SERVICE LIST - Vermont Access Networkvermontaccess.net/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/8301-VAN... · 2016-05-19 · 10 lines 17-20. Comcast is clear that it does not intend to provide

SERVICE LIST

PSB Docket No. 8301

Parties:

Judith Whitney, Clerk

Public Service Board

112 State Street, Drwr. 20

Montpelier, VT 05620-2701

[email protected]

Daniel P. Richardson, Esq.

Tarrant Gillies & Richardson

44 East State Street

P.O. Box 1440

Montpelier, Vt. 05601-1440

[email protected]

Dan Burke, Esq.

Vermont Department of Public Service

112 State Street

Montpelier V T 05620 -2601

[email protected]

Nancy S. Malmquist, Esq.

Downs Rachlin Martin, PLLC

90 Prospect Street

PO Box 99

St. Johnsbury, VT 05819

[email protected]

Lisa Byer, President VAN Docket 8301 Legal Team

CAT-TV

625 Main Street

PO Box 4747

Bennington, VT 05201

[email protected]

mailto:[email protected]





STATE OF VERMONT

PUBLIC SERVICE BOARD

In Re: Renewal of the Certificate of Public )

Good of Comcast of Connecticut/Georgia/ )

Massachusetts/New Hampshire/New York/ ) Docket No. 8301

North Carolina/Virginia/Vermont, LLC, d/b/a )

Comcast, expiring on December 29, 2016, to )

provide cable television service )

SUMMARY OF SUPPLEMENTAL PREFILED TESTIMONY

OF LAUREN-GLENN DAVITIAN

Ms. Davitian’s testimony (1) corrects certain testimony filed by Corey Chase on behalf of the

Department of Public Service; (2) responds to the rebuttal testimony of Mr. Daniel M. Glanville

provided on behalf of Comcast; and (3) advocates for the Public Service Board to adopt a vision and

way forward for the future of Public, Educational, and Government access to cable television in

Vermont.

Ms. Davitian sponsors the following exhibits:

Exhibit LGD-11 Letter to VAN from Comcast Regarding Compliance Issues on June

20, 2008.

Exhibit LGD-12 2012 VT Telecommunications Survey Report

Exhibit LGD-13 Graphic Report of AMO Survey Report Regarding On-Going

Requests to Comcast March 2012

Exhibit LGD-14 Detailed AMO Community Needs Assessments

Exhibit LGD-15 Summary of AMO Annual Report Service Quality Issues

Exhibit LGD-16 Detailed AMO Annual Report Future Planning Consideration and

Service Quality Issues

Exhibit LGD-17 “Cisco Visual Networking Index: Forecast and Methodology, 2014-

2019 White Paper”

PSB Docket No. 8301 Supplemental Prefiled Testimony of Lauren-Glenn Davitian

May 13, 2016

Page 2 of 38

Exhibit LGD-18 Recent Franchise Renewal Outcomes prepared by the Buske Group

Exhibit LGD-19 City of Philadelphia Needs Assessment Report 2015


May 13, 2016

Page 3 of 38

STATE OF VERMONT








SUPPLEMENTAL PREFILED TESTIMONY OF LAUREN-GLENN DAVITIAN

1

Q1. What is your name? 2

A1. My name is Lauren-Glenn Davitian. 3

4

Q2. What is your occupation? 5

A2. I am the executive director of CCTV Center for Media & Democracy (“CCTV”) based in 6

Burlington, Vermont. 7

8

Q3. Did you previously submit prefiled testimony in this docket? 9

A3. Yes. I submitted prefiled testimony on January 26, 2016. 10

11

Q4. What is the purpose of your supplemental testimony? 12

A4. My testimony offers supplemental material to the prefiled testimony of Corey Chase of the 13

Department of Public Service and rebuttal of the prefiled testimony (“RT” or “rebuttal 14

testimony”) of Mr. Daniel M. Glanville provided on behalf of Comcast on March 22, 2016. 15

16

I represent the Vermont Access Network (“VAN”) and have intervened on cable television 17

cases since PEG access was first required by the Public Service Board in 1984. In my 18


May 13, 2016

Page 4 of 38

prefiled testimony of January 2016, VAN proposed new renewed and conditions for PEG 1

Access channels, services and features between 2017 - 2028. 2

3

VAN believes its proposed conditions should be required of Comcast in exchange for 4

renewal of their CPG in Docket 8301. We think VAN’s case is supported by (i) federal and 5

state communications law, (ii) convincing examples of community needs and interests, (iii) 6

current national franchise models and (iv) ongoing cable system improvements. VAN’s case 7

is based on the foundational principles of free speech and open communications networks. 8

9

The purpose of my testimony is to organize this evidence in support of VAN’s proposed 10

conditions. See Exhibit LGD-9 (VAN’s proposed Docket 8301 CPG Conditions List) and 11

Exhibit LGD-10 (VAN’s Docket 8301 CPG Comparison Chart). 12

13

Q5. Do you have corrections to offer to Mr. Chase’s exhibits? 14

A5. Yes. I’d like to make corrections, on behalf of Brattleboro Community TV (“BCTV”), to the 15

following exhibit offered by Corey Chase, Vermont Department of Public Service (“the 16

Department”). 17

18

In Exhibit DPS-CRC-6, Mr. Chase lists five Southern VT Cable towns in BCTV’s service 19

territory which are inconsistently listed, and do not list BCTV as the designated Access 20

Management Organization (“AMO”). 21

22

Even though these towns are served by a cable Company that is “not Comcast,” the two 23

companies share the Brattleboro headend and Southern Vermont Cable (“SVC”) passes on 24

Comcast’s feed to its subscribers. Technical upgrades to the Brattleboro headend for the 25

provision of interactive program guide (“IPG”) data to Comcast subscribers should also 26

address this documented need from SVC subscribers. 27

28


May 13, 2016

Page 5 of 38

BCTV was designated as AMO for the following towns in 2012 per SVC’s Certificate of 1

Public Good (“CPG”) renewal in Docket 7633: 2

3

Jamaica: Listed in Exhibit DPS-CRC-6 as CHE-Brattleboro. BCTV is not listed as 4

AMO. 5

Dummerston: Listed in Exhibit DPS-CRC-6 as N/A. BCTV not listed as AMO. 6

Newfane, Putney, Townshend: Listed in Exhibit DPS-CRC-6 without headend as 7

“Not Comcast.” BCTV not listed as AMO. 8

9

For these five towns, the correct entries are: 10

Town Name CHE AMO Channels

Dummerston Brattleboro/Not Comcast BCTV 8, 10

Jamaica Brattleboro/Not Comcast BCTV 8, 10

Newfane Brattleboro/Not Comcast BCTV 8, 10

Putney Brattleboro/Not Comcast BCTV 8, 10

Townshend Brattleboro/Not Comcast BCTV 8, 10

11

Similarly, in Exhibit DPS-CRC-7, the map based on this data is incorrect for these five 12

towns (Dummerston, Jamaica, Newfane, Putney and Townshend). SVC towns receive their 13

signals via Comcast’s Brattleboro headend and the AMO is BCTV. 14

15

Q6. Please summarize VAN’s position on Mr. Glanville’s rebuttal testimony. 16

A6. The future of Vermont public, educational and government access to cable television 17

depends on the Public Service Board’s (“the Board”) decision in this CPG renewal. There is 18

a clear choice to be made between VAN and Comcast’s very different interpretations of (i) 19


May 13, 2016

Page 6 of 38

Vermont community needs and interests and (ii) the Company’s obligation to fulfill its 1

public service requirements today and over the 11-year term of the CPG. 2

3

VAN contends that its proposed CPG conditions are reasonable in light of the community 4

needs and interests identified in Docket 8301, and consistent with the public service 5

requirements outlined in federal laws and state statutes. See Exhibit LGD-9. 6

7

In his rebuttal testimony on behalf of Comcast, Mr. Glanville denies all of VAN’s proposed 8

conditions, calling them “outdated and unnecessary.” DMG Rebuttal Testimony at p.15, 9

lines 17-20. Comcast is clear that it does not intend to provide for the technical parity and 10

improvements of PEG channels, services and features. Comcast is flatly uninterested in any 11

conditions that the Company has not put forward in its proposed CPG. DMG Rebuttal 12

Testimony at p.53, lines 7-9. 13

14

Mr. Glanville makes two essential arguments in his rebuttal testimony: 15

1. Comcast argues that community needs and interests don’t justify VAN’s 16

proposed conditions. 17

On behalf of Comcast, Mr. Glanville views cable subscriber unwillingness to pay 18

more for PEG services as proof that PEG access should not be brought up to date. 19

Mr. Glanville relies on evidence of community needs and interests to build a case 20

against upgrading PEG access channels, features and services as the cable network 21

improves. He uses his narrow interpretation as justification for the Company’s failure 22

to fulfill some of its current PEG access CPG conditions, and argues against VAN’s 23

proposed technical conditions in this docket. Mr. Glanville uses the survey data to 24

demonstrate public disinterest in PEG access and unwillingness to pay for upgrades 25

over the term of the proposed CPG. Comcast wants the Board to find that PEG 26

upgrades and investment during the proposed CPG is not justified on the basis of 27

additional cost to the subscriber. Comcast has subjected VAN’s proposed conditions 28

to a cost benefit analysis and concluded that PEG upgrades are an unwanted burden 29


May 13, 2016

Page 7 of 38

on its customers and a weight on the Company’s bottom line. DMG Rebuttal 1


3

VAN’s reading of survey data provided by both Comcast and the Department of 4

Public Service identifies strong community needs and interest in PEG access 5

channels and services. In VAN’s view, PEG access merits continued and increased 6

investment in PEG access capacity by the subscribers and the Company. 7

8

2. Comcast argues lack of jurisdiction over PEG access technical requests. 9

Mr. Glanville also argues against VAN’s proposed conditions as technologically 10

prescriptive, beyond jurisdiction of the Board and VAN’s permissive intervention. 11

DMG Rebuttal Testimony at p.36, lines 11-12 and p.37, lines 8-17 and p.44, lines 4-12

5. 13

14

Yet Comcast has agreed to provide HD channels, Interactive Program Guide 15

navigation, I-Net connectivity between the AMO’s and anchor institutions, and the 16

process for future technological upgrades in a number of its recent municipal 17

franchises across the United States. Exhibits SC-7 (Bloomington MN), SC-8 (St. 18

Paul MN), SC-9 (Metro Portland OR), SC-10 (Westminster CO), SC-11 19

(Philadelphia PA -- Comcast’s corporate headquarters), and SC-12 (Vancouver WA). 20

21

VAN is asking Comcast to provide PEG access to currently available cable network 22

capacity. VAN is not seeking to prescribe technological solutions in its proposed 23

conditions: 24

25

Because Comcast has self-selected its technology platform, it is incorrect to 26

interpret VAN’s proposed conditions as directing the Public Service Board to 27

“mandate transmission technologies.” However, in making its selection, 28

Comcast has acted to not provide PEG with access to the same technology or 29

equivalent functionality. 30

31


May 13, 2016

Page 8 of 38

See Crawford Rebuttal Testimony at pp. 4-7, A6 for a fuller discussion. 1

2

In VAN’s view, Mr. Glanville’s rebuttal testimony overlooks the fundamental fact 3

that that Comcast is obliged by its use of the public rights of way to finance and open 4

their cable network for public uses, i.e. PEG access capacity and applications, over 5

next 11 year term of the franchise. While Mr. Glanville argues that subscribers don’t 6

want to pay more for PEG access and VAN’s argument is outside the Board’s 7

jurisdiction, Comcast’s obligation to provide reasonable PEG access over the 8

proposed CPG term remains. The Company’s obligation is clearly spelled out in 9

federal law and Vermont state statutes. 10

11

The Cable Communications Act of 1984, Pub. Law 98549, 1984 98 Stat. 12

2779, codified at 47 U.S.C. sec. 521 et seq., established a national policy for 13

federal, state, and local regulation of the cable industry. Among the stated 14

purposes of the Act were the establishment of franchise procedures and 15

standards to encourage the growth and development of cable systems and to 16

assure that cable systems were responsive to the needs and interests of the 17

local community, 47 U.S.C. sec. 521(2); the establishment of guidelines for 18

the exercise of federal, state, and local authority with respect to the 19

regulation of cable systems, 47 U.S.C. sec. 521(3); and the assurance that 20

cable systems would provide the widest possible diversity of information 21

sources and services to the public. 22

23

47 U.S.C. sec. 521(4). Exhibit LGD-1 at 1-2. 24

25

The EMCO Criteria, the foundation for evaluating Vermont CPG proposals, is 26

specific about what conditions a cable operator must meet to be granted a CPG. The 27

following EMCO Criteria are most relevant to VAN in this Docket: 28

29

1. Financial soundness and stability, both of the applicant generally and the 30

particular proposal; 2. The present proposed service offerings to customers, 31

including the number of channels and the ability and capacity of the system 32

to offer additional varied services in the future, and the ability to provide 33


May 13, 2016

Page 9 of 38

public access . . .; [and] 8. The quality of the engineering and materials used 1

in the system. 2

3

LGD PFT at p.7, line 1 to p.8, line 29. 4

5

In Rule 8.000, the Public Service Board spells out the public interest requirements of 6

Vermont cable operators. In laying the groundwork for PEG conditions in a CPG, the 7

Board defined “capacity” as “a portion of electromagnetic frequency spectrum used 8

for commercial and public purposes,” (Rule 8.100 (L)), and “PEG content” as “any 9

non-commercial voice, video, or information made available by members of the 10

public, educational institutions, local or state government, or an AMO and distributed 11

through PEG channels or cable system capacity set aside for such purposes” (Rule 12

8.100 (AA)). 13

14

The Board looked even farther ahead into the digital present by defining “other PEG 15

applications” in Rule 8.404, enabling AMOs to request dedicated system capacity or 16

facilities “in a form other than a channel to support the distribution of PEG content to 17

cable subscribers.” Rule 8.405(A), allows AMOs to request PEG channel and non-18

channel capacity at any time during the term of an operator’s certificate of public 19

good from cable operators. These requests are subject to cable operator approval in 20

Rule 8.405(B). LGD PFT at p.11, line 2-13. 21

22

Bolstered by these legal antecedents, the Vermont Public Service Board 23

conscientiously acknowledged community needs and interests and, over the past 24

three decades, adopted CPG conditions in support of PEG access funding, channels 25

and capacity. In Rule 8.404-8.405, the Board laid out a way to keep PEG access 26

relevant and on par with the commercial channels, services, and features offered by 27

Comcast. 28

29


May 13, 2016

Page 10 of 38

See LGD PFT at pp. 9 -12. 1

2

VAN does not believe that Comcast can dismiss Vermont AMO requests to upgrade 3

PEG access channels, features and services simply on the basis of Comcast’s alleged 4

subscriber unwillingness to pay--particularly in light of, as set forth in more detail 5

below, Comcast’s misinterpretation of survey results--or the misperception that VAN 6

is mandating particular transmission technologies. The community needs and 7

interests expressed in this docket are compelling and point toward VAN AMO’s 8

updating PEG access channels, services and features with Comcast support. The full 9

range of community needs and interests identified in this docket must be taken into 10

account as the Board rules on CPG conditions. 11

12

Vermont communities utilize community media resources with enthusiasm, resulting 13

in thousands of hours of PEG programming, volunteer activity, and community 14

benefit. Evidence for PEG access utilization may be found in Exhibit LGD-2 and the 15

annual reports provided by VAN members, available to the Board and all of the 16

parties in this case. VAN’s proposed conditions (Exhibit LGD-9) are based on first-17

hand experience with PEG users and the cable Company, recent testimony and 18

surveys of cable subscribers, community producers, community leaders and members 19

of the public. 20

21

In light of evidence of PEG access utilization over the past decade, current 22

community needs and interests, and precedents from other Comcast franchises, it is 23

also VAN’s position that Comcast has not complied with key PEG access conditions 24

in their current CPG. During this period, Vermont AMO’s have been discouraged 25

from seeking relief from the Board by Comcast. See Exhibit LGD-3 and Exhibit 26

LGD-11. 27

28


May 13, 2016

Page 11 of 38

In VAN’s view, Comcast’s long term and consistent rejection of the requests by 1

individual AMOs coupled with Comcast’s outright and absolute rejection of VAN’s 2

proposed CPG conditions should factor into the Board’s decision in this Docket. 3

4

Q7. What documentation did you consider in preparing your supplemental testimony? 5

A7. The documentation of community needs and interests that informs VAN’s position in Docket 6

8301 includes: 7

8

- Exhibit LGD-2: (Vermont PEG Access Related Community Needs and Interests) 9

summarizes the Public Service Board’s October 21, 2015 Public Hearing and 10

includes letters of public support for PEG services, and an inventory of AMO 11

complaints related to Comcast CPG noncompliance. 12

13

- Exhibit DPS-CP-1: Additional data, referred to by Mr. Glanville in his rebuttal 14

testimony include Exhibit DPS-CP-1 (Community Needs Assessment Report (the 15

“CNA Report”)) including Attachment D (2015 Comcast CPG Renewal Survey 16

Results (“DPS Survey”)), and Exhibit DMG-12 (2015 Community Ascertainment 17

Survey State of Vermont (“RKM Survey”). 18

19

- Exhibit DPS-CP-1 Attachments: VAN witnesses reviewed attachments connected 20

with the Department’s CNA Report. Many written comments also discussed the 21

importance of PEG programming for local communities. PSB Public Hearing results 22

included in Attachment A. Focus group results are found in Attachment B. Non-23

scientific survey results are summarized in Attachment C. A full report of the 24

scientific survey results is included as Attachment D. All written comments that the 25

Department received are included as Attachment E. 26

27

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1D4VsWuB4tBQbN-1n6A8YZ_eXXKrnBp6lO_hcdG1uxoI/edit

https://www.cctv.org/watch-tv/programs/public-service-board-hearing-comcast-renewal-certificate-public-good


May 13, 2016

Page 12 of 38

To further clarify the work AMO’s have done to document Comcast compliance issues 1

over the past decade, I provide the following exhibits to support my supplemental 2

testimony: 3

4

- Exhibit LGD-13 (Graphic Report of AMO Survey Report Regarding On-Going 5

Requests to Comcast March 2012): Visual representation of status of AMO 6

requests for PEG access upgrades, including Condition 22 ROS sites and IPG, during 7

contract negotiations and other “discussions”. This report demonstrates that AMO’s 8

have expressed concerns about CPG compliance to Comcast over the term of the 9

current Docket 7077 CPG. Compiled by Gregory EplerWood on behalf of VAN. 10

11

- Exhibit LGD-14 (Detailed AMO Community Needs Assessments): Compilation 12

of community needs assessments conducted by CAT-TV, NEK-TV, VCAM, ORCA, 13

LCATV and BCTV that document community needs and interests gathered over the 14

course of Comcast’s current CPG. These reports discuss awareness and perceived 15

value of PEG to the community, PEG viewership, customer satisfaction, willingness 16

to pay for PEG access, future considerations, the continuing digital transition, and 17

action plans. 18

19

- Exhibit LGD-15 (Summary of AMO Annual Report Service Quality Issues): 20

Between 2012 - 2015 VAN documented outstanding PEG access issues including 21

ROS activation, signal quality, access to HD channels. Again, this demonstrates that 22

Vermont AMO’s have been vocal about their concerns with Comcast via their 23

Annual Reports. Compiled by Gregory EplerWood on behalf of VAN in April 2016. 24

25

- Exhibit LGD-16 (Detailed AMO Annual Report Future Planning Consideration 26

and Service Quality Issues): Extracted from the annual reports of BCTV, GNAT, 27

Channel 17/ Town Meeting TV, LPCTV, FACT, HCTV, NEAT, WCTV, CAT-TV, 28

MMCTV, NWATV, RETN and VCAM between 2012 - 2015. These reports provide 29


May 13, 2016

Page 13 of 38

detail, summarized in Exhibit LGD-16. Again, this demonstrates that Vermont 1

AMO’s have been vocal about their concerns with Comcast via their Annual Reports. 2

Compiled by Gregory EplerWood on behalf of VAN in April 2016. 3

4

This list of evidence demonstrates that there is a generous record documenting community 5

needs and interests in this docket. This evidence extends beyond Mr. Glanville’s selective 6

use of the RKM Survey, the CNA Report and the DPS Survey (CNA Report, Attachment D). 7

8

Q8. In your opinion, are there other reasons that contribute to Comcast unwillingness to 9

support VAN’s proposed CPG conditions? 10

A8. Comcast is competing in a rapidly changing video ecosystem. Exhibit LGD-17 (Cisco Visual 11

Networking Index: Forecast and Methodology, 2014-2019 White Paper ) at p.2 underscores 12

important trends in bandwidth, connectivity, devices and ubiquity of online video that will 13

and are having an impact on the design and service offerings of cable network providers: 14

● The number of devices connected to IP networks will be three times as high as the 15

global population in 2019. There will be three networked devices per capita by 2019. 16

● Broadband speeds will double by 2019. By 2019, global fixed broadband speeds will 17

reach 43 Mbps, up from 20 Mbps in 2014. 18

● Globally, consumer internet video traffic will be 80 percent of all consumer Internet 19

traffic in 2019, up from 64 percent in 2014. 20

● Internet video to TV doubled in 2014. 21

● Consumer VOD traffic will double by 2019. 70 percent of IP VOD traffic in 2019, 22

up from 59 percent in 2014. 23

● Content delivery network traffic will deliver over half of all internet video traffic by 24

2019. By 2019, 72 percent of all Internet video traffic will cross content delivery 25

networks, up from 57 percent in 2014. 26

27

The competitive forces of satellite television also is an abiding concern of cable operators. 28

According to the Vermont 2012 Telecommunications Survey (Exhibit LGD-12), conducted 29


May 13, 2016

Page 14 of 38

for the Department of Public Service, Vermont cable is losing market share to satellite TV 1

services. In 2015, 43% of Vermont households subscribed to cable television. Of those who 2

did not, 72% subscribed to satellite television. Today, state cable and satellite subscription 3

rates are similar to 2009, where 48% of Vermont households had cable service, and 74% of 4

those who did not have cable service, had satellite service. Exhibit LGD-12 at p.33. 5

