HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem 12 - AT&T Broadband Rate ReviewMEMO 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.
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)
19
� F -f i- 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
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
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
m
ATTEST:
A-§ , Me
Im
ONSULTING SERVICES, INC.
7801 Pencross Ln.
Dallas, Texas 75248
April 24, 2002
Fax—
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
�jOTT
APR 2 9 2002 IU
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
726-7216
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 EQUIPIMENT 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
54.41
$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 findings:
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 "groasing-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 minimus 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.3 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
0 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) 726-7216.
Very truly yours,
C2 Consulting Services, Inc.
r -I
I
U)
w
w
w
IL
z
0
(Z)
z
a
z
z
CY
Ili
C)
C14
Eft
to 't M "It m I'- G M 0 0 IT ul fl-
" ow .0"?o CO CD —
m0'— T 'Tr N m r, -q ci L6 P-�
,q, m T- N r rto r
6% E964 619, Eta 64 EA 60/
00 0 0 r- m tm l* M m co A (D r�-
"T 1.0 1'- (D 10 0 m (D
ci
M r N N 61). 4t3 64
U9, V� 69� 03. (oq 619. 60 e% 619�
W Lo M LO M 'IT W
V LO Of v 0
c
.0
CU (U
co Cc
CL
(n (1)
16 cp
15 15
E
a) co
— aca
-
tS
0
cntn
a)
c c
c .2 .2
V) a)
a) E
"
>
C
=
0 0 u
-0 .— U a)
CL
o
0 C)
cu c c
0) o
c >1
0) c c
u 0 0
c C: c :3
�: , o CC Q- 2
uj
U C)
0)
0
m E
rj) C (n
0: 0 0
co co 0
n
m
E c:
0 C -o -0 0
0) cC:
CL 0 c- 0 0
a) cu 0
-r = CL < < 2
-n c 'n 0 Q
x cn z
Federal Comatmxmtiem Commiaion
WashuVom D.C. 20554
SCHEDCLE A: CAPITAL COSTS OF SERVICE L-iSPALLATION t fD bfAr-rMgA.NCE OF EQCIP1fENT AND PLANT
A
w t and Plent
Whid.
Tnola
�lwlnteawate
Fwellltlea
Other 1.
(S of WOW)
Other 2.
(SPOWY W—)
fl
Vehx
5332,751,874.00
2206,225,342,00
$13,253,652.00
$0.00
$0.00
C
r"Wated Depmkion
$220,998.289.00
31 M,809.585.00
56,957,381.00
$0.00
$0.00
D
Deferred Taxes
S2.658,06100
517,192,140.00
3825,391.00
SO.W
50.00
E
Vet Book Value C+D)
$109.095,52.,00
581.623.617.00
55,470,874.00
WOO
$0.00
F
Rate ofR,t=
0.1125
-
0 Cal vladon qfGro—p Raie
Gt Federal Income Tex Rate 0.35
0Z State $some Tec Rate 0.0618
03 Net Total Income Tea Rate ((G1+t32)401 x G2)j 0.3902
t}4 Ad utment to Meet hitamt Deductibility
Goa AchW Intemt Ammmt S3,242,000,OW W
Gob Total Net A—ts $14-754,(M.OW.00
04c Sere Regan on tmeatment Amount [04b x Fj SI 6.459.825,000.00
o4d I Intemst Deduatb iia y Factor 04a/04c 0 2019
05 EfS ctns Tax Rate (03 x (I -Gad)) (C -C," kp to G71 1 0.3114
lib Adaso,xnb (ae'`iOn-C t10N
GEe Base Ret,— o Tmestment .4moum [04.1 $16,059.825,000.00
06b D.M-tI bora SO.W
G6c C --but— (may net eaceed 06b) S0,00
06d Refs— Subject to income Tu [G6a-G6b+G6cj S16,059,825,000.W
G& Return P Su -cct to income Tea [06&06a }.
GG—URate[GC 1/(I-Ca5)Other l%(t{G5 x 06e)) 1.4522
H Cnrn -Up Rate of Ret=[F x 071 0.1634
I
en Im e'ol It Groesed.(: far Taam(E x H]
Sl 1,823,640.1729
$13 1351"7.58'9
S893,8120266
- 50.00
$O.W
J 't'�'" umnt Prowio for rcoiation
554,793.782.00
S24,373,497.00
51 .834,42
SOW
50.00
K
.�rmual Capital Ceab [T -i]
S72,617,422.1729
537,708,8745879
S:?28,239.0266
50.00
50.00
L
GRA -ND TOTAL (aaw of Ll- K entrinj
5113.064,535.7874
Box 1.
