STATE OF VERMONT PUBLIC SERVICE BOARD

Transcription

1 STATE OF VERMONT PUBLIC SERVICE BOARD In Re: Renewal of the Certificate of Public ) Good of The Helicon Group, L.P., d/b/a ) Docket No Charter Communications, to provide cable ) television service in 46 Vermont municipalities ) SUMMARY OF INITIAL PREFILED TESTIMONY OF SCOTT CAMPITELLI The purpose of Mr. Scott Campitelli prefiled testimony in support of the Vermont Access Network ( VAN ) is to address remote origination sites (ROS) including internet service to ROS. The goals in this testimony are to: (1) explain why it is critical for cable operators, and specifically Charter Communications, to provide ROS transmission capability at the highest level of quality at all requested community locations; (2) define the obligations of cable operators, and specifically Charter Communications, to support PEG access and community connectedness in the evolving telecommunications environment; (3) propose the establishment of consistent technical provisions by cable operators, and specifically Charter Communications, in support of PEG access and community locations with high speed Internet service; and (4) revise existing CPG language regarding ROS and identify new CPG language consistent with the above. The following Exhibits are submitted in support of Mr. Campitelli's testimony. 1. SC 1.01 Existing Condition 22 CPG Language PREFILED TESTIMONY OF SCOTT CAMPITELLI Q1. What is your name? A1. Scott Campitelli Q2. What is your occupation? A2. I am the Executive Director of the nonprofit corporation Regional Educational Television Network, also known as RETN, based in Burlington. RETN is an access management

2 Page 2 of 20 organization (AMO) serving communities in northwestern Vermont and operating educational access channels on three cable systems in southern Chittenden and northern Addison Counties. RETN works with cable operators Comcast and Burlington Telecom. Q3. What are your qualifications to testify in this matter? A3. As Executive Director of RETN since 1996 I have worked in local television and with three different cable operators over the years to provide locations in the community where live programs can be generated. This has regularly involved technical strategies at a variety of remote sites. Q4. What is your connection to the Vermont Access Network? A4. RETN is a member organization of Vermont Access Network. I serve as the chair of the Vermont Media Exchange governing committee. I have been a lead member of that program sharing initiative since early research and development in RETN has also been a leader in collaborative projects and communication among VAN members for the past eighteen years. Q5. In general terms, what is the purpose of your prefiled testimony? A5. In general terms, my testimony addresses remote origination sites (ROS). As my testimony will indicate, although the Public Service Board has issued a number of CPGs to cable operators each of which incorporated a condition related to the operator s obligation to provide remote origination sites, see Exhibit SC-1, the operators have interpreted this condition differently particularly in terms of whose obligation it is to pay for the ROS as well as the process which an access management organization must apply for a new ROS. Moreover, the existing CPG language is confusing in a number of respects and incorporates references to certain technologies which are outdated, restrictive and which fail to account for the degree of mobility which current technologies permit. In short, on a statewide basis, we have a broken system and dysfunctional CPG language as these relate to the requirement for cable operators to provide ROS for use by communities and PEG access management organizations. Therefore, my goals in this testimony are to (1) explain why it is critical for cable operators, and specifically Charter Communications, to provide ROS transmission capability at the highest level of quality