6

In light of these external forces, it would be reasonable to suggest that Comcast is 7

particularly sensitive to the CNA Report’s insight that 48% of cable subscribers “might stop 8

subscribing to Comcast in the next three years because of the cost.” See CNA Report, 9

Attachment D (DPS Survey) at pp. 18 - 19. 10

11

In spite of these competitive pressures, Comcast is planning rate hikes across the country1 12

and continues to be profitable in Vermont. Between 2013 and 2014, the Company’s net 13

revenue increased from $39 million to $51 million. Exhibit DPS-SF-1 at 9. Comcast passes 14

on the $7.1 million in PEG 2015 fees to the subscribers (as they are allowed under federal 15

law) rather than subtract PEG funding from its bottom line. 16

17

Q9. On page 2, line 19 through page 8, line 2 of his rebuttal testimony, Mr. Glanville 18

discusses the findings of the Department of Public Service’s witness Christine 19

Peterson’s Exhibit DPS-CP-1 (Community Needs Assessment Report (the “CNA 20

Report”), Attachment D (2015 Comcast CPG Renewal Survey Results (“DPS 21

Survey”)), and Mr. Glanville’s Exhibit DMG-12 (2015 Community Ascertainment 22

Survey State of Vermont (“RKM Survey”). 23

24

Mr. Glanville concludes that “the availability of PEG programming, in and of itself, is 25

not a key factor in customer satisfaction with their cable television subscription, as 73% 26

1 “Cable and Satellite TV Costs will Climb Again in 2016”, NBC News, December 22 2015.

http://www.nbcnews.com/business/business-news/cable-satellite-tv-costs-will-climb-again-2016-

n484531

http://www.nbcnews.com/business/business-news/cable-satellite-tv-costs-will-climb-again-2016-n484531

http://www.nbcnews.com/business/business-news/cable-satellite-tv-costs-will-climb-again-2016-n484531


May 13, 2016

Page 15 of 38

of customers indicated that their satisfaction with Comcast would stay the same if PEG 1

Access programming were no longer on the air. Additionally, there is a significant 2

number of customers who are either opposed to paying or would prefer to not pay a fee 3

for PEG access funding”. DMG Rebuttal Testimony at p.6, lines 1-5. 4

5

Mr. Glanville also concludes that based on the RKM Survey, “HD PEG and On 6

Demand PEG programming were not important to 70% and 65% of respective 7

respondents” and that “customers are not willing to pay more for these enhanced 8

services.” DMG PFT at p.6, lines 10-14. 9

10

Please address Mr. Glanville’s rebuttal testimony. 11

A9. The first relevant question in this Docket is whether the evidence contradicts Mr. Glanville’s 12

rebuttal testimony regarding community support for PEG access and VAN’s requests for 13

CPG conditions. 14

15

The evidence contradicts Mr. Glanville’s rebuttal testimony. Mr. Glanville provides a narrow 16

interpretation of community needs and uses a financial cost/ benefit analysis to justify fewer 17

PEG Access conditions in Comcast’s proposed CPG. See generally DMG Rebuttal 18

Testimony. 19

20

On the basis of the evidence in this docket, VAN thinks that (i) Vermont community needs 21

and interests are substantial, (ii) Vermont AMO plans for PEG access are reasonable, and 22

(iii) VAN’s proposed CPG should be supported by the Department and adopted by the 23

Board. See Exhibit LGD-9. 24

25

In VAN’s view, the community needs and interests data helps to make a case for the 26

improvement--not diminution--of PEG access channels, features and services over the 11 27

year term of Comcast’s proposed CPG. VAN’s reading of community needs and interests 28

tells a compelling story in support of PEG channels, expanded services, and PEG upgrades to 29


May 13, 2016

Page 16 of 38

IPG and HD channels. The whole of the community needs and interests evidence in this 1

docket shows that cost is not the only factor in subscribers (and wider public) desire for PEG 2

access channels, features or services. See Exhibit LGD-2 (Vermont PEG Access Related 3

Community Needs and Interests) at 2-3. 4

5

Here, the data from all surveys and evaluations/assessment of community needs and 6

interests shows widespread subscriber patronage and support for PEG access channels, 7

features and services. 8

9

1. Vermont cable subscribers watch PEG access channels in meaningful numbers. 10

According to 2012 VT Telecommunications Survey Report, prepared by ICF for the 11

Vermont Department of Public Service and released on September 29, 2012: 12

Public access television channels, sometimes called PEG access channels, 13

are designated cable TV channels used exclusively for transmitting television 14

programs produced by the public, educators, and local or other governments, 15

such as Town Council meetings, Statehouse press conferences, educational 16

events, etc. After providing this description during the survey, the 17

respondents were asked if they have ever watched PEG access channels. 18

Eighty-two percent of cable subscribers responded that they have, with 85 19

percent of those who have ever watched PEG channels in the past 12 months. 20

Fifty-one percent of cable subscribers have watched a town meeting on a 21

PEG access channel. Nearly thirty-nine percent of Vermonters with a cable 22

subscription reported that PEG channels are very important. 23

24

Exhibit LGD-12 at p.35 (2012 VT Telecommunications Survey Report) (emphasis 25

added). 26

27

2. The CNA Report indicates strong public and subscriber support for PEG 28

services. Contrary to Mr. Glanville’s statement, according to the Department, two-29

thirds of subscribers support PEG access as a community resource. Less than 4% 30

believe this is “not important” or “not very important” (CNA Report, Attachment D 31

(DPS Survey) at p.58, Table 42). The Department explains: 32

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1D4VsWuB4tBQbN-1n6A8YZ_eXXKrnBp6lO_hcdG1uxoI/edit


May 13, 2016

Page 17 of 38

1

67% of Comcast customers surveyed think that it is important for residents 2

and community organizations to have the opportunity to create and show 3

their own local programs through community access television. 4

5

Exhibit DPS-CP-1 (CNA Report) at p. 6. 6

7

3. The CNA Report demonstrates community support for expanding the AMO’s 8

capacity including live PEG programming, statewide connectivity, and on-demand 9

internet and mobile app availability. 10

11 When asked what additional services they would like the AMOs to provide, 12

many participants expressed that they would like the AMOs to have the 13

capacity to do more of what they already do--coverage of more community 14

meetings and events and the ability to broadcast more live programming 15

from locations that are not currently set up for remote origination. Others 16

spoke of the desire for AMOs to provide local sports coverage, education that 17

would enhance lessons taught in the classroom, and training in job skills or 18

compliance to qualify for state programs. Citizens expressed a desire to view 19

more PEG content on the internet or through a mobile app. Many voiced a 20

desire to be able to view content from other AMOs and for a statewide 21

channel that could feature programming from all areas of the state. People 22

felt that increased marketing by the AMOs and advertisements on 23

commercial channels could bring awareness and support to PEG 24

programming and services. 25

26

Exhibit DPS-CP-1 (CNA Report) at p.3 [emphasis added]. 27

28

4. According to the CNA Report, those viewers and members of the public 29

interviewed for the CNA report also believe it is important to obtain PEG 30

scheduling information, the ability to time-shift viewing, and view PEG in HD 31

formats. 32

33

Participants in every meeting said that AMOs would benefit greatly from 34

being able to broadcast in High Definition and from having detailed program 35

listings on Comcast’s interactive Program Guide (IPG). People said that HD 36


May 13, 2016

Page 18 of 38

is a medium that a majority of viewers use to consume programming and not 1

having that option available for PEG programming was a deterrent for 2

viewers. 3

4

Exhibit DPS-CP-1 (CNA Report) at p.3 (emphasis added). 5

6

5. HD channels are increasingly utilized and HD subscribers are interested in 7

watching PEG access in HD. 8

9

-According to the RKM survey at p. 15, 75% of customers have high 10

definition (“HD”) capable televisions in their home, and 56% of customers 11

currently subscribe to HD services from Comcast. 12

13

-According to CNA Report, Attachment D (DPS Survey), 50% of survey 14

respondents “who use a television” watch “all or almost all” of their TV in 15

HD (at p.16, Table 8); and 40% of Comcast customers would like the 16

opportunity to watch public access in HD. Id. at p.30, Table 21 (emphasis 17

added). 18

19

6. Having access to the IPG is an important issue for subscribers. 20

21

Sixty percent of cable subscribers (60%) cited in the CNA Report use the interactive 22

program guide. (CNA Report, Attachment D (DPS Survey) at p. 17, Table 9). The 23

DPS Survey indicates that 78.5% of respondents (it is not clear if they are subscribers 24

or not) would “like the option see local Public Access programming in the interactive 25

program guide”. Id. p.32, Table 23. 26

27

Regarding the Interactive Programming Guide (“IPG”), most participants’ 28

opinion is that detailed program listings would bring awareness of the 29

programs to Comcast customers who are not currently aware of the 30

programming available and could result in increased viewership. People also 31


May 13, 2016

Page 19 of 38

mentioned the increased popularity of Digital Video Recording (DVR) or 1

programming which is difficult without the listings. Many attendees noted 2

that they rely exclusively on the IPG to find television content. Other 3

attendees, however, stated that they were unfamiliar with the IPG and do not 4

use it. However, most attendees felt that more people would view AMO 5

content if it were listed on the IPG. 6

7

Exhibit DPS-CP-1 (CNA Report) at 4 [emphasis added]. 8

9

78.5% of current Comcast customers say that they would like the option of 10

seeing Public Access programming on the IPG. In a separate question, 11

people were asked what Comcast could do to make the community more 12

aware of PEG programming in services. The answer with the most responses 13

(50.7%) was to put the schedule on the program guide. 14

15

Exhibit DPS-CP-1 (CNA Report) at p. 6 (emphasis added). 16

17

7. VAN’s proposed conditions are also found in recent Comcast franchises 18

negotiated with municipalities across the United States. 19

20

For example, in Philadelphia, Comcast headquarters, the Company recently agreed to 21

provide broad public support for reasonable and adequate PEG services. See Exhibit 22

LGD-19 (City of Philadelphia Needs Assessment Report) at pp. 26-33. These 23

municipal franchise conditions are documented and described in the Prefiled 24

Testimony of all VAN witnesses, included as exhibits SC-7 to SC-12, and 25

summarized in Exhibit LGD-18: Recent Franchise Renewal Outcomes prepared by 26

the Buske Group. See also Campitelli PFT at pp. 14-17; Mobley PFT at p.14, lines 10-27

18 and p.21, lines 3-18; Chapman PFT at p.48, lines 24-26 and p.53, lines 6-19; and 28

Exhibits SC-7 (Bloomington MN Franchise Agreement), SC-8 (St. Paul MN 29

Franchise Agreement), SC-9 (Metro Portland OR Franchise Agreement), SC-10 30

(Westminster CO Franchise Agreement), SC-11 (Philadelphia PA Franchise 31

Agreement -- Comcast’s corporate headquarters), and SC-12 (Vancouver WA 32

Franchise Agreement). 33


May 13, 2016

Page 20 of 38

1

The second relevant question is whether costs associated with providing adequate PEG 2

services should bar Comcast from providing them. 3

4

Here, the data from all surveys and evaluations/assessment of community needs and 5

interests shows subscribers are willing to pay more for PEG services and 6

improvements. 7

8

1. The CNA report indicates that only 16% of cable subscribers are aware of the 9

PEG Access Fee included in cable bills; 77% are unaware. CNA Report Attachment 10

D (DPS Survey) at p.59, Table 43. 11

12

The Department says: “Few respondents had strong feelings about the fee, either 13

favorable or not.” Exhibit DPS-CP-1 (Community Needs Assessment Report (the 14

“CNA Report”)) at p.6. The reasonable conclusion from this substantial lack of 15

awareness is that fees related to PEG Access are not a driving concern for 16

subscribers. 17

18

2. When cable subscribers were asked “which of the following best describes your 19

opinion about this fee for a community access television channel?”, only 12% 20

opposed the fee, while 36% “don’t mind” or “very much support” paying the fee, 21

26% “prefer not” to pay and 24% have no opinion. CNA Report, Attachment D (DPS 22

Survey) at p.29, Table 20 (emphasis added). 23

24

3. The interpretation of the role of the “prefer nots” in the CNA Report is at the 25

heart of the VAN and Comcast debate about community needs and interests in 26

this docket. 27

28


May 13, 2016

Page 21 of 38

We do not agree with Mr. Glanville’s characterization of the data when he says: 1

“Additionally, there is a significant number of customers who are either opposed to 2

paying or would prefer to not pay a fee for PEG access funding” because he 3

automatically infers the “prefer not” category as a negative inference against PEG 4

services. DMG Rebuttal Testimony at p.6, lines 1-5. 5

6

Comcast equates the responses of subscribers who “prefer not” to pay for PEG 7

access and improvements with those who “oppose” PEG access and improvements. 8

VAN classifies the “prefer not’s” as people who do not oppose paying the fee or 9

higher cable rates, but, given a choice, prefer not to. After all, who prefers to pay for 10

anything if they are given the choice not to? The “prefer not” respondents are not 11

given the opportunity to explain their reasons. This missing context does not provide 12

sound basis for determining cable TV public policy or making a definitive 13

determination about community needs and interests. 14

15

4. Subscribers are willing to financially support PEG access production facilities. 16

The RKM Survey reports: 17

18

Forty-four percent of customers said that they would either moderately 19

(17%) or strongly (27%) oppose an increase in their monthly cable bill to 20

pay for the PEG Access production facilities. Forty-eight percent of 21

customers would support an increase, while eight percent did not express an 22

opinion. 23

24

When asked how much they would be willing to pay each month to provide 25

funding for the local production facility, 36 percent of Comcast customers 26

reported that they would not be willing to pay anything, while 57 percent of 27

customers at least 10 cents more per month for this purpose. 28

29

Exhibit DMG-12 (RKM Survey) at p.12 [emphasis added]. 30

31


May 13, 2016

Page 22 of 38

Comcast customers were also asked if they would support or oppose an increase in 1

their monthly cable bill for the construction of additional live programming locations 2

for PEG Access: 3

Sixty-six percent of customers said that they would either moderately (26%) 4

or strongly (40%) oppose an increase in their monthly cable bill to support 5

funding additional live programming locations. Twenty-seven percent of 6

Comcast customers said that they would support an increase in their monthly 7

cable bill for this purpose and the remaining seven percent did not express 8

an opinion. 9

10

When asked how much they would be willing to pay each month to support 11

funding for a local access corporation, 48 percent of customers reported that 12

they would not be willing to pay anything, while 47 percent of Comcast 13

would be willing to pay at least 10 cents more per month. 14

15

Id. at p.12. 16

17

5. Subscribers are willing to support PEG in HD. Fourteen percent of HD viewers 18

(14%) are opposed to paying a fee and 50% “prefer not to” pay a fee to watch local 19

programming in high definition. CNA Report, Attachment D (DPS Survey) at p.31, 20

Table 22. Twenty percent don’t mind paying for IPG access, 43% “prefer not to” pay 21

an extra fee and, 30% would be “opposed”. Id. at p.33. 22

23

Based on this data, we do not believe it is accurate for Mr. Glanville to conclude: 24

“HD PEG and On Demand PEG programming were not important to 70% and 65% 25

of respective respondents” and that “customers are not willing to pay more for these 26

enhanced services.” See DMG PFT at p.6, lines 10-14. 27

28

Q10. In reference to the subscriber's willingness to pay for PEG services and improvements, 29

described above, do you have comments in connection with the methodology 30

undertaken by the Department and Comcast in the CNA Report and RKT Survey, 31

respectfully? 32


May 13, 2016

Page 23 of 38

A10. Yes. In VAN’s view, the CNA Report and RKT Survey are incomplete and lack context 1

for the simple reason that the data is not sufficient to draw definitive conclusions about 2

subscriber’s price sensitivities. For example, when it comes to PEG channels, services and 3

upgrades, VAN does not agree with Comcast’s equation of customers who “prefer to not pay 4

more” with customers who don’t support PEG access improvements. 5

6

Neither the CNA Report, DPS Survey, nor the RKM Survey does a good job of providing a 7

wider context or comparison for evaluating subscriber views on the relative value of PEG 8

access channels, services and upgrades. Neither of the surveys provided subscribers with the 9

opportunity to: (i) explain why they oppose rate increases for PEG improvements; (ii) 10

compare commercial services with PEG access viewership, approval ratings, and price 11

sensitivity; or, (iii) compare Vermont AMO’s with comparable civic institutions such as 12

libraries, youth training organizations, technology hubs and maker spaces. I address each of 13

these below: 14

15

- The surveys provided no opportunity to explain why consumers oppose rate 16

increases for PEG improvements. The CNA Report, DPS Survey, and RKM 17

Survey show that subscribers are very interested in PEG access to HD, IPG and ROS. 18

Those subscribers who indicate they are opposed to rate increases for PEG 19

improvements could also have a positive opinion about access to PEG channels and 20

services. Unfortunately neither the CNA Report nor RKM Survey solicits 21

comparative viewpoints about other channels value or cost, or other reasons (besides 22

lack of support for PEG access) for not paying more. 23

24

One useful set of survey responses would have clarified the reasons for subscriber 25

price sensitivity, including “Because I don't think PEG access should be available”, 26

“I already pay Comcast too much”, and/ or “Comcast should pay for this, not the 27

subscribers”. 28

29


May 13, 2016

Page 24 of 38

We see indications of these types of responses in the CNA Report and DPS Survey 1

comments. These comments point to price sensitivity that may not have anything to 2

do with paying for PEG access. These comments from the DPS Survey suggest that 3

there are many reasons for a survey respondent to choose “prefer not to pay”. 4

5

Comcast should be paying the fee for public access channels because their 6

prices are so high already. Exhibit DPS, CNA Report, Att. D (DPS Survey) 7

at p. 52. 8

9

Our local access channel is good. It is nice to see replays of sports games 10

and meetings as well as the bulletin board. However, I can't stress enough 11

unhappiness with Comcast. Cable/Internet is more and more seen as a utility 12

- we need it to get our work done- and to get price gauged with no customer 13

service is an outrage. At this time, I may switch to Netflix and lose public 14

access just so that I don't have to pay exorbitant cable fees. I would hope 15

there may be other online options so that we could still use public access 16

channels in the future. 17

18

Id. at p.55 (emphasis added). 19

20

- The surveys provided no opportunity to compare commercial services with PEG 21

access viewership, approval ratings, and price sensitivity. In this way, the parties 22

could actually assess the relative value of PEG within a context of the entire cable 23

“dial” or “menu”. For example, Philadelphia took this approach in their recent 24

community needs assessment and are able to show that “even the most popular 25

commercial channels will not garner a majority of viewing households in a large 26

multichannel environment.” Exhibit LGD-19 at p.29, Table 8: Average Viewership 27

of Comcast Owned/Partially Owned Cable Networks (emphasis added). 28

29

- The surveys provided no opportunity to compare Vermont AMO’s with 30

comparable civic institutions such as libraries, youth training organizations, 31

technology hubs and maker spaces. The CNA Report and RKM Survey paint a 32

picture of PEG access as a cable network offering. The CNA Report also asks about 33


May 13, 2016

Page 25 of 38

community use of PEG resources. In this context, it would also be helpful to ask the 1

community how they view Vermont AMO’s as a civic institution and asset for 2

community development. In addition to its function as a cable television channel, 3

PEG Access serves multiple civic purposes such as being a free space for 4

independent thought, a “sand box” for experimental media, a hub for local 5

government, an archive of community history, youth training program, and 6

community technology center. This is an important, additional, framework for 7

evaluating the community needs and interests of Vermonters and the impact of 8

Vermont AMO’s. See Exhibit DPS-CP-1 (CNA Report, Attachment D (DPS 9

Survey)) at p.22, Table 14. 10

11

Q11. Above you discuss how support for PEG services and VAN’s requests for CPG 12

conditions is borne out by the CNA Report, the DPS Survey, the RKM Survey and 13

VAN’s identification of community needs and interests--including willingness to pay for 14

PEG access basic and “enhanced” features. Can you provide a concrete example which 15

further illustrates the differences of opinion between VAN and Comcast? 16

A11. At the core of this Docket is a difference of opinion about (i) what constitutes sufficient 17

community needs and interests, (ii) the core responsibility of Comcast to provide PEG 18

Access funding, channels and services, and (iii) whether Comcast’s should be required to 19

provide Vermont AMOs and PEG access with functional equivalency and technological 20

improvements available to Comcast’s commercial channels, services and features. This 21

example also puts to rest Mr. Glanville’s statement that Comcast was unaware of VAN 22

discontent. 23

24

As a cogent example of this debate, we look to the Interactive Program Guide. Despite 25

VAN’s requests, Comcast has not moved on this issue since 2008. See Exhibit LGD-11 at 26

p.3 (Letter to VAN from Comcast Regarding Compliance Issues). 27

28

On behalf of the Department, Mr. Chase’s reading of the record shows sufficient community 29


May 13, 2016

Page 26 of 38

needs and interests to recommend that Comcast should pay for IPG upgrades for 16 AMO’s, 1

if the cost is reasonable: 2

3

Accordingly, I recommend that the Board require Comcast to place PEG and AMO 4

content information on the IPG unless Comcast can demonstrate with specificity that 5

the cost of necessary upgrades would be unreasonable. 6

7

Chase PFT at p.16, lines 13-15. 8

9

In Docket 8301, VAN proposes a revised IPG condition modeled on national Comcast 10

franchise renewals: 11

12

If channels are selected through menu systems within Comcast’s array of services, 13

such as Comcast’s Interactive Program Guide and X1 operating system, the PEG 14

access channels shall be presented in the same manner as other channels, and with 15

equivalent programming information and features, such as DVR, talking guide 16

capability, and access via voice activated remote control, or related features in the 17

future. To the extent that any menu system is controlled by a third party, Comcast 18

shall ensure that the Company will provide PEG listings on that menu system, if 19

programming information is provided by the AMOs. 20

21

See Exhibit LGD-9 at p.11. 22

23

Mr. Glanville presents three reasons for Comcast to oppose IPG conditions proposed by DPS 24

and VAN. The Company argues these conditions are (i) outside of Board’s jurisdiction 25

(DMG PFT at p.39, lines 7-10), (ii) unsupported by Comcast subscribers, (DMG Rebuttal 26