Specify.. Other 1,
Speed), Other 2.
Approved by ONM 3060-0'03
I SCHEDULE B: ViNUAL OPERATING M LASES FOR SERVICE LNSTALLATION AND'•LSLNTEN,ANCE OF EOU*IPNfF-N-i I
for Svc. Insall. and `butt of Equip. ( $1,353,094,576.00 1 546,366,705 00 1 50 00 I 596,303,374.00 1 3206,894,038.00
GRAND TOTAL lean of Ll- A
Specif tither 1.
Specify Other 2.
FCC Fon 12;5
lune l i+'.3
Federal Cotrmnmiwtams Commi+ ion
W.hinpton, D.C. 20554
Approved by OMB 30604r, 03
SCT{F.DL'LE C: CAPITAL COSTS OF LEASED CUSTOMER
EQuIPMEYT
A A Ham Unw6e Home Iratellation Aerial
15327
S Avsaee Ham Prc Wucd Home Irotslletxm L'md d
A „
Remcue 1 Remntn 2 Ramble 3
Converter 1
Converter :
Ccarverter 3 cher Eqwp,'
R I Total Horn (Attach lowian)
205513.
44905.
3859851.
0.
C Taal m of L4vo m Service
9184896,
114178.
9904467,
0.
D Oroas Book Value
$137.937,644.00
$31,247,492.00
52.168,255,576.00
$0.00
E Acaaaulated iation
586.053,298.00
517,509,744.00
31,081,380.48.^..00
50.00
F Defemd Taxa
5477,444 00
(5953,958.00)
(SI 57,084,129.00)
O Vet Book Value (D-(EIF)j
551,406.902.00 50.00 50.00
$14,691,706.00
51,243,959,2"3-00
$0.00 50.00
H 0—d -Up Rete of Retum x Sched A, Line HI
0.1634
I R— on Invvtment G--d-C for Taxes (0 .x HI
58.398,677.6621 50.00 50.00
$2,400.278.9159
5203,233,654.0868
50.00 5).00
I Cu—t Provision fur '.anon
523.386.093.00
$4,061,977.00
$534,464,169.00
50.00
F. Annual Capital Com [I +J)
531,184,710.6621 $0.00 50.00
36,462,25.9159
5737,697,8"x3.0868
50.00 30.00
L I GRAND TOTAL )mn of Live K ent*iw)
M"44,xo."47
8.% 3.
SCHF 13ME D: AVERAGE HOURS PER Lr'TrALLATTO."
A A Ham Unw6e Home Iratellation Aerial
15327
S Avsaee Ham Prc Wucd Home Irotslletxm L'md d
10308
C. Avanae Haas M Recamert
0.49"3
D Avoreee Ho— Additional Cormmtion at T'mro of itutallation
0.814
E. Other bmtalleticn (by Item Type):
Item 1. (Sp --if,)
Average Ham AO at STtMe T
0.6795
item'_. ( )
Averse Hou Service Call with Tcuek Roll
0.5591
Item 3- (Sp—' )
A Ham I butallation - Aerial
0.4359
FCC Form 1205
Pace 3 E.—I 4 0 fY Wmd— hone 1995
Federal Cammtmicat=x Cotmttiuion
washmtnon, D.C. 20554
WORKS= FOR CALCUTATLYG PER.NU I TED EQUIPMENT AND WSTALLAMN CHARGES
STEP A. Hoa S-ic Cberp
8 (.ird- HSC for ail matalletions (From Step A. lie 7)
*tr of Uatalletwm and Mavenance `khwhde A, Box 1
$11.1,054,535 .7874
Wsl'-*
al for Utetalinti and H(amtenance Schedule B, Box 2
S1,788,758,317.00
Caets and E for Ira tall Iation and Mairnenasme Lie I +Lme 21.
