Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout26-02 RESOLUTIONRESOLUTION NO. 26-02 A RESOLUTION EXPRESSING THE CITY COUNCIL'S OPPOSITION TO THE SEVENTY-SIX PERCENT (76%) RATE INCREASE FOR THE BASIC TIER CABLE TELEVISION SERVICE BY COX COMMUNICATIONS, INC., TO AUTHORIZE HIRING AN EXPERT TO AUDIT AND CHALLENGE THE INCREASE BEFORE THE FCC AND TO APPROVE A BUDGET ADJUSTMENT OF $6,000.00 WHEREAS, the programming on the Fayetteville Government Channel and Community Access Television is currently available only to Cox Cable subscribers; and WHEREAS, the low and moderate income residents of the City of Fayetteville have come to rely on the availability of a reasonably priced basic cable rate plan in order to receive the programming on the Fayetteville Government Channel and Community Access Television; and WHEREAS, the proposed Seventy -Six percent (76%) rate increase for basic cable television service proposed by Cox Communications, Inc. is not justified and would place a significant financial burden on low and moderate income residents wishing to receive said programming; and WHEREAS, Cox Communications, Inc. submitted FCC forms 1240 and 1205 with 34 pages of complex accounting to justify its rate increase; and WHEREAS, it will be necessary to hire an expert in the accounting procedures and rules of the FCC to analyze and challenge this basic tier rate increase. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS: Section 1. That the City Council of the City of Fayetteville, Arkansas hereby expresses its opposition to the proposed Seventy -Six Percent (76%) rate increase for basic cable television service proposed by Cox Communications, Inc. Section 2. That the City Council of the City of Fayetteville, Arkansas authorizes and directs the Mayor to challenge this increase in cable rates for the basic tier, to hire a specialist to conduct an audit and examination of FCC forms • • Res. 26-02 1240 and 1205 and supporting documents from Cox, and to file a complaint or challenge based upon this audit with the FCC. Section 3. That the City Council of the City of Fayetteville, Arkansas approves a budget adjustment in the amount of Six Thousand Dollars ($6,000.00) to pay some or all of the expert's fee to audit, examine, and challenge the rate increase for the basic tier cable fee increase. PASSED and APPROVED this 19th day of February, 2002. APPROVED: By: (1* DAN COODY, May • NAME OF FILE: CROSS REFERENCE: Resolution No. 26-02 • 02/19/02 Resolution No. 26-02 01/02/02 Copy of the Budget Adjustment Form Public Comments 02/26/02 Memo to Mayor Coody, from Heather Woodruff, City Clerk NOTES: • City of Fayetteville, Arkansas Budget Adjustment Form i Res. 26-02 Budget Year armrcnt: 2002 vision: Program: Project or Item Requested: Urban Development Cable Administration Cable Administration 1 $6,000 in the Professional Services account in the Cable Administration program. Justification of this Increase: Due Requested January 2, 20021 Cd.fireepy Project OT Item Deleted: None. $6,000 from the Use of Fund Balance account in General Fund. The funding is needed for the City to contract with a specialist to conduct an audit of the Cox Cable rate increase. Justification of this Decrease: The fund balance is from remaining funds not spent in 2001. The amount of the 2002 proposed rollforwards will be reduced by $6,000. Account Name Increase Expense (Decrease Revenue) Amount Account Number Project Number Professional Services 6,000 Account Name Use of Fund Balance 1010 0600 5314 00 Decrease Expense (Increase Revenue) Amount 6,000 Account Number 1010 0001 4999 99 Project Number Approval Signatures ed By udget anger Department Director Date /2 -z8 -o( Date Date Budget Office Use Only Type: A B Date of Approval C Posted to General Ledger Posted to Project Accounting Entered in Category Log Blue Com': Budget el Rerrarrh / Ynllnw r....... Denner." - E c u m • • RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION EXPRESSING TME CITY COUNCIL'S OPPOSITION TO TI -IE SEVENTY-SIX PERCENT (76%) RATE INCREASE FOR THE BASIC TIER CABLE TELEVISION SERVICE BY COX COMMUNICATIONS, INC., TO AUTHORIZE HIRING AN EXPERT TO AUDIT AND CHALLENGE THE INCREASE BEFORE THE FCC AND TO APPROVE A BUDGET ADJUSTMENT OF $6,000.00 WHEREAS, the programming on the Fayetteville Government Channel and Community Access Television is currently available only to Cox Cable subscribers; and WHEREAS, the low and moderate income residents of the City of Fayetteville have come