(%) hour or less to supply all required information. The FCC provides no information as to how it reached these estimates. The PRA also requires the FCC to estimate the number of entities that will be affected by the rule. The FCC estimates that only 6,000 local franchising authorities will be affected, even though the FCC's own figures indicate that there are 87,453 local governmental jurisdictions. Regardless, the FCC does not provide any specificity with respect to the number of state, local or tribal governments they expect to affect or how that number was selected. Furthermore, the FCC estimates only six (6) competitive video service providers will be affected despite having noted in the Order over 2,000 local exchange carriers and over 1,400 cable operators exist, each of which could apply for a franchise as a competitive video provider. The FCC's application fails to properly certify that Section 76.41 is not a duplication of current efforts, and it does not address the necessity of the information collection at all. "How the FCC arrived at 6,006 is a complete mystery and feat of soothsaying not usually seen outside of mediocre works of fiction,"said NATOA Executive Director, Libby Beaty. "But this is just one example of the flaws, made up facts and fantasy in their application. Therefore,we are asking the Office of Management and Budget to disapprove Section 76.41." "Local communities already have processes in place which the proposed FCC information collection duplicates,"said Beaty, "NATOA felt obligated to weigh in on this issue to ensure our local communities aren't subjected to the time and expense of more needless, bureaucratic paperwork." For more information on NATOA's comments to the Office of Management and Budget regarding FCC's Section 76.41, call (703) 519-8035 or visit www.natoa.org [http://rs6.net/tn.jsp?t=nmrojbcab.0.5ueed6bab.sbxga7bab.840&ts=S0254&p=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.nato a.org%2F]. Information on the Paperwork Reduction Act and the FCC's submission can be found on the FCC website at: http://www.fcc.gov/omd/pra/3060-xxxx.html [http://rs6.net/tn.jsp?t=nmrojbcab.0.z5hsjbcab.sbxga7bab.840&ts=S0254&p=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.fcc.g ov%2 Fomd%2Fpra%2F3060-xxxx.html] NATOA promotes community interests in communications. A national trade association based in Alexandria,VA, NATOA represents local government jurisdictions and consortiums, including elected and appointed officials and staff,who oversee communications and cable television franchising. Please call Steve Traylor or Libby Beaty at NATOA Headquarters at(703) 519-8035 or email me at info@natoa.org [mailto:info@natoa.org]with any questions you may have. Thank you for participating in NATOA! Sincerely, Libby Beaty Executive Director NATOA This email was sent to bwalton@ci.renton.wa.us, by Ibeaty@natoa.org Update Profile/Email Address http://visitor.constantcontact.com/d.jsp?p=oo&m=1101525441586&ea=bwalton%40ci.renton.wa.us&se=84 0&t=1101702579597&lang=en&reason=F Instant removal with SafeUnsubscribe(TM) http://visitor.constantcontact.com/d.jsp?p=un&m=1101525441586&ea=bwalton%40ci.renton.wa.us&se=84 0&t=1101702579597&lang=en&reason=F Privacy Policy: http://eaui.constantcontact.com/roving/CCPrivacyPolicy.jsp Email Marketing by Constant Contact(R) www.constantcontact.com NATOA 11800 DIAGONAL ROAD I SUITE 495 I ALEXANDRIA I VA 122314 Ae f: (1621d • .c):?:)- ' \I° „Akr) i 31 [\9r- - be;;:% 41'' ' OnAii 14"C -14 (., - nUI ;fp ,moo i , .____ \ iftbh 1).D p : �. I t o 1� s r 140 \ i � '��O d l ►—T u 1 Sad , /( a 1 0\041 ‘)‘ On ill/ lei'- ip Q-t- 40iu- X'?),,1 9h1 ' V? \l\k�q'a Paaul efP�J aJ . t'\)`'° c 10 �p0i REcevED&INVECTED April 19,2007 APR 2 0 ZOO? `i t'L};r n71t J R & g VIA FEDEX FCC-MAILROOM Ms. Marlene H. Dortch Bradley,zu Secretary Guzzetta, I.I.c Office of the Secretary Federal Communications Commission 950 Piper JatTray Plaza 9300 East Hampton Drive 444 Cedar Street Capitol Heights,Maryland 20743 Saint Paul.MN 55101 Pi(651)379-0900 Re: Initial Comments in Response to the Further Notice of Proposed F'(651)379-0999 Rulemaking in MB Docket No.05-311 Attorneys at Law Michael R. Rradleyt Dear Ms. Dortch: Stephen J.Guzzetta. Gregory S. Uhl Attached for filing In the Matter of Implementation of Section 621(a)(1) of the 13rian F. l.aule Cable Communications Policy Act of 1984, as amended by the Cable Television Legal Assistants Consumer Protection and Competition Act of 1992,MB Docket No. 05-311,are Thomas R.Colaizy an original and four(4)copies of the Initial Comments of the Burnsville/Eagan Joseph L. Krueger Telecommunications Commission;the City of Minneapolis,Minnesota;the North Metro Telecommunications Commission;the North Suburban OCounsel Communications icati Commission;the Cityof Renton, Washington;and the South J.David Abramson Thomas C. Plunkett Washington County Telecommunications Commission in Response to the Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking(the"Comments"). I have also enclosed an additional copy of the Comments. Please date-stamp that copy and return it to me in the enclosed postage-prepaid envelope. Very truly yours, BRADLEY&GUZZETTA,LLC .1 Stephen •.a e Attachments _ Nw'W hradlryguzzetta.com N'41'of Copies reed 4"/-1 Lim ARGDE Y il.o ndmirycti m W itconsin -- . _-- Di trkt nfColumbia liECBVED&INSPECTED Before the APR 2 0 2007 FEDERAL COMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Washington,DC 20554 FCC-MAILROOM In the Matter of ) Implementation of Section 621(a)(1)of ) the Cable Communications Policy Act of 1984 ) MB Docket No.05-311 as amended by the Cable Television Consumer ) Protection and Competition Act of 1992 ) INITIAL COMMENTS OF THE BURNSVILLE/EAGAN TELECOMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION; THE CITY OF MINNEAPOLIS,MINNESOTA; THE NORTH METRO TELECOMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION;THE NORTH SUBURBAN COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION;THE CITY OF RENTON,WASHINGTON; AND THE SOUTH WASHINGTON COUNTY TELECOMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION IN RESPONSE TO THE FURTHER NOTICE OF PROPOSED RULEMAKING Stephen J. Guzzetta Michael R. Bradley BRADLEY&GUZZETTA,LLC 444 Cedar Street Suite 950 St. Paul, Minnesota 55101 April 19,2007 TABLE OF CONTENTS SUMMARY I. INTRODUCTION 1 II. THE FCC'S REPORT AND ORDER,AND THE RULES AND FINDINGS CONTAINED THEREIN,ARE UNLAWFUL,ARBITRARY AND CAPRICIOUS 5 III. IT IS PREMATURE TO APPLY THE RULES ADOPTED IN THE REPORT AND ORDER TO INCUMBENT CABLE OPERATORS AT RENEWAL. 7 A. Administrative Efficiency Would Be Advanced by Taking No Action in the FNPRM Until All Outstanding Appeals Have Been Resolved. 7 B. The FCC Must Clarify the Applicability of Initial Rules Before Applying Them to Incumbent Cable Operators at Franchise Renewal. 8 IV. THE FRANCHISE APPLICATION RULES IN THE REPORT AND ORDER CANNOT LAWFULLY APPLY TO INCUMBENT CABLE OPERATORS. 10 A. The FCC's Franchise Application Rules are Inconsistent with the Formal Renewal Process Set forth in the Communications Act. 10 B. The FCC's Franchise Application Rules are Inconsistent with the Informal Renewal Process Set forth in the Communications Act. 16 V. THE FCC'S PRONOUNCEMENT CONCERNING THE BUILD-OUT OF NEW CABLE SYSTEMS IS IRRELEVANT TO EXISTING CABLE SYSTEMS AND CANNOT BE APPLIED TO INCUMBENT CABLE OPERATORS AT FRANCHISE RENEWAL. 17 VI. THE FCC'S DETERMINATIONS CONCERNING FRANCHISE FEES SHOULD NOT APPLY TO INCUMBENT CABLE OPERATORS IN SEVERAL INSTANCES. 21 A. PEG Access and Institutional Network Obligations in Agreements Outside of the Franchise Agreement Are Not Subject to the Federal Franchise Fee Cap 21 B. Institutional Network Commitments Paid for By Local Franchising Authorities Are Not Franchise Fees. 22 C. In-Kind Contributions are Not Franchise Fees. 22 VII. THE LFAs AGREE WITH THE FCC'S TENTATIVE CONCLUSION THAT IT CANNOT PREEMPT LOCAL AUTHORITY TO ADOPT OR AGREE TO CUSTOMER SERVICE STANDARDS OR REQUIREMENTS THAT EXCEED FCC STANDARDS OR THAT ADDRESS SUBJECTS NOT COVERED BY THE FCC'S STANDARDS. 23 VIII. CONCLUSION. 26 SUMMARY The municipalities and joint powers commissions filing these comments (collectively,the "LFAs")represent 26 cities and townships, in Minnesota and Washington,with a combined population of over 800,000. The LFAs assert that the Report and Order adopted by the Federal Communications Commission (the"FCC"or the "Commission")on March 5, 2007,along with the rules, findings and pronouncements contained therein,are illegal, arbitrary and capricious, and unnecessary. The LFAs therefore urge the Commission not to extend the various rules and findings set forth in the Report and Order to incumbent cable operators at any time,including franchise renewal. Because the Report and Order has been challenged by numerous entities, the LFAs believe that it would be premature to apply the Report and Order's rules to incumbent cable operators until all appeals have been resolved and the rules have been upheld. If the Report and Order is applied to incumbent cable operators at renewal,and the FCC's rules are ultimately found to be unlawful, as the LFAs believe, there will be mass confusion among all parties as to what steps can and should be taken,and local franchising authorities will have suffered irreparable harm by agreeing to long-term franchise renewal agreements that are predicated on illegal rules, findings and pronouncements. The LFAs also wish to make clear that the FCC's rulings,if applied to incumbent cable operators at renewal,would be inconsistent with the plain language and intent of§ 626 of the Communications Act of 1934,as amended (the"Communications Act"),47 U.S.C. § 546. Congress has already crafted clear formal and informal processes for dealing with franchise renewal applications. The FCC's franchise application process is therefore unnecessary. Moreover,the FCC's rulings would conflict with § 626 in several respects. For instance, the ii deadlines in the Report and Order are inconsistent with the 4-month deadline in § 626(c)(1)of the Communications Act,47 U.S.C. § 546(c)(1), and Congress' open-ended timeframe for conducting and competing the needs assessment and past performance review set forth in § 626(a)(1),47 U.S.C. § 546(a)(1). Moreover,the franchise renewal process in the Communications Act is designed to ensure that local cable-related needs and interests will be satisfied, while the FCC's franchise application process permits applicants to establish their own franchise terms and conditions, regardless of whether they meet community cable-related needs and interests. Contrary to the Commission's concerns, build-out requirements should not be an issue at franchise renewal. This is because build-out provisions included in franchise agreements negotiated pursuant to the informal renewal process have been voluntarily agreed to by both parties, and are therefore per se reasonable. To the extent than an incumbent cable operator's cable system has not already been completely built out in accordance with its existing franchise, or if necessary to meet articulated needs and interests,the formal renewal process permits local franchising authorities to establish build-out requirements that an incumbent cable operator must meet(taking cost into consideration). If an incumbent cable operator believes such requirements are unreasonable,it can avail itself of the protections in §626 of the Communications Act. No FCC action is required or permitted. The Commission's determinations concerning franchise fees are troubling and should not apply to incumbent cable operators in several instances. Specifically, PEG access and institutional network obligations that are included in agreements outside of a franchise agreement are not, and should not be,subject to the federal franchise fee cap. This is also true with respect iii • to in-kind contributions and institutional network commitments paid for by local franchising authorities. Finally, the LFAs express their strong support for the FCC's tentative conclusion that it cannot preempt local authority to unilaterally adopt or agree to customer service standards that exceed FCC standards or address matters that are not addressed by the FCC's minimum standards. The preservation of local authority in §632(d)(2)of the Communications Act,47 U.S.C. § 552(d)(2),is unambiguous and bars any Commission action to preempt or limit local consumer protection authority. iv Before the FEDERAL COMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Washington,DC 20554 In the Matter of ) Implementation of Section 621(a)(1)of ) the Cable Communications Policy Act of 1984 ) MB Docket No. 05-311 as amended by the Cable Television Consumer ) Protection and Competition Act of 1992 ) INITIAL COMMENTS OF THE BURNSVILLE/EAGAN TELECOMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION;THE CITY OF MINNEAPOLIS,MINNESOTA;THE NORTH METRO TELECOMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION;THE NORTH SUBURBAN COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION; THE CITY OF RENTON,WASHINGTON;AND THE SOUTH WASHINGTON COUNTY TELECOMMUNICATIONS COMMSSION IN RESPONSE TO THE FURTHER NOTICE OF PROPOSED RULEMAKING I. INTRODUCTION. These comments are filed on behalf of the City of Minneapolis,Minnesota,the City of Renton,Washington and the following municipal joint powers commissions in the above- captioned proceeding: the Burnsville/Eagan Telecommunications Commission (a municipal joint powers commission consisting of the cities of Burnsville and Eagan,Minnesota);the North Metro Telecommunications Commission (a municipal joint powers commission consisting of the cities of Blaine, Centerville, Circle Pines, Ham Lake,Lexington,Lino Lakes and Spring Lake Park,Minnesota);the North Suburban Communications Commission (a municipal joint powers commission consisting'of the cities of Arden Hills,Falcon Heights, Lauderdale,Little Canada, Mounds View,New Brighton,North Oaks,Roseville,St.Anthony and Shoreview,Minnesota); and the South Washington County Telecommunications Commission(a municipal joint powers commission consisting of the municipalities of Woodbury, Cottage Grove, Newport,Grey Cloud Island Township and St. Paul Park,Minnesota)(collectively,the"LFAs").t The LFAs represent twenty-six cities and townships in Minnesota and Washington,with a combined population of over 800,000. The LFAs are generally responsible for administering and enforcing their local cable franchises. The LFAs also receive and resolve consumer complaints regarding cable service and cable modem service. In addition,the LFAs are empowered to negotiate renewal cable television franchises and to conduct franchise renewal proceedings. Under applicable state law, the City of Minneapolis,Minnesota,the City of Renton,Washington,and the South Washington County Telecommunications Commission are authorized to approve or deny renewal franchise proposals and to award renewal cable franchises authorizing the use of public rights-of-way. All of the LFAs operate video production facilities, and are actively involved in producing government access programming and/or making studios, edit suites and equipment available for public access programming. These operations are supported by financial and in- kind support from the incumbent cable operator. Additionally, several of the LFAs oversee and/or operate institutional networks which connect government facilities, including schools,and are utilized for advanced video, voice and data applications. Thus,the LFAs have a significant interest in cable system franchising,including franchise renewals,the provision and ongoing use of institutional networks and continued financial and in-kind support for governmental, educational and public access, and would be directly affected by any action the Federal 1 With the exception of the South Washington County Telecommunications Commission,the member cities of the various joint powers commissions award cable franchises to applicants. The joint powers commissions are generally responsible for enforcing and administering their member cities' cable franchises. The South Washington County Telecommunications Commission, however, is also empowered to award cable franchises on behalf of its member cities. 9 Communications Commission (the "Commission"or the"FCC")might take pursuant to its March 5,2007,Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking("FNPRM").2 As a preliminary matter, the LFAs wish to make clear that they oppose the extension of the various findings,pronouncements and rules set forth in the Report and Order to incumbent cable operators at any time,including(but not limited to)franchise renewal. This is because, among other things, the Report and Order is specifically based on the FCC's interpretation and application of Section 621(a)(1)of the Communications Act of 1934,as amended(the "Communications Act"),47 U.S.C. § 541(a)(1), which states that local franchising authorities cannot unreasonably refuse to award an additional competitive franchise. That provision does not apply to cable operators that already possess a franchise(and are seeking to renew that franchise)because they are not by definition new entrants. Indeed, incumbent providers are already providing service to subscribers and have developed a significant embedded customer base,which means the competitive market entry rationale for the FCC's rules and findings do not apply to incumbent cable operators. Thus,there is no legal or policy basis for extending the various findings,pronouncements and rules in the Report and Order to incumbent cable operators. In addition, it is the LFAs' position that the entire Report and Order is unlawful and invalid insofar as it exceeds the FCC's statutory authority, is arbitrary and capricious,an abuse of discretion, unsupported by substantial evidence, in violation of the United States Constitution, including, without limitation, the Fifth and Tenth Amendments, and is otherwise contrary to law. 2 In the Matter of Implementation of Section 621(a)(1)of the Cable Communications Policy Act of 1984, as amended by the Cable Television Consumer Protection and Competition Act of 1992, Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking,MB Docket No. 05-311 (Rel. March 5, 2007). The FCC's Report and Order, which sets forth findings and rules for competitive cable service providers, is referred to in these comments as the"Report and Order." 3 Accordingly,the FCC's rules,findings and pronouncements cannot and should not be applied to cable operators with existing franchise agreements (or, for that matter, new entrants). Because the Report and Order has been appealed by several entities,the FCC should refrain from taking any action in the FNPRM until the appeals process has been completed. Although the LFAs assert that the Report and Order, and the rules,findings and pronouncements contained therein,are illegal and unnecessary,they will,for the sake of argument,address the FCC's tentative conclusion that the Report and Order"should apply to cable operators that have existing franchise agreements as they negotiate the renewal of those agreements . . ."3 As indicated above,the Report and Order cannot apply to incumbent cable operators because §621(a)(1)of the Communications Act,47 U.S.C. § 541(a)(1),only addresses additional competitive franchises and does not govern the renewal of existing franchise agreements. Franchise renewals are instead governed by Section 626 of the Communications Act,47 U.S.C. § 546,and applicable state and local laws. It is also important to note that the FCC's stated purposes for adopting the Report and Order—enhancing cable competition and accelerating broadband deployment4—are unrelated to incumbent cable operators since they have already deployed their networks and are offering cable, telephone and broadband services. Thus, as previously mentioned, there is no legitimate rationale for extending the rules,findings and pronouncements in the Report and Order to incumbent cable operators. The LFAs do, however,strongly support the FCC's tentative conclusion that the FCC "cannot preempt state or local customer service laws that exceed the Commission's standards"or "prevent LFAs and cable operators from agreeing to more stringent standards."5 Section 3 FNPRM at 1140. 