S1,901.812,852.7874
4 Clrtomer ET4merrt mid Uatelldj n P (attach an e. lattatim).
0.1645
5 Arvnml CtatomerEquWent Maitenmoe and hatallation Coats, Excludmg Costs of Leased Equipment [Line 3 x Lme 41
1312,771,567.00
F Taal Labor Ham fa Meitesariee end Latallatiat of Cutcmter ant end Setvicaa (attache lenation)
10592209.94
Ho-ly Service Chmze (HSC) (Lme 5/Lme 6)
$29.5285
METHOD OF BQ.LWG FOR WSTALLATIONS (place n "x" in the appropriate box)
Uatelleti<w billed by the hoar baud on the HSC calculated in Lim 7.
I Telenet- lulled m e rtande d charge.
STEP B. Imtallatiw Charp
8 (.ird- HSC for ail matalletions (From Step A. lie 7)
rt/a
OR
9. AversFe for Uatalletm Types
a Ud Home Uatallation
al HSC me 71
S29.5285
a2. Avtmge Hove per L'nwatd Home Uatallati (Schedule D. Lie A)
1.5327
art. Charge per L'nwved Home Uatallation [al z a2J
345.2583
b P-wmxi Home Installation
bl. HSC 71
129.5285
b2. Average Hour per Po wvad Home In Wlauan (Schaduk D, Lie B)
I.03p8
b3. Cham per Pts -wined Home Uatallatim [bl x 621
$30.4379
c. AddmkvW Counection Uatallatim at Time of Initial EnoWlatm
cl HSC [Lme 71
c'_ Average Hotm per Additional Commotion Uatallation at Time of Inn. buten. [Schedule D. Line C)
529.5295
0.4973
0, Charge per Additional Comnection hatallsUm at Time of Initial Uatalletion [cl x c2)
314.6845
d Addittoral Cormeixien Uatallation R to Installation
dl, HSC (Line 71
$29.5285
O.Rl4
d'_. Avg. Ham per Additi-I Connection Installation Req. Sep. Uatail. [Schedule D, Lie D)
d3 Chargeper Adlt=al Cam«tion Imtatiation Requir * Separate Imtallation [dl x d21
$24.0362
Irauille - (As , tfed i Schedule D. Lint E):
"w=11- d HSC [L. 71
529.5285
e2. Average Hours per Itatallation of item i [Schedule D, Lie E. Item 11
0.6795
e3. Charge per Uatallatwn of Rem I (el x e2)
$20.0646
e4. HSC [Lvm 7)
529.5285
e5. Average Hove per liatallatiom of Item 2 (Schedule D, Lie E. Item 21
0.5591
<6 Cham per IJ tmllauoo of Item 2 [e4 x e5)
$16.,5094
c".HSC - 71
t8. Average Houn per Uatallab- of Item 3 [Schtdule D, Lme E. Item 3]
129.5285
0,4359
6. Cham per Itntal label of Item 3 (e'. x <8)
S! 2.871 S
Approved by OMB 3W.0703
FCC Fo m 1205
32e ExCei 4',:.r Zd... 1-19.06
Federal Cm m n=tian Conmtlsaion
Wmh.Vm D.C. 20554
S'1"EP C. CDar{(rs for towed R-t<a
a
Remote I
b
Remote 2
c
Remota 3
(Cakslafr ntefr for each < Nka diff<net )
(CakaFatr rote for eerb il ifioa dtReernt )
28 Total Mamten `Service Coot [Lae 26 x Lax 271
50.00
t R Total MaadenmtaJ'Service Ham (C a,R column from Schedule C, Lae B
I u
L++1 4luwwmroa/S+rvva }loin /'ort+a Uu a,hnnn 6nrn Sotuuiula rt i.im A�
_ _ ?05513
01
0
529.5 5
529.3285
.___
829.8283
329.5"+IIS
529.3285
11
HSC [Lax'.
$1,325,975A 549
$113,975,426.5158
50.00
i 2.
Total \famtenenca'^ a Coat [L'ex 10 x Lme 1 I
56,066,480.8376
SO.00
50.00
11
Animal d-1 Coad C column f- Schedule C. Lim K1
331,784,770.6621
$0.00
$0.00
14
Total CM of R<mae [Lux I. +Line 131
$37,853.251.4997
50.00
$0.00
15
Slumber of U. m Savxe [C dme mlumn Boni Schedule C. Lax
9184896.
