HomeMy WebLinkAbout1990-CAC-rpt 1989 Cable Television Compliance Review.pdf 1989 CABLEPLIANCE TELEVISIONREVIEW
COM
A
REPORT
PLegal
ss ,
PREPARED
BY
LEXINGTON CABLE TELEVISION AND
COMMUNICATIONS ADVISORY COMMITTEE
LEXINGTON, MA FRANK DIGIAMMARINO
WINTER 1990 CHAIRMAN
-amm
1989 CABLE TELEVISION
COMPLIANCE REVIEW
PREPARED BY THE
LEXINGTON CABLE TELEVISION AND COMMUNICATIONS
ADVISORY COMMITTEE
FRANK DIGIAMMARINO, CHAIRMAN
JULIAN BUSSGANG
STELLA LIU
THEODORE MAIRSON
LEO MCSWEENEY (LIAISON)
WILLIAM SPENCER
MARTHA STANTON
SIDNEY WHITING
PHYLLIS WILNER
WINTER, 1990
1 The 1989 Compliance Review
The Cable Television and Communications Advisory Committee (the Committee) is
charged with the responsibility to advise the Board of Selectmen on all matters relating
to the use and operation of the Lexington Cable Television system as a means of
entertainment and communication and to oversee the compliance of the Licensee with all
of the terms of the Final License (see Charge to the Committee adopted by Selectmen on
May 16, 1988). The terms of the Final License and associated documents are discussed
in Section 3 below These documents are referred to collectively as "the License.
In conformance with its responsibilities, the Committee conducted the 1989
compliance review in two parts:
The Committee addressed a written compliance questionnaire to the Licensee,
Cablevision Systems Corporation of Long Island, NY (Cablevision), on
March 31 1989• Cablevision submitted a response dated April 26, 1989,
held meetings with the Committee, and then submitted an amended response on
June 1 1989.
The Committee held a public hearing in Estabrook Hall on the evening of
January 9, 1990 with Cablevision representatives in attendance. Prior to the
hearing, the Committee also received several letters from subscribers who
could not attend the hearing. A video recording of the hearing and copies of the
letters are enclosed with this report.
In addition, the Committee received from Mr Caleb Warner of the South
Lexington Civic Association data from a survey independently conducted by this
Association among households in its neighborhood and dated March 15, 1989.
This report is based on the Committee's careful review of all the above items and
its experience with Cablevision since it became the Licensee. Our compliance review
was the first such review of Cablevision since it became the operator of the Lexington
cable system.
Page 1
2. Summary
The Lexington cable television Final License (the 'License") was granted by the
Lexington Board of Selectmen (the Selectmen) to Adams-Russell Company (Adams-
Russell) of Waltham, Massachusetts on August 31 1981 This License was preceded by
a competitive bidding process according to specifications issued by the Town. The
License was granted for 15 years, i.e. to August 31 1996.
In 1987 Cablevision and Adams-Russell petitioned the Selectmen for a transfer
of the License from Adams-Russell to Cablevision. The Selectmen approved the transfer
in December 1987 and in early 1988, Cablevision acquired Adams-Russell. The name
Adams-Russell is no longer used by Cablevision in connection with its cable services,
but the Cablevision unit operating the Lexington cable system does business as A-R
Cable Services, Inc. During 1989, Cablevision moved A-R Cable Services and its local
business office from Lexington to Hudson, Massachusetts
The Committee's comments regarding compliance and the performance of
Cablevision will relate to at least two aspects of cable television.
The first one is the familiar aspect of cable television as an entertainment
1 medium. Cable television is one of the major growth industries of our times and its
importance is reflected in the many news articles about takeovers, both friendly and
unfriendly, in the entertainment and publishing industries. The important feature for
Lexington, vis a vis cable television as an entertainment medium, is that almost six
thousand households in our town are willing to pay the going rate. However, the public
hearing on January 9, 1990 and the 1989 neighborhood association survey have
revealed a considerable and growing dissatisfaction with the manner in which
Cablevision manages the Lexington system.
The second aspect is the less familiar one of cable television as an information
network for the Town and a harbinger of new technology This aspect is not visible to
most paying customers even though it does affect their pocketbooks. It was common
practice for cable companies when they were competing for the Lexington License to
offer inducements including but not limited to
an institutional trunk
facilities for public access.
Page 2
These inducements were offered to Lexington by Adams-Russell and were an important
element in its selection as the Licensee by the Board of Selectmen.
Our Institutional Trunk CI-Net") is a separate 40-channel cable which goes by
all the public buildings in the Town. Only a small portion of the I-Net capacity has been
activated to date. The I-Net is used as an information network for school and library data
communication. Its use saves the Town at least $200,000 per year in communication
charges. 1 In connection with the License transfer a three-party agreement was
executed on December 21, 1989 which committed Cablevision (inter alia) to complete
construction of the I-Net, to conduct semi-annual performance testing, and to supply
copies of test results to the Town.
The License also obligates Cablevision to maintain public access facilities and to
encourage and assist in public access use. Public access facilities provided by the
Licensee consist of a studio, a van, and portable equipment. These are estimated by
Cablevision to represent an investment of some $400,000 to date. 2
The Lexington License is now in its ninth year and has six more years to run.
However there are a number of issues which the Committee has not been able to resolve
with Cablevision and which require immediate attention, including the following:
There is customer dissatisfaction with service, signal quality and
Cablevision's office practices.3
There is disagreement on (i) which documents define the License, (ii) which
provisions of the License are in force, and (iii) how some of the provisions of
the License are to be interpreted.
The I-Net which has been installed is incomplete and does not comply with that
required by the License.
The Committee disagrees with Cablevision's policies regarding maintenance and
replacement of access, I-Net and system equipment.