3 Page 3 of 20 at all requested community locations; (2) define the obligations of cable operators, and specifically Charter Communications, to support PEG access and community connectedness in the evolving telecommunications environment; and (3) propose the establishment of consistent technical provisions by cable operators, and specifically Charter Communications, in support of PEG access and community locations with high speed Internet service. Q6. How and for what purpose do AMOs utilize Remote Origination Sites (ROS)? A6. Community locations referred to as Remote Origination Sites (ROS) are used to present live events airing on access channels. These are usually active places in a community where meetings, cultural events, Town Meeting, educational events, or any number of other civic gatherings occur. AMOs work with local government, schools and other groups to expand participation and awareness by cablecasting events on local community television channels. Civic engagement of residents is an important goal of many towns and cities, so they are also developing unique community sites, public-private partnership sites, and a variety of key locations in the community to foster greater civic participation, often in new ways. These locations are not limited to traditional municipal offices, schools, or libraries. This expansion of where people hold events in communities has led to generating a live video and audio signals from almost anywhere within a town or city using the Internet. As civic activity becomes ever more agile and mobile, so must our approaches to generating live programming from an array of locations. Addressing this will demand devices capable of connecting to the cable network in new ways and most likely using Internet Protocol (IP) and broadband. Originating live local programming remains an important community need met by AMOs in local partnerships, but the conventional model of ROS will need to be flexible and the transmission device may need mobile capability. In the past many transmission devices, usually radio frequency (RF) modulators, at ROS locations were fixed, installed in a specific location for years and set up to work in that very specific technical location within that building. In the future we will need to consider fixed locations as well as mobility to generate live programming in the community. This will require a

4 Page 4 of 20 change in how the cable operator prepares a remote origination site, how the cable operator specifies the transmission device, and by what technical manner the signal is transmitted. This may mean identifying the appropriate array of devices that can work either on the hybrid fiber coaxial (HFC) cable system through a video connection, or through an Ethernet connection on high speed Internet.received, and perhaps how the device is purchased and by whom. Q7. Explain the process for activating an ROS? A7. Activating a new Condition 22 ROS is not a simple or uniform process. When the cable infrastructure was mainly coaxial cable lines up until about ten years ago, sites identified in Condition 22 or its equivalent in Charter or Adelphia s CPGs were routinely activated at the cable operator s expense as a CPG obligation. With cable system upgrades to a hybrid fiber coaxial (HFC) infrastructure and the associated costs of activating ROS locations, cable operators have responded very differently to ROS requests in recent years. Even though Condition 22 sites have not changed, those that were not already activated have been scrutinized very differently when the new ROS activation is requested. We need a process moving forward that is consistent for all cable operators and keeps up with quality and technology in the television/video/cable industry. Working with Comcast, activation of Condition 22 ROS usually requires a formal request as outlined in Rule 8.405/8.416(C) for the site. The outcome of their response to these requests has varied. In the recent past Comcast has agreed to install a Condition 22 site at a municipal building in Hinesburg and covered the cost, or passed it along to subscribers, of installation and the fiber transmitter. While at the same time Comcast denied a request for an upgrade, from RF modulator on coaxial cable to fiber transmitter to fiber cable, at the studio of Channel 17 in Burlington. The basis for such different responses by Comcast is unknown to me or other access organizations I have spoken with. While the Rule states that cable operators shall support reasonable requests for ROS, there is no stated criteria for what constitutes reasonable. So, depending on the site and the cable operator, activation of an ROS may be identified in the cable operator's CPG at schools, libraries, a municipal building, or the AMO studio. Activation

5 Page 5 of 20 at new ROS locations may or may not require a formal request from the AMO to the cable operator for a specific site representing a community need for live origination, from an AMO with the capability of managing and using the site, and consideration of resulting costs. While the Rule states that cable operators shall support reasonable requests for ROS, there is no stated criteria for what constitutes reasonable and how the "resulting costs" factor in to ROS request consideration. Some community locations are identified in Condition 22 as places in towns and cities that warrant live origination capability. Traditionally these sites have included one municipal site, the public library, and the local schools, but many communities have identified other ROS needs and that has led to a variety of responses and understandings between AMOs and cable operators regarding costs, cost-benefit analysis, and interpretations of what constitutes adequate need for an ROS. At times some cable operators have required a formal request as outlined in Rule for an ROS as an Other PEG Application. The process has varied from time to time, cable operator to cable operator, and depending on personnel at the cable company. The cost-benefit analysis concept has also been problematic without any common agreement on how to measure a benefit to the community, other than simple quantification of how often the location would be used for live programming, and what cost is warranted by the ROS use. Also, as the cost of installation of ROS capability has increased because of upgraded cable infrastructure, there have been increasingly complicated discussions of whether the cable operator, the AMO, or the cable subscribers will incur the costs of ROS installations to meet Condition 22 obligations. The community need is real, but it may be time to consider alternative technical configurations that can deliver high quality results. Beyond Condition 22 sites, any community facility can request ROS activation in conjunction with an AMO. Rule (C) allows for requests for remote origination sites and includes a reasonable request element specific to ROS. Rule outlines a general set of considerations used by the cable operator to review and respond to requests for Other PEG Applications. For an ROS request in any case, the cable operator must respond formally to an ROS request. While

