HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem 12 - AT&T Broadband Rate Review ITN r �-
MEMO TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL
FROM: ROGER NELSON, CITY MANAGER fitl
MEETING DATE: JUNE 18, 2002
SUBJECT: AT&T BROADBAND RATE REVIEW — ESTABLISH MAXIMUM
PERMITTED RATES FOR INSTALLATION AND EQUIPMENT
RECOMMENDATION:
City Council consider the approval of a rate order ordinance, which accepts the
proposed operator selected rates in FCC Form 1205, and provides for specific
exceptions to the proposed rates.
FUNDING SOURCE:
The rate order does not have a financial impact. The city will continue to collect revenue
according to our franchise agreement of 5% of gross receipts.
i
BACKGROUND:
The City of Grapevine received notice of AT&T's FCC filing in March of 2002.
Connie Canady, C2 Consulting, Inc., was hired to provide an analysis of FCC Form 1205
related to equipment and installation rates for the next year. The final report is included
for your review. The staff recommends three action steps based on the C2's report:
a) The City Council approve the operator selected rates for the equipment and
installation rates as being reasonable with the exceptions noted below;
b) Require that AT&T make the appropriate adjustments in its next 1205 Form
filing related to technical, installation and dispatch commissions allocated to
the equipment basket.
c) Accept the new rate for the Customer Trouble Calls with the conditions
outlined in ordinance.
The City of Grapevine retains regulatory authority only over specific cable services.
AT&T, upon approval of the rate order, must comply with the new rate structure effective
immediately. During this process, Ms. Cannady worked directly with AT&T to iron out
final questions or concerns.
June 12, 2002 (1:16PM)
1 fi 1,-9e5-
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF GRAPEVINE, TEXAS ESTABLISHING THE MAXIMUM
PERMITTED RATE FOR THE INSTALLATION AND
EQUIPMENT RATES CHARGED BY AT&T BROADBAND,
DECLARING AN EMERGENCY AND PROVIDING AN
EFFECTIVE DATE
WHEREAS, the City of Grapevine, Texas franchises cable television service for
the benefit of its citizens; and
WHEREAS, the City is the Grantor of a franchise ordinance by and between the
City of Grapevine and AT&T Broadband (AT&T); and
WHEREAS, in accordance with applicable provisions of the Telecommunications
Act of 1996 (herein the "Telecom Act") and rules adopted by the Federal
Communications Commission ("FCC") and all other applicable federal and state law and
�nx regulations, the City has undertaken all appropriate procedural steps to regulate the
equipment and installation rates; and
WHEREAS, in accordance with applicable FCC regulations the City adopted an
ordinance providing for the regulation of rates charged by cable television operators
within the City for the equipment and installation rates and related equipment and
installation charges and providing for a reasonable opportunity for interested parties to
express their views concerning basic cable regulations.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF GRAPEVINE, TEXAS:
Section 1. Findings:
1. That on or about March 1, 2002, the City of Grapevine received
AT&T's FCC Form 1205 filing.
2. That the City engaged the services of C2 Consulting Services, Inc.
to provide assistance in the review of AT&T's FCC Form 1205 to
determine the reasonableness of the proposed equipment and
installation rates, attached hereto as Exhibit "A".
3. That AT&T instituted a rate adjustment based on its Form 1205
a� filing effective January 1, 2001.
4. That based upon the information received from AT&T and
recommendations from C2 Consulting Services, Inc., the City
concludes that operator selected rates for installation and
equipment rates are reasonable with two specific exceptions.
Section 2. Conclusions:
The City has an obligation to timely act upon the pending rate application
consistent with current FCC rules and regulations. AT&T's submittal of the FCC Form
1205 received on or about March 1, 2002, is hereby approved with the exceptions
outlined in the Section 3.
Section 3. Orders for Action:
Based on the foregoing Findings and Conclusions, the City hereby enters the
following orders:
1. Approve the operator selected rates proposed by AT&T for installation and
equipment rates as being reasonable with the exceptions noted below.
2. Require that AT&T make the appropriate adjustments in its next Form
1205 filing related to technical, installation and dispatch commissions
allocated to the equipment basket.
3. Accept the new rate for Customer Trouble Calls only if AT&T meets these
conditions: a) subscribers must not be billed for trouble calls due to
problems not resulting from subscriber action; b) AT&T customer service
representatives must inform subscribers of the potential charge and the
types of issues that could give rise to the charge before a technician is
sent; c) in circumstances where the problem is not completely corrected
during the first visit, the subscriber will not be charged again for a repeat
call to correct the problem.