Testimony at p.6, lines 1-5), and, (iii) financially prohibitive at $3 million cost for activating 27

the IPG for 16 AMO’s. See DMG Rebuttal Testimony at p.41; Chase PFT p.14, lines 2-8). 28

(While Comcast presents this estimate it does explicitly say it is “too expensive”.) 29

30

However, VAN has demonstrated clear IPG community needs and interests from (i) 31

statements made at the Public Hearing conducted by the Board, (ii) the DPS Survey, (iii) 32

other testimonials provided to the Board by members of the public, (iv) community needs 33


May 13, 2016

Page 27 of 38

assessments undertaken by the AMOs and (v) national Comcast franchise examples. Exhibit 1

LGD-2 and Exhibit LGD-5. 2

3

In addition, VAN has presented clear evidence that viewers habits are transitioning to an ever 4

increasing use of the IPG and DVR recording that the IPG allows. (CNA Report, Attachment 5

D (DPS Survey) at p.17, Table 9). Moreover, VAN has deposited that access to the IPG is an 6

existing condition of Comcast’s current Docket 7077 CPG with which Comcast remains 7

noncompliant and, indeed, refused or failed to properly consider as it upgraded its cable 8

system. Exhibit LGD-2 at pp. 13-15. 9

10

Docket 8301 is the opportunity for the parties to examine the reasonableness of their 11

proposed conditions, including IPG. But VAN and Comcast have failed to agree on what 12

CPG conditions are “reasonable” since 2008. VAN is here because Company has failed to 13

comply with its current CPG requirements that enable subscribers to find PEG channels. 14

Exhibit LGD - 11 at p. 2. Based on Comcast’s proposed CPG and Mr. Glanville’s rebuttal 15

testimony, Comcast and does not intend to address the IPG access problem for 16 AMO’s in 16

the foreseeable future. DMG Rebuttal Testimony at p.53, lines 7-9. 17

18

The Board must weigh evidence and determine what are reasonable conditions for PEG 19

channels, services and features over the next 11 years. 20

21

In VAN’s view, in light of the collective evidence documented here, Comcast’s 22

unilateral opposition to upgrading PEG access to the IPG and all of VAN’s proposed 23

conditions appear intransigent. Mr. Glanville pairs a narrow interpretation of community 24

needs and interest with customers’ “willingness to pay more” and concludes, by way of a 25

cost benefit analysis, that PEG access services should remain static during a period of rapid 26

technological change into the foreseeable future. It is unfortunate for Vermont communities 27

that Mr. Glanville uses his rebuttal testimony to confirm that the Company is neither 28


May 13, 2016

Page 28 of 38

technically nor financially willing to accommodate the upgrade of PEG services over the 1

next 11-years of the proposed CPG. 2

3

While Comcast posits itself as “an industry leader” that has “consistently invented, 4

developed, deployed and improved a wide range of new technologies and services,” DMG 5

PFT at p.6, lines 1-11, it remains steadfastly unwilling to propose cost effective technical 6

solutions that enable cable subscribers to perform the most basic access function such as 7

finding PEG channels, recording programming, or viewing PEG channels in the same quality 8

as every other channel in the lineup. Nor is the Company willing to propose and implement 9

innovative ways of connecting its network to community institutions through remote 10

origination sites, including AMO’s across Vermont. Mr. Glanville concludes his rebuttal 11

with the definitive statement: “Comcast opposes additional conditions to its renwal CPG 12

including those proposed by other parties unless included in the proposed CPG conditions 13

filed by Comcast.” DMG Rebuttal Testimony at p.53, lines 7-9. 14

15

Mr. Glanville argues that either the cost of VAN’s proposed conditions are (i) “too high” or 16

(ii) outside the jurisdiction of the Board. Mr. Glanville’s testimony also suggests that 17

Comcast has no plans to bring PEG along with technical upgrades the Company will make 18

during the inevitable, on-going transformation of the Vermont system to a TCP/IP based 19

Multichannel Video Programming Distributor (“MVPD”). Exhibit LGD-10 (“The State of 20

the Art and Evolution of Cable Television and Broadband Technology, Report to City of 21

Seattle, Columbia Communications). 22

23

Q12. In his Rebuttal Testimony Mr. Glanville concedes that “there needs to be further 24

discussion regarding what is adequate and reasonable in light of the facts about PEG 25

programming and viewership in the State.” DMG PFT, p.36 at lines 21-22. What is 26

VAN’s reaction to this matter? 27

A12. VAN considers Docket 8301 to be the “further discussion” to which Mr. Glanville refers. 28

Despite good faith efforts and consistent meetings with Comcast over the past decade, it has 29


May 13, 2016

Page 29 of 38

been difficult, through discussions, to move the Company toward full CPG compliance. 1

VAN was unable, through discussions, to reach agreement on proposed conditions with 2

Comcast and the Department when we met in Summer 2015 in preparation for this docket. 3

Comcast’s proposed CPG substantially reduced the number of PEG access conditions from 4

their obligations in Docket 7077. 5

6

It is VAN’s position that Comcast is missing opportunities to rethink how it provides current 7

and future PEG access channels, services, and features, including channel navigation (IPG), 8

HD standards, affordable remote origination sites, video on demand, statewide 9

interconnectivity, business class Internet access, and new services to be deployed in the next 10

decade. Based on Comcast’s proposed conditions and responses in Mr. Glanville’s rebuttal 11

testimony, Vermont’s AMO’s will be unable to meet the stated community needs and 12

interests supported by the evidence over the next 11-years. 13

14

If PEG access is not included in the cable system improvements planned over the next 15

eleven years, AMO efforts will be “jettisoned to a digital Siberia” and our communities run 16

the will lose meaningful capacity (channels, community development, technological parity). 17

See Docket 7077 Campitelli PFT dated September 9, 1999 at p.2. 18

19

In its testimony and exhibits, VAN has proposed concrete and constructive conditions that 20

will enable Comcast to meet community needs and interests, maintain the quality of PEG 21

signals and services, and remain open to new generations of PEG Access, as Comcast’s 22

Cable System is upgraded. By taking VAN’s proposed conditions seriously, the parties could 23

move the “discussion” Mr. Glanville refers to toward a mutually satisfying conclusion in this 24

Docket. See Exhibit LGD-9 (VAN’s Proposed Docket 8301 CPG Conditions List). 25

26

Q13. Mr. Glanville cites the $7.2 million annual investment in Vermont AMO’s “entirely 27

provided by Comcast.” See DMG Rebuttal Testimony at p.30, line 18. Please comment 28

on Mr. Glanville’s rebuttal testimony. 29


May 13, 2016

Page 30 of 38

1

A13. While Mr. Glanville cites the $7.2 million annual investment in Vermont AMO’s “entirely 2

provided by Comcast” as a sign of the Company’s largesse, it is, in fact, a public service 3

obligation of the Company. See DMG PFT at p.15, line 9 and p.30, line 18. 4

5

The Board will remember that PEG funding was not volunteered by the Company in 6

recognition of PEG’s value, but obtained as the result of VAN members’ careful 7

documentation of local community needs and interests as the result of over three decades of 8

active participation in CPG licensing dockets, and performance of AMO duties assigned to 9

AMOS pursuant to AMO/operator contract negotiations, and in satisfaction of Board Rule 10

8.400. Since 1984, the Public Service Board rulings have supported PEG Access start-ups, 11

maintenance, and the activation of additional PEG Channels or other PEG applications. See 12

Rule 8.404 and 8.405. 13

14

Q14. In response to VAN’s testimony, Mr. Glanville states that “Comcast has complied with 15

the terms and conditions of its contractual relationships. This is supported by the fact 16

that no compliance issues, to our knowledge has been referred to the Department of the 17

Board since Comcast began offering cable services in Vermont in 2006.” DMG PFT at 18

p.14, line 21 to p.15, line 2. Please respond to Mr. Glanville’s rebuttal testimony. 19

A14. Because Vermont AMO’s were losing ground on key access conditions, LGD Rebuttal 20

Testimony at. pp. 9-11, VAN has worked diligently since 2008 to document Comcast PEG 21

access compliance with this CPG renewal in mind. Examples: Exhibit LGD-3 (Comcast 22

Letter to Hearing Officer John Bentley 6-20-08) and Exhibit LGD-11 (Letter to VAN from 23

Comcast Regarding Compliance Issues on June 20, 2008). 24

25

VAN began to raise compliance issues with the Company very soon after Comcast received 26

its CPG in Vermont in 2006. In 2008, VAN formally raised a series of now familiar 27

compliance concerns related to (i) the Company’s practice of charging for access to remote 28

origination sites (including AMO studios), (ii) lack of access to the electronic program 29


May 13, 2016

Page 31 of 38

guides, and (iii) the imbalance of power in the AMO contract renewal process. VAN was 1

discouraged by both Comcast and the Department from bringing these issues to the Board, 2

opting for informal “discussions”. Several meetings were scheduled and attended by VAN 3

with Comcast and the Department but we have not reached agreement on the outstanding 4

compliance issues. Comcast have not agreed to VAN’s requests and the Department has not 5

compelled the Company to comply with its Docket 7077 CPG conditions. See LGD PFT at 6

p.12, lines 15-30. 7

8

Comcast’s unwillingness to consider VAN’s requests, the Department’s unwillingness to 9

enforce the Company’s CPG requirements, and the prohibitive cost of bringing a case before 10

the Board, has had a chilling effect upon Vermont AMO pursuit of these compliance issues 11

in 2008 and subsequent years. The cost of litigation was (and is) acutely felt by VAN 12

members in general, and by smaller AMO’s in particular, who were dissatisfied with their 13

contract terms but could not afford to bring the outstanding conditions to the Board for 14

adjudication. See LGD PFT at pp. 14-15. 15

16

Working on our own, with limited support from the Department, Vermont AMO’s have 17

spent the past decade documenting community needs, technical capacity requirements, and 18

contract renewal outcomes, in anticipation of Comcast’s 2016 renewal proceeding (Docket 19

8301). In an economical use of resources, Vermont AMO’s have aggregated their areas of 20

disagreement and legal resources in order to seek relief from the Public Service Board in this 21

Docket. 22

23

The evidence below documents ways Comcast has not complied with PEG access conditions 24

or made it difficult for AMO’s to obtain upgrades for channels, services and features. These 25

exhibits also show that Vermont AMO’s have kept Comcast informed of the areas of 26

disagreement and non-compliance on an annual basis despite Mr. Glanville’s assertion to the 27

contrary. See DMG PFT at p.14, line 21 to p.15, line 2. 28

29


May 13, 2016

Page 32 of 38

- Exhibit LGD-13: Graphic Report of AMO Survey Report Regarding On-Going 1

Requests to Comcast March 2012 2

Visual representation of status of AMO requests for PEG access upgrades, including 3

Condition 22 ROS sites and IPG, during contract negotiations and other 4

“discussions”. This report demonstrates that AMO’s have expressed concerns about 5

CPG compliance to Comcast over the term of the current Docket 7077 CPG. 6

7

- Exhibit LGD-14: Detailed AMO Community Needs Assessments 8

Compilation of community needs assessments conducted by CAT-TV, NEK-TV, 9

VCAM, ORCA, LCATV and BCTV that document community needs and interests 10

gathered over the course of Comcast’s current CPG. These reports discuss awareness 11

and perceived value of PEG to the community, PEG viewership, customer 12

satisfaction, willingness to pay for PEG access, future considerations, the continuing 13

digital transition, and action plans. 14

15

- Exhibit LGD-15: Summary of AMO Annual Report Service Quality Issues 16

Between 2012 - 2015 VAN documented outstanding PEG access issues including 17

ROS activation, signal quality, access to HD channels. Again, this demonstrates that 18

Vermont AMO’s have been vocal about their concerns with Comcast via their 19

Annual Reports. 20

21

- Exhibit LGD-16: Detailed AMO Annual Report Future Planning Consideration 22

and Service Quality Issues 23

Extracted from the annual reports of BCTV, GNAT, Channel 17/ Town Meeting TV, 24

LPCTV, FACT, HCTV, NEAT, WCTV, CAT-TV, MMCTV, NWATV, RETN and 25

VCAM between 2012 - 2015. These reports provide detail, summarized in Exhibit 26

LGD-16. Again, this demonstrates that Vermont AMO’s have been vocal about their 27

concerns with Comcast via their Annual Reports. 28

29


May 13, 2016

Page 33 of 38

Q15. Comcast contends that VAN’s proposed conditions concerning PEG access to the IPG 1

are outside the scope of the Board’s authority. DMG PFT at p.39, lines 6-10. Please 2

respond to Mr. Glanville’s rebuttal testimony. 3

A15. Mr. Glanville uses this argument to oppose the requirement of HD channels (DMG PFT at 4

p.37, lines 8 - 10), IPG (Id. at p.39, lines 6-10), video on demand (Id. at p.42, lines 10-12), 5

and steps to ensure that PEG access services are not reduced or adversely affected by 6

technology changes. (Id. at p. 43, lines 14-16). Yet Comcast has agreed to comparable 7

conditions in franchise agreements across the country. Why is Vermont being treated like a 8

backwater? 9

10

In particular, see Campitelli PFT at pp. 13-17 for a discussion of the precedents for VAN’s 11

proposed conditions, exhibited in Comcast recent franchise agreements. See also Mobley 12

PFT at p.14, lines 10-18 and p.21, lines 3-18 and Chapman PFT at p.48, lines 24-26 and 13

p.53, lines 6-19. 14

15

A snapshot of contemporary PEG access conditions across the United States are also 16

summarized in Exhibit LGD-18 (Recent Franchise Renewal Outcomes prepared by the 17

Buske Group). Comcast has agreed to the following conditions in Philadelphia’s most recent 18

franchise, yet will not make comparable commitments in Vermont: 19

20

- Protocols for PEG interconnection (remote origination) 21

- Access to onscreen channels and menus 22

- Terms and conditions for INET activation 23

- Provisions for activation of HD Channels, and, 24

- Access to video on demand platform. 25

26

It is highly significant, that in its Philadelphia franchise, Comcast also agreed to the 27

following condition: 28

29


May 13, 2016

Page 34 of 38

5.5.4 Advances in Channel Technology. If Franchisee incorporates technological 1

improvements in channel quality (such as HD 4K), in channel delivery or display on 2

Franchisee’s Cable System for the Basic Service Tier, the City or an Access Channel 3

operator may request in writing to meet with the Franchisee and Franchisee will 4

participate in discussions of the improvements with the City and the Access Channel 5

operators. These discussions shall address options for making the same 6

improvements and enhancements in the display and delivery of PEG Channels to 7

Subscribers, including technical means and costs. 8

9

Exhibit Campitelli-11 (Philadelphia PA Comcast Agreement, December 2015, pp. 17-26). 10

Such a condition goes a long way to ensuring that the technology available to PEG Access is 11

consistent with what Comcast rolls out for commercial purposes and that PEG is not 12

relegated to “digital Siberia” or becomes otherwise obsolete. 13

14

Q16. Mr. Glanville states: “It was also understood by both Comcast and VAN that 15

establishment of Vermont Media Exchange (“VMX”) would satisfy Condition 20. 16

Included as Exhibit DMG-14 are letters dated January 8, 2007, October 26, 2007, and 17

October 29, 2007, regarding satisfaction of Comcast’s obligations pursuant to 18

Condition 20. Glanville PFT at p.24, lines 7-11. Please respond to Mr. Glanville’s 19

rebuttal testimony. 20

A16. VAN did not “understand” that establishment of VMX would fully satisfy Condition 20 of 21

Comcast’s CPG in Docket 7077. There is nothing in Exhibit DMG-14 to preclude VAN from 22

pursuing the full intent of the CPG condition. In fact, in the letter from Comcast to VAN, 23

dated January 8, 2007 at p.2, Comcast states: 24

25

Comcast endorsement of Phase I [the “designation of digital file sharing capability 26

among Comcast designated Access Management Organization’s” does not represent 27

an endorsement of future phases or future proposals by VAN. Future requests will be 28

considered in the framework of the statewide AMO established through Rule 8.400 et 29

seq. and with other cable operators, not Comcast exclusively. 30

31

Exhibit DMG-14 (Letters dated January 8, 2007, October 26, 2007 and October 29, 2007) 32

(emphasis added). 33


May 13, 2016

Page 35 of 38

1

Comcast’s cable network is not static. See DMG Rebuttal Testimony at p.34, line 15 to p.35, 2

line 2 and p.35, line 16 to p.36, line 2. PEG access channels, services and upgrades must be 3

considered within an evolving network environment. For example, while VMX is a useful 4

solution for file sharing during the 2000’s, it will not meet the documented community needs 5

and interests in live, high quality programming. To think that this is the case is remarkably 6

shortsighted for a forward looking Company. 7

8

The I-Net, described in Chapman PFT at pp. 35-50, proposes to connect VAN AMO’s so 9

that they may easily and affordably share (i) customer facing content such as live Vermont 10

legislative coverage, and (ii) back channel transport for video files en route to AMOs for 11

airing, collaborative production, and/or archival storage. Campitelli PFT at p.6, line 25 to 12

p.7, line 3. 13

14

Because Comcast does not intend accommodate the future community needs and interests 15

identified by VAN, VAN’s technical leadership is developing “workarounds” to solve 16

important PEG access conditions such as ROS and statewide I-Net connectivity. It is 17

inefficient for the Company and VAN to work independently. Plus, as Vermont AMOs’ 18

takes on the cost of innovation without the benefit of Comcast upgrades and system 19

redesigns, they reduce the resources available to to meet community needs and interests. See 20

Crawford PFT at p.5, lines 1 - 10. 21

22

Q17. “While Comcast has no intention of constructing such a network [I-Net], it is important 23

to note that nothing prohibits passing through all I-Net related costs to customers as a 24

line item on the bill.” DMG Rebuttal Testimony at p.25, lines 14-16. Please respond to 25

Mr. Glanville’s rebuttal testimony. 26

A17. I-Net’s are typically leased by the cable operator at agreed upon cost with commercial 27

conditions. See Exhibit LGD-1 at 7. In Exhibit LGD-18 (Recent Franchise Renewal 28

Outcomes prepared by the Buske Group), I-Net’s are included as conditions of several recent 29


May 13, 2016

Page 36 of 38

Comcast franchises. Highlights of I-Net agreements may be found in Exhibit LGD-19 and 1

spelled out in more detail in Exhibit RC-11 (Examples of Municipal I-Net Conditions). 2

3

For example, in Comcast’s 2012 franchise agreement with Mt. Hood Cable Regulatory 4

Commission for the City of Portland and East Multnomah County, Oregon, Comcast makes 5

reference to “specific provisions related to fees, performance and operations of the I-Net and 6

I-Net services are set forth in a separate agreement between Grantee and the City”. In 7

Pittsburgh, Comcast is required to provide I-Net, but details are “confidential.” See Exhibit 8

RC-11 (Examples Municipal I-Net Conditions at p.15). 9

10

VAN fully expects that it would enter into a comparable negotiation with Comcast to 11

determine the conditions and costs for building and operating a Vermont I-Net for PEG 12

access purposes. 13

14

Q18. Do you have any concluding remarks? 15

A18. The Public Service Board has a clear choice between VAN and Comcast’s competing 16

interpretations of (i) community needs and interests, and (ii) the Company’s obligation to 17

advance and support PEG access in Vermont. 18

19

VAN contends that its proposed CPG conditions are reasonable in light of community needs 20

and interests identified in Docket 8301, and consistent with national franchise examples, 21

cable system capacity, and public service requirements outlined in federal laws and state 22

statutes. See Exhibit LGD-9 (VAN Proposed Docket 8301 CPG Conditions). 23

24

VAN’s proposed conditions are based on community needs and interests identified across 25

Vermont and collected by the Vermont Public Service Board (Exhibit LGD-2); the 26

Department and Comcast (Exhibit DPS-CP-1 (Community Needs Assessment Report (the 27

“CNA Report”)) including Attachment D (2015 Comcast CPG Renewal Survey Results 28

(“DPS Survey”)), and Exhibit DMG-12 (2015 Community Ascertainment Survey State of 29


May 13, 2016

Page 37 of 38

Vermont); and by VAN on behalf of Vermont AMO’s Exhibit LGD-13 (Graphic Report of 1

AMO Survey Report Regarding On-Going Requests to Comcast March 2012),), Exhibit 2

LGD-14 (Detailed AMO Community Needs Assessments), Exhibit LGD-15 (Summary of 3

AMO Annual Report Service Quality Issues), Exhibit LGD-16 (Detailed AMO Annual 4

Report Future Planning Consideration and Service Quality Issues). 5

6

VAN’s proposed conditions are supported by precedents from other Comcast service 7

territories where recent cable franchises have been negotiated. Exhibit LGD-18 (Recent 8

Franchise Renewal Outcomes prepared by the Buske Group). 9

10

VAN proposed conditions for funding and PEG access to channels (front facing content 11

channels and back end transport streams), services (e.g. Streaming TV, VOD) and features 12

(e.g. HD/ IPG navigation) all of which are reasonable in light of the current capacity of 13

Comcast’s cable network and the likely future design of the cable network. Crawford PFT at 14

pp. 17-20. 15

16

VAN’s proposed conditions are consistent with federal laws and state statutes. Exhibit LGD-17

1 (Federal and Vermont Basis of Public Service Board Jurisdiction to Require Public, 18

Educational and Government (PEG) Access Capacity and Financial Support). 19

20

Despite its understanding that these issues “require discussion,” DMG RT at p.36, lines 21-21

22, Comcast has failed to come to agreement with VAN’s after 10 years of persistent 22

complaints. Exhibit LGD-3 (Comcast Letter to Officer John Bentley) and Exhibit LGD-11 23

(Comcast Letter to VAN). VAN is not confident that further discussions will lead to a 24

reasonable resolution of the current and future issues related to the delivery of PEG access 25

channels, services, and features in Vermont. 26

27

In Docket 8301, Comcast continues to contest each and every CPG condition proposed by 28

VAN which would allow PEG Access to continue to meet community needs and interests, 29


May 13, 2016

Page 38 of 38

calling them “outdated and unnecessary”. DMG Rebuttal Testimony at p.15, lines 17-20. 1

Comcast opposes any conditions that the Company has not put forward in its proposed CPG. 2

DMG Rebuttal Testimony at p.52, lines 7-9. VAN is not confident that further discussions 3

will lead to a reasonable resolution of the current and future issues related to the delivery of 4

PEG access channels, services, and features in Vermont. 5

6

VAN seeks relief from the Board and parity for PEG access channels, services and features. 7

VAN urges the Board to adopt VAN’s proposed conditions spelled out at Exhibit LGD-9 on 8

the basis of the evidence made available in this Docket and spelled out in VAN witness 9

testimony. It is necessary and appropriate for the Board to rule on the dispute between the 10

parties regarding the future of PEG access in this Docket. 11

12

The evidence demonstrates that VAN’s proposed conditions will meet community needs and 13

interests, provide public benefit for Vermonters, and achieve the larger goals set forth by 14

Congress in the 1984 Cable Communications Act: 15

16

Among the stated purposes of the [Cable Communications] Act were the 17

establishment of franchise procedures and standards to encourage the growth and 18

development of cable systems and to assure that cable systems were responsive to the 19

needs and interests of the local community, 47 U.S.C. sec. 521(2); the establishment 20

of guidelines for the exercise of federal, state, and local authority with respect to the 21

regulation of cable systems, 47 U.S.C. sec. 521(3); and the assurance that cable 22

systems would provide the widest possible diversity of information sources and 23

services to the public, 47 U.S.C. sec. 521(4). 24

25

The Cable Act of 1984 Legislative History, July 9, 2007. 26

HTTP://WWW.BBKLAW.COM/?T=40&AN=18382 27

28

Q19. Does this conclude your supplemental testimony? 29

A19. Yes. Thank you for your consideration. 30

31

http://www.bbklaw.com/?t=40&an=18382

STATE OF VERMONT








SUMMARY OF THE SUPPLEMENTAL PREFILED TESTIMONY

OF ANDREW CRAWFORD

Mr. Crawford’s testimony responds to the rebuttal prefiled testimony of Mr. Daniel M. Glanville

provided on behalf of Comcast on March 22, 2016.