6 Page 6 of 20 the AMO and/or community organization/facility must present an explanation of the community needs to be met by activating the site, and the capability of the AMO is under consideration, the question of who pays for the resulting costs of activating the ROS cable operator, AMO, cable subscribers, or another community organization is often the main sticking point for ROS activation. I am aware, however, that KATV s request for an ROS at the St. Johnsbury Municipal Building/Welcome Center was denied as too costly. See Prefiled Testimony of Jamie Dimick. Q8. Why is it important for communities to be able to broadcast live programming? A8. Live events, meetings, or presentations on television are some of the most compelling and valuable programming at local, statewide, national, and international levels. For communities in Vermont, live events on their local television channels provide local residents with a way to engage with civic information and decision-making, to celebrate achievement, or to witness milestone events. Many AMOs have expanded live coverage to include not only cable television, but also live web streaming on their web sites and/or community web sites so an even greater audience can view live events. In most of Vermont, and certainly in central Vermont and the Northeast Kingdom where Charter serves as the cable operator, PEG access channels are the only local television service in the community. Local television broadcasters in Vermont are all based in the Burlington area, with the exception of the White River Junction subsidiary of the Burlington/Plattsburgh NBC affiliate. Q9. What is the process to activate a site that is not a pre-qualified location? A9. The concept of pre-qualified ROS locations comes from a historic acknowledgement of certain logical and predictable locations in a community where public meetings, events, or activities regularly occur. These understood, or pre-qualified, locations have been identified in cable operator CPGs see Charter Condition 22 - and have usually included schools, the public library, and at least one municipal site in each town served. In the past, in an effort to clarify each community s acknowledged locations, these Condition 22 ROS locations have been codified in lists included in cable operator-amo contracts. That way any somewhat unique, but

7 Page 7 of 20 understandably legitimate, locations could be identified in advance of activation and some AMOs and cable operators would even set up a schedule of activation of ROS locations to meet community needs. Sites that do not necessarily fall in the clear schools, libraries, municipal buildings prequalified location list would be discussed either during contract discussions, in regular AMO and cable operator communication, or applied for as ROS within whatever process was current as previously described in my Answer 9, including determination of who pays for the activation. Examples key community locations, but that are not clearly Condition 22 sites, include Barre's Opera House, Ice Arena, and Civic Center. These are all active ROS locations because they often host community activities. Q10. Who determines the cost of installation or activation of a pre-qualified site? A10. Because ROS activation is a construction project by the cable operator and is really part of the cable plant, the technical specifications, equipment, and cost of ROS activation has always been determined by the cable operator for any ROS location. Cable operators have also often specified the transmission device for an ROS. Q11. Does the community have expectations to view live programming from other locations than what is considered pre-qualified? A11. The answer to this question is becoming increasingly complex. On the one hand, communities certainly expect to be able to view live Town Meeting, certain meetings of town boards or commissions, and special educational events such as student performances. Our experience increasingly is that community members no longer think in terms of ROS locations. They think about their expectations around local events and the ever-changing nature of civic, cultural, and educational activity. There was a time when almost all local educational and governmental events happened in one or two municipally-owned locations in a town or city, but many communities are taking active steps to broaden events and activities to foster a more participatory culture in the community, and technology is becoming integral to the community's ability to view many of these community events. As technology becomes increasingly