Section 4. The fact that the present ordinances and regulations of the City of
Grapevine, Texas, are inadequate to properly safeguard the health, safety, morals,
peace and general welfare of the public creates an emergency which requires that this
ordinance become effective from and after the date of its passage, and it is accordingly
so ordained
PASSED AND APPROVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
GRAPEVINE, TEXAS on this the 18th day of June, 2002.
ORD. NO. 2
APPROVED:
ATTEST:
APPROVED AS TO FORM
ORD. NO. 3
EXHIBIT "A"
ORD. NO. 4
ONSULTING SERVICES, INC. I AP
R 2 9 2002
7801 Pencross Ln. T 8�972 726-7216
Dallas,Texas 75248 Fax
April 24, 2002 u
X
Mr. Keith Rinehart Ms. Diane McWethy
Communications Manager Assistant City Manager
City of Bedford City of Colleyville
2000 Forest.Ridge Drive 5400 Bransford
Bedford, Texas 76021 Colleyville, Texas 76034
Ms. Debra Wallace Ms. Shelli Seimer
Assistant Finance Director Assistant to the City Manager
City of McKinney City of Allen
222 N. Tennessee One Butler Circle
McKinney,Texas 75069 Allen, Texas 75013
Mr. Steve Williams Ms. Lynda Humble
Director of Budget and Research Assistant City Manager
, Town of Flower Mound City of DeSoto
2121 Cross Timbers Road 211 E. Pleasant Run Road
Flower Mound, Texas 75028 DeSoto,Texas 75115
Mr. Rick Moore Ms. Melisa Leal
Information Systems Manager Assistant to the City Manager
City of Coppell City of Grapevine
PO Box 478 PO Box 95104
Coppell,Texas 75019 Grapevine, Texas 76099
Ms. Patricia Royal Nicks Ms. Donna Huerta
Cable Services Manager City of Lewisville
City of Irving 1197 West Main
233 South Rogers Road Lewisville,Texas 75067
Irving,Texas 75060
Dear City Representatives
C2 Consulting Services, Inc. ("C2") has completed its analysis of the FCC Form 1205 submitted
to the Cities by their respective AT&T Broadband affiliate ("AT&T" or the "Company") on or
about March 1, 2002. Contained herein is a summary of the findings and recommendations.
This study does not constitute an examination of the financial condition of AT&T or its parent
company. Therefore, C2 cannot and does not express any position with regard to the accuracy or
validity of the financial information provided by AT&T during the course of the analyses.
City Representatives
April 24, 2002
Page 2
OVERVIEW OF THE FILING
In its 2002 Form 1205 filing, AT&T proposes to significantly increase the charges for the
following activities and equipment:
• Installation for pre-wired aerial to increase by approximately 12%
• Additional outlet at separate time from installation to increase by approximately 10%
• Non-addressable downgrade of service to increase by approximately 10%
• Basic-only converter charge to increase by approximately 8%
• Non-basic only converter charge to increase by approximately 13%
The above increases are based on a comparison of AT&T's 2001 and 2002 operator selected rates
("OSR") that are significantly below the maximum permitted rates ("MPR") calculated in each
year pursuant to the Form 1205 formulae. The comparison of MPR's for the 2001 and 2002 rate
years show significantly lower percentage increases. In other words, AT&T has chosen in this
filing to reduce the differential between its calculated MPR under the Form 1205 formulae and its
OSR.
