SUMMARY OF REBUTTAL PREFILED TESTIMONY OF DANIEL M. GLANVILLE

Transcription

1 In Re: Renewal of the Certificate of Public ) Good of Comcast of Connecticut/Georgia/ ) Massachusetts/New Hampshire/New York/ ) North Carolina/Virginia/Vermont, LLC, d/b/a ) Comcast, expiring on December 29, 2016, to ) provide cable television service ) SUMMARY OF REBUTTAL PREFILED TESTIMONY OF DANIEL M. GLANVILLE Mr. Glanville s testimony responds to the prefiled testimony of witnesses sponsored by the Vermont Department of Public Service (the Department or DPS ) and the Vermont Access Network ( VAN ). Mr. Glanville sponsors the following exhibits: Exhibit DMG 11 Revised Proposed Renewed Certificate of Public Good Exhibit DMG Community Ascertainment Survey State of Vermont ( RKM Survey ) Exhibit DMG 13 Comcast Letter to Board and Department dated April 29, 2010 Exhibit DMG 14 Letters dated January 8, 2007, October 26, 2007 and October 29, 2007 Exhibit DMG 15 VAN s Statewide Interconnect Proposal to Comcast, dated December 5, 2006 Exhibit DMG 16 Sample Comcast Outreach Mailing with Frequently Asked Questions and PEG AMO Contact Information

2 1 of 53 REBUTTAL PREFILED TESTIMONY OF DANIEL M. GLANVILLE 1 Ql. What is your name? 2 Al. My name is Daniel M. Glanville. 3 4 Q2. What is your position, and by whom are you employed? 5 A2. My position is Vice President of Government and Regulatory Affairs for Comcast s 6 Western New England Region. 7 8 Q3. Did you previously submit prefiled testimony in this docket? 9 A3. Yes. I submitted prefiled testimony on September 23, Q4. What is the purpose of your rebuttal testimony? 12 A4. My testimony responds to the prefiled testimony of witnesses sponsored by the Vermont 13 Department of Public Service (the Department or DPS ) and the Vermont Access 14 Network ( VAN )

3 2 of 53 1 Q5. How do you intend to organize your testimony? 2 A5. I intend to respond to the Non Petitioners testimony separately, and indicate the 3 witnesses to whom I respond. 4 5 I. Response to the Department s Testimony 6 Regarding the Testimony of Christine Peterson 7 Q6. On page 5, line 27 through page 6, line 22, the Department s witness, Ms. Peterson, 8 proposes a Certificate of Public Good ( CPG ) condition addressing time limits for 9 Comcast s responses to requests by the Consumer Affairs & Public Information 10 ( CAPI ) division of the Department for follow up information on consumer complaints, 11 the status of a line extension and construction progress. Does Comcast agree that this 12 proposed condition should be added to Comcast s renewed CPG? 13 A6. Yes. Comcast has revised Condition 28 in its revised proposed CPG to reflect the 14 language proposed by Ms. Peterson. See Exhibit DMG Q7. Ms. Peterson attached to her testimony Exhibit DPS CP 1: Community Needs 17 Assessment Report (the CNA Report ). Have you reviewed the CNA Report? If so, 18 please address your observations on the CNA Report. 19 A7. Yes. I have reviewed the CNA Report and the 2015 Comcast CPG Renewal Survey 20 Results ( DPS Survey ) which was attached to the CNA Report. There are several 21 findings of note in the DPS Survey, which was the scientific study conducted by the 22 Center for Rural Studies at the University of Vermont on behalf of the DPS, which I will