4 Report and Order at Q 1. 5 FNPRM at yi 143. 4 632(d)(2)of the Communications Act,47 U.S.C. § 552(d)(2), which addresses consumer protection, makes clear that local authority to impose customer service requirements, including those that may exceed the FCC's minimum customer service standards, is preserved by the Communications Act. Because the preservation of local authority in §632(d)(2)is unambiguous on its face,the FCC cannot take any preemptive action in this area. II. THE FCC'S REPORT AND ORDER,AND THE RULES AND FINDINGS CONTAINED THEREIN,ARE UNLAWFUL,ARBITRARY AND CAPRICIOUS. The LFAs do not believe the FCC has the authority to adopt the rules and findings in the Report and Order and therefore consider the Report and Order, and the rules,findings and pronouncements contained therein,to be unlawful.The bases for the LFAs' belief are contained in comments previously filed with the FCC and will not be recapitulated here.6 Suffice it to say the Report and Order attempts to re-write the Communications Act in several respects—an action that can only be undertaken by Congress. Moreover, the rules adopted by the FCC are not based on substantial and/or credible evidence contained in the record. Consequently,the FCC's rules are arbitrary and capricious.' Because the rules are both unlawful and arbitrary and 6 See Initial Comments of the Burnsville/Eagan Telecommunications Commission; the City of Minneapolis,Minnesota; the North Metro Telecommunications Commission; the North Suburban Communications Commission; and the South Washington County Telecommunications Commission,In the Matter of Implementation of Section 621(a)(1)of the Cable Communications Policy Act of 1984, as amended by the Cable Television Consumer Protection and Competition Act of 1992,Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 20 FCC Rcd 18581 (Feb. 10,2006) and the Reply Comments of the Burnsville/Eagan Telecommunications Commission;the City of Minneapolis,Minnesota; the North Metro Telecommunications Commission;the North Suburban Communications Commission;and the South Washington County Telecommunications Commission,In the Matter of Implementation of Section 621(a)(1) of the Cable Communications Policy Act of 1984, as amended by the Cable Television Consumer Protection and Competition Act of 1992,Notice of Proposed Rulemaking,20 FCC Rcd 18581 (March 28,2006). 7 See, e.g., People of the State of California v. FCC, 905 F.2d 1217, 1230(9th Cir. 1990) (stating that an agency decision must be overturned if the decision lacks record support). 5 capricious,they cannot be applied to cable operators with existing franchise agreements at any time, let alone at franchise renewal. Moreover,the FCC's rules are predicated on language in § 621(a)(1)of the Communications Act,47 U.S.C. § 541(a)(1),which states that local franchising authorities"may not unreasonably refuse to award an additional competitive franchise."8 Because this language does not,on its face, apply to cable operators that already possess a franchise(and in almost all cases are already providing service to consumers), the FCC cannot rely § 621(a)(1)as a source of authority for applying its new rules, findings and pronouncements to incumbent cable operators at franchise renewal. Furthermore,the LFAs posit that Congress has provided the FCC with absolutely no authority to interfere with the franchise renewal process. Except for providing cable operators with certain limited protections(particularly in the formal franchise renewal process set forth in § 626(a)-(g)of the Communications Act,47 U.S.C. § 546(a)-(g)), Congress left it state and/or local governments to determine how to conduct franchise renewal, so as to ensure that local needs and interests are satisfied,and that outstanding franchise violations are resolved appropriately. It is also important to recognize that the terms and conditions of renewal franchise agreements are specifically governed by§ 626 of the Communications Act,47 U.S.C. § 546, and any applicable state and/or local laws9—not§ 621(a)(1). As discussed below,extending the FCC's rules to incumbent cable operators at renewal will impermissibly conflict with § 626. The FCC therefore must refrain from applying the Report and Order to incumbent cable operators at the time of franchise renewal. Indeed, it is a fundamental canon of statutory construction that the See, e.g., Report and Order at¶ 1. 9 See, e.g.,MINN.STAT. § 238.084. 6 FCC must avoid interpreting one statutory provision in a manner that deprives another of meaning.1° III. IT IS PREMATURE TO APPLY THE RULES ADOPTED IN THE REPORT AND ORDER TO INCUMBENT CABLE OPERATORS AT RENEWAL. A. Administrative Efficiency Would Be Advanced by Taking No Action in the FNPRM Until All Outstanding Appeals Have Been Resolved. Because the legality of the Report and Order has been challenged by numerous entities, it would be premature to apply the rules,pronouncements and findings in the Report and Order to incumbent cable operators until all the outstanding appeals have been resolved. Additional facts and legal arguments will undoubtedly be made during the appeals process and those facts and arguments will likely have a direct bearing on the legality,scope and applicability of the FCC's rulings in the Report and Order. In addition,it would be most administratively efficient to withhold taking any further action in the FNPRM unless and until there is a valid,binding and non-appealable judicial finding that the Report and Order is lawful." Any agency action prior to final judicial review will almost certainly result in further litigation. Moreover,if and when the Report and Order(and the FCC's rulings therein) are overturned on appeal, it may prove impossible to undo the harm caused to local franchising authorities while the rules were in effect. For instance,many local franchising authorities may have been forced to give up significant benefits in long-term renewal franchise agreements with incumbent cable operators in light of 1° See, e.g., Carter v. Helmsley-Spear, Inc., 71 F.3d 77,85 (2"Cir. 1995)and United States v. Blasius,397 F.2d 203,207 n. 9(2"Cir. 1968)(stating that a statute should not be construed as containing superfluous or meaningless words). See also Aluminum Co. of America v. Dept. of Treasury, 522 F.2d 1120, 1126-27 (6th Cir. 1975);Bird v. United States, 187 U.S. 118, 124 (1902); United States v. Powers, 307 U.S. 214,217 (1939); United States v. Shaver,506 F.2d 699(4th Cir. 1974); and Nat'l Petroleum Refiners Ass'n v. FTC,482 F.2d 672,689(D.C. Cir. 1973). I I The LFAs once again reiterate their position that the Report and Order is unlawful, arbitrary and capricious. 7 the Report and Order and may not be able to modify those agreements, once the FCC's new rules are invalidated in whole or part. The LFAs therefore urge the FCC not to apply the rules,findings and pronouncements in the Report and Order to incumbent cable operators until all appeals are exhausted and the Report and Order has been upheld(in whole or in part). The Commission can re-examine the necessity of applying the rules to incumbent operators following the completion of the appeals process. This course of action is the most logical and efficient, and will further Congress' goal of ensuring that local cable-related needs and interests are satisfied through the franchise renewal process. - B. The FCC Must Clarify the Applicability of Initial Rules Before Applying Them to Incumbent Cable Operators at Franchise Renewal. It is premature to apply the rules adopted in the Report and Order to any entity until the FCC,the courts or Congress decides that video services offered by a telephone company over Internet Protocol are cable services,subject to the same federal,state and local laws as the video services provided by an incumbent cable provider, such as Comcast and Time Warner Cable. This issue was not addressed in the Report and Order and remains the"white elephant in the room." Accordingly, it is unclear to whom precisely the FCC's"new entrant"rules apply. It makes sense to answer this question before extending the Report and Order to incumbent cable operators, particularly since those operators could begin providing video services using technologies the same as or similar to those employed by AT&T, who claims that its video service is not a cable service. 12 See Section 601(2) of the Cable Communications Policy Act of 1984, as amended(the"Cable Act"),47 U.S.C. § 521(2). 8 While the Report and Order was issued by the FCC to address "new competitors," and "new entrants"such as"traditional phone companies . . . primed to enter the cable market . . .",13 the FCC left it entirely unclear to whom, if anyone, these new rules actually applied. According to the FCC, the terms "new competitors" or "new entrants" were intended "to describe entities that opt to offer `cable service' over a `cable system' utilizing public rights-of-way, and thus are defined under the Communications Act as `cable operator[s]' that must obtain a franchise.s14 Because new entrants such as AT&T are multichannel video program distributors15 whose services fall within the Cable Act's definition of"cable service,"16 it would appear that AT&T's Internet Protocol video service should be subject to Title VI of the Cable Act and applicable federal, state and local laws and regulations. AT&T, however, has disputed, incorrectly, that its video product can be classified as a cable service. Because AT&T's position is untenable, it is puzzling why the FCC would issue a 109-page order frequently referring to and benefiting local telephone companies, ostensibly pursuant to authority primarily reposed in Title VI of the Communications Act,17 but then apparently leave a fundamental question unanswered by stating "we do not address in this Order whether video services provided over Internet Protocol are or are not `cable services.-18 It is somewhat unclear from the Report and Order if the FCC meant to limit its discussion to interactive on-demand services or to extend its determination to all video services provided using Internet Protocol. To avoid confusion concerning the applicability of its rules (should they be upheld on appeal), the FCC should make it explicitly clear that video 13 Report and Order 91 2. 14 Id. at n. 24. 15 See Pacific Bell Tel. Co. v. City of Walnut Creek, 428 Supp.2d 1037, 1047 (N.D. Cal. 2006). 16 See 47 U.S.C. § 522(6). 17 As discussed elsewhere in these comments, the LFAs do not agree that the FCC has the authority to issue the rulings in the Report and Order. 18 Report and Order$ 124. 9 services provided over Internet Protocol are cable services under Title VI of the Communications Act and applicable state and local laws and regulations.19 If the FCC fails to clarify the scope of its rules, it could be argued by video service providers and others that the Report and Order does not apply to any new entrant, since telephone companies like AT&T could maintain that their video service is not a cable service. AIthough Qwest is not offering video service in any of the LFAs' service territories, it currently plans to utilize Internet Protocol technology similar to AT&T's and to follow AT&T's regulatory strategy. Presumably, this is why Qwest has sponsored legislation in both Minnesota and Washington in which it classifies its anticipated service differently than incumbent cable operators' cable services.2° Fortunately, the legislators in Minnesota and Washington have not fallen for such nonsense, but the lack of clarity on the issue only promotes inconsistent legislation across the United States, and could create regulatory inconsistencies if the Report and Order is ultimately inapplicable new entrants, but is applied to incumbent cable operators at the time of franchise renewal. IV. THE FRANCHISE APPLICATION RULES IN THE REPORT AND ORDER CANNOT LAWFULLY APPLY TO INCUMBENT CABLE OPERATORS. A. The FCC's Franchise Application Rules are Inconsistent with the Formal Renewal Process Set forth in the Communications Act. The Report and Order specifies that local franchising authorities must grant or deny a cable franchise application received from an entity with existing authority to occupy public 19 The FCC does have another docket open in which it could also specifically address the classification of video services provided over Internet Protocol. See IP-Enabled Services, 19 FCC Rcd 4863 (2004); Petition of SBC Communications, Inc. for a Declaratory Ruling, WC Docket No. 04-36 (filed Feb. 5, 2004); and Letter from James C. Smith, Senior Vice President, SBC Services, Inc., to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary,Federal Communications Commission,WC Docket No.04-36 (filed Sept. 14, 2005). 'H.F. 2351, 85th Leg. Sess. (Mn. 2007); S.F. 2216, 85th Leg. Sess. (Mn. 2007);H.B. 1983,60th Leg. Reg. Sess. (Wa. 2007); and S.F. 6003, 60th Leg. Reg. Sess. (Wa. 2007). 10 rights-of-way within ninety(90)days of the date a complete application is received (unless the parties agree to an extension of time).21 Local franchising authorities have 180 days to grant or deny a complete franchise application received from an entity that does not have existing authority to utilize public rights-of-way in its proposed franchise area.22 If a local franchising authority does not act within the prescribed deadlines, a cable franchise applicant will automatically be authorized to provide cable service on an interim basis, in accordance with the terms and conditions it proposed in its application.23 According to the FCC,this competitive franchising process was adopted to prevent"unreasonable delays" in the franchise process that were purportedly depriving consumers of competitive video services and hampering broadband deployment.24 An incumbent cable operator's services,however, are already widely available to consumers throughout its franchise territory. Thus,the underlying rationale for the FCC's competitive franchise application process is not applicable to incumbent cable operators. Extending the process to incumbent cable operators would, therefore, be arbitrary and capricious.25 The FNPRM tentatively concludes that the competitive franchise application process in the Report and Order should apply to incumbent cable operators at franchise renewal. Doing so, however, would be inconsistent with § 626 of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. § 546. In this regard, it is clear that the Cable Act's formal renewal process can only be started during the 6- 21 See, e..g., Report and Order at 919[67 and 75 and 47 C.F.R. § 76.41(b) and § 76.41(d). 22 See, e.g., Report and Order at 9[72 and 47 C.F.R. §76.41(b) and § 76.41(d). 23 See, e.g., Report and Order at 91 67 and 47 C.F.R. § 76.41(e). 24 See, e.g., Report and Order at 9[9[67 and 71. 25 Incumbent cable operators would, in most cases, have existing authority to use public rights- of-way. Consequently, the FCC's 180-day deadline would not apply to cable operators with existing franchises in any event. 11 month period that begins with the thirty-sixth month prior to franchise expiration;26 the "formal" franchise application process created by the FCC can be commenced at any time. Accordingly, the FCC's "renewal"process cannot be reconciled with § 626(a)(1). This is also the case because,if the formal franchise renewal process has been invoked, § 626(a)requires local franchising authorities to conduct a needs ascertainment and past performance review proceeding prior to the submission of any franchise renewal application/proposal.27 The FCC's rules, however,would apparently permit an incumbent cable operator to submit a franchise renewal proposal at any time,notwithstanding the substantive and procedural requirements of § 626(a). Once §626(a) has been invoked, a renewal franchise application or proposal cannot be filed until the local franchising authority's needs ascertainment and past performance proceeding has been completed.28 Moreover, § 626(b)(3)of the Communications Act,47 U.S.C. § 546(b)(3), permits a local franchising authority to"establish a date by which . . . [a renewal] proposal shall be submitted.s29 Thus, to the extent that the FCC's rules permit the submission of a formal franchise renewal proposal/application prior to the date set by the franchising authority, they are inconsistent with the Communications Act, and cannot be applied to incumbent cable operators at franchise renewal. It is also important to note that Congress did not impose any deadline on the completion of the § 626(a)proceeding. In deciding not to set arbitrary deadlines for conducting a needs assessment and past performance review,Congress recognized that the scope and specific characteristics of§626(a)proceedings will vary depending on the circumstances in a particular '6 47 U.S.C. § 546(a)(1). 27 47 U.S.C. § 546(a) and § 546(b)(1). 28 47 U.S.C. § 546(b)(1). 29 47 U.S.C. § 546(b)(3). 12 community. Local franchising authorities are therefore free to plan and implement their own needs assessment and past performance reviews as long as the limited procedural requirements prescribed by Congress in §§ 626(a)(1)and 626(a)(2),47 U.S.C. §§ 546(a)(1)and 546(a)(2), are followed. In this regard, Congress merely dictated when the"formal"renewal process may be initiated and specified that the public must be given appropriate notice and an opportunity to participate in the assessment of a community's future cable-related needs and interests and the review of the incumbent cable operator's performance under its franchise. Local franchising authorities are permitted to take as long as they need to complete their needs assessment and past performance review. Extending the 90-or 180-day deadlines in the Report and Order to franchise renewals would,therefore, clearly conflict with the plain language of§626(a)(1) by effectively establishing a de facto deadline of less than 90 or 180 days to complete the§ 626(a) proceeding. In determining whether and how to apply its"new entrant"rules to incumbent cable operators, the Commission cannot ignore or circumvent the plain language of Section 626 of the Communications Act, which,as noted above,mandates that local franchising authorities using the formal renewal process conduct a proceeding in which the incumbent cable operator's performance under its existing franchise is evaluated prior to the submission of a franchise renewal proposal/application.30 This type of past performance review necessarily involves the incumbent cable operator and local franchising authorities may require the operator to respond to (i) appropriate information requests concerning franchise compliance and(ii)notices of violation, in accordance with the terms of the relevant franchise documents, as part of the 30 See Sections 621(a)(1)and 621(b)(1)of the Communications Act,47 U.S.C. §§ 546(a)(1)and 546(b)(1). 