Mr. Crawford sponsors the following exhibits:

Exhibit AC-18 File Upload Time.png

PSB Docket No. 8301 Supplemental Prefiled Testimony of Andrew Crawford

May 13, 2016

Page 2 of 14

STATE OF VERMONT








SUPPLEMENTAL PREFILED TESTIMONY OF ANDREW CRAWFORD

1


A1. My name is Andrew Crawford. 3

4


A2. I am the technical director of, and a Linux system administrator for, CCTV Center for Media 6

& Democracy based in Burlington Vermont, which operates Channel 17/ Town Meeting 7

Television (the regional government access TV channel). 8

9



12

Q4. What is the purpose of your supplemental prefiled testimony? 13

A4. My testimony responds to the rebuttal prefiled testimony (also referred to as “RT” or 14

“rebuttal testimony”) of Mr. Daniel M. Glanville provided on behalf of Comcast on March 15

22, 2016. My testimony provides specific arguments that illustrate an abrogation of 16

Comcast’s duties and responsibilities to the people of Vermont in Comcast’s treatment of 17

PEG Access. 18

19


May 13, 2016

Page 3 of 14

Q5. On pages 45 line 6 through page 52 line 18 of the Rebuttal Prefiled Testimony of Mr. 1

Daniel M. Glanville, Mr. Glanville responds to “inconsistent interpretation and 2

implementation of Condition 22 sites.” Citing AMO examples, he details procedures 3

Comcast follows to provide estimates for “home run” installations for remote 4

origination sites and a description of financing responsibilities for installing AMO 5

cablecast and Condition 22 sites. 6

7

Does Comcast’s control over purchasing the ROS hardware installed at the site(s) on 8

the Comcast side of the “line of demarcation” contribute to the degradation of the PEG 9

video signal quality? 10

A5. While it is true that Comcast, on its network, takes measures to prevent the degradation of 11

AMO signal quality, the limitations on the equipment provided by Comcast at the line of 12

demarcation1 requires the AMO to further degrade their own signal for cablecast. Comcast’s 13

current choice of modulators or fiber transmitter/receivers (the Radiant Communications 14

Corporation model VAB 705) only accepts Standard Definition “SD” analog Composite 15

video and analog stereo audio, often forcing AMO’s to degrade their video signal quality to 16

interconnect with the cablecast ROS system. 17

18

In the case of CCTV/Channel17 our playout system has featured SD/HD-SDI digital video 19

signal outputs for over three years. While the system is capable of outputting HD-SDI 20

signals, we still operate it in SD-SDI and need to convert the lower resolution SD-SDI signal 21

to an analog Composite video at a minimum additional cost of ~$280 per channel, this serves 22

to degrade the video quality, making it compatible with the signals accepted by Comcast at 23

the line of demarcation. The fact that Comcast requires AMO’s to expend additional 24

resources degrading the quality of even our Standard Definition SDI video signals illustrates 25

the unreasonable discrimination against AMO originated PEG content on their system. While 26

the conditions of the CPG cannot dictate the technologies that Comcast uses, Comcast’s 27

1 Also important to note is that depending on each AMO contract with Comcast, the equipment

provided by Comcast at the line of demarcation may be provided at no charge to the AMO, or at a

partial or full cost to the AMO. See DMG PFT at pp.45-52.


May 13, 2016

Page 4 of 14

choice in technology reduces the potential quality of the PEG and AMO content on their 1

cable system. 2

3

Q6. On p. 43, lines 14-16 of the Rebuttal Prefiled Testimony of Mr. Daniel M. Glanville, 4

Mr. Glanville, he states that “Comcast has serious concerns regarding prefiled 5

Testimony of the VAN witnesses which appears to be calculated toward directing the 6

Public Service Board to mandate transmission technologies.” What is your response to 7

this assertion? 8

A6. Mr. Glanville’s conclusory statement quoted above is part of his larger discussion about 9

VAN requesting the Board to “mandate transmission technologies.” This allegation and 10

Comcast’s concerns are without merit. Far from mandating transmission technologies, the 11

purpose of VAN’s testimony in general and my prefiled testimony in particular is to initiate 12

an open and frank discussion on the changing technical landscape of the cable industry (into 13

Multi-platform Video Programming Distributors (“MVPD”)), and to urge the modernization 14

of PEG access channels, features and services. As I stated in my Summary of Initial Prefiled 15

Testimony: 16

17

The purpose of Andrew Crawford’s Testimony is to describe how significant changes 18

in the cable network will affect how public, educational and government (“PEG”) 19

access meets community needs in Vermont over the next eleven (11) years. Mr. 20

Crawford’s testimony also addresses how PEG service delivery is changing and its 21

new technological requirements. Finally, he addresses technological designs to 22

support VAN’s request for a statewide network, or INet. 23

24

See Crawford PFT at p. 1. 25

26

Moreover, as Ms. Davitian identifies in her supplemental testimony, Q. 13 at p.30, lines 5-27

15, Comcast’s franchise agreement with Philadelphia incorporates a condition set forth 28

immediately below which addresses technological changes and equivalent functionality: 29


May 13, 2016

Page 5 of 14

1

5.5.4 Advances in Channel Technology. If Franchisee incorporates technological 2

improvements in channel quality (such as HD 4K), in channel delivery or display on 3

Franchisee’s Cable System for the Basic Service Tier, the City or an Access Channel 4

operator may request in writing to meet with the Franchisee and Franchisee will 5

participate in discussions of the improvements with the City and the Access Channel 6

operators. These discussions shall address options for making the same 7

improvements and enhancements in the display and delivery of PEG Channels to 8

Subscribers, including technical means and costs. 9

10

See Exhibit SC-11 (Philadelphia PA Comcast Agreement, December 2015 pp. 17-26). 11

12

The television and video industry is in the throes of a major upheaval directly related to the 13

changes in networks, the quantity and variety of content available over TCP/IP based inter-14

networked devices, and the bandwidth available on those last mile networks to transmit that 15

data. 16

17

While Comcast can certainly choose not to use TCP/IP based technologies to deliver content 18

to subscribers in the future, they already have chosen to do just that with their xfinity 19

platform and suite of services. This includes, but is not limited to: xfinity Internet services, 20

xfinity Voice services, xfinity X1 services, xfinity Home App, xfinity Home App for Secure 21

Customers, xfinity TV App, xfinity TV Go App, and the xfinity Share App. 22

23

In addition to the xfinity services listed above, the Stream TV Service (not currently offered 24

in Vermont, but offered in Massachusetts and New Hampshire, listed in this docket) adds 25

streaming delivery of linear television content, VOD, and cloud DVR to an “xfinity Internet” 26

service, requiring no additional television service. See Exhibit SC-5 and SC-6. 27

28


May 13, 2016

Page 6 of 14

Based on industry white papers and trade publications, Comcast has apparently chosen to 1

deliver a significant number of its “next generation” xfinity services over TCP/IP. See 2

Exhibits SC-2, SC-3 and SC-4. 3

4

Because Comcast has self-selected its technology platform, it is incorrect to interpret VAN’s 5

proposed conditions as directing the Public Service Board to “mandate transmission 6

technologies.” However, in making its selection, Comcast has acted to not provide PEG with 7

access to the same technology or equivalent functionality as it is rolls out these services for 8

commercial purposes. 9

10

VAN is not attempting to “mandate transmission technologies”. Indeed, the Board need only 11

look at VAN’s willingness to accept Comcast’s alternative proposal for activating remote 12

origination service, if the signal quality is not degraded. See Chapman PFT at p.14, lines 1-13

20. See also Exhibit LGD-9 (VAN Proposed CPG Conditions) in which VAN proposes 14

conditions for the activation of ROS, VOD, interconnectivity, the statewide channel and 15

PEG outreach and does not mandate specific technologies. 16

17

In addition, my technical proposals for INET connectivity, and the methods suggested as 18

connectivity options are listed to illustrate the several options theoretically available to PEG 19

in a DOCSIS3.1 HFC plant with CCAP and ample fiber already on the pole. The actual 20

implementation of a PEG LAN depends on many factors, and as stated in my Initial prefiled 21

testimony, when describing a potential INET: “We assume any realistic plan will involve 22

significant planning and communication between Comcast and the AMO’s,” which, again, in 23

no way mandates transmission technologies. See Crawford PFT at p.32, lines 8-9. 24

25

VAN’s only specific request is for the INET to provide a TCP/IP network provisioned by 26

Comcast over their Hybrid Fiber-Coaxial network (“HFC”). Considering that the xfinity 27

platform heavily leverages the TCP/IP network(s) on the Comcast HFC plant, and that 28

TCP/IP networks are ubiquitous in today’s computing and networking environment, I do not 29


May 13, 2016

Page 7 of 14

believe that this assertion is unreasonable, nor does it mandate a specific OSI Layer 2 or OSI 1

Layer 1 transmission technology. Moreover, if Comcast has another technology which 2

would achieve the same functionality, then VAN would not object to the Board requiring 3

that Comcast fulfill the condition using technology of their choice. 4

5

Q7. On p. 38, line 1-4 and p. 38 line 6-7 of the Rebuttal Prefiled Testimony of Mr. Daniel M. 6

Glanville, Mr. Glanville states that Comcast refuses to “agree to any attempt to tie PEG 7

Channel obligations to RF” and Comcast refuses to “agree to any company initiative 8

which provides bandwidth or any other method of transmission technology other than 9

the traditional allocation of providing one or more PEG channels pursuant to Board 10

Rules and applicable law as designated to PEG programmers.” What is your response 11

to Mr. Glanville’s rebuttal testimony around this issue? 12

A7. According to 47 U.S.C. § 522, cable channels are defined as portions of electromagnetic 13

frequency spectrum, not, as Mr. Glanville asserts on p.37, lines 6-7, “a channel number 14

designation on the cable system.” “Cable channel” or “channels,” “cable service” and “cable 15

system” are legally defined in the following way in 47 U.S.C. § 522 [emphasis added]: 16

17

(4) The term “cable channel” or “channel” means a portion of the 18

electromagnetic frequency spectrum which is used in a cable system and 19

which is capable of delivering a television channel (as television channel is 20

defined by the Commission by regulation); 21

22

(6) The term “cable service” means— 23

(A) the one-way transmission to subscribers of (i) video programming, or 24

(ii) other programming service, and 25

(B) subscriber interaction, if any, which is required for the selection or 26

use of such video programming or other programming service; 27

28


May 13, 2016

Page 8 of 14

(7) the term “cable system” means a facility, consisting of a set of closed 1

transmission paths and associated signal generation, reception, and control 2

equipment that is designed to provide cable service which includes video 3

programming and which is provided to multiple subscribers within a 4

community, but such term does not include (A) a facility that serves only to 5

retransmit the television signals of 1 or more television broadcast stations; 6

(B) a facility that serves subscribers without using any public right-of-way; 7

(C) a facility of a common carrier which is subject, in whole or in part, to the 8

provisions of subchapter II of this chapter, except that such facility shall be 9

considered a cable system (other than for purposes of section 541(c) of this 10

title) to the extent such facility is used in the transmission of video 11

programming directly to subscribers, unless the extent of such use is solely to 12

provide interactive on-demand services; (D) an open video system that 13

complies with section 573 of this title; or (E) any facilities of any electric 14

utility used solely for operating its electric utility system. 15

16

Radio spectrum runs from 3Hz to 3000GHz (3THz) and is a subset of the entire 17

electromagnetic frequency spectrum. According to the prefiled testimony of Mr. Glanville, 18

on the coaxial portions of Comcast’s HFC plant in Vermont there is, at a minimum, 19

750MHz of electromagnetic frequency spectrum that can currently be utilized to provide 20

services over the coaxial portion of the cable system: “Comcast maintains a hybrid fiber-21

optic/coaxial cable network, fully capable of carrying a minimum bandwidth of 750 MHz in 22

all its Vermont systems.” DMG PFT at p.8, lines 4-5. 23

24

My examples in Exhibit AC-16, show the decline in PEG access to these electromagnetic 25

frequency spectrum channels. My detailed assumptions, described in Crawford PFT at pp. 26

20-24, are based on cable system industry whitepapers including Exhibit AC-1 and Exhibit 27

AC-5. 28

29

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/47/lii:usc:t:47:s:541:c



https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/47/573

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/47/573


May 13, 2016

Page 9 of 14

The substantial decline in the portion of the electromagnetic frequency spectrum or 1

“channels” dedicated to PEG content is evident, AC PFT at p.24, and, it results from the 2

investments in “new technology” made by Comcast to more efficiently use the 3

electromagnetic frequency spectrum. DMG RT at p.38 lines 12-14 and Crawford PFT, 4

Answers 7, 8, and 9. 5

6

My use of Radio Frequency “RF” electromagnetic frequency spectrum utilization on the 7

coaxial portion of the cable plant in Exhibit AC-16 is directly related to the importance the 8

coaxial portion of the HFC plant for the historical purposes of my comparison, as a portion 9

of the period covered pre-dates DOCSIS and fiber-optics implementation. For other regions 10

of the electromagnetic frequency spectrum, like the “visible” region used encode and convey 11

data over the fiber-optic portion of the HFC plant, the same definition of channel applies 12

equally well. In that situation “a portion of electromagnetic frequency spectrum” is still used 13

to deliver that video programming or programming service. 14

15

Were one to calculate the bandwidth utilization of PEG over fiber to the home/premesis 16

“FTTH/FTTP” instead of coaxial cable, the results would be significantly less favorable to 17

PEG than Exhibit AC-16 currently shows. This is due to the higher frequencies of the visible 18

electromagnetic frequency spectrum, and consequently higher potential data rates inherent in 19

the use of the visible portion of the spectrum for data transmission over fiber-optic cable. AC 20

PFT at p.24. 21

22

Q8. On pages 38 lines 12-14 of his Rebuttal Prefiled Testimony, Mr. Glanville states that 23

“Efficiencies gained by Comcast’s investment in new technologies that make better use 24

of signal will be allocated by Comcast to the services it deems appropriate and 25

competitively necessary.” Please discuss these new technologies, and the benefits that 26

PEG Access derives from these new technologies as implemented by Comcast. 27

A8. There are several new technologies employed by Comcast to make more efficient use of its 28

capacity and to improve and expand cable TV related service offerings, including the suite of 29


May 13, 2016

Page 10 of 14

xfinity related services (noted above in A6 on pp.4-5) ranging from Stream TV to TV Go 1

apps. Unfortunately, we are not aware of any Vermont PEG content currently available 2

through these next generation services over and above Standard Definition DTV reception. 3

4

When confronted, for example, with a ROSs not easily accessed by the cable system, 5

Comcast has proposed extremely expensive solutions like “home run” fibers for ROSs at 6

tens of thousands of dollars per location, or expensive QVidium IP encoders paired with 7

specially configured cable modems. PEG AMO’s are somewhat perplexed, because 8

Comcast’s Xfinity Share app essentially enables Remote Origination like capabilities for 9

subscribers to stream their content from a remote site to a set top box via a mobile phone 10

application. Comcast is providing its subscribers with an Internet based TCP/IP remote 11

origination service yet it has not proposed a version of it to AMO’s as a cost effective way to 12

address ROS requests. This service does illustrate that low cost methods for provisioning 13

Remote Origination Sites exist and are in use by Comcast subscribers. 14

15

Without access to affordable ROS solutions offered by Comcast, PEG AMOs have tested, 16

used, and evaluated many technologies for meeting ROS needs, precisely because the 17

solutions Comcast proposes are extremely expensive. For the past several years, VT AMO’s 18

have routinely used Ustream, Livestream, YouTube Live, and other third party playback 19

system related live streaming integrations to get live video content to an AMO facility. 20

Channel 17, for example, has built its own streaming servers using Wowza Streaming 21

Engine, enabling live programming from a variety of remote locations that are not Remote 22

Origination Sites. Vermont AMO’s have been forced into the early adoption of these OSI 23

Layer 3 and higher based ROS technologies because of the often prohibitive prices quoted by 24

Comcast for access to Condition 22 sites. 25

26

It is inefficient for PEG AMO’s to pay third parties for streaming services that enable live 27

coverage on local PEG channels when Comcast is making a comparable service available to 28

its residential subscribers in the form of an “xfinity Share App”. Clearly Comcast has a 29


May 13, 2016

Page 11 of 14

capacity for providing ROS type services on their TCP/IP network to customers, but once 1

again PEG AMO’s are quoted the most expensive solutions, and must instead use PEG 2

access resources to implement their own solutions or pay for third party solutions. 3

4

Were my testimony to suggest an ROS solution, I posit that Comcast would prefer to retain 5

total control of the technical solutions it implements on its network, enabling it to 6

discriminate against PEG content, even if that means that PEG AMO’s incur costs to build 7

parallel infrastructure or buy parallel services to meet this community need. This illustrates 8

that AMO’s go to great lengths to meet the needs of their community in spite of Comcast’s 9

failure to include the PEG content on par with the other content based services that traverse 10

their cable system. 11

12

Q9. On p. 33, lines 11-20 of his Rebuttal Prefiled Testimony, Mr. Glanville states that 13

Comcast provides courtesy Internet service at AMO facilities, K-12 schools, public 14

libraries, and other public locations in Vermont. Does this courtesy service have 15

sufficient bandwidth to meet the needs of AMOs at their facility? 16

A9. No, the current default Starter Business Class Internet as mentioned in AC PFT Answer 9, 17

part 3 (a) and (b) is insufficient to move broadcast or post-production quality video files 18

quickly between AMOs or other TCP/IP based services. Below I have attached an image of a 19

table with some basic calculations on the time it takes to transfer a single hour camera 20

recording (using a 100Mbit/s HD camera codec) suitable for post-production use. I assumed 21

the upstream bandwidth at 4 different rates, and also that QOS only allows it to utilize 80% 22

of the theoretical bandwidth on that connection (we still want people in the office to be able 23

to work in the browser during the upload). I have done the same with a playout file at a much 24

lower bitrate. The highlighted 3Mbit/s upstream speed on Comcast’s Starter Business Class 25

Internet results in transfer times of 42.5 hours for a 1 hour camera quality file, and 5 hours 26


May 13, 2016

Page 12 of 14

for a 1 hour playback quality file. Considering that it is not unusual for AMOs to produce a 1

meeting or legislative proceeding 3 or 4 hours in length, this 3Mbit/s upstream bandwidth 2

offering is severely inadequate for these uses. 3

4

Q10. Could you summarize your response to the Rebuttal Prefiled Testimony of Mr. Daniel 5

M. Glanville for the Board? 6

A10. Comcast’s obligations under Docket 8301 in Vermont are directly tied to Comcast’s use of 7

public rights of way for facilities that deliver video programming service and other 8

programming services. 9

10

While Mr. Glanville asserts that it is “community needs and interests and related costs” that 11

drive access to PEG “channels” (television channels), I contend that, even before you get to 12

the question of community needs and interests, the intent of the 47 U.S.C. as implied in the 13

definitions of cable channel, cable service, and cable system is to ensure equitable Public, 14

Educational, and Government access and benefit from a private for-profit cable system that 15

uses public rights of way for profit making activities. 16

17

The currency of that exchange is a channel defined in regulation as “a portion of the 18

electromagnetic frequency spectrum which is used in a cable system and which is capable 19

of delivering a television channel.” 47 U.S.C. § 522(4). As Comcast makes efficiency 20

improvements in the usage of the electromagnetic frequency spectrum, it has effectively 21

eroded the “portion of electromagnetic frequency spectrum” allocated to PEG and it will 22

likely continue to erode it to almost nothing over the term of this proposed CPG. 23

24

If the benefits of the electromagnetic frequency spectrum efficiency improvements accrued 25

equitably to PEG access in some form then the actual material reduction in the “portion of 26

the electromagnetic frequency spectrum” would not be at issue, and the accrued benefits of a 27

more efficient network would be realized and serve Vermont communities into the future. 28

This is not the case. Comcast’s own strategy around the non-inclusion of PEG content across 29


May 13, 2016

Page 13 of 14

the vast majority of their services creates a self-fulfilling prophecy of less visibility for PEG 1

content, and amounts to its marginalization over time within the cable system. 2

3

As has been thoroughly demonstrated in the course of this Docket, and by their own 4

admission, Comcast has bluntly refused to allocate even minor quantities of the 5

electromagnetic frequency spectrum removed from PEG Access toward some compensating 6

improvement in the quality, accessibility, and/or features of PEG services on the Comcast 7

cable system. In fact, they have gone so far as to completely refuse to respect the definition 8

of channel in 47 U.S.C. § 522(4). PEG content is not included across Comcast’s content 9

based service offerings on the xfinity platform, nor does PEG directly benefit from these 10

features, as our content is not easily discoverable within them. 11

12

PEG also does not benefit from traditional television services that are now considered 13

standard, including, but not limited to: HD linear television channels, Video on Demand 14

capabilities, DVR, or channel schedule based menu systems. PEG is also not able to use next 15

generation network services like “network” or “cloud” based DVR, nor are AMO’s given the 16

option of using Comcast developed Remote Origination-like streaming functionality as 17

demonstrated by the xfinity Share app for backhaul to AMO studios. Even in the case of the 18

cablecast remote origination to Comcast head ends, PEG AMOs can be forced to reduce the 19

quality of their video signal prior to interconnection with Comcast. 20

21

PEG content has been purposefully excluded from standard and emerging features on the 22

Comcast cable system. This discrimination alone reduces the profile of PEG content on the 23

Comcast network, and provides fewer opportunities for subscribers to consume hyperlocal 24

content. PEG AMOs continue to serve our communities and provide some of these more 25

advanced features and capabilities of our own volition and outside of the Comcast cable 26

system, at additional expense to AMO’s. One small example detailed above is Remote 27

Origination with TCP/IP based live streaming technologies and services. 28

29


May 13, 2016

Page 14 of 14

While PEG AMOs and other public and educational institutions do have access to Starter 1

Business Class Internet service from Comcast, it is insufficient to meet the needs of AMOs, 2

and is also insufficient for high quality TCP/IP based Remote Origination strategies from 3

those public and educational institutions served by this same level of service. Again AMOs 4

need to purchase additional bandwidth from Comcast or another ISP to meet their basic 5

needs. 6

7

In Vermont, PEG Access is the hyperlocal media of record. This work captures the local 8

cultural, intellectual, artistic, and political lives of our communities and the people that call 9

this state home. PEG Access is not in the business of producing high value entertainment 10

content to drive cable subscriptions or a return on advertising dollars. 11

12

PEG Access serves as a vital public record and as a tool for engagement within our 13

respective communities through hyperlocal media. The 11-year term of this CPG and the 14

forces driving rapid technological change require that the PSB hold Comcast accountable. 15

Barring the restoration or allocation of additional electromagnetic frequency spectrum for 16

PEG content, barring the inclusion of PEG content in both standard and next generation 17

services over the Comcast cable system, CPG Condition(s) calling for a TCP/IP based INET 18

and/or vastly increased bandwidth from AMO facilities to the Internet is the only logical way 19

to address the inequitable treatment of PEG. 20

21

Q11. Does this conclude your testimony? 22

A11. Yes, thank you for the opportunity to submit this testimony. 23

24

STATE OF VERMONT








SUMMARY OF SUPPLEMENTAL PREFILED TESTIMONY OF SETH MOBLEY

Mr. Mobley’s testimony responds to the rebuttal prefiled testimony of Mr. Daniel M. Glanville

provided on behalf of Comcast.