4 3 of 53 1 discuss in more detail. The results of the DPS Survey are in keeping with the Community Ascertainment Survey State of Vermont ( RKM Survey ), which is a 3 scientific survey conducted by RKM Research and Communications, Inc. on behalf of 4 Comcast. The RKM Survey interviewed 600 Comcast customers in Vermont during 5 November The RKM survey is provided with my rebuttal testimony as Exhibit 6 DMG I will now discuss findings of note in both the DPS Survey and RKM Survey, and, where 9 possible, compare the findings. As an initial matter, the RKM Survey indicates that, 10 overall, 91% of Comcast customers surveyed in Vermont are somewhat, moderately, 11 very, or completely satisfied with Comcast Cable related community needs: 82% of the respondents in the RKM Survey were 14 unable to identify any specific, cable related community needs that are not currently 15 being met. 45% of the respondents thought cable related needs and interests should be 16 paid by all tax payers while 36% thought only cable customers should pay. A similar 17 question was not asked in the DPS Survey Importance of PEG programming as part of cable subscription: Referring to DPS Survey 20 Table 14, 82.4% of the respondents indicated the ability to watch PEG channels does not 21 matter, was not important or was not at all important in continuing their cable 22 subscription with Comcast. In the RKM Survey, while a majority of Comcast customers

5 4 of 53 1 (61%) are aware of PEG Access programming, 73% of the respondents indicated their 2 satisfaction with their Comcast Xfinity TV service would remain the same if PEG Access 3 programming were no longer available. 4 5 Funding for PEG Access: Referring to DPS Survey Table 20, 37.5% of the respondents 6 indicated they would either prefer to not pay a fee or opposed paying a fee for public 7 access. In the RKM Survey, 44% of respondents indicated they either moderately or 8 strongly opposed paying a fee for funding equipment and operating expenses for PEG 9 access production facilities High Definition ( HD ) PEG programming: Referring to DPS Survey Table 21, 52.3% 12 of the respondents indicated they would not like the option to watch PEG programming 13 in HD. In the RKM Survey, 70% of the respondents indicated it was not important to 14 have the ability to watch PEG access programming in HD. Only 6% thought it was very 15 important to watch PEG programming in HD Funding for HD PEG programming: Referring to DPS Survey Table 22, 63.1% of the 18 respondents indicated they would either prefer to not pay a fee or opposed paying a fee 19 for the ability to watch PEG programming in HD. A similar question was not asked in 20 the RKM Survey. 21

6 5 of 53 1 On Demand PEG programming: 65% of the respondents in the RKM Survey indicated it 2 was not important to be able to watch PEG programming On Demand. Only 6% thought 3 it was very important to watch PEG programming on Demand. A similar question was 4 not asked in the DPS Survey. 5 6 PEG program listings on the Interactive Program Guide ( IPG ): Referring to DPS 7 Survey Table 24, 72% of the respondents indicated they would either prefer to not pay a 8 fee or opposed paying a fee for the ability to have PEG program listings on the IPG. A 9 similar question was not asked in the RKM Survey. If implemented, such a fee would 10 result in an additional monthly cost to Comcast cable subscribers for the duration of the 11 CPG. Initial estimates suggest that Comcast would be required to expend greater than $3 12 Million to achieve this functionality. Comcast would need to reconfigure its entire 13 distribution mechanism in order to provide individual/unique guide data for each of the AMOs and the respective communities they serve Funding for PEG access live remote origination programming: 66% of the respondents 17 in the RKM Survey were opposed to paying a fee for the construction of additional live 18 remote origination locations. A similar question was not asked in the DPS Survey Based on the results of these scientific, statistically valid surveys, several conclusions can 21 be made. First, I want to note that the RKM survey results indicate that that 61% of 22 respondents are aware of PEG Access programming in Vermont. However, the