13 review. Accordingly, the Report and Order31 and 47 C.F.R. § 76.41(c), which prohibit local franchising authorities from requiring a franchise applicant to"engage in any regulatory or administrative processes prior to the filing of an application,"are inconsistent with §§ 626(a)(1) and 626(b)(1)of the Communications Act and cannot be applied to incumbent cable operators and local franchising authorities engaged in the formal renewal process. Section 626(b)(2) of the Communications Act,47 U.S.C. § 546(b)(2),provides Iocal franchising authorities with the sole discretion to determine what information must be included in a formal franchise renewal proposal/application (subject to applicable state and federal law).32 If applied to incumbent cable operators and local franchising authorities using the formal renewal process, § 76.41 of the FCC's rules would conflict with § 626(b)(2)because it would impermissibly require certain information to be included in formal franchise renewal proposals, over and above that which is already required or permitted by state and local law. While the information required by the FCC may be helpful, under§626 it is up to local franchising authorities,not the FCC, to decide what information, commitments and materials must be included in a renewal proposal, based on the results of the§ 626(a)proceeding and any applicable state and local laws and/or requirements. Once a complete formal franchise renewal proposal/application containing all information required by a local franchising authority is timely submitted,the franchising authority has four(4)months to review the proposal and to renew the incumbent cable operator's franchise or issue a preliminary denia1.33 The FCC's rules contain different deadlines for acting 31 See, e.g., Report and Order at¶75. 32 47 U.S.C. § 546(b)(2)states that"[s]ubject to section 624,any such [formal franchise renewal] proposal shall contain such material as the franchising authority may require,including roposals for an upgrade of the cable system." See 47 U.S.C. § 546(c)(l). I4 • on applications, which would be inconsistent with the Communications Act if extended to cable operators and local franchising authorities that are subject to the formal franchise renewal process. Furthermore, under§626(c)(1)of the Communications Act,47 U.S.C. § 546(c)(1), failure to take final action on a renewal franchise application,by issuing a preliminary denial (or failing to act at all), does not automatically result in the issuance of an interim franchise on the terms proposed by the applicant. Rather, § 626(c)(1)provides for an administrative proceeding after which another determination concerning the renewal or denial of a franchise is made. The Report and Order and the FCC's rules do not account for this process. In fact,by forcing a franchise applicant's self-serving terms and conditions on local franchising authorities after the expiration of an arbitrary deadline,47 C.F.R. § 76.41(e)would clearly contravene 47 U.S.C. §§ 546(a)and 546(c)(1)(D),which require a cable operator to satisfy a community's cable- related needs and interests in the context of franchise renewal.34 In other words,the FCC's rules 34 See, e.g., § 601(2)of the Communications Act,47 U.S.C. § 521(2) (stating that the purpose of the Cable Act is to"establish franchise procedures and standards which . . . assure that cable systems are responsive to the needs and interests of the local community . . ."); Union CATV, Inc. v City of Sturgis, 107 F.3d 434,438-42 (6th Cir. 1997);H.R. Rep. No. 98-934,98th Cong., 2nd Sess. at 25, reprinted in 1984 U.S.C.C.A.N. 4655,4662 (1984)(§ 626 of the Communications Act is "designed to give some stability and certainty to the renewal process, while continuing to provide the franchising authority with the ability to assure that renewal proposals are reasonable to meet community needs and interests"); id. at 26, reprinted in 1984 U.S.C.C.A.N. 4655,4663 (Congress intended that"the franchise process take place at the local level where [local] officials have the best understanding of local communications needs and can require cable operators to tailor the cable system to meet those needs."). Congress also stated that "the ability of a local government entity to require particular cable facilities (and to enforce requirements in the franchise to provide those facilities) is essential if cable systems are to be tailored to the needs of each community [and the Cable Act] explicitly grants this power to the franchising authority." Id. According to the House Report on H.R. 4103,whose terms were later incorporated into the Cable Act, "The bill establishes franchise procedures and standards to . . . assure that cable systems are responsive to the needs and interests of the local communities they service." H.R. Rep. No. 98-934, 98th Cong., 2nd Sess. at 19,reprinted in 1984 U.S.C.C.A.N.4655,4656 (1984). 15 would permit a cable operator seeking franchise renewal to obtain a franchise to utilize the public rights-of-way(even if only on a temporary basis)in accordance with its own needs and interests, instead of the needs and interests of the community, as determined by the local franchising authority. Accordingly,the FCC should refrain from applying its new rules to incumbent cable operators and/or local franchising authorities that have properly invoked Section 626(a)-(g)of the Communications Act,47 U.S.C. § 546(a)-(g). B. The FCC's Franchise Application Rules are Inconsistent with the Informal Renewal Process Set forth in the Communications Act. Section 626(h)of the Communications Act,47 U.S.C. § 546(h), which sets forth the federal informal franchise renewal process, states that: a cable operator may submit a proposal for the renewal of a franchise pursuant to this subsection at any time,and a franchising authority may, after affording the public adequate notice and opportunity to comment,grant or deny such proposal at any time . . . Because a franchising authority may grant or deny an informal renewal proposal "at any time," the deadlines in the FCC's rules and Report and Order cannot logically or legally apply. Moreover, since there are no deadlines for action in § 626(h),and because a local franchising authority may grant or deny an informal franchise renewal at any time and for any reason,the FCC cannot lawfully impose an interim franchise on local governments through the extension of 47 C.F.R. §76.41(e). Indeed, the informal renewal process clearly contemplates that both parties will negotiate and agree on the contents of a renewal franchise.35 Any franchise application requirements that the FCC might mandate would be consistent with § 626(h) because See H.R. Rep. No.98-934, 98th Cong., 2nd Sess. at 72,reprinted in 1984 U.S.C.C.A.N.4655, 4709 (1984) (the"provisions contained in this section are not mandatory. A cable operator and a franchising authority may negotiate the renewal of a franchise independent of this section. Also, independent of this section they may reach agreement on franchise renewal at any time after the procedures under this section have been initiated."). l6 the informal renewal process clearly permits a cable operator to decide what terms and conditions to include in its informal renewal proposal (which terms and conditions should be based on local cable-related needs and interests identified by the local franchising authority). Likewise, local franchising authorities have the ability to influence the content of informal renewal proposals through ongoing discussions with an incumbent cable operator,and by proposing their own terms or rejecting or modifying terms that have been proposed by the operator. The FCC's rules therefore cannot be squared with the wide latitude and broad authority accorded to local franchising authorities under the informal franchise renewal process. Indeed,the FCC's rules would effectively convert the informal renewal process into a second formal renewal process (which process, as discussed, supra,would be inconsistent with the formal renewal process established by Congress). V. THE FCC'S PRONOUNCEMENT CONCERNING THE BUILD-OUT OF NEW CABLE SYSTEMS IS IRRELEVANT TO EXISTING CABLE SYSTEMS AND CANNOT BE APPLIED TO INCUMBENT CABLE OPERATORS AT FRANCHISE RENEWAL. The Report and Order concludes that build-out requirements, in many cases, may constitute unreasonable barriers to entry into the multichannel video distribution market.36 Based on this assumption,which is fallacious,the FCC determined that§ 621(a)(1)of the Communications Act,47 U.S.C. § 541(a)(1), prohibits franchise denials based on unreasonable build-out requirements.37 Section 621(a)(1), however,does not apply to incumbent cable operators seeking franchise renewal; it only applies to applicants for additional competitive franchises. Accordingly, the language in that provision which states that franchising authorities 36 See, e.g., Report and Order at IT 82, 87 and 89. 37 Report and Order at y[y[ 83, 87 and 89. 17 cannot"unreasonably refuse to award an additional competitive franchise"38 cannot be used to establish a"reasonableness"standard for build-out requirements in the renewal of existing franchise agreements. This is particularly true since the FCC's underlying concerns regarding market entry barriers are not germane to incumbent cable operators—they are already in the market and providing service to consumers. Moreover,any issues concerning the reasonableness of build-out requirements can be dealt with under the existing§ 626 statutory framework,which adequately protects a cable operator's interests,39 Accordingly,the FCC's"rule"concerning build-out provisions is entirely unnecessary for franchise renewals. The FCC's examples of unreasonable build-out requirements underscore that any application of its § 626(a)(1) "reasonableness"test to renewal build-out requirements is both unnecessary and inappropriate. For instance,the FCC's conclusion that"it would seem unreasonable to require a new competitive entrant to serve everyone in a franchise area before it has begun providing service to anyone"40 is completely unrelated to franchise renewals because an incumbent cable operator is already serving subscribers and has been doing so for an extended period of time. Likewise, the finding that"it would seem unreasonable to require facilities-based entrants, such as incumbent LECs, to build out beyond the footprint of their existing facilities before they have even begun providing cable services41 would not apply to franchise renewals because incumbent cable operators have an embedded customer base and 38 47 U.S.C. § 541(a)(1). 39 See, e.g.,47 U.S.C. §§ 546(c)(1)and 546(d),which delineate the exclusive grounds upon which a franchise renewal request can be denied under the formal renewal process and 47 U.S.C. § 546(e)(1), which provides that any cable operator whose renewal franchise proposal has been denied by a final decision of a franchising authority or has been adversely affected a franchising authority's failure to act in accordance with the procedural requirements of§.626 may file an appeal with a court of competent jurisdiction pursuant to § 635 of the Cable Act,47 U.S.C. § 555. 4° Report and Order at qj 89. 41 Id. 18 have constructed their system pursuant to build-out requirements voluntarily agreed to in an existing franchise agreement. Furthermore, the possibility of requiring "more of a new entrant than an incumbent cable operator"by forcing it"to build out its facilities in a shorter period of time than that originally afforded to the incumbent cable operator"42 or to"provide service to areas of lower density"43 than the incumbent cable operator will not be an issue in the context of franchise renewal because a renewal applicant is the incumbent provider. Plus, as a practical matter,an incumbent cable operator will in most instances have completely built out its system, in accordance with applicable build-out requirements in its existing franchise, before it is time to consider franchise renewal. This is generally the case in the LFAs' existing franchise areas.44 With respect to the informal franchise renewal process, the parties will negotiate and agree to specific build-out requirements in a renewal franchise,as needed. Because a cable operator knowingly and voluntarily assents to such requirements they are per se reasonable. The LFAs, for example,negotiated various build-out provisions with Comcast, or its predecessor(s) in interest, in conjunction with awarding initial franchises or renewing existing cable franchises.45 Comcast has never indicated that those provisions are unreasonable. With respect to the formal franchise renewal process, local franchising authorities can assure that their cable-related needs and interests are met, including any need for build-outs to particular areas, taking cost into consideration." In this regard, Section 624(b)(1)of the 42 Id. 43 Id. =34 The City of Renton, Washington is in the process of annexing some contiguous areas. Those areas will be built out in accordance with the terms of the current franchise. 45 The applicable provisions generally require the extension of the cable system to those areas of the franchise territory with a density of at least 35 homes per mile. The Minnesota LFAs agreed to increase the density requirement to 50 homes per mile if underground construction would be required. 46 See, e.g., 47 U.S.C. § 546(a)(1) and 47 U.S.C. § 546(c)(1)(D). 19 Communications Act,47 U.S.C. § 544(b)(1),permits local franchising authorities to establish requirements for cable-related facilities and equipment, while Section 632(a)(2),47 U.S.C. § 552(a)(2), authorizes franchising authorities to establish construction-related requirements, which would obviously include build-out provisions. In addition,the legislative history of the Cable Act makes clear that: [m]atters subject to state and local authority include, to the extent not addressed in the legislation,certain terms and conditions related to the grant of a franchise(e.g.,duration of the franchise term, delineation of the service area) [and]the construction and operation of the system(e.g.,extension of service, safety standards,timetable for construction) . . Build-out requirements are not specifically addressed in the Communications Act, other than the limitation in §621(a)(4)(A), which states that"in awarding a franchise,the franchising authority shall allow the applicant's cable system a reasonable period of time to become capable of serving all households in the franchise area. . ."48 Accordingly,those requirements can be imposed through the formal renewal process consistent with the Communications Act and applicable state and local law.49 If an incumbent cable operator believes particular build-out requirements are unreasonable, it can avail itself of the protections of the formal renewal process,as discussed above. No new rules are necessary given the existing statutory scheme. Indeed, the indiscriminate application of the FCC's "new entrant"rules concerning "unreasonable"build-out requirements would almost certainly conflict with §§ 624(b)(1), 47 See H.R. Rep. No. 98-934,98th Cong., 2nd Sess. at 59, reprinted in 1984 U.S.C.C.A.N. 4655, 4663 (1984) at 59, reprinted in 1984 U.S.C.C.A.N 4696(1984). See also Housatonic Cable Vision Co. v. Dept. of Public Utility Control,622 F. Supp. 798, 807 (D. Conn. 1985) (Sections 544(b)and 552(a)of the Communications Act"make it clear that Congress did not take away the power of the state [or its political subdivisions] as franchising authority to require that a cable operator construct a given portion of its franchise area on a specified schedule . . .Congress viewed line extension as a particularly appropriate subject for the exercise of local control."). 48 47 U.S.C. § 541(a)(4)(A). 49 See MINN.STAT. §§ 238.08, subd. 1(a) and 238.084, subd. 1(m). 20 626(a)(I)and 632(a)(2) of the Communications Act,which permit local franchising authorities to impose build-out requirement that ensure their community's cable-related needs and interests are satisfied over the term of a renewal franchise(taking cost into consideration). VI. THE FCC'S DETERMINATIONS CONCERNING FRANCHISE FEES SHOULD NOT APPLY TO INCUMBENT CABLE OPERATORS IN SEVERAL INSTANCES. If the FCC decides that it is not premature to proceed any further with the FNPRM, there are several instances where it must not apply its conclusions concerning the definition of franchise fees to incumbent cable operators at franchise renewal. A. PEG Access and Institutional Network Obligations in Agreements Outside of the Franchise Agreement Are Not Subject to the Federal Franchise Fee Institutional network and PEG access obligations are not always part of cable franchise agreement consideration. The LFAs urge the Commission to review and consider the various external obligations that cable operators have in constructing institutional networks and funding PEG access prior to applying the rules in the Report and Order to incumbent cable operators. In this'regard, cable operators have, in some instances, voluntarily agreed to construct institutional networks for LFAs as part of a settlement agreement.50 In other cases, a cable operator has agreed to certain PEG funding and institutional network commitments outside and independent of the franchising process as part of a settlement of multiple lawsuits.51 Cable operators and local franchising authorities have also entered into Memoranda of Understanding, which contain s"See City of Renton, Committee of the Whole Committee Report (Sept. 8, 1997), attached hereto as Exhibit A. 51 See City of Minneapolis,Petition 271337, Settlement Agreement and Mutual Release, dated July 20, 2006, available at http://www.ci.minneapolis.mn.us/counci 1/archi ves/proceedings/2006/20060720-proceedings- special.pdf 21 PEG access funding, to settle rate disputes.52 These agreements, which are separate and distinct from cable franchising,cannot be subject to the franchise fee determinations in the Report and Order,as they are not franchise obligations and have been voluntarily agreed to by the parties. B. Institutional Network Commitments Paid for By Local Franchising Authorities Are Not Franchise Fees. Under some cable franchises, local franchising authorities have agreed to pay the incumbent cable operator for the construction of institutional network facilities.53 In some instances, local franchising authorities have paid cable operators thousands of dollars for institutional network construction. In those circumstances where a local franchising authority has paid a cable operator the actual cost for institutional network construction,the franchise fee determinations in the Report and Order cannot apply because the cable operator was made whole upon the receipt of payment. C. In-Kind Contributions are Not Franchise Fees. In many cable franchises, local franchising authorities received institutional networks in the form of an in-kind contribution. As such,they are not taxes,fees or assessments for purposes of the Communications Act definition of franchise fees.54 Even if institutional network facilities and equipment could be considered franchise fees(which they cannot), the FCC's rate regulation rules have permitted cable operators to fully recover the costs of these networks through their 52 See, e.g., the North Suburban Communications Commission Memorandum of Understanding with Meredith Cable,dated November 3, 1994,available at http://www.nsccmn.org/pdf/franchise%20agreement/Memof Understanding94.pdf. 53 See, e.g., the South Washington County Telecommunications Commission Cable Franchise, Paragraph 7.1.12,available at http://www.swctc.org/documents/S WCTC%20Franchise%20Adopted%20103002.pdf 54 See Section 622(g)(l) of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. § 542(g)(1). 