The following table provides a comparison of the Cities' adopted 2001 rates, AT&T proposed
maximum permitted 2002 rates and AT&T's operator selected 2002 rates:
COMPARISON OF EQUIPMENT AND INSTALLATION RATES
*AT&T Cities
**Former Paragon Cities
City City AT&T AT&T
Ordered Ordered Proposed 2002 Proposed 2002
2001* 2001** MPR OSR
Hourly Service Charge $27.99 $32.48 $29.68 $28.49
Service
Install-Unwired home $41.99 $43.16 $45.49 $43.99
Install-Prewired home $24.99 $43.19 $30.59 $27.99
Install-Additional connect $13.49 $21.76 $14.76 $13.99
initial
Install-Add. connect separate $19.99 $32.48 $24.16 $21.99
Move outlet $18.99 N/A $20.17 $18.99
Up/downgrade $1.99 N/A $1.99 $1.99
Downgrade non-addressable $9.99 $25.98 $12.94 $10.99
Upgrade non-addressable $15.99 $25.98 $16.59 $15.99
Changing Tiers NIA $2.00 N/A N/A
Connect VCR initial $5.99 N/A $7.12 $5.99
Connect VCR separate $12.99 N/A $14.63 $12.99
Customer Trouble Calls N/A $21.76 $17.38 $16.99
Remotes S0.35 $0.32 S.34 S.30
Basic only converters $1.85 S.58 $5.66 S2.00
Non-basic only converters S4.25 S4.41 $7.17 $4.80
City Representatives
April 24,2002
Page 3
With the exception of combining systems into "areas" and only choosing twenty samples instead
of forty, the 2002 filing has the following components that are consistent with all previously filed
aggregated national Form 1205 filings:
• The computation of the Hourly Service Charge ("HSC") based on the averaging of
calculations made for the sample "area" systems as applied to the total number of
"area" systems that have the same sample characteristics(subscriber counts)
• An allocation of common AT&T costs to each of the sample systems based on the
number of subscribers
• The computation of individual installation activities based on the HSC times an
averaging of the time requirements reported by the twenty sample"area" systems
• The computation of equipment rates based on AT&T's inclusion of certain costs at
the AT&T level
• The computation of converter rate categories that are dependent on the type of
service rather than the type of equipment
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS
Based on a review of each of the sample "area" system Form 1205 computations, the
computations of equipment and installation charges incurred at the corporate level, and AT&T
responses to requests for information, C2 notes the following fmdings:
1. The before tax rate of return proposed by the Company does not reflect the actual
corporate information for the fiscal year end in question(December 2001);
2. The Company inappropriately included commissions for the technical, installation
and dispatch staff in calculating labor expense in Schedule B; and
3. The Company has included a rate for Customer Trouble Calls not previously
requested.
1. Rate of Return
Based on the FCC regulations, AT&T is allowed to earn a return on the capital investment made
related to regulated equipment and installation activities. More specifically, the Form 1205
allows for the development of a before tax rate of return ("ROR"), and its application to the
unrecovered balances of vehicles, tools, maintenance facilities, and customer premises equipment
used to receive the basic service tier. One component of the ROR is the interest deductibility
factor found on Schedule A, Line G4d. The importance of this factor is that,it is used to
determine the Company's effective tax rate for purposes of"grossing-up" the FCC presumed
applicable after tax rate of 11.25%.'
The interest deductibility factor is computed by dividing the Company's actual interest expense
by the total net assets of the Company for the period in question. Due to the timing of the filing,
AT&T used the net assets reported in its September 2001 10Q, and an annualized amount of the
interest expense reported in the same SEC filing.
'Second Report and Order, First Order on Reconsideration, and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking,
FCC 95-502,released January 26, 1996, paragraph 10.
City Representatives
April 24, 2002
Page 4
Although not available to the Company at the time of the filing,the Company's 10K filing is now
available and demonstrates slightly different amounts for each of these line items. By
incorporating the actual 2001 year-end amounts, the interest deductibility factor is adjusted from
the Company's proposed 20.02% to 20.19%. This change results in an adjusted ROR of 16.34%
as compared to AT&T's proposed rate of 16.35%. The impact is de min.imus on the resulting
rates but should always be considered by the franchising authority to reflect those components
that can be changed to actual prior to the Cities rendering final decisions.2
2. Inclusion of Commissions for Technical,Installation and Dispatch Staff
Upon inspection of the supporting documentation provided by AT&T with respect to labor costs,
C2 noted that the amount of labor expense allocated to the equipment basket includes
commissions for technical, installation, and dispatch staff. Based on the FCC instructions, cable
operators should identify the total labor expense and then allocate a portion of such expense
based on installation and repair activities related to receiving the basic service. It is not clear that
these "commissions" are related to the provision of basic service. If such were the case, then
some portion of the commissions paid to marketing representatives and other staff not allocated to
the equipment basket would apply.
In C2's opinion, these commissions should be excluded. This adjustment results in an hourly
service charge of$29.53 compared to the filed HSC of$29.68, However, this change does not
affect the operator selected rates as AT&T is proposing an operator selected HSC of$28.49 (on
which all other charges are based.) For comparison purposes, however, Exhibit A includes the
resulting maximum permitted rates using the adjusted HSC of$29.53.
t
3. Inclusion of Rate for Customer Trouble Calls
In the instant filing, AT&T is requesting to establish a rate that has not been in existence before.