As to the first set of issues, i.e. service, signal quality and office practices, these
are the issues that most directly affect Lexington subscribers. It is clear that much of
this customer dissatisfaction is the result of poor service by the Licensee. For example,
signal quality is often bad. Cablevision has not complied with the state regulatory
requirements for issuing 30 day notice to customers of service changes, installation
appointments are not kept, and billing problems are difficult to resolve. The cable
programming decisions are apparently made from Long Island with little local autonomy
and with the decision makers not in touch with the Lexington customers. The Licensee
has been enjoying a monopolistic position for the delivery of cable television services
Page 3
which most viewers have come to consider as an essential service. As further discussed
in Section 5 below the public blames the Selectmen and the Committee for ignoring such
service problems.
The other issues aro governed by cable statutes, regulations, and contract law
The record shows that the I-Net and the access equipment were promised as
consideration for granting the License and applicable law requires that these promises
be kept. The Committee believes that it is important that these outstanding compliance
issues be resolved because they have, and will continue to have, an important influence
on subscribers and on present and future applications of cable technology It is also
important for the Town to maintain its full rights to a properly operated I-Net, as we
expect that all aspects of information technology will become more important and
increasingly difficult to understand and to manage. The present License will expire in
1996 and renewal negotiations between the Town and the Licensee can begin as early as
August 1993. It is desirable that both the Selectmen and the Committee do a better job of
defining the conditions of the License and carefully monitor Cablevision's performance so
that the Town will be prepared for License renewal in 1993.
Discussed below are the issues which require resolution along with
recommendations of the manner in which these issues should be resolved.
3. The Defining Documents
Lexington's contractual relationship with the cable TV Licensee are defined in
four documents. These are:
[ 1 ] FINAL CATV LICENSE for TOWN OF LEXINGTON,31 August 1981
[2] Lexington Board of Selectmen
LEXINGTON CABLE TELEVISION REPORT, 7 July 1980
[3 ] Adams-Russell
'A PROPOSAL TO CONSTRUCT AND OPERATE A COMMUNITY TELEVISION
SYSTEM IN THE TOWN OF LEXINGTON, MASSACHUSETTS. 10 September
1980
[4] Maisel, Ira P
TRANSCRIPT OF PUBLIC HEARING RE CATV FOR LEXINGTON,27 October
1980
Collectively these documents represent the License obligations.
Page 4
'Item [1] is the principal document antR contains a passage on page 2 whidh
reads:
'SECTION 2 DEFINITIONS
(a) Application. 'The document entitled A Proposal to Construct and Operate a
Community Antenna Television System in the Town of Lexington, Massachusetts,
including without limitation an Application of Form #100 of the CATV
Commission, submitted by Adams-Russell Co. Inc. to the Issuing Authority on
September 10, 1980, and any clarifications thereto made by Adams-Russell
during the public hearing conducted by the Issuing Authority on October 27
1980
The following passage appears on page 14 of Item [1]:
'SECTION 20 SYSTEM SPECIFICATIONS
In addition to the specifications expressly provided for in this License, the
Licensee shall construct and maintain a cable television communication system
for the Town that will fully conform to the specifications set forth in the
Application, including the design specifications attached as Exhibit D The system
will further include all of the services, plan, equipment and other commitments
as specified in the Application. "
The first meeting which Frank DiGiammarino and Theodore Mairson had with
Donna Garafano of Cablevision prior to the transfer hearing raised the issue of such
defining documents. Ms. Garafano contended that only the Final License per se governed.
DiGiammarino and Mairson contended that four documents, items [1] through [4],
governed. This issue surfaced repeatedly during the Transfer Hearings and was discussed
explicitly
A stenographic transcript of the transfer hearings was prepared by Marianne
Kusa-Royal.4 On page 10 of the transcript Selectman McSweeney raised the issue of the
defining documents in the following manner
'SELECTMAN MCSWEENEY .the Cablevision application has been compared
with the Adams-Russell application and the other documents which define their present
License. These documents are:
(A) The Board of Selectmen filed a CATV License for the Town of Lexington,
Massachusetts, August 31, 1980;
(B) Adams-Russell Cable Television proposal for the Town of Lexington,
Adams-Russell Company, September 1980;
(C) Ira P Maisel, transcript of public hearing, CATV, Town of Lexington,
October 27 1980; and
(D) Lexington Board of Selectmen, Lexington Cable Television Report,
memorandum, Town of Lexington, July 7 1980.
Page 5
Such a comparison revealsa.that the application is so lacking in detail that it is
difficult or impossible to interpret it as a document to take over the terms and
conditions of the present License. Consideration of the transcript should be
postponed until the competent application has been received."
There was further discussion of this point during the Transfer Hearing until on
page 58 of the transcript the following exchange occurs:
"SELECTMAN MARSHALL. We view our agreement with Adams-Russell to be
incorporated in these four documents. When you said that your belief was in
filing the Form 1 or whatever the number is, you were merely asking to take
over the franchise between Lexington and Adams-Russell. My interpretation
means you are willing to live by this document and the series of documents and
what we come to understand as our agreement.
MS. GARAFANO• That is correct.
SELECTMAN MARSHALL. And if that is true I am not troubled by the fact that it's
a short form. I am troubled by the fact that we have never gotten Adams-Russell
to do everything we thought was in the four documents, and that is what, I think,
we ought to concentrate on doing and not ask you to restate things. I think it's
more a question of reaching an enforceable agreement. "
The Committee has sought to enforce the License agreement based on the four
documents listed, yet it continues to encounter resistance and different interpretation
from Cablevision. During our discussion with the local Cablevision officials, General
Manager Henry Ferris and Mr Jay Somers, in connection with Cablevision's answers to
the Compliance Review Questionnaire, the matter of enforceability of the terms of the
License Agreement was discussed with respect to Certification of Complete Construction.
The phrase "certification of complete construction', occurs In Section 26(F), page 26,
of the Final License. This section is reproduced below:
"All rates shall be frozen for a period of two years from date of system
completion. When the construction as defined in Section 4 is complete, Licensee
shall request certification of complete construction from the Issuing Authority
which shall be granted promptly upon submission by the Licensee to the Issuing
Authority a map of the Town of Lexington showing that construction of activated
CATV plant has passed all residences in the Town of Lexington existing as of the
date of the Final License. The Licensee agrees that It will not institute changes in
the schedule of monthly rates for Lifeline, Basic, Expanded and Optional (1-4)
Services that would be effective prior to twenty-four (24) months after the
date it submitted the map referenced above. Thereafter any rate increases will
be made pursuant to the rules and regulations of the CATV Commission in
accordance with Chapter 166A of the Massachusetts General Laws.