Mr. Mobley sponsors the following exhibits:

Exhibit SM-8 2012 Proposed Contract VCAM.doc and

Exhibit SM-9 9.23.13 NWAccess draft contract (Rev 2-13-2014)(1).pdf and

Exhibit SM-10 7.25.14 RETN revisions to draft contract(1).pdf and

Exhibit SM-11 2016 Burlington Telecom CPG Renewal.doc

Exhibit SM-12 20140218 Negotiations between NWA-TV and Comcast.mp2

(Audio File)

https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B5JLjgYQpteYZF9Xc0pCN1df

dGM

Exhibit SM-13 Page 23, Q.VAN:Comcast.2-17 in Comcast’s Response to VAN’s

Second Set of Information Requests on Petitioner

https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B5JLjgYQpteYZF9Xc0pCN1dfdGM


PSB Docket No. 8301 Supplemental Prefiled Testimony of Seth Mobley

May 13, 2016

Page 2 of 12

STATE OF VERMONT








SUPPLEMENTAL PREFILED TESTIMONY OF SETH MOBLEY

1


A1. My name is Seth Mobley. 3

4


A2. I am the executive director of Vermont Community Access Media (“VCAM”) based in 6

Burlington, Vermont. 7

8



11

Q4. What is the purpose of your supplemental prefiled testimony? 12

A4. My testimony responds to the rebuttal prefiled testimony (“RT” or “rebuttal testimony”) 13

of Mr. Daniel M. Glanville provided on behalf of Comcast on March 22, 2016. 14

15


May 13, 2016

Page 3 of 12

Q5. On page 6, line 8-18, Mr. Glanville suggests that there is limited support for either 1

HD PEG Programming or On Demand PEG Programming. Please address this 2

claim from the perspective of the 22 AMOs who currently contract with Comcast. 3

A5. Mr. Glanville’s statement in this case is limited to information provided by a survey 4

conducted on behalf of Comcast, by RKM Research and Communications, Inc., and does 5

not reflect a thorough examination of cable-related community needs in Vermont. 6

Perhaps the biggest omissions from Mr. Glanville’s cited evidence are the perspectives 7

provided by an impressive number of citizens that participated in the DPS focus groups 8

around the state in the fall of 2015, and at the public hearing hosted by the Public Service 9

Board on October 21, 2015. When the feedback offered directly by these members in the 10

community is considered, it is undeniable that PEG access to HD channels is a current 11

priority for Vermonters, particularly by those most closely involved with PEG as a 12

community resource. 13

14

Christine Peterson states in her testimony that during the Department’s CNA “the focus 15

group attendees represented many diverse sectors of the community: schools, town 16

government, law enforcement, non-profits, arts organizations and legislators”; that among 17

these diverse sectors “[t]here was widespread support among virtually all respondents for 18

placing PEG listings on the IPG”; and that “broadcasting in HD and increasing capacity 19

for remote origination also received support.” See C. Peterson PFT at p.3, line 23 to p.4 20

line 2. Another helpful example of cable-related community needs pertaining to HD PEG 21

channels presented by the public is from the Public Service Board hearing, was when 22

Jennifer Latham, an Emmy-award-winning TV producer from Brattleboro summarized 23

this important matter at a time during the hearing when the HD PEG channel issue had 24

already been raised repeatedly: 25

26

I don't want to sound like a broken record, because I think I have the same 27

complaints, when I go to the television I think I'm in a position to talk about some of 28

these issues. But it really boils down to that community television is not on an equal 29

footing. It's not on equity with the other stations in the channel guide. It's just not. 30

You see these things, and then you see local. And you see it downgraded to standard 31


May 13, 2016

Page 4 of 12

definition. I mean this HD issue is just crazy. I haven't worked in standard definition 1

since 2004. Like this is so -- what this gentleman said earlier in the program, if we 2

don't move to HD now, in 10 years I don't even know -- most shows are now being 3

shot in 4K which may not mean much to you, but it's -- HD is old now. 4

5

Unfortunately there is a fundamental disconnect between the way Comcast interprets 6

cable-related community needs, which appears to be solely from the perspective of 7

customer-centric surveys, and the way that the 22 VAN member AMOs and the 8

Department of Public Service interpret them through regular and direct contact with 9

individuals, groups and institutions throughout the communities we serve. The fact is, the 10

RKM survey only assesses the customer’s perspective and not the “many diverse sectors 11

of the community: schools, town government, law enforcement, non-profits, arts 12

organizations and legislators” that the focus groups and PSB hearing incorporated. This is 13

reflected in Mr. Glanville’s claim that there is limited support for either HD PEG 14

programming or On Demand programming, simply citing a survey of Comcast customers 15

conducted on Comcast’s behalf, while overtly disregarding the overwhelming feedback 16

that Comcast’s representatives heard first-hand at the focus group sessions and PSB 17

hearing. 18

19

In addition, Mr. Glanville’s position gives no weight to the cable-related community needs 20

pertaining to HD that have been presented to Comcast time and time again during AMO 21

contract negotiations by PEG staff and volunteer board members representing the 22

communities we serve. Please see the attached proposed contracts that were presented by 23

VCAM, NWAccess and RETN to Comcast at the beginning of each of our contract 24

negotiations in 2012, 2013 and 2014, that include the provision of HD PEG channels and 25

access to the Interactive Program Guide, only to be declined by Comcast repeatedly 26

throughout our talks, and not end up in the final contracts. See Exhibit SM-8: 2012 27

Proposed Contract VCAM.doc; Exhibit SM-9: 9.23.13 NWAccess draft contract (Rev 2-28

13-2014)(1).pdf; Exhibit SM-10: 7.25.14 RETN revisions to draft contract(1).pdf 29

30


May 13, 2016

Page 5 of 12

Mr. Glanville’s rebuttal testimony does not mention the public hearings held by the Public 1

Service Board during which the public expressed overwhelming support for PEG Access 2

to HD Channels and the IPG. Nor does Mr. Glanville’s rebuttal testimony address the 3

community needs assessments raised by AMOs during contract negotiations and at other 4

times. See Davitian Rebuttal Testimony at p.15, line 12 to p.22, line 27. Indeed, Mr. 5

Glanville’s rebuttal testimony fails and refuses to acknowledge substantial work 6

undertaken by various parties in this Docket which identify communities’ support for PEG 7

Access. 8

9

I must also state that Mr. Glanville’s position is incognizant of the future direction of 10

cable television viewing and the clear direction of viewing habits. It must be understood 11

that viewers are not backtracking. They are not clamoring for more SD television. They 12

are not seeking fewer programming options, degraded images that don’t fit their 13

televisions, nor programming that is only available at the times effectively set by the cable 14

operator. No. Viewer habits are clearly trending to access programming of consistent 15

image quality that suits the format on which their TV’s are built, and to individual viewer 16

preferences which, of course, means access to the Interactive Program Guide and DVR 17

features as well as HD channels and Video On Demand. This Docket must consider the 18

future of PEG access. In my opinion, the rebuttal testimony of Mr. Glanville and the 19

RKM survey performed on behalf Comcast ignore this critical issue, namely, what is the 20

future of PEG access. Particularly if the value of PEG in Vermont is continued to be 21

based on such questions of the public as “How would you describe your level of 22

awareness of the programming and other services?” and “To your knowledge, have you or 23

has any member of your household ever watched [your PEG channels’] community access 24

programming through [your cable subscription]?” See Exhibit SM-11, pp. 2-3. 25

26

If the value PEG in Vermont is continued to be gauged by how our channels and 27

programming measure up to other commercial channels in Comcast’s line-up, the playing 28

field must be leveled and PEG must have access to the same features of the network that 29

the other stations do, namely, HD channels, Video On Demand and the Interactive 30


May 13, 2016

Page 6 of 12

Program Guide. To present it as clearly as I am able to, without access to these now 1

standard features of Comcast’s cable service and subsequent iterations of these features in 2

the future, PEG in Vermont does not stand a chance over the next 11 years to meet 3

community needs and fulfill its potential, maintain a respected presence and one of parity 4

among all of the other channels in Comcast’s line-up, and remain a go-to resource for 5

local programming and in Vermont. 6

7

It is paramount that the fundamental disconnect in the way cable-related community needs 8

are interpreted is addressed in the CPG, and VAN has offered language that speaks 9

directly to this issue. VAN feels strongly that the language we are suggesting is informed 10

and supported by direct input from the communities we serve and by those who benefit 11

from our full arrangement of services and resources, including but not limited to, cable 12

subscribers. 13

14

Q6. Regarding High Definition PEG Channels, on page 36, A28, line 11-12, Mr. Glanville 15

states that “Comcast opposes all proposals by VAN to incorporate specific 16

technology mandates as Conditions in the renewal CPG.” Please address Mr. 17

Glanville’s position from the perspective of 22 AMOs who currently contract with 18

Comcast. 19

A6. VAN has provided ample evidence that Comcast has entered into numerous franchise 20

agreements throughout the country that specifically include the provision of High 21

Definition PEG channels (See Mobley PFT at p. 21, lines 8-18). VAN and its member 22

AMOs have made repeated attempts over several years during individual AMO contract 23

negotiations and in this docket, to gain substantive information from Comcast about the 24

deciding factors that exist in the regions where HD PEG channels have been specifically 25

included in franchise agreements. Comcast has not been forthcoming with this 26

information. As an example of Comcast’s reluctance to participate in productive 27

discourse on the issue, VAN asked in its Second Set of Information Requests on Petitioner 28

for Comcast to provide additional information regarding each of the franchise agreements 29


May 13, 2016

Page 7 of 12

it has entered into that include the provision of PEG HD channels in the following 1

questions: 2

3

a. Please describe in detail which party, Comcast or the franchising authority, 4

dictated the specific transmission technologies, including HD PEG Channels; 5

6

and 7

8

b. Please describe in detail the difference between the scope of the authority granted 9

to the Vermont Public Service Board and all of the franchising authorities in 10

which Comcast has entered into agreements identified in this interrogatory which 11

resulted in Comcast agreeing to cablecast PEG channels in high definition. 12

13

See Exhibit SM-13: Page 23, Q.VAN:Comcast.2-17 in Comcast’s Response to VAN’s 14

Second Set of Information Requests on Petitioner. 15

16

In response to VAN’s questions, Mr. Glanville states that “[f]ranchise agreements 17

addressing the needs of any other particular community are not relevant to the needs and 18

interests of the communities at issue in this proceeding” and “[e]very one of the 19

documents cited [by VAN] are agreements, mutually negotiated and agreed upon - not 20

dictated by any party - and subject to particular facts and circumstances that are unique to 21

each one.” It is VAN’s position that Mr. Glanville’s response does not adequately provide 22

any useful information on which to base a substantive discussion that identifies what 23

specific criteria Comcast considers when entering into franchise agreements that include 24

the provision of HD PEG channels, nor any direction on how to establish similar criteria 25

for PEG in Vermont. VAN does know, however, that no AMO has successfully 26

negotiated a contract with Comcast which granted the AMO access to an HD channel 27

despite repeated requests for such access. See Exhibits SM-8, SM-9, SM-10 28

29


May 13, 2016

Page 8 of 12

As stated above, Comcast has not been forthcoming with useful information during AMO 1

contract negotiations either. On February 18, 2014, Tuck Rainwater, then Comcast 2

Director of Government & Community Relations in Vermont, stated to members of the 3

board and staff of Northwest Access TV that HD PEG channels were “not something that 4

we're able to support at this time" and that the “FCC hasn’t mandated it at this point.” 5

Exhibit SM-12 at 01:00:10 (2/18/14 Audio File of Contract Negotiation Meeting between 6

NWA-TV and Comcast – 7

https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B5JLjgYQpteYZF9Xc0pCN1dfdGM).

In addition, Mr. Rainwater states that he is aware of “one circumstance, out in the west 8

somewhere, where there’s a pilot going on where a PEG operator traded in like 3 or 4 9

channels in exchange for 1 HD, but that’s not something that [Northwest Access has] 10

available to you”. 11

12

The exception that VAN takes to Mr. Rainwater’s statements is that, according to the 13

activation dates of specific franchise agreements, Comcast had already moved well 14

beyond any pilot program and had agreed to HD PEG Channels in agreements with 15

franchising authorities including Westminster CO, Portland OR, and Vancouver WA. In 16

addition, throughout VCAM’s own contract negotiation with Comcast and Mr. Rainwater 17

between 2012-2014, prior to Mr. Rainwater meeting with Northwest Access TV, VCAM 18

asked for Comcast representatives to look specifically at the existing franchise agreement 19

with the MT. Hood Regulatory Authority (Portland, OR), that includes the provision of 20

HD PEG channels. It wasn’t clear to VCAM whether or not Mr. Rainwater had 21

researched the specific circumstances in Oregon, when at a subsequent meeting he 22

informed us that PEG HD Channels in Vermont are not something Comcast could support 23

at that time, as they did with Northwest Access TV. 24

25

The unwillingness of Comcast to provide consistent and useful information during AMO 26

contract negotiations on which to build a path forward for AMOs to negotiate access to 27

existing, new and improved cable-related services is precisely why the 22 AMOs who 28

contract with Comcast have pooled their resources to participate in this Docket. VAN is 29



May 13, 2016

Page 9 of 12

simply trying to achieve in the renewal CPG what many other franchising authorities have 1

done successfully on behalf of PEG with Comcast in their own agreements. 2

3

Furthermore, VAN agrees with Mr. Glanville that there “needs to be further discussion 4

regarding what is adequate and reasonable,” Glanville Rebuttal Testimony at p.36, line 21, 5

in terms of the provision of channel capability as it relates to community needs. VAN 6

feels that throughout the many individual AMO contract negotiations with Comcast, our 7

member organizations have collectively exhausted our attempts to participate in such a 8

discussion, and after many years have yet to receive any useful information regarding how 9

AMOs, or the Vermont Public Service Board as a regulatory authority, differ from our 10

counterparts in other regions who have successfully negotiated PEG HD channels in their 11

franchise agreements. Moreover, Mr. Glanville’s statement that “Comcast opposes all 12

proposals by VAN to incorporate specific technology mandates as Conditions in the 13

renewal CPG” indicates to VAN that Comcast is not inclined to arrive at terms in this 14

CPG that are “mutually negotiated and agreed upon” and “not dictated by any party” as 15

they were inclined to do so with other franchising authorities around the country. 16

17

Therefore, it is imperative that the outstanding questions of why the Vermont Public 18

Service Board lacks the authority to properly consider the inclusion of HD PEG channels 19

in this CPG, and why Vermont’s AMOs and the communities we serve are different from 20

our counterparts in other parts of the country who have successfully negotiated HD PEG 21

channels, need to be specifically addressed in this CPG. VAN has offered language that 22

speaks directly to this issue and reflects agreements that Comcast has entered into in other 23

regions. VAN feels strongly that the language we are suggesting is informed and 24

supported by direct input from the communities we serve and by those who benefit from 25

our full arrangement of services and resources, including but not limited to, cable 26

subscribers. 27

28


May 13, 2016

Page 10 of 12

Q7. Please address Mr. Glanville’s Rebuttal Prefiled Testimony found at pp. 39-41, A30, 1

stating Comcast’s opposition to VAN’s position that AMO access to the Interactive 2

Program Guide is critical and must be included in Comcast’s new CPG. 3

A7. It is VAN’s position that Comcast has not fully considered how to provide AMOs in 4

Vermont access to the Interactive Program Guide (“IPG”) in ways that would be cost 5

effective and less burdensome to subscribers. Vermont AMOs have been requesting 6

access to the IPG in contract negotiations since Comcast initiated its Digital Network 7

Enhancement Project many years ago. In VCAM’s own contract negotiation that lasted 8

the better part of two years, between 2012 and 2014, Comcast representatives informed us 9

that the issue could not be solved in the contract negotiation and would ultimately be 10

resolved at the state level. So when VAN learns that in 2016, at this point in the Docket, 11

that Mr. Glanville’s testimony “only includes preliminary estimates of equipment needed 12

for implementation” it comes as a surprise to us given how long we’ve been discussing 13

this issue and how firm Comcast has been in their position that PEG access to the IPG 14

would create upward pressure on cable subscriber rates. 15

16

Similar to the HD PEG Channel and VOD issues, VAN’s position is that Comcast is not 17

inclined to arrive at terms in this CPG related to the IPG that are “mutually negotiated and 18

agreed upon” and “not dictated by any party” as they were inclined to do so with other 19

franchising authorities around the country. A proper consideration of how to provide PEG 20

access to the IPG while identifying cost savings to subscribers, would certainly include 21

opportunities afforded by PEG channel reassignment to limit the number of conflicting 22

PEG channels and/or amortizing the expenses incurred by Comcast to implement access to 23

the guide over multiple years. Again, AMOs have been tirelessly requesting access to the 24

IPG for a long time now and as the DPS thoughtfully points out “there was widespread 25

support among virtually all respondents [in the CNA] for placing PEG listings in the IPG.” 26

C. Peterson PFT, p.4, lines l1-12. Yet, like many other issues under consideration in this 27

docket, there is no road map for a successful negotiation to occur between Comcast and 28

VAN member AMOs in our contract negotiations or even in this docket. Therefore it is 29

critical that PEG access to the IPG be included as a condition in the new CPG under the 30


May 13, 2016

Page 11 of 12

authority of the Public Service Board. VAN has offered language that speaks directly to 1

this issue that is informed and supported by direct input from the communities we serve 2

and by those who benefit from our full arrangement of services and resources, including 3

but not limited to, cable subscribers. 4

5

Q8. Mr. Glanville stated in his response to VAN’s discovery and in reference to 10 6

different existing franchise agreements submitted in your prefiled testimony that 7

include the provision of HD that “[e]very one of the documents cited [by VAN] are 8

agreements, mutually negotiated and agreed upon - not dictated by any party - and 9

subject to particular facts and circumstances that are unique to each one.” Exhibit 10

SM-13 (Comcast’s Response to VAN’s Second Set of Information Requests on 11

Petitioner A,VAN:Comcast.2-17(a) at p.24. Please address this statement from the 12

perspective of VAN’s efforts to negotiate the provision of HD in this docket and in 13

recent contract negotiations. 14

A8. It is VAN’s position that Comcast is unwilling to negotiate or arrive at mutually agreed 15

upon terms with the Vermont Public Service Board that include the provision of HD as it 16

has with many other franchising authorities around the state. VAN continues to have 17

many critical questions about how Comcast arrived at the terms with other franchising 18

authorities around the country, what criteria were considered in their decision to agree to 19

the terms, and why Comcast feels negotiating the provision of PEG HD channels is 20

outside the scope of the Vermont Public Service Board’s authority. VAN and its member 21

AMOs have made a concerted effort of raising these questions throughout recent contract 22

negotiations, in informal talks with Mr. Glanville and representatives of the Department of 23

Public Service, and throughout this docket. On the one hand, Mr. Glanville states that the 24

provision of HD in existing Comcast franchise agreements were “mutually negotiated and 25

agreed upon,” Exhibit SM-13, but on the other hand he states that “Comcast opposes all 26

proposals by VAN to incorporate specific technology mandates as Conditions in the 27

renewal CPG.” Glanville Rebuttal Testimony at p.36, lines 11-12. 28

29


May 13, 2016

Page 12 of 12

VAN is seeking the Vermont Public Service Board’s assistance in determining how the 1

provision of PEG HD channels in existing Comcast franchise agreements came to be 2

“mutually agreed upon” and in establishing a way for similar negotiations to be 3

incorporated into the renewal CPG. With years of experience trying unsuccessfully to 4

negotiate in AMO contracts for the provision of HD channels and access to the IPG 5

behind us, VAN is firm in its position that access to these features is long overdue, that 6

they cannot successfully be negotiated in our individual contract talks, and must be 7

included in the renewal CPG as they have been in agreements with other franchise 8

authorities around the country. 9

10

Q9. What do you see as a role for the Board in this Docket as it relates to PEG access to 11

the IPG and HD channels? 12

A9. VAN views the role of the Board as the facilitator when it comes to making cable-related 13

services available to PEGs and the communities we serve, as Comcast’s network is 14

improved and new cable-related services are deployed. The only way to ensure PEG’s 15

access to existing, new and improved services is by incorporating specific conditions in 16

the CPG to be issued by the Board in this Docket. Individual AMOs have not had any 17

success in negotiating these issues directly with Comcast. Comcast has refused to provide 18

AMOs with access to HD channels, the IPG, Video On Demand, nor to establish a 19

roadmap for effectively advancing the negotiation process on these critical issues. In 20

VAN’s opinion, it is essential in this Docket that the Board adopt a role which ensures that 21

Vermont AMOs have appropriate access to the commercial features of Comcast’s system, 22

like many other franchising authorities have done successfully for their own AMOs in 23

recent years. 24

25


A10. Yes. 27

STATE OF VERMONT








SUMMARY OF SUPPLEMENTAL PREFILED TESTIMONY OF ROBERT CHAPMAN

Mr. Chapman’s prefiled testimony addressed PEG-related issues including remote origination sites,

statewide interconnectivity and distribution. His supplemental prefiled testimony responds to the

rebuttal testimony of Mr. Daniel M. Glanville dated March 22, 2016 provided on behalf of Comcast,

as their testimony relates to the issues addressed by Mr. Chapman in his prefiled testimony.