Usually, the first question that is raised is whether the costs related to the activity in question have
been previously"unbundled" from the programming rates In addition, based on the Company's
methodology for computing equipment basket hours and costs, non-productive trouble calls are
removed. Therefore, in C2's opinion, it does not seem appropriate to establish a rate for
activities that (1) have not been definitively shown to have been "unbundled" and that (2) a
portion of which have been removed from the calculation of the HSC.
SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS
Based on the above preliminary findings and conclusions, the Cities should consider taking the
2The basis for the return factor was established by the FCC in the early 1990s as a presumed after tax return
of l 1.25%. In today's economy, it is not at all clear that such a return is reasonable because it has not been
revisited by the FCC in many years. Therefore, any of the remaining components that are used to"gross
up" this rate should be scrutinized in the event better data is available. Of course,the Cities always have
the right to challense the rate of return, but the burden is on the Cities to show that a more appropriate
return should be used.
As you recall, during the Form 1200 rate process,the equipment basket costs were"unbundled" from
programming rates in order to stand alone in later analyses of costs. If certain types of costs were not
"unbundled" at that time, there was a possibility of double recovery if such costs were later added to the
equipment basket.
City Representatives
April 24, 2002
Page 5
following actions:
1. Approve the operator selected rates proposed by AT&T for installation and equipment
rates as being reasonable with the exceptions noted below.
2. Require that AT&T make the appropriate adjustments in its next Form 1205 filing related
to technical, installation and dispatch commissions allocated to the equipment basket.
3. Disallow the requested rate for Customer Trouble Calls until the Company can show that
all hours related to these costs have been taken into account in the development of the
HSC.
C2 appreciates having this opportunity to work with the Cities in review of the Form 1205 rates.
If you have any questions regarding this report or need clarifications as to the recommendations,
please contact Ms. Connie Cannady at(972)726-72I6.
Very truly yours,
� f
C2 Consulting Services, Inc.
y
Q
:c
x
W
0a N � o0o 0) COu) o � o MCD -
triC7 �7 vrOrN0r, -YO OU7ti
M r N N (,% r r r
(y 6% EH 64 Ft) Eta Efl EA EA 69).
Ef3 Eta Efl to
U
E
o U UM?
cr. N
N Efl
U
d
rn rn (D (D r- 0) 0) CY) 00
p� 4) 'T U) h r r C) O) Lo r (U M (D r
W Q O U) O d O r N (0 r qr t- O t17 rr
Cl) r N N y} r r r r
O, Efl Eta EH d9 (fl Efl Efi E9 fA 69 4t3 Efl
� Q
a
w
a
Q = N
z
O _
L
O M r f~ r2' O M (O CS) O M 0J = M M (n •- W U7 M U) 'IT M m
aD G U) O d (O (O to mot' U) Of 'a' U)
a ' � .= acici000c000
to Q. Q'
z O �
in tl
z
4
H a
z c
W
0. tU M
co cc
O tt1
o cp 15 1
a) a n
Q Eco
m .r
c c N a) .L ro 0 L >
c c o o v E v E m e
Q ° v u F- a a) CL N (0j
U cu c C c `0) O (0 w c >+
c ' �ti 00 3 � o cW- 2 C)w Uc
m C 'v)
m o op � Eco co
a) O c�
3 o a > a) 3 0) c ` c M E 'u)
o c -o -o Q Q a Q. a o c a) m o
z = n. ¢ ¢ -n mz
Federal Commtmiratiem Commiaion Approved by ONM 3060-0'03
WashuVom D.C. 20554
SCHEDCLE A:CAPITAL COSTS OF SERVICE ViSPALLATION A.ND bIAr-rMgA.NCE OF EQUIPMENT AND PLANT
slalntenwate Other 1. Other 2.
:1 w t and Plant Whid. Tnnls Fsxllltles (Sped WOW) (Spocify Mlow)
B Vehx 3332,751,874,00 5206=5,342,00 $13,253,652.00 $0.00 $0,00 -
C r"Wated Depmkion $220,998.289.00 31 M,809.585.W S6,957,381.00 $0.00 $0.00
D Defaced Taxes I S2.658,06100 S17,192,140.00 S825,391.00 SO.W SO.00
E Vet Book Value C+D) $109,095,522,0r) S81,623.617.00 S5,470,874.00 WOO $0.00
F Rate ofR,t= 0.1125
0 Cal vladon qfGro—p Rare
Gt Federal Income Tex Rate 0.35
0Z State Inccmre Tax Rate 0.0619
u
03 Net Total Income Tat Rate((G1+t32)-(01 x G2)1 0.3902 ["
t}J Ad utment to Reflect imerast Deductibility
04. AchW lnt—t Amotmt S3,242,000,OW W
Gob Total Net A—ts $14-754,000,000.00 -
04c Sere Rettan on Tm mtmmt Amount[04b x F1 Si&059.825,000.00
o4d I Interest Deduatbd y Factor 04a/04e 0 2019
05 Elfeeti,e Tax Rate(03 x(I.Gad))(C-C,".kp to G71 0.3114
06 Adtu..otxnb for N.-C tms
G6e Base Ret,—an T-eatmmt.4motmt[04.1 $16,059.825,000.00
ifib D.M-tI bo- SO.W
06c C-M'b t—(mav net etceed 06b) S0.W
06d Refs—Subject to Ineonx Tu[G6a-G6b+G6e1 S16,059,825,OMOG
G6e Rotuma P Su-cct to income Tex[G6d%G6e 1.