8 Page 8 of 20 capable, communities are developing the expectation of being able to view many meetings, forums, and events near where they live. This can include public-private partnerships for events or locations, outdoor events, and special events designed to engage residents through technology as well as face-to-face attendance. For some long-standing regular events, like Town Meeting, the expectation of live coverage on the local PEG access channel is a given in many towns across Vermont. Q12. How are these costs typically paid for? A12. This has varied among cable operators, AMOs, and circumstances. Some cable operators have even charged AMOs the cost of establishing a remote origination connection at the AMO studio and cablecast facility generating the local channel. Sometimes there has been discussion of the cost of activation of an ROS being passed on to cable subscribers as a line item on bills. In other instances cable operators have presented an AMO with the projected cost of an ROS with the expectation that the AMO or community location will pay for activation. And along with all of these scenarios, some cable operators have simply worked with the local AMO at appropriate locations and the cable operator has borne the franchise-related cost of establishing the ROS. Q13. Why is it important and reasonable for the cable operator to pay for the installation and activation of these sites? A13. ROS locations are an obligation of the cable operator, at least for locations clearly identified in conditions of the cable operator s CPG. In Condition 22 of Charter s CPG it explicitly states an ROS obligation at every school, library, PEG-access studio, and at least one municipal building in every municipality in which Charter is obligated to provide cable service. This obligation comes from an understood community need conveyed as a condition of the CPG of the cable operator. Therefore it is only appropriate that the cable operator must bear the cost of installation and activation of ROS locations, otherwise that CPG condition becomes another entity s responsibility, whether that is the AMO, the school, the municipality, or the cable subscriber. That would undermine community access to this valuable service and contradict the spirit and the letter of cable operator CPGs. Providing community access to remote origination

9 Page 9 of 20 sites is a public benefit that attaches to the license for the operator to use the public right of way to install its cable system. Q14. What is considered standard installation? A14. Historically a standard installation was cable service and/or ROS activation to any identified community location, like those named in Charter s Condition 22 of the CPG, that is within 500 feet of the cable plant the cable lines passing by the building. In the past there was sometimes discussion of that 500 feet being limited to an aerial approach for standard installation. Further distances and (sometimes) underground cable runs were considered unusual and overly costly, so they were not considered standard installations. Q15. What is meant by the term cable plant? A15. Cable plant refers to the entire infrastructure of cable throughout a community, including all equipment, nodes, and any other cable construction connected to the cable and built out from cable head end to the farthest lines of cable. A significant part of the cable plant is the miles of lines of cable running in the public right-of-way. Q16. What is the meaning of serviceable cable plant? A16. The Public Service Board and CPGs have never used the term serviceable cable plant. The term serviceable was introduced by some cable operators in recent years with the advent of hybrid fiber coaxial (HFC) cable plant because an ROS requires the capability to send a return signal back to the cable head end, which usually requires a fiber node on the HFC system. From there the most common technical infrastructure approach to sending that return signal to the cable head end has been some form of dedicated fiber cable from the ROS to the cable company head end. Cable operators have used the term serviceable as an indication of where the nearest node and dedicated run back to the cable head end is in the cable plant. This is a modification of what was historically the definition of a standard installation site located within 500 feet of the cable plant. Now there is discussion of whether a site is within 500 feet of a fiber node capable of servicing a return signal, and a dedicated path back to the head end. The advent of the HFC cable infrastructure has meant a change in bandwidth and signal management by cable operators.

10 Page 10 of 20 Coaxial cable had dedicated bandwidth throughout the plant where the ROS return signal could be isolated in sub-band frequencies, but HFC plant has obviously changed that. Especially as relates to Condition 22 ROS locations, the question of serviceable cable locations is really an analysis of cable operator planning during construction and upgrading of the cable plant. By definition, Condition 22 ROS locations are seldom relocated. These locations include schools, libraries, and municipal buildings. So, while it's understandable that a cable operator would not want to automatically build the node and dedicated fiber return path in advance for all Condition 22 sites, the fact that any of these locations are now far from a fiber node and dedicated return, and therefore not "serviceable," disregards the fact that Condition 22 sites are an explicit obligation of the cable operator's CPG. Even if a Condition 22 site was not active as an ROS at the time of construction or upgrade of the cable plant, these locations are clearly identified in the CPG as, essentially, pre-qualified sites for ROS and part of the cable operator's responsibility for ROS activation. Q17. Who determines the serviceability of a cable plant? A17. Cable operators design and build their cable plant. The construction of the entire cable plant, including placement of fiber nodes and all cabling, and planning for predictable regulatory obligations, is the business of the cable operator. Q18. What is the process for activating an ROS that does not have aerial construction or is located beyond 500 feet of a cable plant? A18. Often the cable operator will consider such a request, research and design the installation, and quote a cost for building the specific installation. Then the discussion might take place between the cable operator and the AMO or other community location regarding who would pay for the cable company installation. At other times the site would simply not be considered because it was described as a "non-standard" installation.