22 rates.55 Consequently,cable operators cannot deduct the cost or value of institutional networks from franchise fees now or at franchise renewal because doing so would result in an impermissible double-recovery of costs. It is also important to understand that institutional networks have been negotiated and agreed to by local franchising authorities and cable operators with no expectation that the cost or value of these networks would be deducted from franchise fees in any manner at any time, and this has been the actual practice over the years. Accordingly, the ongoing course of dealing between the parties effectively functions as a waiver of any right to deduct institutional network costs or value from franchise fees that may arguably exist as a result of the Report and Order,and the FCC's franchise fee pronouncements in the Report and Order cannot supersede this voluntary waiver. VII. THE LFAs AGREE WITH THE FCC'S TENTATIVE CONCLUSION THAT IT CANNOT PREEMPT LOCAL AUTHORITY TO ADOPT OR AGREE TO CUSTOMER SERVICE STANDARDS OR REQUIREMENTS THAT EXCEED FCC STANDARDS OR THAT ADDRESS SUBJECTS NOT COVERED BY THE FCC'S STANDARDS. In the FNPRM the FCC tentatively concludes that "we cannot preempt state or local customer service laws that exceed the Commission's standards,nor can we prevent LFAs and cable operators from agreeing to more stringent standards.s56 The LFAs agree with this position and strongly encourage the FCC not to take any preemptive action, because such action is not supported by the plain language of§ 632(d)(2)of the Communications Act, which states: 55 See In the Matter of Implementation of Sections of the Cable Television Consumer Protection and Competition Act of 1992: Rate Regulation, 11 FCC Rcd 388,440 (1995);Implementation of Sections of the Cable Television Consumer Protection and Competition Act of 1992:Rate Regulation and Adoption of a Uniform Accounting System for Provision of Regulated Cable Service, 9 FCC Rcd 4527,4615 (1994); and In the Matter of Implementation of Sections of the Cable Television Consumer Protection and Competition Act of 1992:Rate Regulation, 11 FCC Rcd 2220, 2254 (1996). 56 FNPRM at`il 143. 23 [n]othing in this Section shall be construed to preclude a franchising authority and a cable operator from agreeing to customer service requirements that exceed the standards established by the Commission . . .Nothing in this Title [IV] shall be construed to prevent the establishment and enforcement of any municipal law or regulation,or any State law,concerning customer service that imposes customer service requirements that exceed the standards set by the Commission under this section,or that addresses matters not addressed by the standards set by the Commission under this section.57 It is clear from this unambiguous text that Congress intended to broadly preserve state and local authority to protect consumers from cable operator indiscretions and unscrupulous behavior. The legislative history of the Cable Act, for instance,clearly states that"this subsection preserves local authority to establish and enforce any municipal law or regulation,or any state law,concerning customer requirements that are more stringent than,or address matters not addressed by, the standards established by the FCC . . .58 The Communications Act and the relevant legislative history therefore speak plainly and directly to the question at issue—whether state or local customer service laws or requirements that exceed FCC standards or address areas 57 47 U.S.C. § 552(d)(2). 58 H.R.Rep. No. 102-628, 102nd Cong., 2d Sess. at 106(1992). See also id. at 36,wherein the House Committee on Energy and Commerce stated"[w]hile the Committee commends the cable industry for taking steps to improves the quality of customer service, the Committee questions whether the [NCTA] guidelines are stringent enough and whether a self-policing mechanism can be successful in addressing the serious concerns of customers about the cable industry's customer service practices." The House Conference Report,which adopted Section 7 of the House amendment, stated: franchising authorities and cable operators are permitted to agree to customer service requirements, even if those requirements result in the establishment and enforcement of customer service standards more stringent than the standards established by the FCC under section 632(b). Finally, this subsection preserves local authority to establish and enforce any municipal law or regulation, or any state law, concerning customer service requirements that are more stringent than,or address matters not addressed by,the standards established by the FCC . . . H. Conf. Rep. No. 102-862, 102nd Cong., 2d Sess. at 78, reprinted in 1992 U.S.C.C.A.N 1231, 1261 (1992). 24 distinct from the matters covered by the FCC's standards can be preempted;the answer is unequivocally"no" because state and local authority is explicitly maintained.59 Thus, any preemptive action by the FCC in this area would exceed its lawful authority 60 It should be noted that the FCC need only reaffirm its existing interpretation of§632(d) to dispose of this issue properly. In Implementation of Section 8 of the Cable Television Consumer Protection and Competition Act of 1992: Consumer Protection and Customer Service, 8 FCC Rcd 2892(1993), the FCC determined that: [s]hould local governments wish to exceed the customer service standards we adopt today, they may do so through the franchising process or otherwise with the consent of the cable operator,or they may enact an appropriate law or regulation. In this latter regard, we find that . . . [Section 632(d)] of the Communications Act does not prevent the enactment and enforcement of any State or municipal law or regulation concerning consumer protection or customer service which imposes service requirements that exceed, or involve matters not addressed by,the Federal standards.6t At the same time,the FCC found that Section 632(d)affirmatively and"expressly permits local governments to adopt standards exceeding those established by the Commission either with the consent of the cable operator or by enactment of an appropriate law or regulation."62 These 59 When Congress has expressed its will "in reasonably plain terms,that language must ordinarily be regarded as conclusive." Negonsott v. Samuels,507 U.S. 99, 104(1993). 60 See, e.g.. Chevron, U.S.., Inc. v. Nat'l Resources Defense Council, Inc.,467 U.S. 837 (1984) (federal administrative agency must give effect to the unambiguously expressed intent of Congress);Southern Co. v. FCC, 293 F.3d. 1338, 1345 (11th Cir. 2002)(holding that FCC action must be"struck down"to the extent it"fails to give effect to the unambiguous intent of Congress"); and Apex Express Corp. v. The Wise Co., 190 F.3d 624 (4th Cir. 1999)(stating that an agency must give effect to the unambiguously expressed intent of Congress). C1 See Implementation of Section 8 of the Cable Television Consumer Protection and Competition Act of 1992: Consumer Protection and Customer Service, 8 FCC Rcd 2892, 2895- 96 (1993). See also id. ("Sections 632(a) and(c) [referring to what it now Section 632(d)] preserve the ability of local governments to exceed the FCC standards through the franchising or regulatory process when additional obligations are deemed necessary."). 62 Id. at 2895. 25 determinations are as valid today as they were in 1993,as the substantive text of§ 632(d)has not changed and there is still a compelling need to protect consumers from unfair and inappropriate cable operator practices—regardless of whether the operator is a new entrant or an established cable service provider. Although wireline cable service competition is developing,there will always be a need for local oversight of cable operators and the power to provide appropriate relief to consumers that have been victimized by improper cable industry conduct. Congress acknowledged this fact when it adopted what is now § 632(d)(2)at the same time it enacted changes to§ 62I(a)that were designed to encourage additional cable service providers to enter the multichannel video program distribution market. Consequently,there is no policy or statutory basis for preempting local consumer protection authority,and the FCC must refrain from doing so. VIII. CONCLUSION. For the foregoing reasons,the FCC cannot apply the Report and Order,and the rules, findings and pronouncements contained therein,to incumbent cable operators at the time of franchise renewal. In addition, given the unambiguous preservation of local authority in §632(d)(2)of the Communications Act, the FCC does not have the power to preempt local laws or requirements that exceed the FCC's minimum customer service standards or address subjects different from those addressed in the federal standards. CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 47 C.F.R. §76.6(a)(4) The undersigned signatory has read the foregoing Initial Comments of the Burnsville/Eagan Telecommunications Commission; the City of Minneapolis,Minnesota; the North Metro Telecommunications Commission;the North Suburban Communications Commission; the City of Renton, Washington; and the South Washington County 26 Telecommunications Commission in Response to the Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking and to the best of my knowledge,information and belief formed after reasonable inquiry, they are well grounded in fact and are warranted by existing law or a good faith argument for the extension, modification or reversal of existing law; and are not interposed for any improper purpose. Respectfully submitted, • Stephe J.Gu Michae R. BradIey BRADLEY&GUZZETTA, LLC 444 Cedar Street Suite 950 St. Paul,Minnesota 55101 (651)379-0900 guzzetta@bradleyguzzetta.com Attorneys for the LFAs April 19,2007 27 EXHIBIT A APPRC_',' i B'i COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE CITY COUNCIL COMMITTEE REPORT • Date �--' SEPTEM13ER s, 1997 TCI '1 FRANCHISE EXTENSION • In August, 1993, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 4412 which granted to TCE Cablevision a 15-year franchise to operate a cable communication system within the City of Renton. The franchise imposed numerous requirements, one of which was the completion of an upgraded fiber optic cable system throughout the City which would expand the number of available television channels to fifty-four(54)by September 13, 1997. • TCt has requested a 24-month extension to September 13, 1999,to Complete the fiber optic rebuild and meet other requirements stipulated in Ordinance No. 4412. In lieu of paying penalties, TCI has agreed to provide the following in-kind considerations to the City of Renton in exchange ' for extension of the franchise. l. Within 24 months,TCd shall provide a separate City:owned fiber optic cable system connecting eighteen City facilities to a hub located at the new Municipal Building. 2. TGI shall remove and reinstall the video equipment and cameras from the old Municipal Building to the Council Chambers in the new location, and evaluate and enhance the existing _ cablecast system to accommodate current and future needs. 3. ICI shall extend cable service tci the new/Municipal Building,both libraries, the Community Center and the new Fire Training Center. • 4. ICI shall provide an annual payment to the City to defray the exist of video equipment maintenance. • Recommended nn• The Committee of the Whole recommends approval of the proposed agreement with TO. • Cablevision outlined above,and recommends that the Mayor and City Clerk be authorized to execute the agreement to extend the franchise requirements. • . / 447 .:ouncil Pre dent Kathy Keolker-Wheeler �� CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that I have caused a copy of the foregoing Initial Comments of the Burnsville/Eagan Telecommunications Commission; the City of Minneapolis, Minnesota; the North Metro Telecommunications Commission; the North Suburban Communications Commission;the City of Renton, Washington;and the South Washington County Telecommunications Commission in Response to the Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking to be mailed this 19th day of April,2007, via overnight or first- class mail,postage prepaid, as indicated below,to the following persons: Ms.Marlene H.Dortch* Secretary Office of the Secretary Federal Communications Commission 9300 East Hampton Drive Capitol Heights, Maryland 20743 Best Copy and Printing, Inc.** Portals II 445 12th Street,S.W. Room CY-B402 Washington,DC 20554 Ms.Holly Saurer** Federal Communications Commission Media Bureau, Policy Division 445 12`t`Street, S.W. Washington,DC 20554 Mr. Brendan Murray** Federal Communications Commission Media Bureau,Policy Division 445 12th Street,S.W. Washington,DC 20554 * Via overnight mail ** Via first class mail Josep eger St.Paul, Minnesota April 19, 2007 Bradley& Guzzetta, LLC 00 444 Cedar Street Suite 950 Saint Paul, MN 55101. P/(651)379-0900 F/(651)379-0999 O Invoice submitted to: City of Renton ATTN: Ms. Bonnie Walton, City Clerk/Cable Manager 1055 S. Grady Way Renton WA 98055 April 25, 2007 In reference to:Cable Franchise Renewal Invoice#13986 Professional Services Date Init. Description Hrs/Rate Amount 3/16/2007 JK Conducted research on whether the State of Washington has a 1.00 125.00 "level-playing field"statute for a memorandum. Also performed 125.00/hr research on certain sections of the cable television statute and how they might be affected by the FCC Order. 3/19/2007 MRB Receive/review e-mail re questions on rate settlements. Respond to 0.50 97.50 questions. 195.00/hr 3/20/2007 MRB Receive/review e-mail correspondence from client re Rate Orders and 0.50 97.50 Puget Sound Access. 195.00/hr 4/3/2007 SJG <SPLIT>Draft questionnaire to collect data for the FCC's Further Notice 0.75 146.25 of Proposed Rulemaking concerning the applicability of its new rules to 195.00/hr incumbent cable operators. SJG <SPLIT>Research issues for FCC comments; refine outline for 1.00 195.00 comments. 195.00/hr 4/4/2007 SJG <SPLIT>Prepare comments in the FCC's Further Notice of Proposed 0.50 97.50 Rulemaking. 195.00/hr 4/5/2007 SJG <SPLIT>Review materials and prepare comments for the FCC's 0.50 97.50 Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking. 195.00/hr 4/6/2007 BFL Researched state and federal case law related to federal administrative 0.83 145.83 agency interference with local government contracting and cable and 175.00/hr telecommunications act legislative history. SJG <SPLIT>Review research materials and prepare comments for the 1.00 195.00 FCC's Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking. 195.00/hr 4/9/2007 BFL Research legislative history and communications case law in 1.08 189.58 preparation for comment drafting. 175.00/hr SJG <SPLIT>Research and draft comments for the FCC's Further Notice of 1.00 195.00 Proposed Rulemaking. 195.00/hr 4/10/2007 BFL Researched and compiled legislative history materials; researched 1.08 189.58 case law dealing with takings of municipal property and federal 175.00/hr administrative agency interference with local government contracts. SJG <SPLIT>Research and draft comments for FCC's Further Notice of 1.25 243.75 Proposed Rulemaking. 195.00/hr 4/11/2007 SJG <SPLIT>Draft comments for the FCC's Further Notice of Proposed 0.75 146.25 Rulemaking; discuss same with M. Bradley. 195.00/hr City of Renton Page 2 Date Init. Description Hrs/Rate Amount 4/12/2007 SJG <SPLIT>Draft comments for the FCC's Further Notice of Proposed 0.50 97.50 Rulemaking. 195.00/hr MRB <SPLIT> Review FCC order and cable act and case law. Draft FCC 0.95 185.25 Comments on Franchise fees and PEG and I-Net Support. 195.00/hr 4/13/2007 SJG <SPLIT>Draft comments for the FCC's Further Notice of Proposed 1.00 195.00 Rulemaking. 195.00/hr MRB <SPLIT> Draft and revise FCC Comments on Franchise fees and PEG 0.90 175.50 and I-Net Support. 195.00/hr 4/14/2007 MRB <SPLIT> Review and revise all sections of FCC Comments on FNPRM. 0.65 126.75 195.00/hr 4/16/2007 MRB <SPLIT> Final revisions to FCC Comments on FNPRM-forward to 0.80 156.00 clients for review and comment. 195.00/hr 4/17/2007 SJG <SPLIT>Draft and revise comments for the FCC's Further Notice of 1.00 195.00 Proposed Rulemaking. 195.00/hr MRB <SPLIT> Receive feedback from clients and revise FCC Comments. 0.30 58.50 195.00/hr MRB <SPLIT> Receive additional feedback from clients and revise FCC 0.20 39.00 Comments. 195.00/hr 4/18/2007 BFL Citechecked and edited FCC comments; prepared certificate or service 0.42 72.92 and cover letter. 175.00/hr SJG <SPLIT>Review and revise comments for the FCC's Further Notice of 0.25 48.75 Proposed Rulemaking. 195.00/hr MRB <SPLIT> Review final Comments and filing documents for FCC Local 0.25 48.75 Franchising FNPRM and approve filing. 195.00/hr 4/19/2007 SJG <SPLIT>Final review and revision of comments for the FCC's Further 0.50 97.50 Notice of Proposed Rulemaking; prepare and compile filing. 195.00/hr 4/23/2007 SJG <SPLIT>Review comments filed by Verizon,AT&T Inc. and the NCTA 0.50 97.50 in the FCC's Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking. 195.00/hr 4/24/2007 SJG <SPLIT>Research reply comments and draft notes. 0.50 97.50 195.00/hr For professional services rendered 20.46 $3,852.66 Additional Charges : Date Description 3/26/2007 Consulting Service- Front Range Consulting, Inc. 3/26/07 Invoice 303 1,800.00 Total costs $1,800.00 Interest on overdue balance $261.14 WA B&O Tax on Costs $27.00 Total amount of this bill $5,940.80 Previous balance $21,467.89 City of Renton Page 3 Amount Balance due $27,408.69 We appreciate your business! Bradley&Guzzetta, LLC 444 Cedar Street Suite 950 Saint Paul, MN 55101 P/(651)379-0900 F/(651)379-0999 Invoice submitted to: City of Renton ATTN: Ms. Bonnie Walton, City Clerk/Cable Manager 1055 S. Grady Way Renton WA 98055 March 19, 2007 In reference to:Cable Franchise Renewal Invoice#13960 Professional Services Date Init. Description Hrs/Rate Amount 1/30/2007 SJG Review Front Range Consulting/Ashpaugh &Sculco Final Report on 5.50 1,072.50 Comcast's 2006 FCC Form 1205; review Comcast settlement letter; 195.00/hr telephone call to P. Feinberg, counsel for Comcast, concerning the terms of the settlement; draft and revise Form 1205 settlement rate order; telephone conferences with D. Treich concerning same. 1/31/2007 BFL Drafted chart reflecting changes in rates. 1.25 218.75 175.00/hr SJG Review January 23,2007, proposed settlement letter from Comcast; 5.75 1,121.25 review Front Range Consulting Form 1240 Report; review Front Range 195.00/hr Consulting settlement memorandum; draft and revise rate order addressing Forms 1240 and 1205. MRB Draft cable franchise renewal topical summaries. 6.75 1,316.25 195.00/hr 2/1/2007 SJG Receive/review draft of CBG Communications telephone survey report; 1.00 195.00 review and revise summary memorandum. 195.00/hr MRB Receive/review cable survey report. Draft summary. 2.00 390.00 195.00/hr 2/2/2007 MRB Draft powerpoint presentation for council meeting -eview all cable 4.00 780.00 renewal issues. 195.00/hr 2/5/2007 MRB Prepare for and attend meetings throughout the day on cable franchise 8.00 1,560.00 renewal issues. Present presentation before city council. 195.00/hr 2/6/2007 BFL Reviwed House Bill 1983 and prepared bullet point bill summary. 3.75 656.25 175.00/hr MRB Prepare for and attend meetings on Government Access facilities and 6.00 1,170.00 government access planning. 195.00/hr 2/9/2007 SJG Draft settlement agreements embodying the agreed upon settlement 2.50 487.50 terms for FCC Forms 1235 and 1240; discuss agreement with D. 195.00/hr Treich. 