Page 6
Cablevision's response-Ito the Compliance Review Questionnaire, page 3, dated
June 1 1989, contains the following:
2) Request for Certification
a) QUESTION Explain why a Request for Certification of Completion was never
made to Lexington.
ANSWER: Request for Certification of Completion was never made because it
pertained to Section 26F of the final License concerning a rate freeze. That
section was waived by the Town on May 21 1984 when Adams-Russell appeared
before Selectmen and requested a release to increase rates.
b.) QUESTION: List the action items planned by Cablevision to permit
Cablevision to request a certificate of complete construction in accordance with
System Specifications (License, P 14).
ANSWER: None. Again, Certification of Completion was related solely to the
rate-freeze, which was discontinued by the Town and which is now pre-empted
by federal law
COMMITTEE COMMENTS. While the Committee is not trying to reopen the
issue of the rate freeze at this time, we would simply like to call your attention to the
concept of Certification of Complete Construction.
The minutes of the Selectmen's meeting of May 21 1984 do not confirm the
allegations in Cablevision's reply above. The matter of a rate increase Adams-Russell
wanted to impose was discussed on May 21 1984 but there was no request for release
from the Rate Freeze clause of the License made by any representative of Adams-Russell
at that meeting; there was simply a report by the Lexington Cable Advisory Committee
regarding what the cable operator had told them. There was no vote taken on this issue,
nor is there any record of any action whatsoever releasing the Licensee from any of its
contractual obligations taken by the Selectmen sitting as Selectmen or as the Issuing
Authority Recently, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court upheld on two occasions
the contention of the Town of Norwood that its cable operator (which is also Cablevision)
was required to observe the contractual rate freeze on 'basic cable service' until
December 29, 1989. Basic cable service is defined by federal law as any tier of service
containing rebroadcast of local TV channels, e.g., Lexington's Supercable tier
Although the federal Cable Communications Act of 1984 (the "Cable Act")
decontrolled cable rates for "basic cable service" effective December 29, 1986, the
decontrol did not apply to Lexington on May 21 1984 because the Licensee had not yet
applied for a Certificate of Complete Construction as required by the License. Section
26F of the Final License states clearly that "All rates shall be frozen for a period of two
Page 7
years from date of system completion.'5 In fact, on May 21 1984 Adams-Russell had
not yet completed construction as required. Adams-Russell did not wait two years and
clearly did not wait until December 29, 1986, but raised rates immediately There was
never any attempt on the part of Adams-Russell to request the required Certification of
Completion. Such certification would have required the submission of maps, which we
believe is still a requirement that should be enforced. In Section 1 of the Transfer
Agreement between Adams-Russell, Cablevision and Lexington, Adams-Russell and
Cablevision explicitly agreed to complete construction of the Institutional Network,
acknowledging thereby that the construction of the Lexington system had yet to be
completed.
There are also provisions in the License for regular reports to be submitted to
the Town by the Licensee. These provisions are reproduced below•
SECTION 29 REPORTS OF INFORMATION
Licensee shall file annually with the CATV Commission and the Issuing Authority
on forms to be prescribed by the CATV Commission, a sworn statement of its
revenues and expenses pertaining to the Lexington cable communication system
and a statement disclosing its ownership for official use only In addition, the
Licensee shall also file with the CATV Commission and the Issuing Authority, on
forms to be prescribed by the CATV Commission, a financial balance sheet and
statement of ownership which shall be open to public inspection. The
requirements of the two preceding sentences shall be subject to the regulations of
the CATV Commission.
Every three months the Licensee shall notify the Issuing Authority on forms
prescribed by the CATV Commission, of complaints of subscribers received
during the reporting period and the manner in which the complaints have been
met, including the time required to make necessary repairs or adjustments.
Licensee will provide the Issuing Authority or their designated representative a
yearly written review on the subjects of Local Origination, Public Access, and
programming in general.
Examination of the Selectmen's and the Town Manager's files in Town Hall will
reveal that these reports, required by the License, are not consistently being submitted
as required. Thus, the License requirements for the filing of reports have been
repeatedly violated by the Licensee.
This kind of behavior has become characteristic. If there is sufficient pressure
from the Town, the Licensee will respond while the pressure is on. Otherwise, issues
which are raised by the Committee are often ignored. The time has come to arrive at a
definitive statement of our contractual relationship and to pursue its enforcement.
Page 8
4 The Information Network
Our cable system consists of three cables: A, B, and I. The A and B cables
comprise the residential or entertainment system. The I cable is the institutional trunk.
Together these three cables comprise the Information Network. The I cable should be
'bridged' to either the A cable and/or the B cable so that programs and information can
be transmitted to any location having the required hook up.
SECTION 21A INSTITUTIONAL TRUNK
"Adams-Russell will provide a single-cable bi-directional 40-channel capacity
institutional trunk that will interconnect key governmental, educational and
civic establishments. The institutional trunk will allow closed-circuit point-
to-point communications for all connected sources, or the ability to cablecast to
the subscribers' homes through the regular access channels of the entertainment
trunk.
Our experience has been that whenever issues relating to this matter have been
raised verbally the Licensee has sometimes responded by telling us how much it would
cost to activate this capability However in its amended written response (page 10 of
the submittal dated 1 June 1989) to our Compliance Questionnaire, in its answer to
Item 9 regarding Section 21 Cablevision states:
.If in the future a situation arises which requires the transmission of video
signal from the school to a residential subscriber the equipment is in place and
the transmission will be provided as needed.
We consider this response as vague and inadequate in view of the License
requirement, particularly since Cablevision does not explain where the equipment is in
place. Also, Cablevision leaves unspecified the procedures that might result in this
capability being activated and how the judgment will be made that such transmission is
required.