11 Page 11 of 20 Q19. What if a pre-qualified site is located outside of a serviceable cable plant? A19. As discussed in Answer 17, if there is no fiber node or return within 500 feet of a Condition 22 site that is a result of construction planning and may be unfortunate for all parties. However, the obligation to provide ROS activation at identified locations in Condition 22 is the responsibility of the cable operator and has been a consistent obligation with unambiguous language since long before the HFC cable plant was introduced. Some cable operators have referred to this type of installation as a franchise-related cost, and described it as an added obligation with expenses which must be recouped from some other party, but Condition 22 ROS obligations are clearly stated and are part of cable operator CPGs. In short, by inserting the word "serviceable," operators are attempting to reduce or eliminate their Condition 22 ROS obligation. Q20. What is the reliability of the remote signal on the current system? A20. Here again there are a variety of scenarios. Historically remote origination sites used radio frequency (RF) modulators to generate a return signal from the remote location back to the cable head end and that signal was modulated onto the PEG channel. In recent years many locations, especially AMO studios and cablecast facilities, have been upgraded to fiber transmitters, eliminating the degradation of signals through modulating, demodulating, and possibly repeating that process to change RF signal (for transmission over coaxial cable) to digital signal (for transmission over fiber optic cable) and including demodulation/modulation in the cable head end as well. RF modulators were the norm for decades, but HFC cable systems utilize the fiber backbone to transmit these return signals and a variety of broadband signals on an active network serving video, voice, and Internet traffic. RF modulator technology can work, but as a return feed to the head end is a legacy signal transmission strategy providing significant challenges for maintenance, reliability, compatibility, and signal quality on a modern cable system. Q21. How much time does it typically take to test an ROS signal prior to live broadcasts? A21. AMOs have reported a wide range of time and effort demands to test ROS locations. Usually the more recent fiber transmitter ROS installations are most reliable and provide the best signal quality. These can be tested and confirmed ready for future ROS use with a quick test and

12 Page 12 of 20 many of these sites are used regularly with just early arrival by AMO staff in advance of the live programs. At the other extreme, ROS locations that are not used regularly and utilize RF modulators and coaxial cable runs to reach distant fiber backbone can require several advanced visits and sometimes construction by cable company personnel to reactivate outdated RF infrastructure. This can demand inordinate expenditures of time by both AMO and cable company staff with marginal quality results. Q22. What is the process for improving signal quality? A22. ROS locations need to be upgraded for transmission quality and fiber transmitters are proving the most reliable, best quality technology for ROS. Cable company technicians are best qualified to analyze and recommend upgrades to improve signal quality, but RF modulators are clearly an increasingly archaic technology. Signal quality is also greatly affected by the cable infrastructure at the site and improving signal quality may require cable plant construction at the ROS. Assessment, upgrades, construction, testing, and activation require planning, scheduling, and time by cable company personnel. It also requires communication and cooperation among cable company, AMO personnel, and sometimes the remote origination site staff. Also there may be new technologies and strategies that would accomplish the task of sending ROS return signal more dependably, less expensively, and with better signal quality. Q23. What type of infrastructure and/or equipment is typically used to transmit video signals at an ROS? A23. This varies by cable operator, local system, AMO, and particular ROS. RF modulators have been used for decades, but fiber transmitters are now employed and work well, often with better quality results. Historically there is a modulator or transmitter installed within the ROS. The video production equipment feeds video and audio signal into the modulator or transmitter. Then that device sends the video and audio as a reverse or return signal from the ROS to the cable head end where it is transmitted live onto the PEG channel. Other strategies may now be effective to transmit live signals from ROS locations. IP technology using the capacity of the cable operator s broadband network may be a viable alternative for transmitting cablecast quality video and audio signals from ROS locations, especially if those signals travel only within the