0.
0.
16.
Lina Cet [Lme 14,Lam 151
$4.1212
$0.00
$0.00
I'.
Rate pa \tooth [Lm. 16!(12)]
20.3434
$0.00
50.00
App -d by O4iB 3060-0T03
STEP D. Ch -m for 1-d Coaserter B-.
a
Comcrtx I
b
Canverta 2
e
Catmnar 3
(Cakslafr ntefr for each < Nka diff<net )
5295285
28 Total Mamten `Service Coot [Lae 26 x Lax 271
50.00
t R Total MaadenmtaJ'Service Ham (C a,R column from Schedule C, Lae B
44905.
- 3859851,
O.
31. `=Lb of t:rw in Smite (oolunm Bom Schedule C, Lax C)
$79.5285
529.5 5
529.3285
19 HSC [L� 71
50 00
20 Taal Maat<-r JSavica Coot [Lime 18 x 191
$1,325,975A 549
$113,975,426.5158
50.00
21 Armuel C rtal Costa [C,,-p,.ding [C,,-p,.column Berm Schedule C. Line K1
$6,4,52,155.9159
5737,697,623.OW
50.00
Taal Coot of Cor,,ta [Lme N- Lime 211
57,788,231.0706
3851,673,249.6025
$0.00
23 Vumkxr of LoSim [C' unm colBom Schedule C, Lme C1
Low aav
114778.
990446',.
0.
24 t:mt Cost (Lae '.J(.au 231
X7.8547
585.9888
50.00
=� Rate pct ,Month [Lm 141(12)]
55.654b
37.1637
50.00
STEP E Ch+ . for Otber Leased E si meat
}4 No-ul Cbq, for Servioa Tien
26 Taal \(amtenanca'Sem« Ham [L oolwnn Boni Schedule C. Line D1
0.
12- HSC IL- 71
5295285
28 Total Mamten `Service Coot [Lae 26 x Lax 271
50.00
29 .4ttrnm! C tal Cosa wharm Boni Schedule C. Lx -K1
SO.00
30 Total Cwt oC em 28+Lae -.9150.00
36c. Aver+¢e Char for Service Tim [Li,. 36. x Lme 36b]
31. `=Lb of t:rw in Smite (oolunm Bom Schedule C, Lax C)
0-
3' Lint Cost [L'vx 301Lme 311
S000
33 Rate per Month [Lm 3''-(12))
50 00
METHOD OF BII.LLVG FOR CHANGLYG SERVICE TIERS OR EQUIPMENT [Plarn as "s" in the epproprtate boll
2 m e 24om_d Cturga (Feta the nomaal charge at Lau 34)
®e Uniform Ho-ly Sem. Chmge
2 as m Ave (Enter the Avetatte Haus fa Changing Service Tim in Lae 36b.)
$LEP F. Cha for Cba a Sen(c<Tten or E ai est
}4 No-ul Cbq, for Servioa Tien
If rou use an escalata¢ ,+tale of lace an X m the box at the nav d
OR
35 t:T fotm H-11 Service tt/a
OR
36 Avence Chane fcr Cbmling Service Tim
36. HSC [Lme 7) 829 5285
366 Avaaee Holm to Change Sarvice Tim .55911
36c. Aver+¢e Char for Service Tim [Li,. 36. x Lme 36b]
$16.5094
Excel 4 O , `.S'xds-
FCC Fonn I
I- I f
Faiend Camtnatiwtims Cottt umm
ttVeahmglon, D.C. 20554
Approved by-. OMB 3060.0703
L�AY�
f
FCC F« 1209
Pelle 6 Excel 4.0 for Wvmd— 1— 19915
FET FOR CALCULATING TWAL lrQIIIVMI(.Mf AND IN.4TALLATION ('0*4' l
1.
C&pTW Com of bwWlation end Maintettmm [Schedule A Box 1
$I13 054,535.7874
_
Tool A=W Openting E fce itn talletim end Maimenence [Sdwdule B. Box 21
51,788,758,317.00
3
Tmd Amnwl cspitai COete of lmtelhdxm end \AiintenanOa UX I + LUX 21
SI,901,812,852.7874
4
Clntotner t end InaWtntion (attach lenetion).