G' G—U Rate[C-C 1/0-Ca5)Other I i(i 405 x 06e)) 1A522
H Cnossed-Up Rate of Ret=[F x 071 0.1634
I f en lm�eatmertt Grossed-U far TA<m(E x H1 S11,823,640.1729 $13 135-3"7.58-9 S893,81 20266 - SO.W $0.W
J�'' "umnt Provision for miabon S54,793.782.W 524,373,497.00 51,834,427.00 30 W SO.W
K Armual Capital CeamP-J] S72,617,422.1729 $37,708,8745879 S:?28,239.0266 SO.W SO.W
L GRA-ND TOTAL(asses of Ll-K entH.1 S173.064,S3S.7874
Box 1.
Specify..Other 1,
Specif),Other'.
SCHEDULE B:A-',UAL OPERATING MENSES FOR SERVICE LNSTAIA ATION AND NL4LNTEN,ANCE OF EQU1PStENU
Salaries Other 1. Other 1
&Be.% Su lice Utiliti. Other Tat. (S below) (S below)
A Amnial Op} penses for Svc.Install.and`butt of Equip. $1,353,094,576.00 246,366,70500 SO 00 S96,303,374.W S206,894,038.W 286,099,624.00
B GRAND TOTAL(sam of Llne A entries( 57,77t8.T5s,37'7.06
Box 1.
Specify..tither 1.
Specify Ot}:er:.
Pas:: FCC Fmnt'.�
Fcdeal Cotrmtrmiwtama Comtniim Approved by OMB 30604r,03
W.hinpton,D.C. 20554
SCFfF.Di'LE C:CAPITAL COSTS OF LEASED CUSTOMER EQuIPMEYT
A �„ Remnte l Remntn? Remnte 3 Converted Cnnvarte 2 Ccarverter 3 ahe E
R I Total Horn(Attach lowiat) 205513. 44905. 3859951. 0.
C Taal m of L4vu it S— 9184896, 1 14718. 9904467. 0.
D 0—Book Value $137.937,644.00 $31,247,492.00 SZ.168,255,576.00 $0.00
E Acaanulated iation 386.053,298,00 317,509,7".00 31,081,380,482.00 50.00
F Def—md Tax. 5477,444 00 (3953,958.00) (SI 57,084,129.00)
O Vet Book Value(D-(EIF)) 551,406,902.00 SO.00 Saw $14,691,706.00 51,243,959=-00 $0.00 50.00
H 0—d-Up Rete of Retum[Fro Sched A,Line H) 0.1634
I R—m Invvtment G--d-C for Tex.(0.x HI 58,398,677.6621 50.00 SO OO $2,400.278.9159 5203,.233,654.0868 50.00 5).00
I Cu—t Provision fur '.anon 523,386,093.00 $4,061,977.Of) $534,464,169.00 50.0()
F. .4anw1 Capital Costs[I+J) 531,184,7X6621 50.00 50.00 36,46Z255.9159 S"37,697,913.0868 SO.00 50.00
L I GRAND TOTAL)mn of Live K entries) M"44,xo."47
8os 3.