Mr. Chapman sponsors the following exhibits:

Exhibit RC-13 Comcast 2015 Annual PEG Operator Report - Cable Plant Map

Exhibit RC-14 Comcast's 2015 Annual PEG Operator's Report

Exhibit RC-15 Comcast Estimate - Channel 17 Facilities Fiber Upgrade

Exhibit RC-16 Comcast's 2006-2015 Annual PEG Access Report –

Status of Request for ROS (Large File connect via Link below)

https://files.acrobat.com/a/preview/a1ddc195-9fd0-4a0b-9c90-daf59c035e12

Exhibit RC-17 Vermont Remote Origination Sites Spreadsheet


PSB Docket No. 8301 Supplemental Prefiled Testimony of Robert Chapman

May 13, 2016

Page 2 of 21

STATE OF VERMONT








SUPPLEMENTAL PREFILED TESTIMONY OF ROBERT CHAPMAN

1


A1. My name is Robert Chapman. 3

4


A2. I am the executive director of Onion River Community Access Media (“ORCA Media”) 6

based in Montpelier, Vermont. 7

8



11

Q4. What is the purpose of your rebuttal testimony? 12

A4. My prefiled testimony addressed PEG-related issues including remote origination, statewide 13

interconnectivity and distribution, access to on demand content services and spike funding. 14

My rebuttal testimony responds to the rebuttal testimony of Mr. Daniel M. Glanville on 15

behalf of Comcast on March 22, 2016 as it relates to these issues. 16


May 13, 2016

Page 3 of 21

1

Q5. How would you summarize Mr. Glanville’s rebuttal testimony related to VAN’s 2

Institutional Network (“I-Net”) proposal outlined in Chapman PFT at pp. 35-50? 3

A5. In his discussion of VAN’s I-Net Proposal, DMG Rebuttal Testimony at pp. 22-26, Mr. 4

Glanville maintains that (a) Comcast has satisfied the obligations of its current CPG for 5

AMO connectivity through the establishment of the Vermont Media Exchange (VMX), (b) 6

describes VAN’s I-Net proposal as an “unreasonable demand” (Id. p.26, line 2), (c) suggests 7

it is “duplicative” (Id. p.26, lines 11-13), and, (d) has “no intention of constructing such a 8

network” (Id. p.25, line 14). As discussed in more detail below, VAN disagrees with each of 9

Mr. Glanville’s objections. 10

11

Q6. Mr. Glanville’s Rebuttal Prefiled Testimony dated March 22, 2016 characterizes the 12

prefiled testimony of multiple VAN witnesses supporting a statewide I-Net and 13

viewable statewide channel as “misguided and ill-placed”. DMG PFT at p.22, line 17. 14

Can you respond to this criticism? 15

A6. VAN’s proposal for access to a statewide I-Net is designed to connect Vermont AMO’s so 16

that they can better meet community needs and interests over the next 11 years of Comcast’s 17

proposed CPG. The record demonstrates that VAN’s proposal is thoughtfully guided by state 18

and national evidence and well-placed to support local community needs and interests. 19

20

Institutional networks are enabled under federal cable law, 47 U.S.C. § 531(b), in Vermont 21

Rule 8.000, and further enabled in Comcast’s current CPG. PSB Docket 7077 CPG ¶¶ 60-65. 22

Statewide Network Access is contemplated by the Board in Docket 7077 (Conditions 20-21). 23

See also Exhibit LGD-1 at pp. 6-7. 24

25

Vermont AMO’s have, over time, built a network of program sharing, collaboration and 26

design of efficient workflows on a statewide scale that merit the investigation of a local area 27

network to connect the AMO’s with each other. See Chapman PFT at p.39, line 13 - p.40, 28

line 22 and Crawford PFT at p.28. 29


May 13, 2016

Page 4 of 21

1

As a proof of concept, Vermont Media Exchange (VMX) provides a successful foundation 2

for Vermont AMO connectivity. Currently, VMX is a reliable interface, Internet/cloud-based 3

transfer functions, and metadata protocols for sharing programs between AMO's, which they 4

air on their channels and websites. 5

6

VMX was developed in lieu of a statewide channel to share video across the state. VMX is 7

proven to be successful. Through this statewide program exchange, Vermont AMOs 8

demonstrate that they can share programming and are interested in joint archiving. 9

Campitelli PFT p.6, line 25 - p.7, line 3. 10

11

VMX continues to provide a valued service, is well utilized, and financially supported by all 12

of Vermont’s 25 AMO’s. In 2015, the 1,592 programs uploaded to VMX for sharing by 13

Vermont AMOs were downloaded 9,511 times, testifying to the efficacy of the VMX 14

network. See Campitelli PFT at p.6, line 22 - p.7, line 14 and p.30, lines 14-29. VMX’s 15

modest administrative costs, primarily a contract with Telvue to operate the cloud-based 16

platform, are funded through VAN AMOs’ annual membership dues. Chapman PFT at p 38, 17

line 19 - p.39, line 2. 18

19

As initiatives like this increase, and our storage needs grow into the Petabyte (PB) range as a 20

whole statewide, we will grow out of VMX and need to increasingly rely on centralized 21

TCP/IP networks to move PEG digital files and streaming channel content to storage and 22

compute resources. High bandwidth and low latency TCP/IP networks between both the 23

locations in our communities and the local AMO, and between AMO’s within the state of 24

Vermont are of primary importance. 25

26

This opens the door to sharing resources and leveraging them across the state. As Comcast 27

(i) migrates more services to TCP/IP data networks and (ii) expands the bandwidth on their 28

HFC plant with DOCSIS3.1, while (iii) simultaneously reducing PEG access to that 29


May 13, 2016

Page 5 of 21

electromagnetic frequency bandwidth, we see a clear need for a TCP/IP based I-Net. 1

Crawford PFT at p.30, lines 13-22. See also Exhibit LGD-8 (The State of the Art and 2

Evolution of Cable Television and Broadband Technology, Report to City of Seattle, 3

Columbia Communications, October 9, 2013). 4

5

VAN recommends that the statewide network contemplated in Docket 7077, be built out as 6

an I-Net that connects PEG AMOs and through AMOs to local Remote Origination Sites 7

(“ROS”) in order to easily and affordably share (i) customer facing content such as live 8

Vermont legislative coverage and (ii) backchannel transport for video files en route to AMOs 9

for airing, collaborative production, and/or archival storage. Campitelli PFT p.6, line 25 - 10

p.7, line 3. 11

12

The I-Net / Statewide Network, if properly implemented, represents a backbone for 13

leveraging all the local PEG services identified in VAN’s presentation for the future of PEG 14

access in Vermont throughout all prefiled testimony in Docket 8301. Comcast and AMOs 15

partnering to develop this statewide network/I-Net/PEG LAN will leverage PEG resources 16

and network efficiencies to serve community needs. See Campitelli PFT at p.30, lines 14 - 17

29. 18

19

The I-Net could provide significant quantities of network bandwidth, facilitate collaboration 20

on production and post- production work, the offsite backup and archiving of content as well 21

as the cablecast, sharing, streaming, and distribution of content to the public directly or 22

through syndication at third party OTT Video on Demand (VOD) service providers, MSO 23

network based services, OTT live streaming service providers, and/or OTT Content Delivery 24

Networks (CDN). Crawford PFT at p.29, lines 1-6. 25

26

The ability to consolidate infrastructure in furtherance of efficiently meeting these future 27

demands is directly related to low network latency and the bandwidth available between 28

AMO’s over those low latency network links. Free or affordable access to network 29


May 13, 2016

Page 6 of 21

bandwidth capacity becomes particularly important as PEG AMOs increasingly rely on 1

centralized computers and storage to meet the community needs and interests of their 2

producers, as well as public needs for access to PEG content and information over MSO 3

networks and the Internet. Crawford PFT at p.29, lines 8-14. 4

5

For example, CCTV in Burlington is already spearheading, in support of a statewide PEG 6

network, the building of network storage and compute capacity in The Civic Cloud and 7

related projects. Exhibit SC-1(The Civic Cloud White Paper, November 2015). Campitelli 8

PFT p.7, lines 3-8. 9

10

VAN’s detailed technical case for I-Net support to support Vermont AMO collaboration and 11

interconnectivity can be found at Crawford PFT at pp. 27-30. 12

13

Comcast has agreed to build and manage I-Net’s in a number of recent national CPG 14

negotiations. A recent example of an I-Net requirement can be found in Comcast’s new 15

franchise agreement with the City of Philadelphia (December 2015). Exhibit SC-11 (City of 16

Philadelphia - Comcast Cable Franchise Agreement) at p.23 and Appendix G, December 17

2015. Additional examples of I-Net conditions to which Comcast has agreed includes St. 18

Paul Minnesota, Portland, Oregon, and Vancouver, Washington. Exhibit RC-11 19

(Comcast/Municipal I-Net Conditions). See also Chapman PFT at p.48. 20

21

Rather than VAN’s I-Net proposal being misguided or ill-placed, as Mr. Glanville claims, 22

VAN’s proposed I-Net conditions are guided by federal and state statutes, community needs 23

and interests, AMO operational experience and growing technical needs, a small scale 24

demonstration of statewide program sharing (VMX), and Comcast’s commitment to provide 25

I-Net in other franchise agreements. 26

27

Q7. Can you respond to Mr. Glanville’s statement that Comcast provided $75,000 to VAN 28

in order to establish VMX with funds that “had been placed into escrow by Adelphia as 29


May 13, 2016

Page 7 of 21

the result of a prior regulatory proceeding.”? See DMG Rebuttal Testimony at p.24, 1

lines 2-4. 2

A7. VAN’s proposal for Statewide Interconnectivity (in the form of a statewide I-Net) is 3

intended as a new condition, building upon prior conditions and not intended as a non-4

compliance issue concerning current CPG Condition 20. Also, Mr. Glanville is correct that 5

the $75,000 Comcast provided to VAN in order to establish VMX were funds that “had been 6

placed into escrow by Adelphia as the result of a prior regulatory proceeding.” DMG RT at 7

p.24, lines 2-4. However, it is important to clarify that no specific “interconnection 8

bandwidth” has been provided by Comcast to AMOs other than connections to the internet. 9

Id. at p.23, lines 7-14. 10

11

Q8. Mr. Glanville says that “VAN seems to be arguing that they would like to also have the 12

capability for one single AMO on a statewide basis.” DMG PFT at p.22, line 21 - p.23, 13

line 5. 14

A8. The conclusion drawn by Mr. Glanville is incorrect. While VAN is interested in the efficient 15

use of PEG access resources and subscriber fees it is not, in this Docket, proposing one 16

single AMO on a statewide basis, or the reduction of Comcast’s financial obligation to PEG 17

Access in Vermont. VAN proposes to serve as the management entity for a statewide I-Net 18

and/or channel, on behalf of Vermont AMO’s in the event that one is negotiated and 19

activated. 20

21

Q9. Mr. Glanville adds “[i]t was also understood by both Comcast and VAN that 22

establishment of Vermont Media Exchange (“VMX”) would satisfy Condition 20. DMG 23

RT at p.24, line 7-11. Included as Exhibit DMG-14 are letters dated January 8, 2007, 24

October 26, 2007, and October 29, 2007, regarding satisfaction of Comcast’s obligations 25

pursuant to Condition 20. Did VAN have the same understanding about VMX as 26

Comcast alleges? 27

A9. VAN did not share the understanding that establishment of VMX would fully satisfy 28

Condition 20 of Comcast’s CPG in Docket 7077. There is nothing in Exhibit DMG-14 to 29


May 13, 2016

Page 8 of 21

preclude VAN from pursuing the full intent of the CPG condition. In fact, in the letter from 1

Comcast to VAN, dated January 8, 2007 at p.2, Comcast states: 2

3

Comcast endorsement of Phase I [the “designation of digital file sharing capability 4

among Comcast designated Access Management Organization’s”]does not represent 5

an endorsement of future phases or future proposals by VAN. Future requests will be 6

considered in the framework of the statewide AMO established through Rule 8.400 et 7

seq. and with other cable operators, not Comcast exclusively. 8

9

Exhibit DMG-14 (Letters dated January 8, 2007, October 26, 2007 and October 29, 2007). 10

11

Putting aside the issue of whether existing CPG condition has been fully met, the issue 12

moving forward in this Docket, in VAN’s opinion, is: (i) whether the statewide I-Net is 13

supported by communities needs and interests, and technologically feasible at this time; and 14

(ii) because, if the statewide I-Net is supported and feasible, Comcast has stated that it will 15

not provide it. Therefore, the ultimate issue boomerangs back to the Board for a 16

determination of whether a CPG condition related to a statewide I-Net is appropriate in this 17

Docket. See LGD RT at p.35 line 23-29 and p.36 line 1-13. 18

19

Q10. Mr. Glanville also states that VAN understood there was no agreement for additional 20

funding from cable operators for the digital file sharing network, a viewable 17 21

statewide channel, or a statewide PEG Interconnect. DMG Rebuttal Testimony at p.24, 22

lines 15-17. 23

A10. Since the launch of VMX in 2007, VAN has effectively used the original funding from 24

Comcast/Adelphia to build out VMX through equipment, training, and upgrading of the 25

VMX platform, to include all Vermont AMOs in digital file-sharing of programs. Also, 26

despite the fact that VAN has not supplied Comcast with any “updates” on funding 27

strategies, VAN AMO’s now fund, through their VAN membership dues and VAN members 28

serving on the VMX Governing Committee, the annual operating costs of VMX. 29

30


May 13, 2016

Page 9 of 21

A number of VAN member AMOs have also purchased increased broadband services, not 1

provided as complimentary services by Comcast, to support AMO program sharing through 2

internet connections and the cloud-based VMX platform. As per VAN’s agreement with 3

Comcast in 2007 (Exhibit DMG-14), VAN has never requested additional funding from 4

Comcast for any of these activities. 5

6

Q11. Mr. Glanville posits that VAN “now seeks to have Comcast, and by extension, 7

Comcast’s customers, fund this new, statewide I-Net and viewable statewide channel. 8

Comcast customers already pay the maximum amount allowed under federal law for 9

funding of PEG access and many also pay an additional amount for ongoing PEG 10

capital funding. Pass through of the costs for a new, statewide I-Net and viewable 11

statewide channel would create upward pressure on cable subscriber rates.” DMG 12

Rebuttal Testimony at p.25, lines 2-7. Is Mr. Glanville’s statement correct? 13

A11. VAN identifies two distinct issues for discussion in Mr. Glanville’s rebuttal testimony: the 14

funding of a viewable statewide PEG channel and the funding of statewide PEG I-Net. 15

16

When the issue of a viewable statewide channel was raised during informal discussions 17

between VAN, Comcast and the Department prior to this Docket, VAN was clear that 18

Vermont AMO’s do not have the financial capacity to fund such a channel at this time. Nor 19

is such a channel useful to Vermont AMO’s without the statewide I-Net interconnectivity 20

discussed in the testimony of several VAN witnesses in this docket. 21

22

VAN is aware that Vermont AMO’s have maxed out the 5% of gross revenues that the 23

Communications Act allows franchising authorities to require to support PEG access 24

operations (47 U.S. Code § 542). Therefore VAN does not expect Comcast will volunteer 25

additional operating dollars for a statewide channel unless it is part of a philanthropic 26

contribution on its part. 27

28

VAN is also aware that the federal law allows for capital funding to be negotiated based on 29


May 13, 2016

Page 10 of 21

demonstrated community needs and interests. In VAN’s view, if necessary, it would be 1

possible, in later discussions, to make a case for additional capital funds to support a 2

statewide viewable channel. VAN seeks the Board to allow for such a channel (as it did in 3

the Docket 7077 findings) but emphasizes that Vermont AMO’s are not interested in a 4

statewide viewable channel unless I-Net level capacity is available to connect them together 5

for purposes described in my prefiled and rebuttal testimony. 6

7

The I-Net is the priority for VAN in this proceeding because it can help to build on VMX’s 8

success and will meet the growing community needs for more sophisticated program sharing 9

(e.g., live event coverage, back end archiving, joint master control and other examples 10

described in my testimony). If designed to meet our needs, the I-Net will enable Vermont 11

AMO’s to access increased bandwidth, storage and computing power and share content and 12

functions of value to Vermont communities. 13

14

Regarding the funding of VAN’s proposed I-Net, I sum up my comments with the 15

supplemental testimony provided by Ms. Davitian stating: 16

17

I-Net’s are typically leased by the cable operator at agreed upon cost with 18

Commercial conditions. See Exhibit LGD-1 at 7. In Exhibit LGD-19 (Recent 19

Franchise Renewal Outcomes prepared by the Buske Group), I-Net’s are included as 20

conditions of several recent Comcast franchises. Highlights of I-Net agreements may 21

be found in Exhibit LGD-19 and spelled out in more detail in Exhibit RC-11 22

(Examples of Municipal I-Net Conditions). 23

24

For example, in Comcast’s 2012 franchise agreement with Mt. Hood Cable 25

Regulatory Commission for the City of Portland and East Multnomah County, 26

Oregon, Comcast makes reference to “specific provisions related to fees, 27

performance and operations of the I-Net and I-Net services are set forth in a separate 28

agreement between Grantee and the City”. In Pittsburgh, Comcast is required to 29

provide I-Net, but details are “confidential.” See Exhibit RC-11 (Examples 30

Municipal I-Net Conditions at 15). 31

32

VAN fully expects that it would enter into a comparable negotiation with Comcast to 33

determine the conditions and costs for building and operating a Vermont I-Net for 34

PEG access purposes. 35


May 13, 2016

Page 11 of 21

1

Davitian Supplemental Testimony at pp. 35-36, A.16. 2

3

Q12. Mr. Glanville concludes his I-Net testimony with, “[t]he FCC has found that completely 4

duplicative PEG capacity requirements if imposed by local franchising authorities are 5

unreasonable.” DMG Rebuttal Testimony at p.26, lines 11-13. Can you respond to this 6

comment? 7

A12. How these are “completely duplicative PEG capacity requirements,” DMG Rebuttal 8

Testimony at p.26, lines 11-16, is not evident from Mr. Glanville’s testimony. Nor is it 9

evident to VAN how a statewide I-Net is duplicative of the individual channels currently 10

operated by AMOs given that the statewide I-Net would replace the VMX platform currently 11

in place. 12

13

Q13. Please summarize VAN’s position regarding Mr. Glanville’s rebuttal testimony 14

concerning remote origination sites. 15

A13. Mr. Glanville’s rebuttal testimony continues a practice by Comcast of ignoring regulatory 16

language of Docket 7077’s Condition 22 and substituting its preferred language through 17

AMO contract negotiations, annual reports and responses to activation of remote originations 18

by AMOs. Examples are detailed in A15, below. Mr. Glanville’s rebuttal testimony 19

regarding ROS sites ignores whether or not a site is located within 500 feet of the cable 20

plant. Instead, it argues that a site which requires underground routing of cables or a certain 21

undetermined length of fiber-optic cabling renders the site “non-standard.” This undermines 22

the intent of Condition 22 which presents the clear understanding that remote origination 23

sites are important to Vermonters, even to the extent that it pre-qualifies certain sites within 24

the community as important locations for remote origination. The current Condition 22 also 25

clearly expresses an intent that the entity making the request for remote origination capacity 26

should only bear the incremental cost of providing this capacity if the location is not within 27

500 feet of the cable plant or is not school, library, municipal office or AMO. 28

29


May 13, 2016

Page 12 of 21

Q14. Does VAN agree with Mr. Glanville’s assertion that Condition 22 language in the 1

current CPG is “imprecise”? 2

A14. Concerning Mr. Glanville’s answer A20 in his Rebuttal Prefiled Testimony dated March 22, 3

2016, Mr. Glanville characterizes the language in the current Condition 22 as “imprecise.” 4