2/12/2007 SJG Draft public notices necessary for adoption of rate orders concerning 2.00 390.00 FCC Forms 1235, 1240 and 1205; revise Forms 1240 and 1235 195.00/hr settlement agreement and e-mail to P. Feinberg, counsel for Comcast. 2/13/2007 BFL Reviewed and prepared analysis and comparison of SB 6003 with HB 1.75 306.25 1983 concerning state authorization of cable and video providers. 175.00/hr City of Renton Page 2 Date Init. Description Hrs/Rate Amount 2/15/2007 SJG Draft e-mails to and respond to e-mails from P. Feinberg, counsel for 2.00 390.00 Comcast; revise settlement agreement based on e-mail discussions; 195.00/hr revise public notices. 2/26/2007 SJG Receive/review revised version of the FCC Form 1205 rate order from 1.00 195.00 P. Feinberg, counsel for Comcast; send e-mail to P. Feinberg 195.00/hr concerning same. 2/27/2007 SJG Draft E-mail correspondence transmitting final FCC Form 1240 and 1.50 292.50 Form 1205 rate orders to the City;final review of documents; discuss 195.00/hr documents with M. Bradley. 2/28/2007 MRB Final review of rate orders. Forward to Ms. Wine. 1.00 195.00 195.00/hr 3/5/2007 SJG <SPLIT>Review FCC Order and Further Notice of Proposed 1.00 195.00 Rulemaking; draft notes concerning same and discuss with M. Bradley. 195.00/hr 3/11/2007 MRB Prepare for meetings re cable franchise renewal- rate issues, I-Net, 3.50 682.50 compliance, survey, PEG planning,franchise fee review, survey, 195.00/hr schedule, presentation before council. 3/14/2007 MRB Draft reminder on Rate orders. Receive response affirming action 0.25 48.75 before April 1. 195.00/hr For professional services rendered 60.50 $11,662.50 Additional Charges : Date Description 2/8/2007 Airline ticket to Seattle 189.80 Car Rental 141.51 Hotel 310.76 Meals 67.77 3/11/2007 Consulting Service- CBG Communications - Inv. #62-0107 for$4,095.28 4,095.28 Consulting Service- CBG Communications - Inv.#62-0207 for$4,699.89. 4,699.89 Total costs $9,505.01 Interest on overdue balance $157.80 WA B&O Tax on Costs $142.58 Total amount of this bill $21,467.89 Previous balance $58,154.33 2/2/2007 Payment-thank you ($14,815.63) 2/14/2007 Payment-thank you. (Check No. 256677) ($28,794.39) 3/19/2007 Payment-thank you ($13,912.00) 3/19/2007 Credit- Excise B&O Tax on B&G fees. ($202.12) 3/19/2007 Credit- Interest Credit. ($430.19) City of Renton Page 3 Amount Total payments and adjustments ($58,154.33) Balance due $21,467.89 We appreciate your business! r' • From: Bonnie Walton To: Marty Wine Date: 3/19/2007 1:36:11 PM Subject: Fwd: Bradley& Guzzetta Invoice For your review and approval to pay. Bonnie, x6502 >>> "Michael Bradley" <bradley@bradleyguzzetta.com> 3/19/2007 1:50 PM >>> For your convenience, your bill is attached to this message. If you would like our invoices sent to a different e-mail address, please inform us of the appropriate e-mail address. Thank you for your business - and we look forward to continuing to serve you. Bradley&Guzzetta, LLC Note: The attached bill is in PDF file format.Adobe Acrobat Reader is necessary to view this file. If you do not have Adobe Acrobat Reader installed, please download the free reader from the Adobe website (http://www.adobe.com/products/acrobat/readstep2.html)and install it on your computer. From: Bonnie Walton To: Marty Wine Date: 4/11/2007 9:02:22 AM Subject: Fwd: FCC Franchising Ruling Update Are you receiving these announcements directly?_If so, I'll not forward. Also,thave:you;got°a�chance to review B&GsSlast bl -Let me know when it is okayed for.payment.bw >>> "John W Pestle" <jwpestle@varnumlaw.com>4/11/2007 8:57 AM >>> This is a very brief summary of the recent FCC order on cable franchising, how it will likely be claimed to affect cable franchises (old and new) in all states, and the two or three things which municipalities and municipal attorneys can do now to prevent this from happening. Unless the order is overturned, it will likely be claimed to take away some of the benefits which municipalities in Texas and other states got under recent legislation shifting cable franchising from the local to the state level. The FCC order (http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-06-180A1.doc) attempting to revise the cable franchising process so as to aid phone company entry into the cable business was issued on March 5 and is scheduled to take effect on April 20, unless it is stayed. In general, the Order represents a significant and improper attempt by the FCC to take over and nationalize much of the cable franchising process,with little concern for municipal interests, and has a negative and incorrect view of municipalities (for example, that they issue exclusive cable franchises). Effects of the order: Contrary to statements by the FCC, its order will likely be claimed to affect cable franchises (current ones and new ones) in all states. The FCC says the order will affect competitive (second)franchises in those states where local units of government retain the authority and discretion to issue such franchises and determine their terms (i.e., will not apply where the state issues the franchise or dictates its terms). Municipalities in such states face a 90 or 180 day deadline to act on franchise applications from the phone company or other new cable companies, along with new restrictions on what a franchise can contain. However, because the order purports to interpret many substantive sections of the Federal Cable Act, such as those on franchise fees and PEG channels, it will likely be claimed by cable companies to affect current and new franchises in ALL states, such as by:Eliminating free service to municipal and school buildings Eliminating other in-kind services Reducing fees to support PEG channels, or restricting how they are used In other words, the FCC has given the cable industry ammunition to argue that Federal law(1)takes away benefits obtained by municipalities in those states where franchising has recently been shifted to the state level, as well as (2)affecting current cable 9 franchises, such as due to Federal preemption. Help get order stayed/overturned: The national municipal organizations (NLC, Conference of Mayors, et al) are appealing the FCC order. Individual municipalities can provide significant help to the national organizations in getting the order stayed while on appeal by providing the factual information on irreparable harm which the national organizations need to get the stay. Fact gathering for the stay is being coordinated by NATOA*Go to the NATOA website and complete the irreparable harm form. http://www.natoa.orq/index.html?url=/forms/form.html?id=100 is the form, and http://www.natoa.orq/public/articles/IrreparableHarm-FactorstoConsider.pdf is memo to help with the form. Please do this as soon as you can, as the motion for the stay will be filed very soon. Municipal amicus briefs are being coordinated by the Local Government Law Roundtable to avoid repetition, aid impact. Contact Lani Williams, Lani c(r�lgl-roundtable.com. A general amicus brief is being written by the Roundtable, which any municipality may join for$750. If your municipality may be filing its own amicus brief opposing the FCC Order, contact Lani to assist coordination and share ideas. http://www.natoa.orq/public/articles/LGL Amicus Plan.pdf has a general memo on municipal amicus brief plans. File comments against rule applying to current franchises The FCC has started a rulemaking to expressly make the order and its negative provisions apply to current cable franchises when they ar e renewed. This is harmful, and does not make sense, as the basis for the FCC rulemaking was to promote competition, by aiding new cable companies getting into the business, not to address the incumbent cable company's franchise. NATOA has prepared a template and instructions for municipalities to use to file comments opposing the rulemaking. Go to the NATOA website, http://www.natoa.orq/, and scroll partway down the page to the section about"FCC Seeks Comments on Franchising Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (FNPRM) MB Docket No. 05-311"for the template and instructions. Conclusion Municipalities can help stay and overturn this order, as well as oppose the FCC rulemaking. If you have questions, let us know. We provided the template for municipal comments that was used or adapted by NATOA and NLC for hundreds of municipalities nationwide to file comments in 2005 and 2006 opposing the original order, and on March 28 of 2007 conducted an IMLA teleconference on the order and its impacts. John Pestle Varnum, Riddering, Schmidt& Howlett LLP ADDRESS FOR REGULAR MAIL: Bridgewater Place PO Box 352 Grand Rapids, Michigan 49501-0352 ADDRESS FOR OVERNIGHT DELIVERY, UPS: Bridgewater Place 333 Bridge Street, N.W. Grand Rapids, Michigan 49504 phone 616-336-6000 ex 6725 direct 616-336-6725 fax 616-336-7000 email jwpestle(cr�varnumlaw.com web site www.varnumlaw.com From: Bonnie Walton To: Marty Wine Date: 4/25/2007 12:06:51 PM Subject: Fwd: Bradley&Guzzetta Invoice Attached is another franchise renewal invoice for your approval. Let me know if and when it is okay to pay. I don't think I have heard backfrom m you on the last one yet, either. Bonnie, x6502 • From: Marty Wine To: Walton, Bonnie Date: 4/25/2007 12:27:02 PM Subject: Re: Fwd: Bradley& Guzzetta Invoice ,Both:are:fine_topay, I thought I responded to the last one. For both invoices I would like to track these when we receive them relative to the project budget so we know if the burn rate on the project is greater than planned...or at least where we are relative to the contract authorization and aren't in danger of going over without seeing that far in advance. Is there a way to do that in our financial systems? I also expect that no more charges for response to FCC rulemaking will show up in future bills as they have billed us about as much as they planned for the FCC response. Regarding THAT issue, while I did authorize Bradley& Guzzetta to respond on our behalf, I did not expect that the charges for it would be combined into future cable franchise renewal invoice. Thanks Bonnie >>> Bonnie Walton 4/25/2007 12:06 PM >>> Attached is another franchise renewal invoice for your approval. Let me know if and when it is okay to pay. I don't think I have heard back from you on the last one yet, either. Bonnie, x6502 From: "Pepper, Robbin"<Robbin_Pepper@cable.comcast.com> To: <MWine@ci.renton.wa.us>, <Bwalton@ci.renton.wa.us> Date: 8/22/2007 10:30:50 AM Subject: Comcast response to Renton WA Franchise Fee Audit Final Report VIA E-MAIL Ms. Marty Wine City of Renton 1055 S. Grady Way Renton, WA 98055 MWine@ci.renton.wa.us Michael R. Bradley, Esq Bradley&Guzzetta, LLC 444 Cedar Street, Suite 950 St. Paul, MN 55101 bradley@bradleyguzzetta.com And Richard D. Treich Front Range Consulting, Inc. 4152 Bell Mountain Drive Castle Rock, CO 80104 dick@frc-inc.com RE: City of Renton, WA- Response to FRC Franchise Fees Audit Final report-from Comcast Cable Communication, LLC. On behalf of Comcast Cable Communications, LLC, I am hereby transmitting the Response to FRC Franchise Fee Audit Final Report. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at(720) 267-2238. Best regards, Robbin Pepper Robbin Pepper Director, Rates & Regulatory West Division Comcast Cable Communications, LLC 720.267.2238 Direct Line 720.267.2715 Facsimile CC: "Dick Treich"<dick@frc-inc.com>, "Michael Bradley"<bradley@bradleyguzzetta.com>, "Davis, Terry J"<Terry_Davis@cable.comcast.com>, "Turpen, Janet" <Janet_Turpen@cable.comcast.com> Comcast® Comcast Cable 183 Inverness Drive West Englewood„CO 80112 Sent via Electronic Submission August 22,2007 Ms. Marty Wine City of Renton 1055 S. Grady Way Renton, WA 98055 Subject: Comcast of Washington,IV Franchise Fee Analysis Response to Front Range Consulting,Inc.'s Final Report to the City dated June 1,2007 Dear Ms. Wine: On behalf of Terry Davis,Director, Government Affairs for Comcast of Washington,IV ("Comcast"or"Company"),I am responding to the recently received Report("Report")dated June 1,2007 prepared by Front Range Consulting, Inc. ("Consultant"or"FRC")who was engaged by the City of Renton,Washington(the"City")to perform an analysis of the franchise fees paid by Comcast from January 1,2004 through December 31,2005 (the"Review Period"). Before responding to the audit findings with regard to the incorporation of annexed areas, commissions on advertising revenues, and the pass through of non-subscriber franchise fees, as • well as other matters, Comcast wants to thank the City for the opportunity to respond and to assure you that we are committed to abiding by the terms of our Franchise Agreement with the City and to conducting our operations in accordance with accepted business principles and standards as well as all governing laws and regulations as we have throughout our forty years as a cable operator. Nevertheless,we are in fundamental disagreement with the Consultant's Report as it pertains to annexation support,withholding documents, advertising sales commissions, launch fees,marketing coops and recovery of non-subscriber franchise fees from cable subscribers. We are particularly concerned because we believe that the Report misrepresents the record in several material respects as we will explain. Annexation Support The Consultant's final report regarding the franchise fees paid by Comcast of Washington IV,Inc.,concluded that Comcast may not have properly identified all the annexations that have occurred since 2000. Based on an asserted lack of information provided by Comcast,the Consultant recommends the City consider embarking on a full and complete review of the annexation areas to assure proper calculations of franchise fees.The Consultant's conclusion on the annexation support issue is unjustified and fails to provide the City with a clear understanding of our original response to the matter. For example,FRC (Question 14)asked to • Ms.Marty Wine City of Renton August 22,2007 "Please affirmatively support that Comcast has fully reflected each annexation of the County by the City of Renton since 2000." In response, Comcast stated: Comcast affirms that all addresses for the annexation ordinances . . . have been coded from unincorporated King County to the City of Renton,with exception of Merlino- Empire annexation. Comcast has reviewed our records and cannot find evidence of notification on the Merlino-Empire Annexation,Ordinance No. 4891. However,through the review process we have identified the addresses under the annexation and are working towards correcting the coding on the subject accounts. The time period reviewed is from January 1,2000 to present. Contrary to the Consultant's assertion,we affirmed that all annexations,with exception of the Merlino-Empire annexation, were coded correctly under the City of Renton agent code. In fact,we reviewed our records and the City's records side by side and are certain that the only discrepancy is the Merlino-Empire annexation. Comcast is therefore collecting and paying the City the appropriate franchise fees from those subscribers within the annexation areas. As for the Merlino-Empire annexation, Comcast readily acknowledged that this annexation was coded incorrectly,and started the correction of the coding issue for the addresses associated with Ordinance No. 4891. As an update on our progress,the agent transfer for the Merlino-Empire annexation was completed in June 2007. With the completion of the agent transfer, Comcast is now proceeding with calculating the under-payment and associated interest from the date of annexation to the agent transfer date. We will be paying the City the appropriate fees,taxes, and interest very soon to close this matter. We seriously question the Consultant's conclusion that the City should embark on a review of each annexed area based on this one omission. If the City would like any further demonstration that Comcast is including the revenues from other annexed areas in the Gross Revenue pool, we would be happy to provide such a report. But we believe that the Consultant's review,which reflected only one instance in which Comcast has failed to include revenues from an annexed area in the Gross Revenues pool,reflects that all of the required revenues have been included. Commissions on Advertising As noted, we are particularly troubled about the Consultant's assertion that we have not provided all of the information that was requested and all of the information that we were required to provide pursuant to the Settlement Agreement. We in fact did provide what the Consultant requested. Of material concern to us is the picture that the Consultant is attempting to paint to the City of non-cooperation and a refusal to provide information. Nothing could be further from the truth. Comcast initially had some concerns in providing one aspect of the information that was requested. But Comcast faithfully adhered to the Settlement Agreement with the Consultant that provided information with regards to advertising sales handled by Comcast's affiliate National Cable Communications("NCC").1 There were several conversations between Comcast's accounting department and the Consultant to ensure that the Consultant fully understood the documentation that was being provided. Apparently,the NCC is a national rep firm jointly owned by Comcast,Time Warner,and Cox Communications. 