to rely on the availability of a reasonably priced basic cable rate plan in order to receive the programming on the Fayetteville Government Channel and Community Access Television; and WHEREAS, the proposed Seventy -Six percent (76%) rate increase for basic cable television service proposed by Cox Communications, Inc. is not justified and would place a significant financial burden on low and moderate income residents wishing to receive said programming; and WHEREAS, Cox Communications, Inc. submitted FCC forms 1240 and 1205 with 34 pages of complex accounting to justify its rate increase; and WHEREAS, it will be necessary to hire an expert in the accounting procedures and rules of the FCC to analyze and challenge this basic tier rate increase. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS: Section 1. That the City Council of the City of Fayetteville, Arkansas hereby expresses its opposition to the proposed Seventy -Six Percent (76%) rate increase for basic cable television service proposed by Cox Communications, Inc. Section 2. That the City Council of the City of Fayetteville, Arkansas authorizes and directs the Mayor to challenge this increase in cable rates for the basic tier, to hire a specialist to conduct an audit and examination of FCC forms • 0 1240 and 1205 and supporting documents from Cox, and to file a complaint or challenge based upon this audit with the FCC. Section 3. That the City Council of the City of Fayetteville, Arkansas approves a budget adjustment in the amount of Six Thousand Dollars ($6,000.00) to pay some or all of the expert's fee to audit, examine, and challenge the rate increase for the basic tier cable fee increase. PASSED and APPROVED this day of January, 2002. ATTEST: By: Heather Woodruff, City Clerk APPROVED: By: DAN COODY, Mayor • • RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION EXPRESSING THE CITY COUNCIL'S OPPOSITION TO THE SEVENTY-SIX PERCENT (76%) RATE INCREASE FOR THE BASIC TIER CABLE TELEVISION SERVICE BY COX COMMUNICATIONS, INC., TO AUTHORIZE HIRING AN EXPERT TO AUDIT AND CHALLENGE THE INCREASE BEFORE THE FCC AND TO APPROVE A BUDGET ADJUSTMENT OF 56,000.00 WHEREAS, the programming on the Fayetteville Government Channel and Community Access Television is currently available only to Cox Cable subscribers; and WHEREAS, the low and moderate income residents of the City of Fayetteville have come to rely on the availability of a reasonably priced basic cable rate plan in order to receive the programming on the Fayetteville Government Channel and Community Access Television; and WHEREAS, the proposed Seventy -Six percent (76%) rate increase for basic cable television service proposed by Cox Communications, Inc. is not justified and would place a significant financial burden on low and moderate income residents wishing to receive said programming; and WHEREAS, Cox Communications, Inc. submitted FCC forms 1240 and 1205 with 34 pages of complex accounting to justify its rate increase; and WHEREAS, it will be necessary to hire an expert in the accounting procedures and rules of the FCC to analyze and challenge this basic tier rate increase. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS: Section 1. That the City Council of the City of Fayetteville, Arkansas hereby expresses its opposition to the proposed Seventy -Six Percent (76%) rate increase for basic cable television service proposed by Cox Communications, Inc. Section 2. That the City Council of the City of Fayetteville, Arkansas authorizes and directs the Mayor to challenge this increase in cable rates for the basic tier, to hire a specialist to conduct an audit and examination of FCC fortes 1240 and 1205 and supporting documents from Cox, and to file a complaint or challenge based upon this audit with the FCC. Section 3. That the City Council of the City of Fayetteville, Arkansas approves a budget adjustment in the amount of Six Thousand Dollars ($6,000.00) to pay some or all of the expert's fee to audit, examine, and challenge the rate increase for the basic tier cable fee increase. PASSED and APPROVED this day of January, 2002. APPROVED: Bv: ATTEST• • By: Heather Woodruff, City Clerk • DA COODY, Mayor 41) • (Dear Council Member: Season's Greetings. I thought you might be interested in this note that I sent to the Times on Tuesday evening, Jan. 1. Jim Bemis) c' City Cable Co. — Is Cox Cable a Necessity? I looked for a fruit basket on my doorstep last Sunday after reading your Saturday editorial that lambasted Alderman Zurcher for challenging Cox's 76% increase in basic TV rates. 