VAN disagrees with this position and contends that the language in Docket 7077 is actually 5

quite precise and should serve as the basis for an updated CPG condition in this Docket. 6

Most differences of opinion between VAN and Comcast regarding activation of remote 7

origination concerns the difference between a “standard installation,” which Comcast must 8

provide at no cost for qualified institutions, and “non-standard installation,” where the 9

requesting entity or other party must pay for the difference between “standard” and “non-10

standard” installation. In its pertinent part, Condition 22 states (emphasis added): 11

12

This condition does not require Comcast to provide drops to buildings that are 13

neither passed by nor located within 500 feet of cable plant unless an entity is willing 14

to reimburse Comcast for the incremental cost of the non-standard installation. 15

16

It is therefore reasonable to assume the inverse is also true, that a “standard” installation 17

includes any “school, library, and PEG-access studio, and to at least one municipal building” 18

that is passed by or located within 500 feet of Comcast’s “cable plant”. 19

20

It is Mr. Glanville’s contention that the definition of “cable plant” is not found in either the 21

CPG or PSB Rules. However, Comcast’s Annual Report filed with the PSB contains a map 22

of the “Comcast Cable Plant.” This map clearly identifies roads where Comcast cable service 23

is available and provides clarification as to the definition the term “cable plant” as 24

interpreted by Comcast. A copy of Comcast’s Cable Plant Map is attached hereto as Exhibit 25

RC-13 (Comcast 2015 Annual PEG Operator Report - Cable Plant Map). Additionally, in 26

response to VAN’s Second Set of Information Requests on Petitioner, 27

Q.VAN:COMCAST.2-15, Mr. Glanville presents an internal definition of “cable plant” as 28

“its proprietary facilities used for the provision of its services”. 29

30


May 13, 2016

Page 13 of 21

Using Comcast’s own map of the cable plant and internal definition, some of Comcast’s 1

characterizations of remote origination requests as “non-standard” require additional criteria 2

such as underground installation, length of fiber needed, etcetera, in order for Comcast to 3

classify them as “non-standard.” One example of Comcast’s use of additional criteria is 4

LPCTV’s move from their old studio at Black River High School at 43 Main Street, Ludlow 5

to their new facilities at 37 Main Street which is characterized as “not a standard installation 6

as 1,324 feet of fiber was required to provide return line capability.” DMG Rebuttal 7


9

Another example is NWA-TV’s proposed location for their new facilities at Franklin Park 10

West, which Comcast designated a non-standard installation due to a portion of the return 11

line needing to be placed underground. Mr. Glanville states that “[a]ny location which 12

requires underground placement of facilities is considered a non-standard and thus NWA-TV 13

is responsible for paying the incremental cost associated with the non-standard installation.” 14

DMG Rebuttal Testimony at p.47, line 13. In fact, Comcast incorporated language in NWA-15

TV’s contract which defined this remote origination site as being a non-standard installation. 16

This shows that Comcast is using the AMO contract negotiation process to redefine its 17

responsibilities in connection with providing remote origination service. Mr. Glanville’s 18

testimony is also silent on whether the location is “either passed by or located within 500 feet 19

of Comcast’s cable plant.” 20

21

During the course of the last CPG, Comcast has negotiated additional language concerning 22

remote origination activation into AMO contracts that further limits the cost to Comcast for 23

providing drops capable of remote origination by additional qualifiers such as “serviceable” 24

cable plant or “designed for remote origination.” Comcast’s most recent 2015 Annual PEG 25

Operator’s Report Section B.3 defines standard installation as “within 500 feet of cable plant 26

designed for and capable of supporting the upward transmission of live programming.” 27

Exhibit RC-14 (Comcast’s 2015 Annual PEG Operator’s Report). The language “designed 28

for and capable of supporting the upward transmission of live programming,” unilaterally 29


May 13, 2016

Page 14 of 21

added by Comcast post issuance of its Docket 7077 CPG, leaves to Comcast sole discretion 1

to determine whether a requested remote origination site is to be activated at no cost to 2

Comcast. Consequently, Comcast’s language and its interpretation effectively deregulates 3

the decision, making it no longer subject to the CPG condition, and leaves these important 4

decisions about whether a ROS is “standard” or “non-standard” installation to the sole 5

discretion of Comcast. In fact, Comcast is the sole decision maker in connection of whether 6

its system is “designed for or capable of supporting the upward transmission of live 7

programming” as this information is not generally within the knowledge or purview of 8

AMOs and is not something Comcast is forthcoming about. Parenthetically, I point out that 9

this makes negotiating issues related to remote origination service with Comcast ineffective 10

and impossible. 11

12

Q15. In addition to his objection to VAN’s proposed CPG condition related to remote 13

origination service, Mr. Glanville’s rebuttal testimony also responds to your testimony 14

related to responses by Comcast of individual AMO requests to activate remote 15

origination service at community locations. Do you have additional or clarifying 16

comments related to the experiences of these AMOs? 17

A15. Yes. Although Mr. Glanville addresses many of the specific issues AMO’s have had with 18

regard to remote origination activation, what his rebuttal testimony shows is that Comcast 19

has continuously taken steps to modify the Condition 22 language set out in Comcast’s 20

existing CPG in a manner which reduces its obligations. Several examples of Comcast’s 21

behavior are set out below as well as proof that some of Mr. Glanville’s comments are 22

inaccurate. 23

24

1. Channel 17/Town Meeting Television (See DMG Rebuttal Testimony at p. 45, lines 25

7-16) 26

Mr. Glanville’s testimony provides April 2014 as a starting point for discussions 27

concerning upgrades to Channel 17/Town Meeting Television's signal out of its 28

Burlington facilities. According to Mr. Glanville, April 2014 was when the Company 29


May 13, 2016

Page 15 of 21

agreed and “determined the modulator at Channel 17’s studio was reaching the end 1

of its functional life”. Mr. Glanville may not be aware of the longstanding 2

negotiations to make this upgrade happen, dating to 2008. At that time, Comcast 3

provided Channel 17/Town Meeting Television with an estimate of over $10,000 to 4

replace the upstream modulator and upgrade the cable that sends Channel 17 signal 5

to Comcast’s headed. See Exhibit RC-15 (Comcast Estimate - Channel 17 Facilities 6

Fiber Upgrade), Channel 17 disagreed that it was responsible to pay for this upgrade. 7

Channel 17 viewers suffered for six years with substandard signal quality and 8

intermittent service interruptions. In a change of approach, Comcast agreed to 9

perform the upgrade at no charge to Channel 17. Comcast provided equipment to 10

enable the transport of SD (not HD) signals in April 2014. 11

12

As described, this process took longer than the two years I testified to in my initial 13

pre-filed testimony, see RC PFT at p.8, lines 8-11, as well as far longer than the few 14

months Mr. Glanville describes in his rebuttal testimony. See DMG Rebuttal 15


17

2. NWA-TV (See DMG Rebuttal Testimony at p.47, lines 1-3) 18

In Mr. Glanville’s rebuttal prefiled testimony concerning NWA-TV’s request for 19

possible activation of a new location for NWA-TV facilities, Mr. Glanville refers to a 20

criteria for non-standard installation concerning a requirement of “underground 21

placement of facilities” which does not exist in the current CPG. In response to 22

Vermont Access Network’s Second Set of Information request, Question 20, which 23

inquired about this criteria, Mr. Glanville referenced Vermont Public Service Board 24

8.387, which does not refer to remote origination sites, but to cable subscribers. See 25

DMG Rebuttal Testimony at p.47, lines 1-3. In the case of NWA-TV, the criteria for 26

“non-standard installation” including any location requiring “underground placement 27

of facilities” is in the current contract between Comcast and NWA-TV. This provides 28

an example of Comcast attempting to minimize or circumvent CPG obligations 29


May 13, 2016

Page 16 of 21

through the use of their strong-arm negotiating employed by Comcast during AMO 1

contract negotiations. Further, Comcast’s additional criteria does not differentiate 2

between underground installation in already constructed underground conduits or 3

situations where Comcast may have to install underground conduits, which could 4

significantly impact the cost benefit analysis as it applies to ROS activation. 5

6

3. GNAT-TV (See DMG Rebuttal Testimony at p.48, lines 5-12) 7

Similar to the way Comcast added post-regulatory criteria to the definition of 8

“standard definition” when dealing with NWA-TV set out in the above example, 9

Comcast employed the same tactic with GNAT-TV. In GNAT’s case, GNAT 10

requested to relocate its facility to an address in Sunderland, VT. Comcast charged 11

GNAT-TV for the relocation, classifying the new location as “non-standard” 12

according to Mr. Glanville’s rebuttal testimony, based on Comcast’s new non-13

standard installation criteria that the location required “4975 feet of fiber” to be 14

connected. This measurement is arbitrary and not based on Condition 22 language.. 15

It is VAN’s understanding that the new studio location was within 500 feet of the 16

cable plant. The underground criteria was included in GNAT-TV’s contract, but this 17

contract was executed in the fall of 2011, months after the move took place in the 18

spring of 2011. 19

20

4. GNAT-TV/Burr & Burton Academy (See DMG Rebuttal Testimony at p.51, lines 21

1-6) 22

Mr. Glanville’s rebuttal testimony found at p.50, line 22 - p.51, line 6 indicates that 23

GNAT-TV’s request to allow Burr & Burton Academy to install the internal wiring 24

for a ROS was denied by Comcast due to “specific technical requirements” which 25

justifies, according to Comcast, a refusal for third-party installation of internal wiring 26

at a lower cost to the school and AMO. Mr. Glanville neglects to state in his rebuttal 27

testimony what is meant by the term “specific technical requirements” or identify the 28

differences between Comcast’s standards and industry standards which is the basis 29


May 13, 2016

Page 17 of 21

for Comcast’s insistence that it install the internal wiring and the requesting entity 1

reimburse Comcast. He merely states that Comcast adheres to industry standards in 2

denying authorization for internal wiring by Burr & Burton Academy. In contrast, 3

NEK-TV’s ROS at North Country High School in Newport, VT, requested for 4

activation as part of Comcast’s 2010 rebuild of Newport system, remains un-5

activated to this day because Comcast requires the school to complete the certain 6

internal wiring. See Exhibit RC-16 (Comcast's 2006-2015 Annual PEG Access 7

Report - Status of Requests for ROS (Large File Connect via Link) 8

https://files.acrobat.com/a/preview/a1ddc195-9fd0-4a0b-9c90-daf59c035e12). 9

10

5. VCAM/Hinesburg Municipal Offices (See DMG Rebuttal Testimony at p.51, lines 11

14-18) 12

Mr. Glanville’s rebuttal testimony about the activation of a ROS at the Hinesburg 13

Municipal Offices identifies further efforts of Comcast at adding qualifying language 14

to the definition of a standard installation, Condition 22 site. In this case, although 15

Comcast agreed that the site met the definition of “standard installation,” Comcast 16

nonetheless added the criteria that the “cable plant [must be] designed for and 17

capable of supporting upstream transmission of live cablecasted programming” to the 18

criteria. Comcast insisted in incorporating this new criteria in the recently negotiated 19

AMO contract between VCAM and Comcast. Mr. Glanville’s testimony also 20

includes the term “within 500 aerial feet of cable plant,” which replaces current 21

regulatory language with proposed language by including the “aerial” qualifier. 22

23

Q16. While reviewing Mr. Glanville’s rebuttal testimony, did you identify any inaccuracies 24

in your Prefiled Testimony that you would like to clarify? 25

A16. I did and corrections are identified below: 26

27

1. LPCTV (See DMG Rebuttal Testimony at p.46, lines 1-13 and Chapman PFT at 28

p.16, line 25-27 - p.17, lines 1-2) 29



May 13, 2016

Page 18 of 21

Upon further conversations and correspondence with Patrick Cody, Executive 1

Director of LPCTV, some of my initial testimony is incorrect. In my initial 2

testimony, I stated that LPCTV was charged for activating the remote origination 3

capacity at its new location, which is not correct. LPCTV was not charged for the 4

cost of moving their studio drop from Black River High School to the Ludlow 5

Armory. Chapman PFT at p.16, line 27. They were initially, however, presented with 6

an estimate of over $4000, DMG Rebuttal Testimony at p.46, lines 4-7, for the move 7

as the new site was deemed by Comcast to be a “non-standard installation” even 8

though the location was within 500 feet of the cable plant. In contrast, while LPCTV 9

was not charged for the activation of this “non-standard” site, other AMO’s were 10

required to pay for moves to Comcast designated “non-standard installation” 11

locations, GNAT-TV being just one example. Mr. Cody also reported that, upon 12

moving the AMO facilities out of the high school, the ROS drop at the high school 13

was deactivated, although Comcast still lists it as activated on its ROS inventory. 14

15

2. CATV (See DMG Rebuttal Testimony at p.48, lines 15-20 and Chapman PFT at 16

p.19, lines 1-4) 17

Upon further conversations and correspondence with Bob Franzoni, Executive 18

Director of CATV, my initial prefiled testimony was incorrect regarding the move of 19

CATV AMO facilities. Chapman PFT at p.19, lines 1-4. CATV consolidated from 20

two locations to one location in 2006, vacating their facilities in Hanover, NH and 21

moving all operations to their location at 85 Main Street in Hartford, VT. Adelphia 22

Cable had already activated the 85 Main Street location, at no cost to CATV, prior to 23

2006 and Comcast taking over Adelphia’s cable operations. Also my testimony was 24

incorrect with regard to the municipal offices at Hartford, which appears to have 25

been wired prior to Comcast’s taking over Adelphia’s cable operations in 2006. 26

However, it should be noted that this ROS site was described as not activated by Mr. 27

Franzoni while listed as activated in Comcast’s Annual report ROS inventory. 28

29


May 13, 2016

Page 19 of 21

3. WCTV (See DMG Rebuttal Testimony at p.49, lines 1-6 and Chapman PFT at p.19, 1

lines 6-9) 2

Upon further conversations and correspondence with Macy Lawrence, Executive 3

Director of WCTV, my initial prefiled testimony at p.19, lines 6-9 concerning 4

WCTV moving twice was incorrect. There was only one move in 2013, from 32 5

Pleasant Street to 62 Pleasant Street. Mr. Lawrence does recall being quoted an 6

estimate of about $7000, although he does not recall receiving any documents with 7

that estimate and no documents were located or provided by Mr. Lawrence in 8

connection with this Docket. Mr. Lawrence also relayed his recollection that WCTV 9

would upgrade its internet service to business class and pay the higher rates 10

associated with the service in lieu of any payment directly associated with the move. 11

12

Q17. Do you have additional testimony concerning remote origination activation and 13

Comcast’s inventory of the status of remote origination sites associated with Vermont 14

AMOs? 15

A17. Yes. First I note that my supplemental testimony is derived, in part, from two sources: 16

Comcast’s required annual PEG Operator’s Reports, specifically Exhibit RC-16 (Comcast's 17

2006-2015 Annual PEG Access Report - Status of Requests for ROS 18

https://files.acrobat.com/a/preview/a1ddc195-9fd0-4a0b-9c90-daf59c035e12), for the past 19

ten years; and an informal verbal survey I conducted with staff of the individual AMOs 20

managing each remote origination request or site to confirm or deny the status listed. In 21

confirming the information, two key issues emerged. Those are: (1) an inconsistency in 22

Comcast’s use of the terms ‘activated’ and ‘deactivated’; and (2) the data in Comcast’s table 23

titled “Status of Requests for Remote Origination Sites,” is misleading; there are far fewer 24

activated sites than are listed. Exhibit RC-17 (Vermont Remote Origination Sites 25

Spreadsheet). 26

27

Comcast’s PEG Operator’s Report, submitted annually, includes an inventory and the status 28

of every ROS in Vermont. Most of the sites list “activated” as their “installation status.” This 29



May 13, 2016

Page 20 of 21

term, while not defined by Comcast, implies that the site has been installed and is capable of 1

live origination. However, an informal survey of AMO staff revealed that nearly one third of 2

the sites listed by Comcast as ‘activated’ either: could not be used by the AMO for a live 3

shoot within the next month because of a known functional problem, or the location’s 4

capacity for remote origination was unknown. Comcast continues to list non-functioning 5

remote origination sites despite annual reminders from AMOs through their annual reports. 6

Therefore, the list of functioning remote origination sites provided by Comcast with their 7

Annual Report is inaccurate, most notably that there are significantly fewer functioning, 8

‘activated’ sites than the report presents on an annual basis. The results of my survey are 9

compiled in a spreadsheet. Exhibit RC-17 (Vermont Remote Origination Sites Spreadsheet.) 10

11

Another discrepancy in Comcast’s inventory of ROS sites is the number of sites listed for 12

each location. In some cases, Comcast has listed multiple cable drops at one location where 13

there is only one cable drop, according to the local AMO that utilizes the drop. Examples of 14

this include Montpelier City Auditorium and Montpelier City Council Chambers, listed on 15

the inventory as separate sites, but which in fact share one transmitter and cable drop. This is 16

also the case at Springfield High School, which the Comcast inventory lists as three separate 17

drops: (1) the River Valley Technical Center, (2) Springfield High School, and (3) the 18

Springfield Area Public Access (SAPA) facilities located within the high school. SAPA 19

reports that all three of those sites, through internal wiring in the school, use only one cable 20

drop and transmission system. Further confusion about the total number of functioning ROS 21

sites is compounded on Comcast’s inventory because some locations remain on the inventory 22

but are listed as “deactivated” while other sites which VAN assumes have been “deactivated” 23

have been removed entirely from the inventory. The inaccuracies associated with this annual 24

inventory inflates the number of usable remote origination locations associated with 25

Comcast’s CPG Condition 22. 26

27

28

29


May 13, 2016

Page 21 of 21

Q18. Do you have any final comments with regard to remote origination sites? 1

A18. Yes. VAN is concerned that an important cable-related community need, the capacity to 2

conduct live remotely originated programming from key community locations, is being 3

diminished by Comcast’s attempts to add criteria to already established CPG criteria, 4

through the AMO contract negotiation process, official responses to activation requests and 5

in reporting documentation. It is VAN’s position that robust enforcement and consistently-6

applied, clearly-defined criteria are necessary in order to hold Comcast accountable to the 7

regulatory authority of the Vermont Public Service Board. While the decision should rest 8

with Comcast as to which technology to utilize for the transmission of video signals from 9

remote origination sites, whether a site is a standard or nonstandard installation should be 10

determined by the consistent application of a clearly-defined CPG condition. VAN believes 11

that our proposed language serves this purpose. Vermont AMOs should dedicate their time, 12

energy and resources to meeting well established cable-related community needs, rather than 13

on arguing with Comcast about whether a potential remote origination location meets the 14

criteria for standard installation. 15

16

VAN argues that a public benefit analysis has been neglected and ignored by Comcast. 17

Implicit in current CPG Condition 22 is the understanding that there are locations within the 18

community where a public benefit analysis has been implemented by the Public Service 19

Board and determined to have a significant importance to the community. These important 20

prequalified sites include schools, libraries, at least one municipal building and AMO 21

centers. So long as these prequalified sites are within 500 feet of the cable plant, Comcast 22

should provide remote origination service at no cost to the requesting entity. Comcast has 23

taken upon itself to adjust this criteria and significantly undermined the intent of Condition 24

22. It is VAN’s position that their ability to do so should be limited in the new CPG. 25

26

Q19. Does this conclude your supplemental testimony? 27

A19. Yes. Thank you for the opportunity to testimony. 28

29

STATE OF VERMONT








SUMMARY OF SUPPLEMENTAL PREFILED TESTIMONY OF LISA BYER

Ms. Byer’s prefiled testimony addressed PEG-related issues related to the importance of

maintaining and/or developing procedures so that Comcast’s cable system provides reasonable

PEG services which meet established community needs and both the cable operator and AMOs

have the necessary administrative tools to meet their PEG obligations. Her supplemental prefiled

testimony responds to the rebuttal testimony of Mr. Daniel M. Glanville dated March 22, 2016

provided on behalf of Comcast, as their testimony relates to the issues addressed by Ms. Byer in

her prefiled testimony.