5
AmnW Cuetotnar t Maintenenca end Wullatim Cmu, Excluding Cmu of Leased Equipmem
SOHO
(I.me 3 x U'me 41
6.
Total Capind Coau of Leaned Cuetonmr Equipmmt .Schedule C. Box 31
5775,944,849.6617
Annual Cumend ImWlatim Coate u 5+Lme 61
5775,944,8496647
8.
Petcenta Allocs6on to Ftanchim Arne (nee i ntruetiom)
9.
Allo ted AmnW Equonew end Imtellatim Coat [L= 7 x Line 81
Sam
10
Mmthly Equqmm7t and ImW lation Coat [Line 9 / (121
50,00
ll.
dumber of Beaie Sub—b— m Ftmrhue
1..
Mmthly t and imWI.6= Ccs M Subscriber VLtne 10 / Lm 1 I I
{gjiy/0r
J13
Tnflat .t Ad' t Fedor (See 4,onxtioru
14.
Ad ted Mmthly Equo,,t end T -W Intim Cml per Subeeriber (Lme I2 x Lem 131
MDN10t
L�AY�
f
FCC F« 1209
Pelle 6 Excel 4.0 for Wvmd— 1— 19915
Fork—1 Cofrttmmiemions Commmron
4'ashington, D.C. 20554
SUNLMARY S(."Hbl)u .
c—i F al sat sad taateltatl a Rat"
Permitted Aatml
1. Ci�, for Cabtc Strvice Itnfsllatioro
n Hourly Rat A. Lon 7
n!a
b Average h,,W lation
I a Latalletim of tlnavnd Hanes [St B. Lon 9nij
545.26
Gatallatim oCRcwocd Homo
$30.44
3. irntalletim oCAdditiortal Cmnectian at Tune of initial [mtelletion (St B, lime 9c3
$14.68
4. bmW llmion of Additions) Comnctiotn Se t 1rotaU tStep B, Line 9d3j
524.04
5. Move C121et
520.06
6. Cthcrimtalletim
n L' - nm-addrenable
- S16.51
b. de .non-addl—blc
$12.97
c. Cameo VCR at installation
$7,14
d Comma VCR at TWa bip
514.24
Chane far Leese of Remo[ Controls [Stp C. Lon 1-, co1— —1
Remote Carmol T 1
$0.34
Remote Cmtrol Tr
$0.00
Rema. Comrol T� 3
3. Monthly Chmx for Lease oCCamater 13oxes [St D. Line 25, columns a-cj
Cmverter Box T, 1:
55.65
Cm-rter Box T 2:
57.17
Cmvmer Box Tr 3:
1 `rfanhly Charge for Lease of Ot1xr Equipment (Step Iw Lme 331
Otircr em (5 ifv)
50.00
a clm fa Tian (if,,y) (Stcp F, Lire 34,35 or 36.1
$16.51
LABOR COSI AND POLICY CII&NGES
Iruircate your mower to the following [lace gtnstiot by pl=* m 'x' in the eppropriate box
1 Fiore ym included the labor costs iii—ted with mbsmbtt cable drop+ in yo—charm for initial irmtallatim7
8YES
NO
2. Hare yx i oapualized tin labor cosh associated with subs 'bef cable drop57
RYES
NO
3. If vw have filed dta form before, have you chmgted any policy, e.g., cost a mtatg of mu all0catim that causes an m=ro m the cosh
.eluded m the compt"tion of eguipmeM end irtWlatioM charges?
RYES (You mint attach. Cull explmution)
NO
CERTMCATIOY STATENMNT
1l71-FLL FALSE STATEMENTS MADE ON THIS FORM ARE PUNISHABLE BY FLUE AND,OR LIMIUSONMENT
(L' S CODE TITLE 19, SECTION 1001), AND/OR FORFETMTE (US. CODE, TITLE 47, SECTION 503).
I certify amt the # —nb meds m this form oro to end correct to the bort of my knowledge mtd belie(, and me made m good tadh.
Name of the Cable Opcmtor Sihae
Date Title `
Approved by OMB 30&W, 03
FCC Form 12
a-14 0 for Window )— 1-c,
(972) 226-7216
-m,3 o% "3oc fih1-'S f2.--%
@PJL COMMENTG 1.30.0.0
Memormd= @PJ' SET RESOLUTION=600@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.