'Somebody send them a fruit basket', you wrote, chiding those of us with lower incomes who subscribe to cable mainly to receive local TV channels. As a daily reader of the Times' editorial page — which I read for many of the same reasons that I subscribe to the basic cable TV service and watch local channels — I'm especially disappointed with your bashing of the Zurcher resolution. I have to think that your editorial faultfinding was based on some earlier version, because his final resolution asks for precisely the 'more detailed information' that your editorial requested. The resolution also asks that the Council seek the accounting and legal expertise and funds required to determine whether 'Cox is charging unreasonably high rates for the services it provides.' (Your italics.) Thus, rather than `threatening a lawsuit', or providing his own 'subjective' opinion, Zurcher's resolution (and 50 additional pages) are part of the well -crafted documentation that Kit Williams has prepared to follow Federal Communications Commission's (FCC) legal guidelines. Apparently, there is no local expertise to audit the 34 pages of complex FCC fomes. If Cox's rates are found excessive, the rate increase could then be challenged before the FCC. As I understand it, this is the process required by federal law when a city protests rate increases. If you've ever tried to decipher your Cox bill, you'll know that all Cox subscribers pay a small monthly fee to the Federal Communications Commission (the FCC), which oversees the regulations that control Fayetteville's cable TV providers, as well as other telecommunications matters. (You'll probably hear a lot more about the Feds and telecommunications regulations at the City Council meeting on Wednesday night, where your readers are likely to get a more complete picture of why our City Council has any say-so at all about cable TV rates. You'll also probably hear some advice offered earlier by the City's top-notch hired gun lawyer, Brian Grogan, as well as by the local Telecommunications Board, which has studied the matter for months.) In the interest of fairness, your editorial might also have mentioned that — to receive local TV channels — we Fayetteville subscribers, whether rich or poor, have no alternative other than to subscribe to Cox's basic services. My understanding is that we simply have no choice, unless we're willing to put up with some really lousy broadcast reception, via a rabbit -ear antenna. Md that's for the local broadcast TV media — there are no broadcast services for Fayetteville's local access channels: Government, Education, and Education. None of the other TV services — sateltite or land-based wireless or the Internet — carry local TV, although the technology is out there, and we can hope for some breakthroughs soon. (Of course, we are fortunate to have KUAF radio and other local radio, which come to us free, but that's another discussion.) So it's either Cox Cable or we're left out of the local TV loop. Lucky for us, however, much of the FCC structure and telecommunications law has been designed to keep our community in charge of local cable TV franchises — with the obligation to provide for strong localism'. Ifs this local entitlement that's likely to provide the basis for much future discussion. Although we now have few options in controlling the programs or channels that cable operator's provide, we do have the process that Zurcher is recommending, when subscribers are given no choice in the basic service channels they receive or in the rates charged. While agreeing with you that the 'city certainly has an interest in assuring its residents are not gouged on their cable bills', I strongy object to the notion that 'that's why municipalities are granted the authority to negotiate franchise • • agreements with cable companies! Rather, our City leaders are charged with the authority and responsibility to ensure that °diverse° and °antagonistic' local viewpoints be easily heard and seen. To over -simplify, and talk about a subject that I know very little about, my understanding is that the City is given this mandate through a complex set of federal laws that govern our nation's limited communications spectrum. These invisible waves belong to all of us, collectively, both in this community and throughout our country. For most of us, its the federal governments provision for local -government control of cable operators who use this spectrum via our community -owned rights-of-way that is most difficult to understand when discussing 'voluntary' cable subscriptions. Maybe that's partly because media like your newspaper — and other printed media — have no such goveming laws. In any case, I think it's only fair for you to at least acknowledge that voluntary cable subscriptions offered by cable operators differ fundamentally from other media subscriptions. That difference apparently now stems primarily from the federal -level oversight of the spectrum and the near -monopolistic control of the communications spectrum by cable operators and media conglomerates. In Fayetteville right now, we also have the separate legal process entailed in Cox's current franchise negotiations that you mention, a process that has been underway for well over four years. And, as you indicate, these negotiations can give the City a better shot at determining whether the basic services that Cox Cable provides are truly meeting the current and future needs and interests of our community. But we have to remember that this is a separate legal process, govemed by a different set of regulations, which I don't pretend to understand For the present, we are bound largely by the current franchise provisions and federal laws. During the negotiations over the next six months, however, we can hope that Zurcher and others will make strong arguments to provide Fayetteville with basic cable services at lower cost and with fewer channels, perhaps with only the local broadcast stations that are °must carry' and local access stations. But there are other telecommunications issues that reach far beyond entertainment TV. At the same time, our City leaders will have to take into account the future value of a'smart' environment of incredibly dynamic communications media, which can further enrich the economic, social, and educational fife of our community. Mayor Coody and the Council have already set in motion a process to ensure that all of our community will be represented in that process. I'm sure that your newspaper will be a leader in this community -wide discussion. In summing up, let me say that, although my fruit basket has not appeared as yet l'lI take you up on your bet that that there are only a handful of who subscribe to cable primarily for the local TV new sources. And I'll raise the Times' ante by betting that some of those fruit baskets might be going to several like-minded subscribers (or non - subscribers) on our City Council and in City govemment. I'd even bet that there are more than a handful of other fruit basket nominees at the Times, and on the staffs of other local newspapers. My guess is that some of your media colleagues would also strongly object to that last puzzling sentence in your editorial, which states, somewhat autocratically, that 'discussions of voluntary cable descriptions are incompatible with the plight of the deprived'. And I have another hunch that just such discussions are among the rights and obligations that lawmakers had in mind for both the local media and the City Council. After all, without these discussions and easy access to all media, don't each of us share in the plight of the deprived? Jim Bemis • • Vtli .c wF_:..v .... ...- The cable monopoly When more means Tess BY WANDA FREEMAN - Much ado has been made of the flap in Fayetteville about cable service and rate increases -- and rightly so. Unfortunately, it seems no one in town -- not even our City Council, which represents our interests in the franchise with Cox Communications -- can fix the problem. That's because the problem isn't really about rate increases per se. The problem -- or the debate catalyst -- is that Cox is raising its bask subscription rates by 76 percent, from $9 a.month.to $15.85. The cable provi ider says the rate hike is necessary to upgrade area cable nodes, allow for digital and liberoptic technology and streamline channel options. across. Northwest. Arkansas.. Cox is also increasing basic cable offerings from 15 to 23 channels, which is supposed to assuage subscribers' resentment over the extra $6.85. What sticks in the craw of many is the factthat basic subscribers don't have a choice in the matter. The suggestion that we're free to take our consumer dollars and go elsewhere is obtuse at best. Why? First, because there is no elsewhere. As Northwest Arkansas Times columnist.Hoyt Purvis pointed out recently, Cox controls