PSB Docket No. 8301 Supplemental Prefiled Testimony of Lisa Byer

May 13, 2016

Page 1 of 15

STATE OF VERMONT








SUPPLEMENTAL PREFILED TESTIMONY OF LISA BYER

1


A1. My name is Lisa Byer. 3

4


A2. I am the Executive Director of Catamount Access Television Corporation, which serves 6

as the Public, Educational and Government Access Channels in Bennington, Vermont. 7

8

Q3. Did you submit prefiled testimony in this docket? 9

A3. Yes, I submitted prefiled testimony in PSB Docket No. 8301 on January 26, 2016 on 10

behalf of the Vermont Access Network (VAN). 11

12

Q4. What is the purpose of your supplemental testimony? 13

A4. My prefiled testimony addressed PEG-related issues related to the importance of 14

maintaining and/or developing procedures so that Comcast’s cable system provides 15

reasonable PEG services which meet established community needs and both the cable 16

operator and AMOs have the necessary administrative tools to meet their PEG 17

obligations. The specific issues addressed included: the need for a person performing the 18


May 13, 2016

Page 2 of 15

functions of a “regulatory affairs manager”; why a community advisory board or 1

planning meetings continue to be important; clarifications related to reporting 2

requirements; why conditions requiring Comcast to contribute to the cost of channel 3

reassignment and ongoing support of PEG outreach continue to be relevant; why 4

Comcast’s notification to AMOs of rebuilds and upgrades is necessary; why the CPG 5

should include conditions which provide a platform to consider that (i) services Comcast 6

makes available in other states also be made available in Vermont (“comparable 7

services”) and (ii) grant to PEG Access the equivalent functionality as Comcast makes 8

technological advancements and upgrades to its Cable System which, as a result of, 9

establishes new and enhanced services to subscribers; and, finally, why contending that 10

permitting the degradation of PEG Access’s signal quality should not be permitted. My 11

rebuttal testimony responds to the rebuttal testimony of Mr. Daniel M. Glanville on 12

behalf of Comcast on March 22, 2016 as it relates to these issues. 13

14

Q5. Do you have any general comments regarding the Rebuttal Testimony of Mr. Daniel 15

M. Glanville? 16

A5. Yes. In his testimony, Mr. Glanville states that “VAN seeks to include various outdated 17

and unnecessary conditions currently found in the Docket 7077 CPG which are either not 18

found in recent CPGs issues to other cable television operator or were intended to address 19

Adelphia’s noncompliance issues.” Glanville Rebuttal Testimony at p.15, lines 17-20. 20

Collectively, VAN disagrees with this statement, see generally Davitian Rebuttal 21

Testimony at p.5, Answer 6, and would like to reinforce our reasoning behind why we 22

feel these conditions continue to be necessary and relevant within the discussion of 23

Comcast’s CPG renewal. While Mr. Glanville may be correct that the origin of some of 24

these conditions arose from noncompliance issues with Adelphia, we do not believe that 25

that should exclude their inclusion in this CPG. To the contrary, VAN considers that the 26

proposed conditions will be beneficial if properly followed in that they will ensure that 27

Vermonters receive a proper “return” for Comcast’s use of the public right of way. 28


May 13, 2016

Page 3 of 15

Moreover, we believe that removing some of these basic conditions would leave room for 1

future misunderstandings and misinterpretations, and could lead to costly litigation. 2

3

Furthermore, we do not support Comcast’s contention that some of these processes and 4

procedures be discussed at the AMO contract level when issues being addressed apply 5

equally to all AMOs. Many of Vermont’s AMOs are small operations with limited staff 6

and resources. Their focus should be centered on fulfilling their mission and not entering 7

into complicated contract negotiations when Vermont has a regulatory process in place. 8

This work should be done on a collective level as it is now with the collaborative work of 9

PEG leaders representing the interests and needs of VAN’s membership. To expect 10

individual AMOs to negotiate, research and contemplate global issues is 11

counterproductive to the PSB process and the level of importance that it has historically 12

placed on PEG Access in this State. 13

14

We do not see these conditions as extraneous or superfluous, we see them as necessary to 15

the commitment Vermont and the PSB have had in setting standards to meet the Public 16

Good for our communities. In this time of incredible change in technology and delivery 17

of video services, VAN believes that more detail, more consideration, more forethought 18

should be in place for the next eleven years, not less. We hope that the Board will 19

consider these conditions as being vital to keeping PEG Access alive in Vermont and 20

ensure that Comcast remain responsive to PEG issues during the term of their CPG. 21

22

Regulatory Affairs Manager 23

Q6. Do you have any additional testimony regarding whether the position of a 24

Regulatory Affairs Manager should continue to be included as a CPG condition? 25

A6. Yes, in his Rebuttal Testimony, Mr. Glanville states that they are in full compliance with 26

this condition, that they provide timely responses to AMO and regulatory inquiries and 27

that attention to these inquiries and issues are addressed by several levels of company 28

personnel. He further points out that Condition 1 of Comcast’s proposed Renewed CPG 29


May 13, 2016

Page 4 of 15

they will designate a Regulatory Affairs staff person who will oversee Comcast’s 1

regulatory compliance in Vermont. 2

3

VAN’s primary concern is that Comcast remain responsive to PEG Access issues and 4

concerns. Although we asked in our interrogatories of Comcast, we are still unclear as to 5

the status of this position and who is fulfilling these responsibilities. We are not as 6

concerned of what Comcast calls the position as we are that the duties are being timely 7

handled and that AMOs are properly informed and directed to the appropriate person. 8

9

Additionally, I would like to reemphasize concerns I addressed in my Prefiled Testimony 10

noting that communications with the Regulatory Affairs Manager has not always been 11

effective or timely. See Byer Prefiled Testimony at p.6, lines 4-28 and p.7, lines 1-4. It 12

is necessary for VAN’s member AMOs to have reliable and consistent responses to 13

inquiries. Failure of Comcast to provide staff members who are able to effectively 14

communicate Company policies and offer practical resolutions is counter to the intention 15

of this condition. VAN asks that however Comcast designates these duties within their 16

Company, that they commit to addressing PEG inquires and concerns in an effective and 17

productive manner. 18

19

Q7. Does VAN agree with Comcast’s proposed Condition 1? 20

A7. While the term “designates” used by Comcast rather than “employs,” which is the term in 21

the existing CPG and VAN’s proposed CPG condition, could imply that the person 22

serving in this capacity lacks a dedicated role, as long as the duties are fulfilled and 23

AMOs are informed of changes to the position title, responsibilities and person holding 24

the position, VAN will agree to Comcast’s proposed language for Condition 1 as follows: 25

26

For the duration of this Certificate, Comcast shall designate a Regulatory Affairs 27

staff person to serve as a primary liaison to the Consumer and Public Information 28

Division of the Department (“CAPI”) and whose responsibilities shall include 29


May 13, 2016

Page 5 of 15

oversight of Comcast’s compliance with Vermont statutes, rules, orders and other 1

regulating governing cable operators. 2

3

Cable Advisory Board and Community Planning Meetings 4

Q8. Please provide additional testimony regarding the Cable Advisory Board and 5

Community Planning Meetings. 6

A8. In my Prefiled Testimony, I highlighted the importance of Vermonters having a 7

mechanism to discuss cable related needs especially in the changing landscape of 8

technology. See Byer Prefiled Testimony at pp. 9-12. I also suggested that the Board 9

consider placing this responsibility on the Consumer Affairs and Public Information 10

Division (CAPI) of the Department of Public Service. Id. 11

12

In his Rebuttal Testimony, Mr. Glanville testifies that they have complied with this 13

condition to date but that going forward Comcast “believe[s] that continued status quo 14

communications with AMO Boards of Directors is a more effective means of 15

communication.” Glanville Rebuttal Testimony at pp. 17-18. While VAN is unwilling to 16

agree that Comcast has been in full compliance with its current Docket 7077 CPG 17

Condition 7, we do agree that the original construct of this condition has not worked in 18

reality and continue to believe that this responsibility would be best placed under the 19

supervision of the CAPI Division of the Department of Public Service. 20

21

In his Rebuttal Testimony, Mr. Glanville also suggests that the CAB functions could be 22

served by their proposed Condition 4 related to Meetings with Government Officials as 23

follows: 24

25

Comcast Proposed Condition 4. On at least an annual basis, Comcast 26

management with responsibility for Vermont operations shall communicate with 27

city and town government officials via U.S. Mail. Attending a meeting of the AMO 28

Board of Directors is sufficient to meet this condition, provided that Comcast 29

notifies the city and town government officials in the AMO’s service territory at 30

least two weeks in advance, of their scheduled attendance at the meeting and of 31


May 13, 2016

Page 6 of 15

their intention to discuss the community’s needs and how Comcast and/or the 1

AMOs can address them. 2

3

He goes on to point out that VAN, as a party to Charter Docket 7820, agreed to a similar 4

condition in a Memorandum of Understanding related to that Docket. VAN does not find 5

this argument persuasive in that Comcast Cable System impacts greater than 90% of the 6

footprint of the State and the AMO/Operator relationships within the Charter system were 7

much better than the ones in Comcast’s system. In addition, VAN believes that there is 8

room for improvement when it comes to avenues for communication between cable 9

operators and Vermont communities, including AMOs. The fact is that both the Charter 10

language and Comcast’s proposed language in this docket fall short in ensuring that 11

proper planning and consideration are taking place in relation to PEG and community 12

needs. 13

14

We still support the conditions proposed in my Prefiled Testimony related to both the 15

Cable Advisory Board and Community Planning Meetings. 16

17

PEG Access Report 18

Q9. Please provide any additional testimony you have regarding PEG Access Reporting. 19

A9. Mr. Glanville addresses the issues I brought up in my Prefiled Testimony surrounding 20

confusion with PEG Access Reporting and Plans. While Mr. Glanville does not think 21

there is confusion and that references to this are clear in Rule 8.400, I maintain that the 22

Rule is ambiguous in clearly assigning responsibility for a PEG Access Plan. 23

Furthermore, I do believe that Rule 8.400 could use updating and clarification in areas 24

related to PEG Access. 25

26

Regardless, for the purposes of this Docket and with the AMO contracts in mind, I 27

suggest the following for the Docket 8301 CPG Conditions related to PEG Access 28

Reports and Plans. 29

30


May 13, 2016

Page 7 of 15

Regarding Condition 11 of the Docket 7077 CPG, VAN maintains its position as stated in 1

Byer Prefiled Testimony and continues to recommend the language proposed by Comcast 2

in this Docket as follows: 3

4

Comcast Proposed Condition 8. At the time of filing its Annual Report pursuant to 5

30 V.S.A. § 22, Comcast shall also file with the Board the following: 6

(1) Comcast's PEG Access Report, together with any amendments to the Plan; 7

(2) a report of all written consumer complaints and notations regarding oral and 8

telephone complaints received during the preceding calendar year or annual 9

period; 10

(3) a map sufficiently outlining the service territory and describing its existing 11

plant and any extensions and replacements planned for commencement or 12

completion within one calendar year from the close of the preceding calendar 13

year or annual period. The map shall also be provided in one of the standard 14

electronic formats: Arc View shapefile (.SHP) or geodatabase (.MDB) formats 15

(preferred); Arc/Info Interchange (.E00) format; MapInfo Interchange (.MIF) 16

format; Microstation (.DBN) format; or AutoCAD (.DWG or .DXF) formats. The 17

map should depict the roads where cable plant exists and identify the proposed 18

coordinate system of the electronic map file; 19

(4) a listing of cable services, the rates charged for each cable service as of the 20

date of the filing of the report, a statement of any changes in any such rates from 21

the preceding calendar year or period and a statement of the revenue derived 22

from each cable service during such calendar year or annual period; 23

(5) a statement of significant changes to be implemented during the current 24

calendar year or annual period in Comcast's business structure, operating 25

procedures and cable services to be offered; and 26

(6) a balance sheet, an income statement, a statement of changes in financial 27

condition and a statement of assets used and useful for the provision of cable 28

service in Vermont, all as of the close of the preceding calendar year or annual 29

period. 30

31

See also the applicable conditions in Exhibit LGD-9 and Exhibit LGD-10. 32

33

Concerning Comcast’s proposed Docket 8301 CPG Condition 14, VAN continues to 34

disagree with the inclusion of this condition in the Docket 8301 CPG 35

36

Comcast Proposed Condition 14. Comcast shall provide reasonable public, 37

educational, and governmental access in accordance with standards for public, 38

education, and government access set forth in 8.400 of the Vermont Public 39


May 13, 2016

Page 8 of 15

Service Board Cable Television Rule 8.000 et seq. as may be amended from time 1

to time. Comcast shall be required to maintain a plan for reasonable public 2

access (“Plan”). 3

4

VAN has not proposed alternative language. See the applicable conditions in Exhibit 5

LGD-9 and Exhibit LGD-10. 6

7

Regarding Docket 7077 Condition 26, I recommend the Board accept the language as 8

proposed by Mr. Glanville in his Rebuttal Testimony p.20, lines 15-17 with one 9

modification, identified below in red font: 10

11

Comcast Proposed Condition 26 (modified). The company shall keep a current 12

PEG Access Report on file with the Board. As allowed by Rule 8.420, Comcast 13

may negotiate with AMOs to delegate to one or more AMOs the task of preparing 14

PEG-access Plans. 15

16

VAN’s opinion is that, absent inclusion of VAN’s additional language (in red), Comcast 17

may be able to delegate this responsibility without the consent of the AMO. 18

19

PEG Channel Reassignment 20

Q10. Do you have additional testimony regarding PEG Channel Reassignment? 21

A10. Yes. VAN disagrees with the conclusions drawn by Mr. Glanville in his Rebuttal 22

Testimony specifically related to PEG channel reassignment. See Glanville Rebuttal 23

Testimony at pp. 21-22. Mr. Glanville concludes that VAN’s concerns related to channel 24

reassignment are unfounded since only one PEG channel has been reassigned in the last 25

10 years. He further states that this issue should be addressed on the AMO contract level 26

instead of through the CPG process. 27

28

VAN understands that during the term of the current CPG, only one AMO had a channel 29

reassignment, but does not think that is a good enough reason not to have a process in 30


May 13, 2016

Page 9 of 15

place at the CPG level in the event that channel reassignments take place. As I stated at 1

the beginning of my Supplemental Testimony, VAN does not support moving global 2

PEG issues to AMO contracts. It is entirely too burdensome to place such responsibility 3

on each individual AMO to research and contemplate issues that can be resolved 4

collectively during the CPG process as developed by the Board. Furthermore, removing 5

the condition from the CPG opens the door for future misunderstandings, 6

misinterpretations and costly litigation. 7

8

While Mr. Glanville states that VAN’s proposed Condition is “not justified, excessive, 9

and unprecedented in Vermont,” Glanville Rebuttal Testimony p. 22, lines 2-3, VAN 10

respectfully points out that Comcast has agreed to similar terms in its at least four (4) 11

Franchise Agreements in the country. These considerations are not unprecedented and 12

the implications are contemplated by Franchising Authorities throughout the Country. 13

See Exhibit SM-4 at pp. 33-34, Exhibit SC-7 at pp. 19-20, Exhibit SC-12 at p.24, and 14

Exhibit SM-6 at pp. 10-12. 15

16

Finally, I point out that there is precedent in Vermont for an operator to reimburse AMOs 17

for costs related to channel reassignment. See Docket 7077 CPG Condition 19: 18

19

Docket 7077 CPG Condition 19. Comcast must work with the relevant AMO 20

prior to any PEG-access-channel reassignment and shall pay the access entity's 21

reasonable costs of such reassignment. Comcast shall not reassign a PEG access 22

channel without advance warning and consultation with the AMO. 23

24

and Condition 16 of the CPG issued to Charter pursuant to Docket 7820: 25

26

Docket 7820 CPG Condition 16. Charter must apprise and consult with relevant 27

AMOs at least 90 days prior to any PEG-access-channel reassignment and shall 28

pay the access entity’s reasonable costs of such reassignment. Reimbursable costs 29

shall be based upon the AMO’s documented costs of reassignment and shall not 30

exceed an amount stated in Charter’s contracts with its AMOs. In determining the 31


May 13, 2016

Page 10 of 15

reassignment of a PEG channel location, Charter shall consider the convenience 1

to customers of having PEG channels contiguous to each other. 2

3

As presented in my Prefiled Testimony, our concerns relate to being placed in channel 4

Siberia, recouping costs associated with reassignment, consideration of time and 5

preparation prior to reassignment and promotional support for such a move, and efforts 6

related to branding/rebranding undertaken by many AMOs. We contend that issues of 7

such importance be considered at the CPG level and not in the individual AMO contracts. 8

Therefore we maintain the position presented in Prefiled Testimony. See Byer Prefiled 9

Testimony p.23 line 18 to p.25, line 6. 10

11

PEG Outreach 12

Q11. Do you have Supplemental Testimony regarding PEG Outreach? 13

A11. Yes, in his Rebuttal Testimony, Mr. Glanville suggests that procedures PEG Outreach be 14

moved to individual AMO contract negotiations. Once again, VAN opposes any 15

suggestion of moving items from the CPG to individual AMO contracts. VAN feels it is 16

entirely too burdensome to place such responsibility on each individual AMO to research 17

and contemplate issues that can be resolved collectively during the CPG process as 18

developed by the Board. Furthermore, removing the condition from the CPG opens the 19

door for future misunderstandings, misinterpretations and costly litigation. 20

21

VAN believes that it is necessary to have standard guidelines included in the CPG to set 22

parameters for Comcast’s assistance of PEG outreach and thinks that it is natural that 23

details could be discussed between the AMO and Comcast. 24

25

We stand by our original testimony on this matter. 26

27

28

29

30


May 13, 2016

Page 11 of 15

Notification of System Rebuilds and Upgrades: 1

Q12. What testimony do you have to add regarding Rebuilds and Upgrades? 2

A12. In my Prefiled Testimony, I explained the importance to have Docket 7077 Condition 69 3

remain in Comcast’s renewed CPG. In short, VAN is concerned that changes to 4

Comcast’s system have left Vermont’s PEG channels behind and without access to 5

features of the new delivery of services. Conversely, Mr. Glanville claims that this 6

condition is outdated and irrelevant in light of current technology. Upgrades to the 7

system no longer require large-scale planning and construction since they are now 8

primarily done through software changes “behind the scenes.” Glanville Rebuttal 9

Testimony at p.34, line 21 through p.35 line 1. 10

11

VAN continues to believe that it is vital to have meaningful conversations with Comcast 12

with regards to changes they have made, or plan to make, that could affect PEG services. 13

Therefore, we are now proposing that the existing Docket 7077 language (which VAN 14

endorsed in its Prefiled testimony, see Condition 69 in Exhibit LGD-9 and Exhibit LGD-15

10) be updated to reflect the current reality of system upgrades in today’s world to the 16

following (changes in red font or strikethrough format): 17

18

Comcast shall provide the Board, the Department, affected municipalities, and 19

affected AMOs with complete descriptions of all system rebuilds and upgrades at 20

least 90 days prior to the planned changes commencement of construction, and in 21

all cases sufficiently in advance to allow time for meaningful comments and 22

possible integration of those comments into the planned upgrades construction 23

project. 24

25

This recommendation now amends VAN’s initial proposal. VAN’s recommendation is not 26

meant to infer that VAN is trying to dictate the technology choices of Comcast. Instead we 27

believe that it would be productive to have discussions of what technology changes are planned. 28

29

30

31


May 13, 2016

Page 12 of 15

Comparable Services 1

Q13. Do you have testimony to submit related to services that are offered in Comcast’s 2

other New England systems? 3

A13. Yes, VAN continues to support the testimony submitted as part of Prefiled Testimony 4

regarding this issue. To support the need for this condition, please also refer to the 5

Supplemental Testimony of Andrew Crawford found at Crawford Supplemental 6

Testimony at pp.4-5, A6. Mr. Crawford cites several examples of services that are 7

offered by Comcast in New England but that are unavailable to subscribers of Comcast’s 8

Vermont system which is in direct conflict with Mr. Glanville’s statement. See Glanville 9

Rebuttal Testimony at p.35, lines 11-22 and p.36, lines 1-2 that they have a proven track 10

record of providing the same advanced video services that are offered throughout New 11

England. 12

13

Technology Advances 14

Q14. Please provide additional testimony regarding considerations for Technology 15

Advances. 16

A14. Mr. Glanville states in his Rebuttal Testimony that “Comcast has serious concerns 17

regarding prefiled testimony of the VAN witnesses which appears to be calculated toward 18

directing the Public Service Board to mandate transmission technology.” Glanville 19

Rebuttal Testimony at p.43, lines 14-16. He further points out that federal law prohibits 20

local franchising authorities from mandating transmission technology. As also addressed 21

in the Rebuttal Testimony of Andrew Crawford (see page 4, A6), 22

23

VAN believes that Comcast’s concerns are completely without merit. Our testimony is 24

far from mandating transmission technologies; instead it is meant to create a dialog 25

regarding the undeniable changes in the technical landscape of the cable industry. 26

27

Specifically with regard to VAN’s proposed new condition related to Technology 28

Advances, VAN is not attempting to dictate what or how technology is used to deliver 29


May 13, 2016

Page 13 of 15

cable services. In fact, we are stating that PEG be included in whatever technology 1

Comcast chooses to employ. This notion is soundly based on three (3) existing Comcast 2

franchise agreements in other parts of the country. 3

4

As illustrated in my Prefiled Testimony, VAN believes that Comcast is required to build 5

its network with consideration and inclusion of PEG in a manner that is commensurate 6

with commercial channels. See Byer Prefiled Testimony at p.33, line 14 to p.34, line 16. 7

See also Crawford Supplemental Testimony at pp. 3-6, A6. 8

9

Channel Quality 10

Q15. Do you have additional testimony related to Channel Quality? 11

A15. VAN maintains the concerns raised in my Prefiled Testimony regarding procedures 12

surrounding PEG Access Channel Quality. To reiterate, VAN is concerned that PEG 13

channels are not given the same consideration as commercial channels regardless of legal 14

precedent prohibiting such degradation. see Byer Prefiled Testimony p. 37 lines 4-16 15

16

While Comcast is required to perform FCC Proof-of-Performance testing semi-annually, 17

Mr. Glanville seems to contend that testing PEG Channels and providing documentation 18

of these tests as suggested in this condition “seeks to impose additional, unnecessary 19

reporting requirements.” Glanville Rebuttal Testimony at p.44, lines 16-18. 20

21

VAN has provided documentation of seven (7) Comcast Franchise Agreements in which 22

they are required to provide to minimally “maintain all Upstream and Downstream 23

Access services, channels and Interconnections at the same level of technical quality and 24

reliability required by this Agreement and all other applicable laws, rules and regulations 25

for Residential Subscriber channels.” see Exhibit SM-4 (The City of Fort Collins, CO - 26

March 2015 at p.36 ¶ 9.10), Exhibit SM-5 (The City of Summit, CO - July 2015 at p.34 ¶ 27

9.10), Exhibit SM-6 (The City of Portland, OR - January 2012 at p.14 ¶ 5.9), Exhibit SC-28

7 (Bloomington MN Comcast Agreement, January 2015 at p.23 ¶7.15), Exhibit SC-9 29


May 13, 2016

Page 14 of 15

(MACC OR Comcast Agreement, June 2015 at p.26 ¶9.10). Exhibit SC-10 (Westminster 1

CO Comcast Agreement, October 2013 at p.33 ¶9.10), Exhibit SC-12 (Vancouver WA 2

Comcast Agreement, 2013 at p.29 ¶9.13) 3

4

Furthermore, VAN has compiled documentation of AMO Annual Reports in which 5

channel quality issues were reported. See Exhibit LGD-16: Summary of AMO Annual 6

Report Service Quality Issues and Exhibit LGD-17: Detailed AMO Annual Report 7

Future Planning Consideration and Service Quality Issues. 8

9

Finally, I refer the Board to the Supplemental Testimony of Andy Crawford. See 10

Crawford Supplemental Testimony at pp. 2-3, A5. 11

12


A16. Yes. Thank you for the opportunity to submit this testimony. 14

Documents

SERVICE LIST - Vermont Access Networkvermontaccess.net/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/8301-VAN... · 2016-05-19 · 10 lines 17-20. Comcast is clear that it does not intend to provide