The Committee wishes the Town to maintain its rights in the total number of
activated usable I-Net channels, and to have an explicit written commitment from the
Licensee that when the Town requests channels to be activated and made available, they
will be ready for use within a specified period of time. Moreover we want Cablevision
to be specific about, and to comply with the number of channels, channel assignments,
port locations and bridges.
Page 9
We believe that the design of the complete I-Net for Town use will require a
design effort of considerable magnitude, but several members of the Committee are
prepared to volunteer their services. Although we can undertake this design effort
before Cablevision acknowledges its full responsibilities with respect to the information
network issues, such effort will be futile, unless the Selectmen, acting as the Issuing
Authority insist that Cablevision comply with its full I-Net License obligations.
On Monday January 8, 1990 a demonstration took place at the Cary Memorial
Library arranged by Ms. Stella Liu of the Library and Mr Peter Gruenwald of
Cablevision. The demonstration showed how the institutional trunk will allow us to
cablecast to subscribers' homes through the regular access channels. The demonstration
was attended by Messrs. Ferris and Somers of Cablevision and by Dr DiGiammarino, Ms.
Liu and Mr Mairson of the CATV Committee. The demonstration impressed the attendees
and Mr Ferris suggested that a task force be organized to design the information
network. The Committee is prepared to proceed as quickly as possible, but urges the
Selectmen to support its position on completion of the I-Net system.
5. Maintenance of Access Equipment
This exhibit occurs in the Proposal, contract document, item [3], and reads:
EXHIBIT 78 POLICY ON EQUIPMENT ALLOCATEp TO COMB'NITY ACCESS USE.
"To support equipment allocated for community service, Adams-Russell will
establish a preventive maintenance program to test out this equipment on a
regular time schedule, e.g. bi-weekly Minor repairs, adjustment and alignment
will be done in the field. Major work will require return of the equipment to the
studio-office-repair center facility Provision will be made for substitute
equipment to maintain ongoing program production.
"As the equipment reaches the end of its normal life, it will be replaced with new
state-of-the-art equipment of comparable value, thus providing long term
support to users of the access and institutional channels.
This commitment seems quite clear and simple, yet it has never worked
smoothly Most of the problems have occurred with respect to equipment furnished by
the Licensee to the schools. It has been necessary to negotiate at great length for repair
and replacement of equipment, often without results. The following passage from
Attachment I of the response letter from Henry Ferris to the Committee dated December
5, 1989 reads:
Page 10
Section 22 of the License requires„that A-R 'construct, equip, manage and
operate a .studio' and that '(e) equipment for the studio shall be owned and
maintained by Licensee. Notwithstanding that A-R has no License requirement
to replace equipment, A-R has informally agreed to do so.
Mr Ferris makes no reference to the above-referenced passage in the Proposal,
contract document, item [3]. The Committee considers the quality of maintenance access
equipment of all three cable trunks, as well as of the production equipment, to have been
far inferior to that promised in the Proposal. Also, there can be no excuse for
Cablevision's denying its obligation to replace obsolete equipment. The issue of
equipment replacement is an example of the difficulties the Committee has encountered
when it sought to enforce provisions of the License. Unfortunately it has become
characteristic of the Licensee to deny the legitimacy of License obligations or ignore
many requests which the Committee has made from time to time on behalf of the Town.
6. Service
The Committee conducted a public hearing on January 9, 1990. Some 50 persons
attended and many voiced their opinions. The Committee was shocked by the degree of
dissatisfaction with the cable service being furnished by Cablevision and expressed by
many thoughtful citizens in their letters to the Committee, in the accounts of dealings
with the Licensee described at the public hearing, and in the survey conducted by the
South Lexington Civic Association.
Complaints center on:
1 Excessive increases in cable rates
2. Removal of independent "distant' stations and the misleading attribution of
such removal to new FCC regulations.
3. Erratic installation and repair practices
4 Unavailability of telephone service and unsatisfactory office practices
5. Interruption in cable service and difficulty with obtaining credit
6. Unmonitored picture and sound quality• poor signal quality particularly of
Channel 5
7 Poor coverage of local events (Lack of compliance with Local Origination
requirement in the License, p.18.)
Page 11
Some members of the public-feel that the Selectmen and the Committee are
ignoring the plight of the subscribers. These several classes of complaint are discussed
below
Clearly there is considerable irritation with the Lexington cable rates. The rate
for Family Cable went up from $15.90 in 1987 to $19.90 in 1990 or a 25% increase
since Cablevision took over In 1989, the comparable rate in Boston was $15.95
(which also has Cablevision as the cable operator) and in Cambridge $14.95. In the
same year the comparable rate in neighboring Arlington for 40 channels was $15.95 a
month.6
The popular "distant" superstations WWOR-NJ, WPIX-NY City WGN-Chicago,
and French language CKSH-Quebec, have all been eliminated, possibly to eliminate free
delivery of interesting sports events and news and make room for services in which
Cablevision has a financial interest or which have a pay element associated with it.
Removal was falsely attributed to new FCC regulations which in truth simply prohibit
retransmission of certain syndicated programs and do not require elimination of such
channels. In fact, other cable systems in Massachusetts, faced with the same rules, have
not eliminated such stations. Mr Ferris, himself, stated at the public hearing that the
Quebec station is not even affected by FCC regulations.
Subscribers have also had bad experiences with scheduling of service calls and
ineffectiveness of service personnel, both of which seem prevalent. From the
increasing reports of technical problems, it appears that much of the convertor
equipment and of the head-end equipment has outlived its usefulness and Is in need of
replacement. The degree of subscriber irritation with Cablevision service is so high as
to suggest it is approaching an unacceptable condition.
Telephone service and office functions were poor before Cablevision moved its
office out of Lexington to Hudson but became impossible in the last few months when
Cablevision Installed automatic answerers. At times, calling Cablevision has become a
hopeless effort; people who attempt it hang up because the waiting time to get a customer
service representative is so long. Cablevision promised the Committee an analysis of
waiting times, but as with many of their promises any report on waiting times is yet to
be delivered. The cable industry itself recently adopted a new customer service standard
that subscriber calls are to be answered within 30 seconds.7 Cablevision does not even
come close to meeting this standard.