13 Page 13 of 20 local cable operator s network. Cable companies have developed great expertise in new approaches to moving signals of all kinds throughout vast networks and local networks. It is quite possible that there are entirely new strategies that could effectively and perhaps even more economically provide excellent results for transmission of very high quality live programming from ROS locations. Unfortunately, Charter's existing CPG condition is written for a previous generation of now outdated technology and, if for no other reason, needs to be updated to accommodate current technology. Q24. How is ROS transmission equipment acquired? A24. This appears to vary as well. The cable operator often provides specifications for what type or specific models of device will best interface with the cable system for this purpose. Often the AMO or other community location provides the transmission equipment, whether it s an RF modulator or a fiber transmitter. There have been instances where the cable operator provided the device for sending the signal from the ROS. This question is really one of defining the line or point of demarcation. In the cable industry, and historically between the local cable operator and the AMO in Vermont, the line of demarcation establishes a clear point at which the signal is handed off from one entity to the other and that line determines who pays for the device. Part of the reason there is no consistent approach to defining the line or point of demarcation is because that is often a detail negotiated between the operator and the AMO either during a contract negotiation or during a request for an ROS installation. One of the recommendations I make in this prefiled testimony is that the line of demarcation be defined as the point where signal is handed off into the transmission device and onto the cable system. Q25. Who owns the RF transmission equipment? A25. This often depends on the agreement between an AMO and cable operator and is defined by the line of demarcation. All video equipment, signal generation, other equipment, and cabling up to the line of demarcation is the responsibility of the AMO. The line of demarcation is usually

14 Page 14 of 20 on one side or the other of the modulator or transmitter. From that line out and on to the cable system is the responsibility of the cable operator and the cable company is responsible for all equipment, cables, and any other transmission and quality details until the signal is on the air for the PEG channel. Clarity concerning the line of demarcation is essential for planning, purchasing, maintenance, staffing and training. At an ROS the line of demarcation is usually either at the point where a signal is fed into the transmission device, or the line is at the point where a signal is feeding out of the transmission device. That line usually determines who purchases and owns the device. Q26. Whose responsibility is it to maintain and repair the transmitters? A26. This, again, depends on the line of demarcation and the owner maintains and repairs the transmitter. Q27. How difficult is the current technology used for transmission for community volunteers to utilize? A27. Again because of differences in agreements, cable company protocol and support, and AMO staffing levels, this varies greatly. If the equipment is installed in-place at an ROS and is regularly maintained by AMO or cable company personnel, it can be simple. Anyone can feed it video and audio and turn it on to put live programs on the air. Most AMOs offer support or training and some AMOs provide all staffing and handling of ROS transmission equipment. Trouble-shooting or interaction with cable company technicians is usually beyond the ability of volunteers, and even more so when the equipment is older or the equipment and infrastructure is unreliable. Q28. Is the current coaxial cable technology used for transmission adequate for meeting the community s live programming needs? A28. I think the aggregate of my answers number 20, 21, 22, and 23 make it clear that the technology we ve been using for many years is becoming increasingly incompatible with HFC cable systems built on fiber backbone and for two-way broadband content traffic. This is not