almost all cable systems in Northwest Arkansas and many others in the state. In fact, cable companies in general enjoy such monopolies across the nation. Second, in our mountainous region, there is little or no TV without cable. Now some might argue that TV isn't a. necessity like food, clothing and shelter, and they'd be right. We can certainly survive without it, as many generations proved before the midr20th century. But those same people admit that.our society has become increasingly dependent on television, which, like the telephone, has evolved quickly from a,delightful luxury to a communications lifeline. The impulse to create an information hierarchy -- which places news, education and access programming on a higher plane than entertainment -- is tangential to the discussion of TV's necessity in society. Television is much more than a mere conduit for information -- which includes entertainment, despite the.intellectually elitist arguments to the contrary. Television is an avenue of communication and a cultural entity that permeates and binds society, for better or worse. Until now, those of us who chose basic cable service, whether because of poverty or principle, could see the $9 chargeas recompense with the bare minimum of acceptable service. The bare minimum was a roster of cable access channels and broadcast stations that were mostly local but induded.some regional network.affiliates and a couple of 'superstations' like Atlanta's WTBS and Chicago's WGN. By comparison, people living in flat regions can get local and sometimes regional broadcast stations without paying a dime to the local cable monopoly. They don't even need a satellite dish. With Cox's rate increase, basic subscribers who find the bare minimum acceptable, perhaps even essential to full participation in society, are being tapped for an extra $82.20 a year in exchange for something whose value they have reason to question. Of the eight newcomers to the basic roster, only three channels offer news, sports or entertainment programming: ESPN, C -SPAN and the Springdale independent K45EI. The new basic lineup will also include a TV guide channel, which is handy but redundant for anyone who gets program listings along with the Sunday Times. Andthen there are those shopping rhannalc• Homo Chnnninn Nohunrtr n it rahlo Mart anti cnmothinn raIIaA •1 sacra Arrocc • • • which sounds suspiciously like 'paid programming" -- you know, where someone spends hours telling viewers how to tighten their abs or remove leg hair with this or that amazing product. Understandably, the poor and principled who make up. the 1,000 -strong basic subscriber list in Fayetteville are not amused. They weren't asked if they wanted eight new channels, four of whlch.exist only to dun viewers for money. They. weren't given the option of sticking with the old lineup of 15 channels, or even a forced 'option' of adding three new channels with real programming for just $3 extra. But let's look at the big picture. Fayetteville's rate hike is just a symptom. The real problem is the lack of options across the board. It's notjustthat we get eight new channels and a rate hike shoved down our throats. It's that the company doing the shoving has the exclusive franchise on our market. It's that we can't go to another cable provider. Nor can the citizens of any other market in the country. And cable TV is only one of many industries in which our choices diminish and homogenize as the sellers expand their power. As Purvis pointed out recently, Cox ranks fifth nationally among cable providers, with 6.2 million subscribers. Its parent company, Cox Enterprises, owns newspapers, TV stations, radio stations and Internet services, and is invested in several programming networks as well. The huge mergers of the Reagan era, which violated antitrust laws and created a market of monopolies, paved the way for our nation's similarly destructivetrend toward deregulation of major industries. Those who advocated the 1996 Telecommunication Act claimed that deregulation would promote competition in the marketplace. We now have proof that the very opposite has happened. And soon we'll be reminded of our optionless state ... every time we run across the likes of QVC on our way around the dial. Wanda Freeman is copy editor at the. Northwest Arkansas Times. Her column appears on. Saturdays • • • Let's Use Cox's game plan: Maximize Community Returns' If you listened to Cox's spokesman last Tuesday, at the