2 Ms.Marty Wine City of Renton August 22,2007 Consultant expressed disappointment that the NCC affiliate advertising commission and representative fees did not meet an arbitrary percentage for affiliated company revenues. But this does not provide the Consultant with the right to claim that the information was not what was requested nor provide a basis to claim that Comcast was withholding data and hiding the revenue streams it receives from advertisers in order to avoid paying franchise fees on the gross amount of advertising sales. Comcast's West Division accounting group has complied with the Settlement Agreement and supplied the national,regional and local advertising sales revenues in a very transparent manner. The System-earned affiliated advertising revenue the Consultant was hoping to see had already been included in the revenues on which the franchised fee was based. Moreover,the Consultant's characterization and description of affiliated and non- affiliated advertising revenues and how they have been handled is just plain wrong. As explained below,Comcast does not pay an advertising commission for local or regional advertisements to an advertising affiliate. The System is,however,represented by Comcast's advertising arm, Spotlight,which negotiates advertising buys with unaffiliated third party advertising agencies who represent the advertisers. But as a subsidiary of Comcast, Spotlight does not receive any sales commissions. Sales commissions are paid by the advertiser to its own agency. As the Consultant acknowledges, Comcast is not responsible for paying franchise fees on these advertising commissions. The System is,however represented by its affiliated advertising rep firm NCC,which handles the placement of national ads on the system. It is • possible that the Consultant may be confusing the functions,which NCC performs with the functions performed by Spotlight for the System. One sentence in the Consultant's report is key to explaining why Comcast does not owe any advertising sales commissions that are attributable to Spotlight. The Report states: "The issue is not with commissions paid to non-affiliated third parties but rather the advertising commissions that Comcast pays to its affiliated companies." Consultant Report at page 6. The point here is that Spotlight does not receive an advertising sales commission for representing the cable system with third party agencies and there are no "hidden" advertising sales commissions that Comcast should be reporting but is not. Frankly,it is a bit difficult to discern what the Consultant is claiming. We believe that the best approach is to explain to the City how advertising commissions work,who pays them,and what Comcast has already remitted to the City Advertising sales commissions are paid directly by advertisers to their advertising sales agencies. They are earned and received by the advertising sales agencies under their contracts with their advertiser-customers, and neither Comcast nor its advertising affiliate Spotlight are party to these agreements or derive any revenue from them. To better understand Comcast's position, it would be helpful to explain the legal and business relationships that advertising agencies,their advertiser clients,and cable systems, as well as other media outlets such as TV, radio, and newspapers,have with one another. In practice, an advertiser that wishes to advertise on cable systems and on other media as radio,television and newspapers commonly hires a third party advertising agency and contracts directly with the advertising agency for advertising time. The agreement between the advertiser and the advertising agency covers both the price for the advertising time and the agency's 3 Ms.Marty Wine City of Renton August 22,2007 commission for securing and arranging for the advertising with the media outlet. The advertising agency,in turn,contracts with the media outlet such as a cable operator,television or radio station and purchases the time on behalf of its advertiser client. When the Consultant states in his report at page 6 that"[t]he issue is not with commissions paid to non-affiliated third parties but rather the advertising commissions that Comcast pays to its affiliated companies,"the Consultant is referring to third party agencies who represent the advertisers and not the cable operator. But even here,the Consultant is not accurate because the advertising sales commissions are paid to the advertising agency not by the cable operator but by the advertiser. In this arrangement,the operator negotiates the terms of the advertising sale with the advertising agency. Through the negotiations with the advertising agency,the cable operator determines the price for which it will provide the advertising time,which does not include the advertising sales commission paid to the agency by its advertiser client. Under these agreements and business relationships advertising agencies are agents of their advertiser clients and are not agents of the cable operator. The operator only receives from the advertising agency the money that the operator charges to run the advertising—the operator does not receive the commission for the agent's placement of the advertisement. The commission is received by the advertising agency directly from its advertiser client. In keeping with this industry and business relationship, cable operators,as well as other media companies including newspapers,TV and radio stations, issue billing statements to the advertising agencies that require them as an accommodation. Advertising agencies developed this invoicing process as a convenience to their advertiser clients and themselves so the advertisers would not have to receive two invoices and make two remittances—one to the cable operator and a second to the advertising agency—each for the purchase of the same advertising time. And,because it simplifies the process for advertising clients and their agencies,it became the norm for clients purchasing media through an advertising agency,regardless of the media outlet. The cable operator or other media outlet therefore bills the advertising sales agency for the purchase of time and as a convenience to the agency includes the advertising sales commission charge on the invoice. The operator's charge for the time and the advertising sales commission paid by the advertiser constitute a gross charge,and the cable operator's charge for the advertising time is reflected as a net charge on the bill. (When the Consultant contends at page 5 of its report that"Comcast has admitted that the advertising sales amounts assigned to the City are net of advertising sales commission,"this is what the Consultant is referring to. But as explained above,these advertising sales were based on advertisements purchased by third party advertising agencies on behalf of their advertising clients where the advertiser paid the advertising sales commission. This is precisely the situation in which the Consultant has acknowledged that franchise fees are not due when a commission is paid to a non-affiliated third ply) In practice,the operator sends the agency an invoice that is in turn forwarded to the advertiser that reflects the following: (i)the net amount due to the system, and(ii)the gross amount due(i.e.,the amount due the System plus the agency commission that the advertiser must pay to its agency pursuant to their agreement). The advertiser then remits the entire amount(the gross amount on the bill)to the advertising agency, and the agency deducts its agency commission and forwards the remainder of the payment to Comcast. As part of its agreement 4 Ms.Marty Wine City of Renton August 22,2007 with the operator,the agency(as agent for the advertiser) guarantees payment of the net amount to the system if the advertiser fails to pay the invoice.2 But the operator has no responsibility for the payment of the advertising's agency sales commissions. The advertiser is responsible for that fee. Another way to view the arrangement is that the advertising commission represents a discount given by the operator to outside agencies, and the charge by the agency to the advertiser consists of the difference between the net price for the advertising time charged by the operator and the gross amount that the advertiser pays to the agency before agency deducts its standard commission and remits to the cable operator its fee for the advertisement. Viewed either way, the operator only receives the money that it charged the agency for the advertising time. In this case, Comcast's advertising arm, Spotlight, contracts with the advertisers' third party advertising sales agencies for the advertising time. Contrary to the Consultant's assertions, Spotlight itself does not charge nor retain a commission in connection with its representation of the cable system,and therefore there can be no franchise fees owed on money that was never received or collected by Spotlight.3 Advertising sales commissions,which are paid to third parties by their own advertisers, are not subject to franchise fees because these monies are never received by the cable system. • This point seems to be acknowledged by the Consultant. There is good reason for the Consultant to acknowledge that commissions paid by advertisers to their advertising agencies are not subject to franchise fees. This conclusion is not only consistent with the legal and business relations among the media outlet,the advertising agency, and the advertiser,but it is also consistent with and required under Generally Accepted Accounting Principles ("GAAP"). As a publicly traded company, Comcast must comply with GAAP for purposes of identifying and recording all financial transactions. GAAP is a technical accounting term that encompasses the conventions, rules,and procedures necessary to define accepted accounting practice at a particular time. It includes not only broad guidelines of general application,but also detailed practices and procedures. These conventions,rules, and procedures provide a standard by which to measure financial presentations. Comcast's accounting practices are entirely consistent with and in accordance with GAAP as they are formulated by the well-established guidelines of the Financial Accounting Standards Board(FASB) and its Emerging Issues Task Force(EITF), as well as the SEC. These standard-setting bodies develop the accounting rules with the primary intent of reporting transactions and events in accordance with their substance. Additionally, these bodies are charged with fostering a framework that maintains consistency in financial 2 This procedure is not unique to Comcast or to cable operators. Under standard advertising industry practice, Comcast bills to the advertising-customer include a line item for 15%-the standard commission that advertising agencies charge to their customers. The advertising agency retains its 15%and remits the remaining portion to Comcast. 3 The Report states:"If Comcast uses an affiliated company to sell its advertising avails and can assign fees and commissions to those sales,Comcast is essentially hiding the revenue streams it receives from the advertisers to avoid paying franchise fees on the gross amount of advertising sales." As noted,Spotlight,as a subsidiary of Comcast Corporation,handles"in-house"all the sales of advertising time on the Systems and the arrangements that are made with third party adverting agencies,or where an advertiser is not represented by an advertising agency, directly with the advertiser itself. If Spotlight did not exist,it would be cable system personnel handling the advertising and contracting with the advertisers'advertising agencies. The Systems do not pay and Spotlight does not receive advertising sales commissions any more than the Systems would pay an advertising sales commission to themselves for having contracted to sell advertising time on the Systems. 5 Ms.Marty Wine City of Renton • August 22,2007 reporting—without that framework,there would be no uniform standard for judging the presentation of financial statements. GAAP identifies four factors,among others,to determine whether revenue shall be reported as"net"or"gross"of agency commissions. SEC Staff Accounting Bulletins No. 101, 104,see also EITF Issue No. 99-10. Here, all four factors direct that Comcast report these commissions as"net"of revenue. First,the arrangement between Spotlight and the advertising agency sets the price paid by the agency to Spotlight. The amount of agency compensation earned by the advertising agency is determined by the agency and the individual advertisers (with whom Spotlight has no relationship). The fact that Spotlight's invoice reflects both a gross and net price for advertising time has no bearing since Spotlight is not a party to the amount of agency compensation earned. As explained above, Spotlight only earns as "revenue"the net amount on the invoice. Second, Spotlight has no credit risk for the amount of agency compensation negotiated between the agency and the advertisers. Delinquency by an advertiser is the responsibility of the agency. Third, Spotlight's sole contractual relationship is with the advertising agency and not the advertiser. And finally,the advertising agencies only report as revenue the agency commissions. Of the total transaction,thereof, a portion is treated as revenue by the advertising agency and the remainder is treated as revenue to Spotlight. Any other methodology would result in a double-counting of revenue for financial reporting purposes. The impact of recording revenue on a gross basis on each contract with an advertising agency would be to overstate revenues for amounts not earned which would be misleading and thus not allowed under GAAP. In fact,including advertising commissions and other contra-expenses as revenues would overstate the Systems' revenues in violation of federal and state law. So from a practical and legal perspective,then,the System does not receive and has no right to receive the third party advertising agency commissions, and this is acknowledged by the Consultant. As for third party advertising revenue, Comcast advertising account executives will sometimes sell advertising to clients for ads that are inserted on other multiple system operator's ("MSO's") cable headends and viewed by the other MSG's cable subscribers. This money is not included in Gross Revenue because the advertisements do not appear on the Renton System. Another point of confusion appears to be over the monies received by NCC. As noted, NCC is jointly owned by Comcast,Time Warner, and Cox Communications. NCC through the third party advertising agencies operates to match advertisers that want to place national spot advertisements with cable systems. Unlike Spotlight,NCC as a rep firm charges a commission as do advertising agencies. The flow of funds is the same as the situation in which the advertising agency collects its fee and the media fee from its advertiser-clients. NCC receives a bill from the System(through Spotlight),NCC sends that bill to the advertising agency, and in turn the agency bills its client. The advertising agency receives payment,deducts its fee,remits the remainder to NCC, which,in turn, deducts its rep fee, and remits the remainder to Spotlight. As noted, Comcast provided the Consultant with records reflecting the sale of advertising time by NCC and which were the subject of the Settlement Agreement. If the Consultant still has questions about the records that were provided that reflect these transactions, Comcast would,of course,be ready to clarify or explain this material to the Consultant. 6 Ms.Marty Wine City of Renton August 22,2007 Launch Fees/Marketing Co-op Comcast also disputes the Report's suggestion that Launch Fees and Marketing Cooperative payments received by Comcast should be included in the Gross Revenues reported to the City. Launch Fees and Marketing Cooperative payments are not recorded as revenue on System books and records because they do not constitute revenue under GAAP, and as such, they do not constitute"fees for carriage of programming." Comcast agrees that when it receives monies from programmers to carry their programming,such as when Comcast carries commercial leased access programming or other program service providers who pay Comcast for access and carriage on its systems,such monies must be included in the calculation of Gross Revenues. But generally,program providers do not pay Comcast for carriage—in most cases Comcast pays program services for the right to carry their programming and provide it to Comcast's customers. Under Comcast's program affiliation agreements Comcast agrees to carry a programming network's channel over a multi-year period and agrees to pay a specified amount per subscriber, per month,for the right to carry the programming. A complicated negotiation occurs as part of the contracting process over months and sometimes years in order to establish the per subscriber licensing fees that the operator pays to the programmer. Obviously,the objective of the programmer is to get as high a license fee as possible. Naturally,the converse is true for the cable operator. Programming providers likewise must work to see to it that their networks are as widely carried as possible in order to guarantee their success. To achieve widespread carriage they might propose to a cable operator a contractual agreement in which the programmer makes a lump sum payment upon the launch of the service or as reimbursement of promotional costs to market and advertise the channel. Such a contractual arrangement might result when, for example,parties during the course of programming rights negotiations were unable to come to terms on the licensee fee rates. In such cases it was not uncommon for programmers to offer incentives such as launch and marketing support that effectively lowers the per subscriber license fee paid by the cable operator. As part of such an arrangement,the programming network would pay Comcast a specified amount per subscriber when the arrangement commences, with the understanding that if the number of subscribers fell below a certain level, Comcast must refund apro rata portion of the up-front payment. Comcast amortizes these payments over the life of the contract, and the payments reduce the effective price of programming that Comcast pays during the contract term. The programming rates that Comcast pays its programmers,coupled with the launch and marketing support monies received under the programming contracts,results in a"net effective rate"for the programming. This exchange under the programming agreements also preserves the programmer's"rate card"for negotiations with other operators for the same programming. • Comcast also receives monies from its program suppliers in the form of marketing support. One of our key goals as a cable operator is to provide an array of programming services that our customers will value on a continuing basis. In addition,in any given cable television system there will be a significant number of people who choose not to subscribe to cable service or who opt to receive a lower level of available service. We must market and promote our services on an ongoing basis in order to maintain,as well as expand, our customer base and to 7 Pr Ms.Marty Wine City of Renton August 22,2007 generate the revenues needed to ensure the viability of our operations and maximize the success of our business. Programming providers likewise must work to see to it that their networks are as widely carried as possible in order to guarantee their success. So,they often come to a cable operator and propose a contractual agreement whereby the programmer makes payments to cable companies as reimbursement of promotional costs incurred when a channel is launched or repositioned. For example, Comcast might enter into an affiliation agreement similar to the one described above,but without the requirement for an up-front payment from the network. Instead,the network might agree to reimburse Comcast for costs incurred in carrying out a jointly determined marketing plan,up to a specified amount per basic subscriber,based on • invoices or affidavits submitted by Comcast. Marketing costs incurred above the specified reimbursement amount would be the responsibility of Comcast. In this respect,the launch support and marketing support payments that Comcast receives also represents either an unconditional discounting of the cost paid for the programming or a sharing of the costs of marketing the programming service by the programming vendors. This is how financial regulatory bodies,as well programming vendors and the cable system operators throughout the cable industry,view these payments. The position of the regulatory bodies, including the Securities and Exchange Commission("SEC")that relies on GAAP in connection with financial and accounting oversight, as well as the cable industry, is that these payments are part and parcel of the overall negotiations over the price of the programming. This view has been fully endorsed by the SEC, which required Charter Communications, Inc.to alter its practice of booking similarly described fees as revenues.4 Non-subscriber Franchise Fee Pass-Through The Consultant expresses an opinion that Comcast should be required to periodically provide the City with a reconciliation of the fees recovered from subscribers and those remitted to the City. Comcast provides this information with each quarterly franchise fee payment. The Remittance with Payment Report contains a line"Franchise Fee Revenue"that shows the • amount recovered from subscribers each month of the audit period. This amount compared to the"Total Franchise Fees Due"is the over/(under)amount of franchise fees recovered from subscribers to franchise fees remitted to the City. Additionally,per FCC Rules and Regulations (176.1603 (f)), Comcast is not"...required to provide prior notice of any rate change that is the result of a regulatory fee, franchise fee,or any other fee,tax,assessment, or charge of any kind imposed by any Federal agency, State,or franchising authority on the transaction between the operator and the subscriber." 