Page 12
Cable signal transmission is erratic. There are many cable service
interruptions. Some of the interruptions are prolonged and involve large parts of the
Town Cablevision gives no credit for a lapse of service, even if it knows that an entire
area of Town, or major portions of the Town, are out for more than 24 hours, unless the
subscriber notifies the cable office in writing or requests a special credit form. Ms.
Marti Green, corporate staff attorney for Cablevision, stated at the public hearing, that
the Company requires each subscriber to individually request credit. The few
subscribers who have sought credit report difficulties in getting it. Section 17 of the
License requires granting of a credit for known interruptions of service without
conditioning it on individual requests. This is also required by M.G.L. Chapter 166A,
Section 50) The opinion of the State Cable Commission contradicts Ms. Green.8
The quality of Channel 5 is poor in many areas of the Town. At one of our
meetings, a previous official of Cablevision told us that the problem was caused by the
condition of the present head-end antenna and that some capital expense was needed to
resolve the problem. The present system manager informed the Committee (see
Cablevision letter of December 5, 1989, Attachment II, item 8a) that the problem is
caused by loose connectors at individual customers' sets. Yet, when there is a service
call, the repair people are unable to tighten the connectors and cure the problem. The
bottom line is that reception of Channel 5 is below standard. The reception is also below
standard on many occasions for many other channels. Cablevision apparently does not
monitor the quality of reception on a regular basis, particularly in the evening, when
most subscribers are watching. The result is a prevailing feeling among subscribers in
Lexington that the Lexington system is inferior to what a subscriber is entitled to
expect.
Cablevision's delivery of inferior cable service in Lexington is of deep concern to
the Committee. We believe that the degree of public dissatisfaction is so great that it
should be of concern to the Selectmen as well.9 The situation of a licensed operator not
delivering proper service is more serious then when the Board of Selectmen acted on
complaints about a licensed taxi or bus service because there are no alternative
suppliers of cable service.
As to the coverage of local events, Cablevision did not cover the last Special Town
Meeting and on one recent occasion had an unattended camera at the Town Meeting.
Important meetings of major Town boards and candidate nights are not being covered.
Coverage of election results was welcome, but had to be requested. At present, each case
Page 13
requires individual intervention by the Committee. The operator does not have a clear
commitment to regular coverage of important town events.
7 Summary and Recommendations
To summarize, the items which require attention are.
customer dissatisfaction with service, signal quality and office practice;
Cablevision's and the Committee's disagreement about which documents define
the License and which provisions are in force, and how these provisions are to
be interpreted;
• the information network which has been installed, but is less than that
required by the License,
Cablevision's policies regarding maintenance and replacement of access,
Institutional Trunk, and system equipment;
Local Origination and Public Access programming requirements;
Bond requirements;
Submittal of the map showing the activated CATV plant; and
Activation of the 8 upstream channels on the residential system.
The main points of contention between Cablevision and the Committee have been
described. It is our opinion that the applicable requirements are quite clear The
Committee issued a strong letter to Cablevision on November 6, 1989, after the written
compliance review questionnaire was returned, but before the Cable Public Hearing of
January 9 1990 when public dissatisfaction with service became so clear to the
Committee. In their response to our letter Cablevision submitted the letter dated
December 5, 1989 in which they pointed out that only the Issuing Authority may issue a
notice of default.
At this time, based on the 1989 Compliance Review, the Committee recommends:
that the Selectmen issue a Notice of Default to Cablevision covering the items
discussed herein;
that Cablevision be required to submit a Request for Certification of
Completion;
that Cablevision be required to acknowledge their contractual obligations
relative to the institutional trunk which have been discussed herein; and
that Cablevision be required to correct its practices with respect to service
issues.
Page 14
Unlesf; There is a clear acknowledgement of-their obligations by Cablevision and
unless subsequent performance brings it into compliance with License documents within
a stated period, the Committee recommends that default proceedings be initiated by the
Selectmen in accordance with SECTION 33 lal REVOCATION OF LICENSE. This section
reads:
'SECTION 33 REVOCATION OF LICENSE.
The License issued hereunder may after hearing, be immediately revoked by
the Issuing Authority for any false or misleading statements in any application
submitted pursuant to Sections 4 and 5 of G.L.c. 166A or any annual return under
Section 8 of G.L.c. 166A. The Issuing Authority may after hearing revoke the
License for any of the following defaults provided that the Licensee has not
commenced to cure the default within thirty days after the Licensee has received
formal notice from the Issuing Authority of such default:
(a) For failure to file and maintain a bond as required or to maintain
insurance as required.
(b) For repeated violations, as determined by the CATV Commission, of
commitments of a License set forth in Subsection (j) of Section 5 of
Chapter 166A.
(c) For repeated failure, as determined by the CATV Commission to maintain
signal quality under the standards provided for by the CATV Commission.
(d) For any assignment of the License without consent of the Issuing Authority
as required by Section 36 hereof.
(e) For failure to remit fees as required by Section 34 hereof.
( f) For failure to pay taxes to the Town, when due.
(g) For repeated violations of obligations contained within this License.
( h ) For material omissions from any application submitted pursuant to
Sections 4 and 5 of G.L.c. 166A.
The Issuing Authority may issue formal notice of default without hearing, but no
hearing on revocation for reasons (a) through (h) above shall be held until the
Licensee has had thirty days to institute a cure for the default.
A Notice of Default could be based on one or more among items (a) through (h)
The Compliance Questionnaire requested presentation of documents showing the status of
Performance Bond and Maintenance Bond (see Question 5a, re Section 16, page 6) The
answer of Cablevision is not satisfactory There also seems to be a clear case for (g)
'For repeated violations of obligations contained within this License."
The Committee submits this report pursuant to its unanimous vote
at the meeting of February 26, 1990.
Page 15
1 This estimate has been provided by the Planning Office of the Lexington Public
Schools.