7 6 of 53 1 availability of PEG programming, in and of itself, is not a key factor in customer 2 satisfaction with their cable television subscription, as 73% of customers indicated that 3 their satisfaction with Comcast would stay the same if PEG Access programming were 4 no longer on the air. Additionally, there is a significant number of customers who are 5 either opposed to paying or would prefer to not pay a fee for PEG access funding. 6 7 Next, contrary to the prefiled testimony offered by VAN s witnesses regarding the 8 importance of HD PEG programming and On Demand PEG programming (Mobley pf. at 9 18:11 19:15; Campitelli pf. at 26:20 23 and 29:5 9; and Chapman pf. at 51:4 9), there is 10 limited support for either HD PEG programming or On Demand PEG programming. In 11 fact, HD PEG and On Demand PEG programming were not important to 70% and 65% 12 of respective respondents. While, in general, customers are not opposed to enhanced 13 services, such as HD PEG programming or PEG program listings on the IPG, customers 14 are not willing to pay more for these enhanced services. Finally, customers are not 15 willing to pay a fee for the construction of more remote origination sites. I believe 16 Comcast s proposal with respect to the provision of PEG access takes into account the 17 anticipated future cable related community needs and interests while taking into account 18 the costs of meeting such needs and interests and their impact on subscriber rates Other RKM Survey Findings 21 In addition to questions regarding PEG access, the RKM Survey contained questions 22 regarding Comcast s quality of service, programming, and customer service.

8 7 of 53

9 8 of 53 1 Quality of Service 2 As a general matter, 91% of Vermont Comcast customers surveyed expressed that they 3 are completely, very, moderately, or somewhat satisfied with Comcast. Comcast also 4 received high marks for the quality of picture service, with 90% of customers rating it as 5 either excellent, very good, or good, and also for reliability of service, with 84% of 6 customers rating it as either excellent, very good, or good. 7 8 Programming 9 77% of the customers surveyed rated the number of channels received in their channel 10 line up as excellent, very good, or good. 76% of the customers surveyed thought the 11 variety of programming was either excellent, very good, or good. Over 80% of the 12 customers who use either On Demand services or DVR services rated the quality of these 13 services as either excellent, very good, or good Customer Service 16 Of the customers who had experienced a cable television outage in the past twelve 17 months, 68% indicated Comcast did an excellent, very good, or good job of restoring 18 service following an outage. Of the customers who contacted a customer service 19 representative by telephone, 78% rated the quality of service provided by Comcast 20 representatives as either good, very good or excellent and 86% of customers that visited a 21 local Comcast service center within the past twelve months rated the quality of service 22 provided by Comcast representatives as good, very good or excellent. Comcast s field

10 9 of 53 1 service representatives also received high marks for the quality of service provided, with 2 88% of customers rating the service they received as excellent, very good, or good. 3 4 Regarding the Testimony of Corey Chase 5 Q8. On page 2, line 5, through page 7, line 10, the Department s witness, Mr. Chase, 6 discusses line extension requirements, finding Comcast in compliance with applicable 7 law and making recommendations on the building and reporting of line extensions. 8 Please respond to these recommendations. 9 A8. In the Docket 7077 CPG issued to Comcast, Comcast agreed to complete Adelphia s line 10 extension obligations, which were the result of a Stipulation and Agreement, dated 11 November 20, 2003, between Adelphia and the Department of Public Service. At the 12 time that the Stipulation and Agreement was executed, approximately 1,262 miles of line 13 extensions, identified through House Count Surveys, had not been constructed by 14 Comcast s predecessor in CPG, Adelphia. When Adelphia s Vermont systems were 15 transferred to Comcast on August 1, 2006, approximately 568 miles of stipulated line 16 extensions had been built. Between August 1, 2006 and December 31, 2008, Comcast 17 built approximately 694 miles of stipulated line extensions in satisfaction of its CPG 18 requirement. In 2009, Comcast built 304 miles of additional line extensions, also in 19 satisfaction of its CPG requirement. However, Comcast did not stop at full compliance 20 with its CPG. Since 2009, Comcast has engaged in construction for both residential and 21 business customers that exceed any regulatory requirement. 22