4 See Charter Form 10K for the year ended December 31,2002. A copy of this document can be found at: http://ccbn.tenkwizard.com/filing.php?repo=tenk&ipage=2106423&num=&doc=1&TK=CHTR&CK=1091667&ex p=Annual+Report&FC=333 333&BK=ffffff&SC=ON&TC=FFFFFF&TC 1=ffffff&TC2=ffffff&LK=3366CC&AL= 3366CC&VL=3366CC. 8 Ms.Marty Wine City of Renton August 22,2007 In conclusion,we have promptly established a course of resolution for the Merlino- Empire annexation appropriately. Comcast believes its franchise fee calculations for the City of Renton for the period January 2004 through December 2005 was completed in accordance with the franchise agreement. There is no substantive issue warranting a prolonged review of the franchise fee audit. We thank you for providing us the opportunity to explain our position on these issues. Of course, should you have any further questions regarding these issues, do not hesitate to contact us. Sincerely, Robbin Pepper Director, Rates and Regulation cc: Ms.Bonnie Walton,Renton,City Clerk Mr. Richard Treich,Front Range Consulting,Inc. Mr. Michael R.Bradley,Esq.,Bradley&Guzzetta,LLC Mr. Terry Davis,Comcast,Director of Government Affairs and Franchising Ms. Janet Turpen, Comcast,Vice President of Government Affairs and Franchising 9 Comcast® Comcast Cable 183 Inverness Drive West Englewood„CO 80112 Sent via Electronic Submission August 22,2007 Ms.Marty Wine City of Renton 1055 S. Grady Way Renton,WA 98055 Subject: Comcast of Washington,IV Franchise Fee Analysis Response to Front Range Consulting,Inc.'s Final Report to the City dated June 1,2007 Dear Ms. Wine: On behalf of Terry Davis,Director,Government Affairs for Comcast of Washington,IV ("Comcast"or"Company"),I am responding to the recently received Report("Report")dated June 1,2007 prepared by Front Range Consulting,Inc. ("Consultant"or"FRC")who was engaged by the City of Renton, Washington(the"City")to perform an analysis of the franchise fees paid by Comcast from January 1,2004 through December 31,2005 (the"Review Period"). Before responding to the audit findings with regard to the incorporation of annexed areas, commissions on advertising revenues, and the pass through of non-subscriber franchise fees, as • well as other matters, Comcast wants to thank the City for the opportunity to respond and to assure you that we are committed to abiding by the terms of our Franchise Agreement with the City and to conducting our operations in accordance with accepted business principles and standards as well as all governing laws and regulations as we have throughout our forty years as a cable operator. Nevertheless,we are in fundamental disagreement with the Consultant's Report as it pertains to annexation support,withholding documents,advertising sales commissions,launch fees,marketing coops and recovery of non-subscriber franchise fees from cable subscribers. We are particularly concerned because we believe that the Report misrepresents the record in several material respects as we will explain. Annexation Support The Consultant's final report regarding the franchise fees paid by Comcast of Washington IV,Inc.,concluded that Comcast may not have properly identified all the annexations that have occurred since 2000. Based on an asserted lack of information provided • by Comcast,the Consultant recommends the City consider embarking on a full and complete review of the annexation areas to assure proper calculations of franchise fees.The Consultant's conclusion on the annexation support issue is unjustified and fails to provide the City with a clear understanding of our original response to the matter. For example,FRC(Question 14) asked to Ms.Marty Wine City of Renton August 22,2007 "Please affirmatively support that Comcast has fully reflected each annexation of the County by the City of Renton since 2000." In response,Comcast stated: Comcast affirms that all addresses for the annexation ordinances . . . have been coded from unincorporated King County to the City of Renton,with exception of Merlino- Empire annexation. Comcast has reviewed our records and cannot find evidence of notification on the Merlino-Empire Annexation,Ordinance No. 4891. However,through the review process we have identified the addresses under the annexation and are working towards correcting the coding on the subject accounts. The time period reviewed is from January 1,2000 to present. Contrary to the Consultant's assertion,we affirmed that all annexations,with exception of the Merlino-Empire annexation,were coded correctly under the City of Renton agent code. In fact,we reviewed our records and the City's records side by side and are certain that the only discrepancy is the Merlino-Empire annexation. Comcast is therefore collecting and paying the City the appropriate franchise fees from those subscribers within the annexation areas. As for the Merlino-Empire annexation, Comcast readily acknowledged that this annexation was coded incorrectly, and started the correction of the coding issue for the addresses associated with Ordinance No. 4891. As an update on our progress,the agent transfer for the Merlino-Empire annexation was completed in June 2007. With the completion of the agent transfer, Comcast is now proceeding with calculating the under-payment and associated interest from the date of annexation to the agent transfer date. We will be paying the City the appropriate fees,taxes,and interest very soon to close this matter. We seriously question the Consultant's conclusion that the City should embark on a review of each annexed area based on this one omission. If the City would like any further demonstration that Comcast is including the revenues from other annexed areas in the Gross Revenue pool,we would be happy to provide such a report. But we believe that the Consultant's review,which reflected only one instance in which Comcast has failed to include revenues from an annexed area in the Gross Revenues pool,reflects that all of the required revenues have been included. Commissions on Advertising As noted, we are particularly troubled about the Consultant's assertion that we have not provided all of the information that was requested and all of the information that we were required to provide pursuant to the Settlement Agreement. We in fact did provide what the Consultant requested. Of material concern to us is the picture that the Consultant is attempting to paint to the City of non-cooperation and a refusal to provide information. Nothing could be further from the truth. Comcast initially had some concerns in providing one aspect of the information that was requested. But Comcast faithfully adhered to the Settlement Agreement with the Consultant that provided information with regards to advertising sales handled by Comcast's affiliate National Cable Communications("NCC").1 There were several conversations between Comcast's accounting department and the Consultant to ensure that the Consultant fully understood the documentation that was being provided. Apparently,the ' NCC is a national rep firm jointly owned by Comcast,Time Warner,and Cox Communications. 2 Ms.Marty Wine City of Renton August 22,2007 Consultant expressed disappointment that the NCC affiliate advertising commission and representative fees did not meet an arbitrary percentage for affiliated company revenues. But this does not provide the Consultant with the right to claim that the information was not what was requested nor provide a basis to claim that Comcast was withholding data and hiding the revenue streams it receives from advertisers in order to avoid paying franchise fees on the gross amount of advertising sales. Comcast's West Division accounting group has complied with the Settlement Agreement and supplied the national,regional and local advertising sales revenues in a very transparent manner. The System-earned affiliated advertising revenue the Consultant was hoping to see had already been included in the revenues on which the franchised fee was based. Moreover,the Consultant's characterization and description of affiliated and non- affiliated advertising revenues and how they have been handled is just plain wrong. As explained below,Comcast does not pay an advertising commission for local or regional advertisements to an advertising affiliate. The System is,however,represented by Comcast's advertising arm,Spotlight,which negotiates advertising buys with unaffiliated third party advertising agencies who represent the advertisers. But as a subsidiary of Comcast, Spotlight does not receive any sales commissions. Sales commissions are paid by the advertiser to its own agency. As the Consultant acknowledges, Comcast is not responsible for paying franchise fees on these advertising commissions. The System is,however represented by its affiliated advertising rep firm NCC,which handles the placement of national ads on the system. It is • possible that the Consultant may be confusing the functions,which NCC performs with the functions performed by Spotlight for the System. One sentence in the Consultant's report is key to explaining why Comcast does not owe any advertising sales commissions that are attributable to Spotlight. The Report states: "The issue is not with commissions paid to non-affiliated third parties but rather the advertising commissions that Comcast pays to its affiliated companies." Consultant Report at page 6. The point here is that Spotlight does not receive an advertising sales commission for representing the cable system with third party agencies and there are no "hidden"advertising sales commissions that Comcast should be reporting but is not. Frankly,it is a bit difficult to discern what the Consultant is claiming. We believe that the best approach is to explain to the City how advertising commissions work,who pays them, and what Comcast has already remitted to the City Advertising sales commissions are paid directly by advertisers to their advertising sales agencies. They are earned and received by the advertising sales agencies under their contracts with their advertiser-customers,and neither Comcast nor its advertising affiliate Spotlight are party to these agreements or derive any revenue from them. To better understand Comcast's position,it would be helpful to explain the legal and business relationships that advertising agencies,their advertiser clients,and cable systems,as well as other media outlets such as TV, radio, and newspapers,have with one another. In practice,an advertiser that wishes to advertise on cable systems and on other media as radio,television and newspapers commonly hires a third party advertising agency and contracts directly with the advertising agency for advertising time. The agreement between the advertiser and the advertising agency covers both the price for the advertising time and the agency's 3 Ms.Marty Wine City of Renton August 22,2007 commission for securing and arranging for the advertising with the media outlet. The advertising agency,in turn,contracts with the media outlet such as a cable operator,television or radio station and purchases the time on behalf of its advertiser client. When the Consultant states in his report at page 6 that"[t]he issue is not with commissions paid to non-affiliated third parties but rather the advertising commissions that Comcast pays to its affiliated companies,"the Consultant is referring to third party agencies who represent the advertisers and not the cable operator. But even here,the Consultant is not accurate because the advertising sales commissions are paid to the advertising agency not by the cable operator but by the advertiser. In this arrangement,the operator negotiates the terms of the advertising sale with the advertising agency. Through the negotiations with the advertising agency,the cable operator determines the price for which it will provide the advertising time,which does not include the advertising sales commission paid to the agency by its advertiser client. Under these agreements and business relationships advertising agencies are agents of their advertiser clients and are not agents of the cable operator. The operator only receives from the advertising agency the money that the operator charges to run the advertising—the operator does not receive the commission for the agent's placement of the advertisement. The commission is received by the advertising agency directly from its advertiser client. In keeping with this industry and business relationship, cable operators,as well as other media companies including newspapers,TV and radio stations, issue billing statements to the advertising agencies that require them as an accommodation. Advertising agencies developed this invoicing process as a convenience to their advertiser clients and themselves so the advertisers would not have to receive two invoices and make two remittances—one to the cable operator and a second to the advertising agency—each for the purchase of the same advertising time. And,because it simplifies the process for advertising clients and their agencies,it became the norm for clients purchasing media through an advertising agency,regardless of the media outlet. The cable operator or other media outlet therefore bills the advertising sales agency for the purchase of time and as a convenience to the agency includes the advertising sales commission charge on the invoice. The operator's charge for the time and the advertising sales commission paid by the advertiser constitute a gross charge,and the cable operator's charge for the advertising time is reflected as a net charge on the bill. (When the Consultant contends at page 5 of its report that"Comcast has admitted that the advertising sales amounts assigned to the City are net of advertising sales commission,"this is what the Consultant is referring to. But as explained above,these advertising sales were based on advertisements purchased by third party advertising agencies on behalf of their advertising clients where the advertiser paid the advertising sales commission. This is precisely the situation in which the Consultant has acknowledged that franchise fees are not due when a commission is paid to a non-affiliated third party.) In practice,the operator sends the agency an invoice that is in turn forwarded to the advertiser that reflects the following: (i)the net amount due to the system, and (ii)the gross amount due(i.e.,the amount due the System plus the agency commission that the advertiser must pay to its agency pursuant to their agreement). The advertiser then remits the entire amount(the gross amount on the bill)to the advertising agency, and the agency deducts its agency commission and forwards the remainder of the payment to Comcast. As part of its agreement 4 Ms.Marty Wine City of Renton August 22,2007 with the operator,the agency(as agent for the advertiser) guarantees payment of the net amount to the system if the advertiser fails to pay the invoice.2 But the operator has no responsibility for the payment of the advertising's agency sales commissions. The advertiser is responsible for that fee. Another way to view the arrangement is that the advertising commission represents a discount given by the operator to outside agencies,and the charge by the agency to the advertiser consists of the difference between the net price for the advertising time charged by the operator and the gross amount that the advertiser pays to the agency before agency deducts its standard commission and remits to the cable operator its fee for the advertisement. Viewed either way, the operator only receives the money that it charged the agency for the advertising time. In this case, Comcast's advertising arm, Spotlight, contracts with the advertisers' third party advertising sales agencies for the advertising time. Contrary to the Consultant's assertions, Spotlight itself does not charge nor retain a commission in connection with its representation of the cable system,and therefore there can be no franchise fees owed on money that was never received or collected by Spotlight.3 Advertising sales commissions,which are paid to third parties by their own advertisers, are not subject to franchise fees because these monies are never received by the cable system. This point seems to be acknowledged by the Consultant. There is good reason for the Consultant to acknowledge that commissions paid by advertisers to their advertising agencies are not subject to franchise fees. This conclusion is not only consistent with the legal and business relations among the media outlet,the advertising agency, and the advertiser,but it is also consistent with and required under Generally Accepted Accounting Principles ("GAAP"). As a publicly traded company, Comcast must comply with GAAP for purposes of identifying and recording all financial transactions. GAAP is a technical accounting term that encompasses the conventions, rules,and procedures necessary to define accepted accounting practice at a particular time. It includes not only broad guidelines of general application,but also detailed practices and procedures. These conventions,rules,and procedures provide a standard by which to measure financial presentations. Comcast's accounting practices are entirely consistent with and in accordance with GAAP as they are formulated by the well-established guidelines of the Financial Accounting Standards Board(FASB)and its Emerging Issues Task Force(EITF), as well as the SEC. These standard-setting bodies develop the accounting rules with the primary intent of reporting transactions and events in accordance with their substance. Additionally, these bodies are charged with fostering a framework that maintains consistency in financial 2 This procedure is not unique to Comcast or to cable operators. Under standard advertising industry practice, Comcast bills to the advertising-customer include a line item for 15%-the standard commission that advertising agencies charge to their customers. The advertising agency retains its 15%and remits the remaining portion to Comcast. 3 The Report states:"If Comcast uses an affiliated company to sell its advertising avails and can assign fees and commissions to those sales,Comcast is essentially hiding the revenue streams it receives from the advertisers to avoid paying franchise fees on the gross amount of advertising sales." As noted,Spotlight,as a subsidiary of Comcast Corporation,handles"in-house"all the sales of advertising time on the Systems and the arrangements that are made with third party adverting agencies,or where an advertiser is not represented by an advertising agency, directly with the advertiser itself. If Spotlight did not exist,it would be cable system personnel handling the advertising and contracting with the advertisers' advertising agencies. The Systems do not pay and Spotlight does not receive advertising sales commissions any more than the Systems would pay an advertising sales commission to themselves for having contracted to sell advertising time on the Systems. 