2 This estimate is based on EXHIBIT XI provided by Cablevision in response to a
questionnaire submitted by the Cable Television and Communications Advisory
Committee.
3 The unacceptable quality of service and the extent of customer dissatisfaction
are evidenced in correspondence from subscribers and in the record of the
public hearing of January 9 1990. See attachments.
4 HEARING RE:REQUEST FOR CATV LICENSE TRANSFER BY CABLEVISION SYSTEM
Lexington, Massachusetts, Monday, November 16, 1987, 7:30 p.m,
Marianne Kusa-Royal, Registered Professional Reporter
5 In fact on May 21 1984 Adams-Russell had not yet completed construction as
required.
6 Data for Boston and Cambridge from 'Cable Service Fee Summary for
Massachusetts." Data for Arlington from a 1989 Continental Cable TV
mailing.
7 National Cable Television Association, 'Recommended Cable Industry Customer
Service Standards', February 14 1990.
8 Massachusetts Community Antenna Television Commission letter to Mary Ann
Krog, c/o Palmer & Dodge, dated July 28, 1989. Re• Town of Dover. also
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in the Matter of Billing and Termination of
Service (R-19)
9 The Lexington Minute-man, 'Angry Signals Aired Over Cable Service,"
January 18, 1990
Page 16
THE COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS
' - EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF CONSUMER AFFAIRS AND BUSINESS REGULATION '+
COMMUNITY ANTENNA TELEVISION COMMISSION
LEVERETT SALTONSTALL BUILDING
100 CAMBRIDGE STREET BOSTON 02202
ROSALIND A. NILES
Commissioner (617)727-6925
February 26, 1990
Dr Julian Bussgang
2 Forest St
Lexington, MA 02173
Dear Dr Bussgang
Enclosed please find Commission letters indicating that when the cable company
is aware of a service interruption, the cable company should on its own
initiative provide a rebate for service interruptions All Massachusetts
operators were recently apprised of this precedent in the Commission's Notice
of Proposed Rulemaking In the Matter of Billing and Termination of Service
(R-19) The rule will be codified when the proposed rules are published in
the Massachusetts Register in the next week or so
If I can be of any further assistance, please do not hesitate to contact me
Very truly yours,
William August
General Counsel
Enc
.n. THE COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS
T (fa EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF CONSUMER AFFAIRS AND SUSINESS REGULATION
s -[i = COMMUNITY ANTENNA TELEVISION COMMISSION
cZ,. LEVERETT SALTONSTALL BUILDING
100 CAMBRIDGE STREET BOSTON 02202
ROSALIND A. NILES
Commissioner 1617) 727-6925
February 2 , 1990
Chairman Joseph Strzegowski , Jr
Town of Conway Board of Selectmen
Academy Hill - P 0 Box 240
Conway, MA 01341
Dear Chairman Strzegowski
The Commission has reviewed the provisional cable television license issued by
the Town of Conway to Continental Cablevision of Western New England Inc
("Continental"). Apart from the exceptions noted below, the license appears
to conform to Massachusetts statutory law and Commission regulations and case
law
(1) Section 18 - Service Interruptions (p.15) This section states that
when a subscriber's service is interrupted tor 24 or more hours, Continental
"will, after notice, grant [the s]ubscriber a pro rata credit or rebate
Credits will be applied as described above after due notice to the Licensee
from the subscriber " The section appears to require the subscriber to notify
Continental to receive a rebate
Section 5(1) of M.G.L ch.166A states, "In the event its service to any
subscriber is interrupted for twenty-four or more consecutive hours, [the
licensee] will grant such subscriber a pro rata credit or rebate " The
Commission has interpreted 55(1) to require a subscriber to notify the company
only in circumstances where the company is urnaare of an interruption. When
the company is aware of a service interruption lasting more than 24 hours, the
company must on its own initiative grant the subscriber a credit or rebate
Section 18 shoulWUe clarified to reflect the Commission's interpretation.
(2) Section 27(a) - Reports of Information (p.23) This section states
that "itiinanciai statements will be reported on a consolidated basis These
requirements shall be subject to the regulations of the Massachusetts
Commission " Under 207 CMR 7 02(a)(1), "a [c]able [o]perator may, at any
time , file with the Commission, a request that certain and possibly all of the
licenses under its control be formally designated as aggregate licenses "
�`= THE COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS
�= �" EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF CONSUMER AFFAIRS AND BUSINESS REGULATION
s� _ -
COMMUNITY ANTENNA TELEVISION COMMISSION
til LEVERETT SALTONSTALL BUILDING
100 CAMBRIDGE STREET BOSTON 02202
ROSALIND A. NILES
Commissioner
(617) 727.6925
July 28, 1989
Mary Ann Krog, Esq
Counsel
Town of Dover Board of Selectmen
c/o Palmer 6 Dodge
One Beacon Street
Boston, MA 02108
Dear Ms Krog
The Commission has reviewed the final cable television license issued by the
Town of Dover to Massachusetts Cablevision Industries ("Cablevision") on June
6, 1989 Apart from the exception noted below, the license appears to conform
to Massachusetts statutory law and Commission regulations
The Commission is concerned about one section of the license
Section 17 - Service Interruptions (p 17) This section states a subscriber
is required to notify Cablevision of any service interruptions to receive a
credit Section 5(1) of M.G L ch 166A states, "In the event its service to
any subscriber is interrupted for twenty-four or more consecutive hours, [the
licensee] will grant such subscriber a pro rata credit or rebate " The
Commission has interpreted S5(1) , however, to require the subscriber to notify
-the company only in circumstances where the company is unaware of an
interruption. When the company is aware of a service interruption lasting
more than 24 hours, the company should on its own initiative grant the
subscriber a credit or rebate This sections auld therefore be clarified to
relfect the Commission's interpretation.