SCHTDL-1.E D:AVERAGE HOURS PER Lr'TrALLATION
A A Ham p.,L7nm6sd Home Iratellation Aerial 15327
S Avsaee Ham Prc Wucd Home Irotsllettcm L-md d 10308
C. Avernae Haas M Recamert 0.4973
D Avoreee Holm Additional Cormmtion at T'mro of Irutallation 0,814
E. Other bmtalleticn(by Item Type):
Item 1.(Sp--if,)
Averaaa Ham AO at e T 0.6795
item'_.( )
Ave Hou Service Call vith Truck Roll 0.5591 --
AmTW Ham I butallaum-Aerial 0.4J59
FCC Fomr 1205
Pace 3 E.—I 4 0 fY Wmd— hme 19911
Federal Cammtmicat=x Co m ion
Washmg[on,DC.20554 Apprwod by OMB 3060-0703
W'ORES=FOR CALCUTATLYG PER.NU I TED EQUIPMENT AND INSTALLATION C IARGES
STEP A.Hof S-ia Cberp
Wsl(:oats of Irotalletwm andMaintenance `khxhde A,Box 1 $11.1054535 7974
al for lnelallati and Htamtenance Schedule B,Box 2 Caeu and H, for Installation and Maimenastce Urn I+Lme 21. St,901,812,852.7814
4 C utomer ET4merrt aid butallstim P (attach an e. lartatim). 0A645
5 Arvnml Customer ent Mantenmoe and hsW lation Costs,Exciud Costs of Leased Equipment[Line 3 x Line 41 1312,771,567.00
F Taal Labor Ham for Maintenarxe and Installation of Coto-Equipment and Services(attache lanation) 105M09.94
Ho-ly Service Chmze(HSC)(Lme 5/Lute 6) $29.5285
METHOD OF BU L 4G FOR NSTALLATIONS(place as"x"in the app-priat.box)
hutalleti<w billed by the hm based on the H3C calculated in Lim 7.
I ltatallmiotu HIM ro e rtaodard charge.
STEP&Imtallatiw Cbarp
3 l.iniform HSC For nil mstnlletione(From Step A.line 7) rt/e
OR
9. Avetsae for hntalletion Types
a L'mved Home hutallation
al HSC ax 71 S29.5285
a2. Avtmge Hove per L'nwatd Home trstallati (Schedule D.Line A) 1.5327
art.Charge per L'nwved Home Irstallation(al x a21 545.2$83
b P-wvcd Home Installation
bi.HSC 7] 129.5285
b2.Average Hour per Po wvad Home Las Wlauon(Schaduk D,Late B) I.0308
b3.Chem per Prs- and Home butallatim[bl x 621 $30.4379
c.AddmkvW Connection lnstallatim at Time of Initial lnatallatm
cl HSC[Lme 71 S29.5285
c'_Average H-Per Additional Connection Installation at Time of Inn.hutell.[Schedule D.Line CI 0.4973
c.Charge per Additional Connection hutallsUm at Time of Initial hvtallaiion[el x c2) 314.6845
d Additional Cormeixien Installation R to installation "
dl.HSC(Line 71 $29,5295
d'_.Avg.Hoax per Additi-I Connection Installation Req.Sep.hutail.[Schedule D,Line D) O.Rl4
d3 Charge per Add t-1 Cam«tins ImWln[ion Requm*Separate hutallation[dl z d21 $24.0362
4 Wl.b-(As, tfed in Schedule D.Lint E):
"w=11- d HSC[L.7] S29.5285
e2.Average Hours per Installation of item i [Schedule D,Lme E.Item 11 0.6795
e3.Charge per hutallaoon of Rem I(el x e2) $20.0646
e4.HSC[Lax 7) S29.5285
e5.Average Haas per listallatiou of Item 2(Schedule D,Line E,Item 21 0.559t
c6 C'hnge per Installatoo of item 2[e4 x e5) $16.5094
c HSC -71 529.5285
t8.Average Houn per Installation of Item 3[Schedule D,Line E.Item 3] 0,4359
6.Chem per Irntallatm of Item 3
R
FCC Fo m 1205
3Re� EXCCI 4 ;.Y 3:GJ'�4 hex 19fh
Federal Crnmnmicatiom Conmdaion Approved by O AB 3060-0T03
Wmhingtm D.C.20554 ,
S'1"EP C.CDarT(es foe".A R-tea a b c
(CakaFetr rote for eerb il ifioa dtReernt ) Remoote 2 R
te I Rem emote 3
I u L++1 4luwwmroa/`su+rvva 11nin r'nrt+a Uu a,hnnn 6nrn Sotuuiula!'r i.im A� _ _205513 0 0
i l H3C[Lme'. S29.S285 529.5"<II5 529.5285 "