5 w Ms.Marty Wine City of Renton . August 22,2007 reporting—without that framework,there would be no uniform standard for judging the presentation of financial statements. GAAP identifies four factors,among others,to determine whether revenue shall be reported as"net"or"gross"of agency commissions. SEC Staff Accounting Bulletins No. 101, 104,see also EITF Issue No. 99-10. Here,all four factors direct that Comcast report these • commissions as"net"of revenue. First,the arrangement between Spotlight and the advertising agency sets the price paid by the agency to Spotlight. The amount of agency compensation earned by the advertising agency is determined by the agency and the individual advertisers (with whom Spotlight has no relationship). The fact that Spotlight's invoice reflects both a gross and net price for advertising time has no bearing since Spotlight is not a party to the amount of agency compensation earned. As explained above, Spotlight only earns as"revenue"the net amount on the invoice. Second, Spotlight has no credit risk for the amount of agency compensation negotiated between the agency and the advertisers. Delinquency by an advertiser is the responsibility of the agency. Third, Spotlight's sole contractual relationship is with the advertising agency and not the advertiser. And finally,the advertising agencies only report as revenue the agency commissions. Of the total transaction,thereof, a portion is treated as revenue by the advertising agency and the remainder is treated as revenue to Spotlight. Any other methodology would result in a double-counting of revenue for financial reporting purposes. The impact of recording revenue on a gross basis on each contract with an advertising agency would be to overstate revenues for amounts not earned which would be misleading and thus not allowed under GAAP. In fact,including advertising commissions and other contra-expenses as revenues would overstate the Systems' revenues in violation of federal and state law. So from a practical and legal perspective,then,the System does not receive and has no right to receive the third party advertising agency commissions,and this is acknowledged by the Consultant. As for third party advertising revenue, Comcast advertising account executives will sometimes sell advertising to clients for ads that are inserted on other multiple system operator's ("MSO's")cable headends and viewed by the other MSO's cable subscribers. This money is not included in Gross Revenue because the advertisements do not appear on the Renton System. Another point of confusion appears to be over the monies received by NCC. As noted, NCC is jointly owned by Comcast,Time Warner, and Cox Communications. NCC through the third party advertising agencies operates to match advertisers that want to place national spot advertisements with cable systems. Unlike Spotlight,NCC as a rep firm charges a commission as do advertising agencies. The flow of funds is the same as the situation in which the advertising agency collects its fee and the media fee from its advertiser-clients. NCC receives a bill from the System(through Spotlight),NCC sends that bill to the advertising agency,and in turn the agency bills its client. The advertising agency receives payment, deducts its fee,remits the remainder to NCC,which,in turn, deducts its rep fee, and remits the remainder to Spotlight. As noted, Comcast provided the Consultant with records reflecting the sale of advertising time by NCC and which were the subject of the Settlement Agreement. If the Consultant still has questions about the records that were provided that reflect these transactions,Comcast would,of course,be ready to clarify or explain this material to the Consultant. 6 Ms.Marty Wine City of Renton August 22,2007 Launch Fees/Marketing Co-op Comcast also disputes the Report's suggestion that Launch Fees and Marketing Cooperative payments received by Comcast should be included in the Gross Revenues reported to the City. Launch Fees and Marketing Cooperative payments are not recorded as revenue on System books and records because they do not constitute revenue under GAAP,and as such, they do not constitute"fees for carriage of programming." Comcast agrees that when it receives monies from programmers to carry their programming,such as when Comcast carries commercial leased access programming or other program service providers who pay Comcast for access and carriage on its systems,such monies must be included in the calculation of Gross Revenues. But generally,program providers do not pay Comcast for carriage—in most cases Comcast pays program services for the right to carry their programming and provide it to Comcast's customers. Under Comcast's program affiliation agreements Comcast agrees to carry a programming network's channel over a multi-year period and agrees to pay a specified amount per subscriber, per month, for the right to carry the programming. A complicated negotiation occurs as part of the contracting process over months and sometimes years in order to establish the per subscriber licensing fees that the operator pays to the programmer. Obviously,the objective of the programmer is to get as high a license fee as possible. Naturally,the converse is true for the cable operator. Programming providers likewise must work to see to it that their networks are as widely carried as possible in order to guarantee their success. To achieve widespread carriage they might propose to a cable operator a contractual agreement in which the programmer makes a lump sum payment upon the launch of the service or as reimbursement of promotional costs to market and advertise the channel. Such a contractual arrangement might result when, for example,parties during the course of programming rights negotiations were unable to come to terms on the licensee fee rates. In such cases it was not uncommon for programmers to offer incentives such as launch and marketing support that effectively lowers the per subscriber license fee paid by the cable operator. As part of such an arrangement,the programming network would pay Comcast a specified amount per subscriber when the arrangement commences, with the understanding that if the number of subscribers fell below a certain level, Comcast must refund a pro rata portion of the up-front payment. Comcast amortizes these payments over the life of the contract, and the payments reduce the effective price of programming that Comcast pays during the contract term. The programming rates that Comcast pays its programmers,coupled with the launch and marketing support monies received under the programming contracts,results in a"net effective rate"for the programming. This exchange under the programming agreements also preserves the programmer's"rate card"for negotiations with other operators for the same programming. • Comcast also receives monies from its program suppliers in the form of marketing support. One of our key goals as a cable operator is to provide an array of programming services that our customers will value on a continuing basis. In addition,in any given cable television system there will be a significant number of people who choose not to subscribe to cable service or who opt to receive a lower level of available service. We must market and promote our services on an ongoing basis in order to maintain, as well as expand, our customer base and to 7 v. 0 Ms.Marty Wine City of Renton • August 22,2007 generate the revenues needed to ensure the viability of our operations and maximize the success of our business. Programming providers likewise must work to see to it that their networks are as widely carried as possible in order to guarantee their success. So,they often come to a cable operator and propose a contractual agreement whereby the programmer makes payments to cable • companies as reimbursement of promotional costs incurred when a channel is launched or repositioned. For example, Comcast might enter into an affiliation agreement similar to the one described above,but without the requirement for an up-front payment from the network. Instead,the network might agree to reimburse Comcast for costs incurred in carrying out a jointly determined marketing plan,up to a specified amount per basic subscriber,based on invoices or affidavits submitted by Comcast. Marketing costs incurred above the specified reimbursement amount would be the responsibility of Comcast. In this respect,the launch support and marketing support payments that Comcast receives also represents either an unconditional discounting of the cost paid for the programming or a sharing of the costs of marketing the programming service by the programming vendors. This is how financial regulatory bodies,as well programming vendors and the cable system operators throughout the cable industry,view these payments. The position of the regulatory bodies, including the Securities and Exchange Commission("SEC")that relies on GAAP in connection with financial and accounting oversight, as well as the cable industry,is that these payments are part and parcel of the overall negotiations over the price of the programming. This view has been fully endorsed by the SEC,which required Charter Communications,Inc.to alter its practice of booking similarly described fees as revenues.4 Non-subscriber Franchise Fee Pass-Through The Consultant expresses an opinion that Comcast should be required to periodically • provide the City with a reconciliation of the fees recovered from subscribers and those remitted to the City. Comcast provides this information with each quarterly franchise fee payment. The Remittance with Payment Report contains a line"Franchise Fee Revenue"that shows the • amount recovered from subscribers each month of the audit period. This amount compared to the"Total Franchise Fees Due"is the over/(under)amount of franchise fees recovered from subscribers to franchise fees remitted to the City. Additionally,per FCC Rules and Regulations (1176.1603 (f)), Comcast is not"...required to provide prior notice of any rate change that is the result of a regulatory fee, franchise fee, or any other fee,tax, assessment, or charge of any kind imposed by any Federal agency, State, or franchising authority on the transaction between the operator and the subscriber." 4 See Charter Form 10K for the year ended December 31,2002. A copy of this document can be found at: http://ccbn.tenkwizard.com/filing.php?repo=tenk&ipage=2106423&num=&doc=1&TK=CHTR&CK=1091667&ex p=Annual+Report&FC=333333&BK=ffffff&SC=ON&TC=FFFFFF&TC 1=ffffff&TC2=ffffff&LK=3366CC&AL= 3366CC&VL=3366CC. 8 Ms.Marty Wine City of Renton August 22,2007 In conclusion,we have promptly established a course of resolution for the Merlino- Empire annexation appropriately. Comcast believes its franchise fee calculations for the City of Renton for the period January 2004 through December 2005 was completed in accordance with the franchise agreement. There is no substantive issue warranting a prolonged review of the franchise fee audit. We thank you for providing us the opportunity to explain our position on these issues. Of course, should you have any further questions regarding these issues,do not hesitate to contact us. Sincerely, Robbin Pepper Director,Rates and Regulation cc: Ms.Bonnie Walton,Renton,City Clerk Mr.Richard Treich,Front Range Consulting,Inc. Mr.Michael R.Bradley,Esq.,Bradley&Gnz7etta,LLC Mr.Terry Davis,Comcast,Director of Government Affairs and Franchising Ms. Janet Turpen, Comcast,Vice President of Government Affairs and Franchising 9 October 13,2007 (c) comcast� Statement of Service *OD05971 ✓indicates the Comca❑st PO BOX 97002 LYNNWOOD WA 98046-9702. Account n0. services you subscribe t0 .• = 8498 3400 JW RP 13 10142007 NNNNNN 8498 34 005 0023946 City of Renton '; _ illl"IIIuJiI1IIIIIIIII"III'I1"1111I'II'I'IIII'I'Illt'IIuIIIII. . Contact us [ ' CITY OF RENTON Online at: www.comcast.com/support CITY CLERK DIV.7TH FLOOR ` Email or Live Chat: www.askcomcast.com/WA • 1055 SOUTH GRADY WAY.. RENTON WA 98057-3232 . FOR CUSTOMER SERVICE CALL 1-877-824-2288 CITY OF RENTON TTY 1-888-824-8535" •• Demand more at Comcast For service at O C T 2 2. 2007 To better serve you,the customer service number for Business 200 Mill Ave S RECEIVED accounts is 1-888-824-8520.Comcast's 24-Hour Business Repair"' Renton WA 98057 2175 .' CITY CLERK'S OFFICE number is 1-888-824-8533. Summary See the back for details Billed from 10/25/07-11/24/07 Prvious balance - - $0.00 Payments received 0.00 No payment due $0.00 • • Visit us on the web at www.comcast.com October 13,2007 Acct no.8498 34 005 0023946 Payment options CITY OF RENTON PayDlrectTM Visit www.comcast.com/payonline or call CITY CLERK DIV. 7TH FLOOR 1-800-COMCAST any time to set up payments 1055 SOUTH GRADY WAY directly from your bank account or credit card. RENTON.WA 98057-3232 Check Detach this coupon and send it together with your check made payable to Comcast in the enclosed No payment due $0.00 envelope.Write your account number on your check. Amount you are enclosing: $ comcast® MCAST POBOX3 PO BOX 34744 SEATTLE WA 98124-1744 il"IIII.I.III.1.I.II'1"IIIIIIIIIJIIIIII.iluilllll'IlluillIIIII 849834005002394600000000 October 13,2007 page 2 of 2 CITY OF RENTON Account no.8498 34 005 0023946 8498 3400 JW RP 13 0005971 10142007 NNNNNN I I I I IIIII IIIII I 1 III 111 Charge details Previous balance $0.00 No payment due $0.00 Important Account Information ALL DELINQUENT ACCOUNTS ARE SUBJECT TO A$5.00 ADMINISTRATIVE LATE FEE. Your Franchise Authority's Name and Address Is:City of Renton,200 Mill Ave S,Renton,WA 98055. Your FCC Community Unity Is: WA0068. Please Do Not Mail Payments To Your Franchise Authority. Illl IIIHO11 IlIlIr• --_-^ - - - -- - --- 111 ' Questions About This Bill? — Chat live with us now Arti or email us at: www.askcomcast.com/WA Hearing / Speech Impaired - Call 711 for Customer Service Moving? Call 1-888-COMCAST sc27005e /' Cable Franchise Renewal Work Plan • Current Cable Franchise Compliance City of Renton Review Cable Franchise Renewal -Review Franchise Commitments • I-Net Ownership—Review Completed • Rate Review-Settlement —Franchise Fee Review • Report Completed 4 —System Technical Review B • Draft completed ( y Michael R.Bradley Bradley&Guzzetta,LLC Bradley Phone: (425)430-1364 4*_ Guzzetta,u.0 June 11,2007 Ri a Franchise Renewal SIItle#2 pR��.. June 11,2007 Cable Franchise Renewal Cable Franchise Renewal Work Plan Work Plan • The Institutional Network •FCC Forms 1235, 1205 and 1240 —Critical Communications Infrastructure —Settlement Reached with Comcast —Review of Ownership issue complete —Approved by City in March,2007 —TCI agreed to construct for the City in lieu of paying penalties in 1997 and a Franchise —Result—lower Maximum Permitted Extension Rates and Rate refunds to subscribers —AT&T Broadband claimed ownership in 2002 —Agreed to supply City with additional —Issue must be resolved by mid-summer revenue data—for FF Review EJ slide#a .'.':1 g Slide ]3radlcy9 Franchise Renewal June 11,2007 A�dl�,6. Franchise Renewal June 11,2007 Zen- ,tmrrta,n.. Cable Franchise Renewal Cable Franchise Renewal Work Plan Work Plan •Franchise Fee Review •Technical Review —Comcast has refused to provide data —System Capacity necessary to complete review •Considered State-of-the-art when built —Contrary to the Rate Settlement • Meeting current needs Agreement • Recommend include periodic review need —Serious violation of upgrade in any long term agreement with —Issue must be resolved by mid-July Comcast —Compliance and Full Audit Slide#5 N Olde#6 Franchise Renewal June 11,2007 Franchise Renewal June 11,2007 Hrullryb Itradlry<= ,nrtta.n, ,anrna,n,• 1 Cable Franchise Renewal Cable Franchise Renewal Work Plan Work Plan • Technical Review •Technical Review —System Performance —Standby Power and System Monitoring • Reviewed 6 sites in Renton ▪ Satisfactory • Signal issue at Site 5(Beacon Ave S) —Signal Leakage —Carrier to Noise Ratio below FCC stds • Exceeding FCC Std —Comcast Repaired —System Construction • Signal Issue—Ch.4,12,15 and 21 • Found Several Violations of NESC and NEC —Ch 21—Replaced de-modulator at Kent Vista HUB —Primarily Grounding and Clearance Issues —City Follow up Needed to verify corrections • Comcast is correcting them • Future random audits by City recommended suaett7 g � sudeae 13 �n'd Franchise Renewal June 11,2007 a��,n, Franchise Renewal dune 11,2007 alma.I.i :m ac,nn Cable Franchise Renewal Work Plan • Gov't Programming Planning —Council and Public Input Encouraged City of Renton —Reviewed Current Use of Channel Cable Franchise Renewal —Reviewed Current Equipment —Reviewed Puget Sound Access Facility —Reviewed Staff Goals for Government • Programming —Completing overall plan for the future of f- f'? government access programming in the City By Michael R.Bradley Bradley&Guzzetta,LLC Guzzetta,ye4- Phone:(425)430-1364 u c sraeaeBradlJune 11,2007 ary�1cy� Franchise Renewal June 11,2007 ,mica.n. 2 • • City of Renton Cable Franchise Renewal 1-7r. By ,Q) Michael R.Bradley Bradley&Guzzetta,LLC Bradleye, Phone: (425)430-1364 Guzzetta,tic June 11,2007 1 Cable Franchise Renewal Work Plan • Current Cable Franchise Compliance Review — Review Franchise Commitments • I-Net Ownership—Review Completed • Rate Review-Settlement — Franchise Fee Review • Report Completed — System Technical Review • Draft completed Slide#2 Bradley Franchise Renewal June 11,2007 Guzzerra,LLc 2 Cable Franchise Renewal Work Plan • The Institutional Network — Critical Communications Infrastructure — Review of Ownership issue complete — TCI agreed to construct for the City in lieu of paying penalties in 1997 and a Franchise Extension — AT&T Broadband claimed ownership in 2002 — Issue must be resolved by mid-summer Slide#3 Franchise Renewal Btadleyd• June 11,2007 Guzzetta,LLC 3 Cable Franchise Renewal Work Plan • FCC Forms 1235, 1205 and 1240 — Settlement Reached with Comcast —Approved by City in March, 2007 — Result — lower Maximum Permitted Rates and Rate refunds to subscribers —Agreed to supply City with additional revenue data — for FF Review Slide#4 Bradley Franchise Renewal June 11,2007 Guzzerta,LLc 4 • Cable Franchise Renewal Work Plan • Franchise Fee Review — Comcast has refused to provide data necessary to complete review — Contrary to the Rate Settlement Agreement — Serious violation — Issue must be resolved by mid-July — Compliance and Full Audit ,L 1131 Slide#5 Franchise Renewal Bradley;.« June 11,2007 Guzzetta,iic 5 Cable Franchise Renewal Work Plan • Technical Review — System Capacity • Considered State-of-the-art when built • Meeting current needs • Recommend include periodic review need of upgrade in any long term agreement with Comcast DI Slide#6 Btadley Franchise Renewal June 11,2007 Guzzecta,i.0 6 Cable Franchise Renewal Work Plan • Technical Review — System Performance • Reviewed 6 sites in Renton • Signal issue at Site 5 (Beacon Ave S) - Carrier to Noise Ratio below FCC stds - Comcast Repaired • Signal Issue-Ch. 4, 12, 15 and 21 - Ch 21 -Replaced de-modulator at Kent Vista HUB - City Follow up Needed to verify corrections • Bradley Franchise Renewal June 11,2007 Guzzetta,'Lc 7 Cable Franchise Renewal Work Plan • Technical Review — Standby Power and System Monitoring • Satisfactory — Signal Leakage • Exceeding FCC Std — System Construction • Found Several Violations of NESC and NEC - Primarily Grounding and Clearance issues • Comcast is correcting them • Future random audits by City recommended Slide# Bradley Franchise Renewal June 11,20078 Guzzetta,LLC. 8 Cable Franchise Renewal Work Plan • Gov't Programming Planning — Council and Public Input Encouraged — Reviewed Current Use of Channel — Reviewed Current Equipment — Reviewed Puget Sound Access Facility — Reviewed Staff Goals for Government Programming — Completing overall plan for the future of government access programming in the City 1 Franchise Renewal Slide#9 Bradley June 11,2007 Guzzetta,tic 9 City of Renton Cable Franchise Renewal. By Michael R.Bradley Bradley&Guzzetta,LLC Bradleyd- Phone: (425)430-1364 Guzzetta,LLC June 11,2007 10