Please do not hesitate to contact me should you have any questions about this
matter
Ve truly rs,
i
`-fn D Patrone
i A0sistant General Counsel
cc William J Mara, Vice President, Massachusetts Cablevision Industries
Page Two 1'c.bruary 2 , 1900
This "Wormal designation of a group of licenses as an aggregate license
relieves the operator of the burden of filing financial reports for individual
licenses Lacking formal designation as aggregate licenses (however] ,
operators are required to file financial reports for each isolated license
under their control " 207 CMR 7 02(a)(3)
Since this is a new license, Continental is required to make a request for
aggregate filing before it may report financial information on a consolidated
basis No such request has yet been made Therefore, this provision should
be stricken from the license
Please call me if you have any questions
Very truly y urs,
gen.„
D Patron
sistant General Counsel
cc John S. Foully, Corporate Counsel, Continental Cablevision
Discover the Car, fie TV difference!
All 40 chaff sn&ss only $1555/ onth!*
Call Today! chi, ;r3.)-; Ask for
Basic Service
Community Programming
Local sports,town events and community ellslrs.Programs produced by and for the community.
Your link with the [own of Arlington.
Superstations
WOR (9) New York: Syndicated shows plus N Y. and N.J. sports, 24 hours a any.
WTBS (171 Allanla: Classic films, spoils and specials, 24 hours a day.
Satellite Stations
CON FAMILY NETWORK. Family viewing consisling of westerns,movies,news.
and comedy.
THE NASHVILLE NETWORK Country and Western music,dance,and lileslytas.
TNT A variety of classic titles,exciting adventure and drama
it series and a solid offering of children's programming.
ARTS 8 ENTERTAINMENT Cultural programming:theatre,dance,opera,ballet,
drama—one of the best.
THE LEARNING CHANNEL Adult educational telecourses In everything from
Spanish to astronomy.Enriching,stimulating,
educational.
THE DISCOVERY CHANNEL Educational programming about the fascinating world
+e live in.Science and nature programming.
NICKEyOrgpfeN Award-winning educational channel for childrcn and
young people,Endorsed by the National Education
Association.
C-SPAN I Live coverage of the House of Representatives.from
Washington,D.C.See our government in action.
C•SPAN II Livn coverage of the Senate from Washington,D.C.
S CABLE NEWS NETWORK The most comprehensive news programming today.All
live,all news,24 hours a day.
C.18LE NEWS NETWORK II Want a halt how summary of world news at your con•
veniencu,not the nelwrn Re?Then CNN II is for you.
THE WEATHER CHANNEL Local and national wealher 24 hours a day,as wall as ski
and beach raper's and fascinating features.
ESPN. The'fetal Sports Network,24 hours a day.Collegiate,
professional,and amateur athletics from around the
world.
( USA NETWORK Major League and College Sports,as well as children's
programming and classic films.
LIFETIME Health,fitness,nutrition.parenting,exercise,fashion.
and sexuality programming,24 hours a day.
MTV Music Television.Music videos,coner's,inlerviews.
VH-1 Video Hits 1:Sollrock and Rhythm and Blues Videos.
BOSTON CATHOLIC TELEVISION Local religious programming from the Archdiocese.
CNBC The only 24-hour Consumer News and Business Chan-
nel featuring consume)reports and personal money
management.
SPANISH INFORMATIONAL NL TWORK 24 hours of programming in Spanish.
HOME SHOPPING NETWORK Save money,lime.and energy shopping from home,
CONSUMER VALUE NETWORK Great values on appliances gifts,and other Items.
CHANNEL GUIDE An ongoing listing of what's coming up on every char-
1 nal,both broadc st and cable.
UHF and VHF Stations
WGBH I?) WNEV(7) V✓i ILL(27) WLVI(56)
WB2(4) WENH(11) WSW((30) WDTV(69)
WCVII IF) WFXT(25) WGBX(44)
`Lowe:uerca Ras Piogramm:cy is avuiichle.Ask a sales'eprased:al:ye for details.
,
Angry signals aired over cable service
By Barba);Rudolph ^�..._, tirlgihally intended and plan an additional 25 °w % -4 X. x ,
Staff Correspondent percent increase because the volume of calls is F ' �
greater than we anticipated.Our technical staff is :r,.`14-7',."..":>A. ` # 'S y 1:'
Lexington residents voiced angry opinions continuing to improve technical skills and cus- x ,� ''
about Cablevision's signal quality,personnel atti- tomer sensitivity skills.We are committed to pro- 1 ` s ` „,4%.!:, ;
tudes, and service at a public hearing in Esta- viding good telephone service to our Lexington - ." 'fit ., 'Yi`r
brook Hall. The January 9 meeting was the sec- subscribers. We've responded to every problem „ k . '' " ,}rte. '1�
and annual compliance review before the Cable brought to our attention and look forward to co- 4»?+ s- ,, i w�a
TV and Technology Advisory Committee(CATV), operation with subscribers. a"� S
a liaison group to the Board of Selectmen. Cablevision serves nearly 6,000 subscribers in , r t r , i. 'ya, ."*.g:"
Though committee Chairman Frank DiGiain- Lexington with a technical staff of eight. <, ‘.4We:4,1 "4,9.**-;
marina stressed that the intent of the meeting When the floor was opened for public comment , . r ,4' ' i M
was 'not to do battle, but to listen and gain a total of 24 residents (seven letters and 17 r” au "` ti -,,,,„ i.„- '"..,"
understanding, many residents expressed con- speakers) aired complaints and concerns about + d '`
fusion with service procedures and general dis- Cablevision's service. a ;, • " � " 3
satisfaction with Cablevision of Lexington. Holmes Road resident Richard S.Burwen who -atilt/4 a` "'
Discussing the progress of Lexington Cablevi- at one time designed CATV equipment, wrote P , , rc .r,Mon in 1989, General Manager Henry Ferris that though he was told he was receiving 'the
said, As of December 31, 1989..of the 3,700 best signal the system had to offer, technically its „
service calls made to our subscribers most was only mediocre. - "
were made on the same day or on a next day ba- Sally and Bill Green of East Street voiced corn- r5. , a,
sis,
sis, if the service was not completely out, and plaints running the gamut from shoddy instal- Stall photo by Valerie Winn
within three working days for lesser problems. baton, technician inexperience, frequent inter-
'In November we introduced an 800 number rupttons in signal service,problems going on for Cablevision General Manager Henry Ferris
to improve our service by offering(It)24 hours a weeks, Cablevision's failure to keep pre-set ap-
day, seven days a week, Ferris continued. 'In pointments, billing foul-ups and uncooperative Baskin Road wrote about Cablevision's shuffling
December we automated our telephone service management. They called for a search for a new of customer complaints from one person to
equipment,which could handle many of the calls operator for the Lexington cable system.