15 Page 15 of 20 necessarily because coaxial cable is inadequate, but because so much of the network s high quality telecommunications traffic is based on fiber optic cable capacity and also IP platforms. Q29. How does the co-axial cable technology used for ROS transmission compare to other current video transmission technologies? A29. The biggest shortcoming of coaxial cable and RF modulators is that the quality of the signal is diminished by the need to make the signal compatible with fiber transmission and high video quality cablecast facilities. Also the coaxial cable for return feed may, understandably, not be a priority for cable operator maintenance in the evolving HFC cable system. Q30. What other technologies are currently available for live transmission outside of the PEG Access cable system? A30. Everywhere, including within PEG access systems, people are experimenting with conventional streaming technology and a variety of even higher quality fiber and IP methods for transmission. A number of IP based technologies now provide signal quality that is viable as possible alternatives for remote origination. There has been considerable experimentation with specific technologies like QVidium, to name just one, in both the cablecast and broadcast industries. Advances in the capacity of the Internet and telecommunications networks has spawned much of this new development, and transmission speed within sophisticated networks like those owned by cable operators also supports very high quality options. Many commercial networks, including Charter s, provide business level high speed Internet service adequate to serve significant corporate customers with demanding bandwidth needs. Some of these IP technologies and approaches for remote origination, applied on robust cable networks, can certainly serve local television, streaming, and interactive activities, and may also make it possible for remote origination to be more mobile, to not require fixed installation of transmission equipment at sites, and to not be restricted to specific ROS locations in a community. It is clear that one of the important goals to achieve in this Docket is to incorporate CPG language which will permit mobility of remote origination sites in a manner not anticipated eleven (11) years ago.

16 Page 16 of 20 Q31. What type of Internet speeds are necessary for transmission of IP based broadcasts? A31. Demands, speeds, and video formats make a range of speeds workable. Quality of signal is based on speed and routing, so the highest level commercial or business broadband service is probably what would be required for HD transmissions. Even high quality SD performs best with Internet speeds far beyond most residential services. The truth is, video is a large data volume and the faster the speeds the better, but upload speed is the key for sending video signals. With asymmetrical high speed Internet service the upload is significantly slower than the download speed. Many next generation broadband networks now offer symmetrical service to allow upload speeds that are as fast as download speeds. Moving video from a remote origination location requires adequate upload for the video data. Q32. What Internet speeds are currently available to AMOs? A32. This has literally been a moving target as broadband services have changed so rapidly in recent years. In statewide program-sharing discussions with Comcast there was an agreement that Comcast would provide "second level" business service to AMOs at their studio and cablecast locations. At the time, in 2007, that service from Comcast was called Workplace Standard and provided 6 Mbps downstream and 768 Kbps upstream speeds. Charter may have offered a similar or faster package to AMOs, but all business and commercial service packages have changed a great deal since then, and those 2007 speeds, especially upstream, are not adequate for video work on the Internet. Today, Charter offers a lowest level business service at 60Mbps download speed and 4Mbps upload speed. Comcast offers a lowest level business service at 16Mbps down and 3Mbps up. Comcast's second level is 50/10. Q33. Are these Internet speeds adequate for video production and transmission? A33. Obviously needs depend on quality expectations, HD versus SD, settings, cablecast or online applications. But since all AMOs and ROS locations are on the cable system, cable companies are offering high speed business services, and AMOs are managing a large data workplace with video, it would be ideal if cable operators provided the highest possible level of

17 Page 17 of 20 Internet service to AMOs and for ROS if an IP/broadband strategy is adopted. For Charter that would be 7Mbps upload speed. For Comcast it is 20Mbps upload speed. Q34. What is your recommendation for improving live broadcasting capabilities for AMOs? A34. As we enter the next phase of television and telecommunications, which will involve many new technologies and approaches to creation, distribution, and consumption, we must establish new protocols and it would be best if there was clarity and consistency across all cable companies and AMOs in Vermont. Ideally this would include cable operators and AMOs communicating well and regularly, because cable personnel provide great expertise in technology and AMOs have deep roots in the community. The most workable strategy would be for AMOs and cable operators to work together to establish quality standards for live remote origination capacity, but it is undesirable for this to be established on an AMO by AMO basis. It would be better for all residents and cable subscribers if there were standards and protocols among all cable operators and AMOs. Q35. What changes to the existing CPG language do you propose for existing CPG Condition 21? A35. Concerning ROS and number of signals, which is addressed in the current Charter Communications CPG under Condition 21, I recommend the current language remain mostly the same, but because of the vast changes and current and future realities of cable-system spectrum and management of it, I recommend that the final sentence be removed. That sentence to be removed reads as follows: The ability to originate additional simultaneous, live PEG programs from remote, nonstudio locations (beyond four simultaneous remote originations) may be denied or withdrawn by Charter if the cable-system spectrum used to provide the reverse channels supporting the additional originations is required by Charter to provide other services over its system.