City's first-ever live TV forum about the basic cable rate increase, you may have thought you were listening to Cox's voice mail. Just a disembodied voice booming in from Tyler Texas, from a guy who offered plain vanilla responses to most of the local folks' questions, along with a sales pitch for Cox. (I'm shit wondering why Cox didn't use theirs own very capable local spokeman„ Mr. Dennis Yokum, who is a far superior speaker and well known in our community.) On the other hand, the forum host, Kyle Kellams, did his usual outstanding job, and our City leaders made some excellent points about keeping the basic rates lower and offering fewer channels — and maybe getting stronger community services. But Cox's stock answers boiled down to something like: "our business strategy is to optimize profits and beat our competition." My impression was that they thought that maybe we should just "get used to its. (As an aside I would also guess is that the long-distance impersonal approach seems a likely low- cost format for most Cox cable service responses in the future, unless the City considers all its options now.) There's nothing in•the law to keep Cox from bumping up their rates again tomorrow, and changing the lineup as they chose. Only competition keeps the rates down now, according the spokesman, and they seem to be "running scared' from the competition dished out by the satellite companies. Of course, Cox ddn't mention that they are an "incumbent monopoly" whose obligations, by law, are overseen by the Federal Communication Commission, as well as by the City. Nor did they mention that Cox effectively has no competition in North-West Arkansas. They also didn't talk much about the Telecommunications law that mandates the cable operators offer significant services beneficial to the whole community as a part of the franchise process. In fact, that's the intended function of the whole cable system in the USA. If we dnve a hard bargain, we should be able to get what's due us — to all Fayetteville citizens. So why not community profit — rather than Cox's? Who knows, we might even wind up with an understandable Cox programming and rate schedule? So I'm advocating that the Coundl and City management play hard ball and simply use Cox's own strategy. Let's maximize the City returns as we finalize the franchise negations — get top -dollar for the City's ever more valuable rights -of- way. Why not maximize community interests in return for Cox's right to use our land? For the present, however, I'm hoping that the Coundl will back Randy's resolution and vote for the $6,000.needed by the City to audit Cox records ( the records are.also an FCC mandate. Don't even ask how they come up with the 34 pages of formulas. But to me, there's something terribly wrong with a system that puts that much of a burden on the City.) Figured on a per capita basis, the $6,000 would amount to a one-time clime per Fayetteville atizen. I'd vote my rime to keep the records understandable and straight. Jim Bemis Basic Rate Subsaiber • • which sounds suspiciously like "paid programming" -- you know, where someone spends hours telling viewers how to tighten their abs or remove leg hair with this or that amazing product. Understandably, thepoor andprincipled who make up the 1,000 -strong basic subscriber list in Fayetteville are not amused. They weren't asked if they wanted eight new channels, four of which exist only to dun viewers for money. They weren'tgiven the option of sticking with the old lineup of 15 channels, or even a forced "option" of adding three new channels with real programming for just $3 extra. But let's look at the big picture. Fayetteville's rate hike is just a symptom. The real problem is the lack off optionsacross the board. Its not_justthat weget eight new channels and a rate hike shoved down our throats. It's that the company doing the shoving has the exclusive franchise.on our market It's that we can't go to another cable provider. Nor can the citizens of any other market in the country. And cable TV is only one of many industries in which our choices diminish and homogenize as the sellers expand their power. As Purvis pointed out recently, Cox ranks fifth nationally among cable providers, with 6.2 million subscribers. Its. parent company, Cox Enterprises, owns newspapers, TV stations, radio stations and Internet services, and is invested in several programming networks as well. The huge mergers of the Reagan era, which violated