i Total\famtenenca'^ a Coat[L'ex 10 a Lme 1 I $6,066,480.9376 50.00 So.00
13 Anmral rtm Cosa C c 1 f-Schedule C.Lim K) 331,784,770.6621 $0,00 $0,00
14 Total CM of Rcmae(L-I.+Lax 131 $37.953.251.4997 50.00 $0.00
15 Sltanber of U. m Savxe[C dmg mlumn from Schedule C.Lax %9489C 0. 0.
16. Ung C et(Lme 14,Lam 151 $4.1212 $0.00 $0.00
I'. Rate pa M-th[Lme 16/(12)] 50.3434 $0.00 SO.00
STEP D.Charges for Mined Coa.eRee Series a b e
(Cakslafr ntefr far each s iflca difteroat ) C-ta I Canverta 2 Canat<r 3
t R Total MaadmaudServi<e Ham(C erg column from Schedule C,Lim B 44905. - 3859851, 0
19 HSC[L�71 $79.5285 529.5m S29.S285
20 Taal vtvwt JServica Cost[Lime 18 x 191 $1,325,975A 549 $113,975,426,5159 50,0O
21 .k mtw captW Ccv3[Com"ponding column from Schedule C,Lme K) $6,462,255.9159 $737,697,823.0868 50.00
Taal Coot.(Co ,ter[Lme N-Lime 211 S'7,788,231.0708 3851,673,249.6026 $0.00
23 Vumlxr of Low mery Sim[C' wlunm from Schedule C,Lme C) 114779. 990446, 0.
24 Umt Cost(Lim'.J(.au 731 567.85d7 585.9888 50.0O
=� Rat<per Month(Lme 241(12))
$5.6546 $7.1657 $0.00
SIE3 E Cher .for Otbee Leased E si meat
26 Taal\tamtenanca'Sem«Ham(C cohann from Schedule C.Line Bi 0.
12- HSC[L.71 s29 5295
2'8 Taal Memtenanc`Service Coat(Lim 26 x Lax 271 50.00
29 ..__1 C gal Coln -loan from Schedule C,Lme K1 50.00
4t Tetal Cost oC em 28+Line 29 50.()0
31. `=Lb of t:nin in Sm ( oolurrm from Schedule C,Lute C) 0-
3' Lint Cost[La.301Lme 311 S0 00
33 Rate pa M-th[Lme 3''-(12)) so 00
METHOD OF BII.LLVG FOR CHANGLYG SERVICE TIERS OR EQL'IPME.NT[pfarn a>a"><"in the appropriate boil
I ea a.4 maml C wxge(Fitter the nomiral chmge at Lau 34)
®e Uniform H-N Semoe Charge
S. as m Average (Enter the Average Hours fa Cher zng Service Tim in Une 36b.)
STEP F.Cher for cb..O.g Se kf TI-or E ai eat
t4 \omnsnlcbrz.for Servioe Tien
u rou use an escalating,+tale of lace an`)e m the box at the right.
OR
35 Litifotm Hourly Service Clarge n/a
OR
36 Average Charge far Ch Service Tim
36a.HSC[Lme 7) S29 5285
36b Average Holm to Change Service Tien 0 5591
36c.Average Chase for Service Tim[Lax 36.x Lme 36b) S16.5094
FCC Form 17;5
Faiend Camtnatiwtims Conmumm
Wes-pm D.C. 20554 Apmed by-.OMB 3060A 03
FET YOit CALC(ILA'rING T(YtAL irQIIIVMI(. 'f ANI)IN.4TAI,I,A'rION(YkCP!l
1. C&pTW Com of htetellatim end Maintenance[Schedtde A Box 1 I 1 $11 3 054,535.7874
Tool A=W Openting E fce imtallaticm end Maimenence[Sdwdule B.Box 21 SE,788,758,317.00
3 ToW Anm»l cspitai Cceta of bntaiimicvm end Yieintenence[Lim I+Lam 21 SI,901,SI2,852.7874
4 Cmot tend InaWtntim (attach lannatim).
5 A+anml Cumt t Maintenancro end bmWllatim Cmu,Excluding Cmts of Leased Equiprnm WOO
[[.am 3 x Late 41
6. Total Capind Coau of Leased Cuetonmr ent.Schedule C.Box 31 S775,944,849.6647
' An lCumt and ImWlatim Coate a 5+Lam 61 5775,N4,8496641
8. Pacomt Allocation to Franchise Arne(ace i ntruetiom)
9. Allo ted Amuel Equonew end butallation Coat[Lam 7 x Lam 81 Sam
10 %imthly Equqmm7t and buW latim Coat[Line 9/(121 30,00
l 1. dumber of Basic Sub—bm 6 Frmxhue
11 Mmthly t and IrmWI.on Coot M Sut ember VLtne 10/Lam 1 I) RDTV/pr
t 3. bdlat.Ad' t Fedor(See burrtxtio'.