without an operator being present. We have in- Service,rate complaints 0 CABLEVISION-PAGE 11
creased our staff by 25 percent over what we'd In a letter to the committee. Robert Eby of
f^
Angry signals aired over cablevision service
CABLEViSION-FROM PAGE 1 e by Cablevision in stereo, and di i- Since WOR was carrying program- cerned, the reason it was dropped a committee, can take action.
culty getting service on the 800 ming that was also being carded by was because last winter we lost the ond,we offer, as a result of ow
another without satisfying the prob- number a station in the local market, the (microwave) signal for over a appointment of the non-coverer
sem. Lexington resident Roy Glasser superstatlon had to yield to the lo- month. We didn't get any calls from Special Town Meetings, to pr
Eby also called for federal laws to brought up the point that there is cal station, he said. WOR's pro- Lexington.That seemed to be a pre- trained operators to help the C
be changed so that the owner of a no advocate for consumers in the gramming was going to be different tty good'indicator that no one was vision people man town even
cable system could not also own cable situation. He went on to than what it had been:Ferris con- watching it. It made us question the the event they are short bander
some, or all, of the channels avail- explain he'd read the advisory corn- tinned. 'Also, earlier in the year value of CKSH to subscribers." Selectman Leo McSweeney,
able in that cable system. He cited mittee's charter and Cablevision's (WOR)bad lost the rights to Knicks Committee member Julian Bus- serves as liaison for the comn
Cablevlsion's including the Sports contract with the town.Glasser said and Ranger games. Together with sgang pointed out that perhaps to the Board of Selectmen
Channel (owned by Cablevision) in neither document mentioned con- those programming changes we re- subscribers, angry over CKSH sig. mented, 'We recently had a 1
the basic cable package and in- sumer concerns. evaluated carrying WOR. The FCC nal interruption, railed but could lem at Brookhaven (at L
creasing the package cost. Subs- In response to the complaints, didn't require us to drop WOR. We not get through. Square). It was brought to
Ferris said, "The comments Eve decided to dropthe signal because Another residentquestioned whyattention(they)weren't getting
cribers receive the Sports Channel t
heard here concern me.All I can do we didn't think It was good Cablevision made programming de- service the way we'd hoped
whether or not -it Is wanted, he is continue to assure you we will compared to otherprogrammingcisions without consultingcmisub• made one phone rail. I went ul
pointed out, continue to make effortto improve options. grg scribes, days later.The folks at Brook'
Grant Street resident Eliot withis• P P were extremely happy and Rh
Kara discussed rude personnel the quality of the technical and the Communications industry experts 'The company makes these decl-
bad attitudes. He told of a service people product. say that though the.term "blacking slons. We try to be customer send- are system) owst working ;
the
Changing channels out the signal" is used, WOR, dur five, Ferris said. "We do annual are lots of positive things ye
problem that took three weeks to g E blevislon can do.I know we ver
correct hlishana wrote that if Cable- Another resident from the floor trig those hours of broadcasting studies of samples of our custom- them a lot of concerns to
vision had a competitor in teeing- complained about the removal of programs provided by local car ers on an irregular basis, about,
ton, the competitor would have his WOR from the programming line- riers, is broadcasting other pro- Caleb Warner, Concord Avenue Committee members str
business, up. The suggestion was made that gramming. Cablevision has re- resident and director of the South that If any subscriber has
In a letter sent to the Board of Sc- deletion of the station was not due placed WOR with Turner Network Lexington Civic Association, said merits, they should contact
lectmen, Lowell Street resident to FCC regulations but an unwi• Television (TNT). Presently the ca- his group conducted a survey last committee by mail or phone
Ephraim Weiss wrote. '1 recently hngnss by Cablevision to make ble system carries four Turner March within the south Lexington selectmen's office. Committee t
becamepa senior citizen. The rate adjustments In their equipment to channels (TNT, TBS. CNN 1 and area One hundred fifty question- bcrs are Frank Diglanmz
ecned a reduced avoid double programming. CNN 2). noires were sent out with a 50 per Stella Liu, Martha Stanton,
rate for neversenior indicated
It was a Ferris' responded, 'WOR was Nicholas Hay of Valley Road.took cent response. Warner continued, adore Mal-son, William Spc
friend, not the cable company, who blacking out their own program- issue with the removal of the 'Many of the problems brought up Jullan Bussgang, Sidney Wt�
ming to comply with a new FCC French langauge station, CKSH, here tonight were cited In those Phyllis Wilner and Selecanar
informed me of the senior citizen non-compete ruling. from Quebec. surveys..I'm here tonight to offer McSweeney.
rate. According to Ferris, the ruling( In response, Ferris said. 'I think the committee two services (the Concerned subscribers are
L.F Miller of Tavern Lane ex- effective Jan. 1, 1990) applies to the way cable is going is to provide mechanism to provide) a question- urged to contact Cong•essma
pressed anger over what be called superstatlons, stations originating more exclusive channels and not noire (for Lexington cable subscrlb- Markey, who is rhr!rman c
continually escalating costs and in one market but carried by cable distant signals from other parts of ers) to provide some docu- House Sub-Committee on Tel;
continually deteriorating signal In a number of other markets. the country.As far as CKSH is con- mented information so that you, as rnunications.
quality. Miller pointed out that Ca- .- .—..._
blevislon's seder citizen discount is I~
5 percent, while the previous cable
operator, Adams Russell, had
offered a 20 percent discount to se-
niors.
East Street resident Marc Gordon
told of consistently bad reception of
WCVB-TV(Channel 5), Inconsistent
audio levels, no home reception of
MTV in stereo, though it is received