18 Page 18 of 20 The details of ROS locations is currently addressed in Condition 22 and requires new language to address technological changes and opportunities for community locations to generate live PEG programming. Q36. You have mentioned the terms "remote origination capacity" and "pre-qualified site" rather than simply referring to the currently used term "Remote Origination Site." Can you explain why you use these terms? A36. The need for locations where AMOs can originate live programs is well established and it is essential that the remote origination capacity at those sites provides the necessary technical quality of video and audio signal to make those live programs watchable and comparable to other television channels. The proper capacity at any remote origination site requires technical installation and maintenance to provide live video and audio signal quality consistent with broadcast television channels on Charter s cable system. Providing this capacity is more important than a simple designation that a site is an ROS and is activated. Obviously that remote origination capacity, with its high technical quality, must be available within the ever evolving cable infrastructure that offers advanced video services and quality. That high quality remote origination capacity and the technical demands of installing and maintaining it is what makes a site capable of fulfilling the community need of generating live programs. There has also long been an understanding of predictable sites for live programming in each community, as have been identified in cable operator CPGs. None of these sites schools, libraries, a municipal building present a new need or idea in need of review. They are the cornerstone institutions in the community. Therefore, despite evolving cable infrastructure or new costs of technology, these sites have already been discussed en masse and are, in fact, prequalified as understandable and predictable community locations for events and civic participation. The only real deliberation is how to provide adequate technical quality for the expected live programming.

19 Page 19 of 20 Q37. What is your recommendation for new Condition 22 CPG language? A37. Concerning ROS, which is addressed in the current Charter Communications CPG under Condition 22, I recommend the following language: Upon request of the AMO, Charter shall provide, at its sole expense, Remote Origination Capacity to Pre-Qualified Remote Origination Sites (ROS), defined as every school (public K-12, private K-12, or higher education campus), library, at least one municipal building in each municipality it serves, and a reasonable number of other key community locations identified by the AMO, provided these locations are not more than 500 feet from the Charter cable plant. Remote Origination Capacity shall enable the AMO to provide live video and audio signal quality consistent with broadcast television channels on Charter s cable system. This capacity at locations within 500 feet of the Charter fiber plant shall be fiber drops and considered Standard Installation. Charter shall bear the installation and maintenance costs of Standard Installation at Pre-Qualified Sites. Charter may employ various alternative technologies to provide Remote Origination Capacity to Pre-Qualified Sites in excess of 500 feet of the fiber plant. The line of demarcation from AMO responsibility to cable operator responsibility shall be at the point of providing the video and audio signal into a transmission device. The transmission device, the return signal path to the cable head end and beyond shall be the responsibility of the cable operator. To support Remote Origination Capacity, Charter shall install and provide basic cable TV and the highest level business high speed internet service at each remote origination location without charge Charter is required to maintain existing ROS locations. Charter shall be responsible for the cost of relocation and upgrades of existing Pre-Qualified ROS as such sites become outdated or require upgrade so as to generate live programming the quality of which is consistent with current technology. Charter shall also provide, at its sole expense, 24-hour channel origination capacity with video and audio signal quality consistent with broadcast television channels on Charter s cable system, to PEG-access studios. Charter shall provide each AMO s PEG access studio location with high speed internet service at the highest level business service that Charter provides to retail business customers, without charge to the AMO The AMO may request Remote Origination Capacity at locations other than Pre- Qualified Sites through the process outlined in Rule and 8.416(c).

20 Q38. Does this conclude your testimony? Page 20 of 20 A38. Yes. Thank you for the opportunity to testify on behalf of public, educational and government access in Vermont.