14. Ad tM F(mthly EquO..tend bnW Intim Cmt m Subscriber(Lam I.x Lam 131 MDN10t 1`
t
FCC F« I C9
Nim 6 Excel 4.0 for W6dom June 195K
Faieral Commtmieatiorn Commesian Approved by OMB 30&W,03
4'ashington,D.C.20554
SL'LLMARY SCHEDULE
Cemwi F al sat sad Ieataltatl»Rath Permitted Aattel
I for Cable Stfv+ce fnataliatiam
a.Healy Rats A.Lma 71 n!a
b A—aee fretallation
1. b.Wletion of LN-.v d Hanes[St B,L'am 9a3j 345.26
Gnstallation oCRcwccd Hanes $30.44
3.Lvrnlletion oCAdditiottal Caawctioru at Tune of initial[mWletion(St B,lime 9c3 $14.68
4.Imtallation of Additional Connection+ se pane TrutaU tStep B,Line 9d3) 524.04
5. Move C121et
320.06
6. CthcrimWlation
s L' -nm-add—sable - 516.51
b. de-non-addl—blc $12,97
c.Cameo VCR at installation $7,14
d Connect VCR at Twe bip 514.24
T.i.dmy Clwae far Leese of Remote Controls[Step C.Larc 1 co1——1
Remote Camel T 1 $0.34
$�5S057...0�610
nmT3
nx t D.Line 25,cohna-cj
Converter o 1:
oveo 2:
me 57
3:
4 NfornKm,Charge for Lease of Ot)—Equipment(Step E,Lme 331
C-J Q Equeon(5 ify)
a fa Tian(if )(Step F.Line 34,35 or 36c) $16.51
LABOR COST AND POLICY CIWNGES
Indicate your answer to the following three gnxstiofu by placing an*x*in the appropriate box
1 Have ym included the labor cats as—ated with mbsmber cable drop+in yea changes for initial installation"
8 YES
NO
2.Hare}—capitalized the labor tab associated with aubecnbef cable drops?
YES
RNO
3.If vw have filed this fonn before,have you changed any policy,e.g,cost accounting of oA allocation that causes an maease m the cost,
.eluded m the computation of eguipneM and inuWlatioos charges?
VES(You.tut attach.Cull eq+lan stion)
R NO
CYRTMCATTOY SFATENMNT
V,71-FUL FALSE STATEMENTS MADE ON THIS FORM ARE PUNTSBABLF BY FLUE AND,OR L1(PRISOM.fENT
(L'S CLDE TITLE 19,SECTION 1001),AND/OR FORFETMTE(US.CODE,TITLE 47,SECTION 503).
1 certify dmt the statements made m this fan—true and correct to the bast of my knowledge and belie(,and me made m good faith.
Name of the Cable Op—tor Sihae
Dane Title `
FCC Fan 12
T'azc' Excel 4 0 for Windusaa iurn i?f
MMONSULTING ERVI ES, INC.
7301 Pencross (972) 226-7216
JL.COVIMENT-HP LaserJeO/5M-Standard Driver ,n»t roc no, n_. ti
@PJL COMMENTG 1.30.0.0
@PJL SET RESOLUTION=600
Memormd= @PJL SET PAGEPR
To: Cities' Cable Rate Coalition
From: Connie Cannady
Date: 5/20/02
Re: Customer Trouble Call Rate
As you know, one of the recommendations sent to you concerning the Form 1205 was to disallow
AT&T's requested"Customer Trouble Call"rate of$16.99. Subsequent to the issuance of the report,
AT&T has provided additional information to demonstrate that(1)the costs related to this charge are
not new to the equipment basket costs, and (2) that that customers will not be billed for those
activities that are excluded in the calculation of the Hourly Service Charge.'
However, in order to recommend acceptance of the rate, it is my opinion that three conditions must
be met. First, subscribers must not be billed for trouble calls due to problems not resulting from
subscriber action. Second, AT&T customer service representatives must inform subscribers of the
potential charge and the types of issues that could give rise to the charge before a technician is sent.
Third, in circumstances where the problems is not completely corrected during the first visit, the
subscriber will not be charged again for a repeat call to correct the initial problem.
AT&T was informed of these conditions during a meeting at the City of Bedford. No objections have
been received to date. In the event that the Cities can include the above conditions within their
respective ordinances,I recommend that the$16.99"Customer Trouble Call"rate be adopted.
These were the two issues identified in the C2 report that gave rise to the recommendation to
disallow the rate.