antitrust laws and created a market of monopolies, pavedtheway for our nation's similarly destructive trend toward deregulation of major industries Those who advocated the 1996 Telecommunication Act claimed that deregulation would promote competition in the marketplace. We now have proof that the very opposite has happened. And soon we'll be reminded of our optionless state .... every time we .run across the likes of QVC on our way around the dial. Wanda Freeman is copy editor at the Northwest. Arkansas Times. Her column appears on Saturdays •• DAY • T SDAYWAN IM 15, 20D2 38. C,a Bele • r�a�te� _ outpa a rnr ,btxTr 4N, By oavib'uebe marl L. USATODAY'er, is NEW YORK - Consumer advocates say that a Fed- eral Communications Commission report. released Monday provides fresh ammo for -their claim that re- cent rate hikes for cable TVservices are unjustified. The FCC's annual report to Congress on the state of. :the cable business. says_that..opPeratots.'did well -in 2001..Revenue grew,15:4% to 544 billion, and cash flow rose 10% to 5183bilion,`the 'KC .'estimates. About 60% of;the 55.9 billion m:new reienue tante from new services, particularly digital cable and high- Speed Internet. • Still, cable prices rose faster than inflation. Rates for basic table channels - including ESPN CNN, and MTV - ruse an average 42% in.the year .up m,july.2001, while inflation was 33%the FCC reports. -Since then, many systems,raised prices again about 5%or more. "Whenyou'look at the new revenues;;virtisally all. of the;systeni upgrades and extra programming costs are ppaati'd•for before you raise rates a pemtW•Gene Kim - me tntatr of Consumers Union says. 'These rate in- creases look like pure monopoty•prvfits . National Cable & Tel spokesman Mart Smith counters that cable operators; dodflet to'keeP all'this new revenue"A'Rood por- tion of the revenue goes back to the providers of the' content and services," Hollywood studios. including cable.:networks and. While costs vary widely, the FCC says that operators probably cut capital expenditures last year by 5.2%, to $147 billion But the cost of basic programming rose about 16.4%,,to 56.4 billion, in the yea` up to July. The FCC will provide more information about cable rates in a separate study expected earN;this yeat The latest report; focusing cable;cornpetition, shows that the pay7V.market'temains.h h1y con + tentrated Cable, with•:nearly 69-iriBBon-automats,; controls78%of payTV,'down hint 80%List yeac'•, :Satellite broadcasters;pickedup most of the slack' now that telephone companies - whid,Fjust a fewi years. ago threatenedto become poterititorrtpetibfigi - ftave'argelyexited the'videoz ess"fi ' Cable operators say that•thgrr Tvideo;pa4;" ages, which offer interactive;seikeslanddozeru of, extra channels, will helpthem„comiiete with satellite; providers. To make mom=forAliege digital cttanriels.: they reduced the numbeirofbaste Channeis 11.6%; to 130, and cut the nthitbecYbf ptesntiirni from 43 to40.- • , "2:•".4122:.:::134.:11.71'4:Wig,•`:(;-' But they found more million the'dial for pay-per- view. These channels fill an:average of 11 slots,, up 4.8%, the FCC reports._ FAYETTEViILLE THE CITY Of FAYETTEVILLE. ARKANSAS DEPARTMENTAL CORRESPONDENCE • To: Mayor Dan Coody From: Heather Woodruff, City Clerk Date: February 26, 2002 Please find attached a copy of Resolution No. 26-02 expressing the City Council's opposition to the seventy-six percent (76%) rate increase for the basic tier cable television service by Cox Communications, Inc., to authorize hiring an expert to audit and challenge the increase before the FCC. The original will be microfilmed and filed with the City Clerk. Your Budget Adjustment Form has been forwarded to the Budget & Research Division. cc: Nancy Smith, Internal Audit Hugh Earnest, Urban Development Kit Williams, City Attorney Marvin Hilton, Cable Administration Steve Davis, Budget & Research 010 03 Update Document Reference RES Cit of Fayetteville IIP Index Maintenance Ite Action Date Ref. Taken 26-02 2192002 0 Brief Description COX COMMUNICATIONS, INC./RATE 2/27/2002 14:15:35 Enter Keywords • RES. 26-02 OPPOSITON File Reference # Security Class Expiration Date Date for Cont/Referred: Name Referred to /6% RATE INCREASE BASIC TIER CABLE TELEVISION SERVICE COX COMMUNICATIONS, INC. AiIDIT ?CC MITTIOTTLIC Cmdl-Return CmdB-Retention CmdS-Abstract Yes No Retention Type: **** Active *f Cmd4-Delete Cmd3-End Press 'ENTER' to Continue (c) 1986-1992 Munimetrix Systems Corp.