11 10 of 53 1 Comcast has built approximately 416 miles of line extensions in response to customer 2 requests, without regulatory requirement, and continues to respond to customer requests 3 through its Construction department. Line extensions based on customer requests are 4 built in accordance with Comcast s Line Extension Tariff, which utilizes the formula 5 specified in VPSB Rule 8.313(B). The formula in Comcast s Line Extension Tariff uses 6 a density of 16 verified subscribers per mile, as allowed by VPSB Rule 8.313(B)(2). 7 8 Finally, Comcast also built 16 miles of line extensions as part of a grant agreement with 9 the Vermont Telecommunications Authority. Comcast has committed to building 10 approximately 4 additional miles of line extensions in 2016 as part of a grant agreement 11 with the Department Comcast disagrees with Mr. Chase s suggestion that because of Comcast s net revenue, 14 it would not appear that the company is offering availability of service to the maximum 15 number of residences under the Board s rules (including Rule 8.214). Comcast s 16 commitment to line extensions is robust and there is no need for the Board to investigate 17 the H factor in the Comcast tariff, which is set in accordance with VPSB Rule 8.313, 18 either in the CPG renewal docket or in a separate proceeding (as generally suggested by 19 Mr. Chase in his testimony at page 7). Comcast believes the line extensions it has 20 completed in recent years are some of the lowest density line extensions that exist not 21 only in Vermont but also in the industry. 22

12 11 of 53 1 Q9. Please discuss the Department s proposed condition to file tariffs and all individual 2 customer agreements. 3 A9. Mr. Chase proposed the following condition in his Prefiled Testimony, dated January 26, : Comcast shall file tariffs and all individual customer agreements for its cable 5 services with the Board to the extent required by Vermont law. Chase pf. at 16: VPSB Rule 8.311(C) relieves cable companies from the obligation under 30 V.S.A , 226, and 227(a) to file tariffs setting forth the rates and terms of conditions of 9 service except as specifically required under the Rule. The Rule does require cable 10 operators to file a Line Extension Tariff. Comcast s current Line Extension Tariff (VPSB 11 Tariff No. 1) is on file with the VPSB Condition 25 of the Proposed Renewed Certificate of Public Good, filed as Exhibit 14 DMG 3 to the Initial Prefiled Testimony of Daniel M. Glanville, states: With regard to requests for line extensions to provide cable service, Comcast shall abide 17 by Board Rule 8.000, including Rule 8.313, and shall file a statement of the Company s 18 policy on expansions of service into unserved areas as a tariff for the Board s approval The condition proposed by Mr. Chase appears to be outdated and duplicative and 21 Comcast opposes the proposed condition, which is neither consistent with PSB rules nor

13 12 of 53 1 conditions imposed on other cable system operators in recent orders or on non regulated 2 competitors. 3 4 Q10. Please discuss the Department s proposed condition to prohibit itemizing Vermont s 5 gross revenue tax on subscriber bills unless allowed under Vermont law. 6 A10. Comcast currently does not itemize the Vermont gross revenue tax, imposed on Comcast 7 pursuant to 30 V.S.A. 22, on customer bills. Comcast also understands the Board has, 8 in the past, specifically prohibited itemizing the Vermont gross revenue tax on customer 9 bills. While Comcast believes the condition proposed by Mr. Chase is unnecessary, 10 Comcast would accept a CPG which contains the following condition: Comcast will not itemize on subscriber bills the Vermont gross revenue tax, imposed on 13 Comcast pursuant to 30 V.S.A. 22, unless Vermont law allows such itemization Q11. Please discuss the Department s proposed condition on line extension reporting. 16 A11. As required by Condition 43 of the Docket 7077 CPG, Comcast provided quarterly 17 reports to the Board and the Department regarding its progress in completing both 18 stipulated line extensions and additional line extensions. As the reporting format utilized 19 by Adelphia was developed in consultation with the Department, Comcast continued to 20 use this same format in its quarterly reports. Comcast filed its final Condition 43 report 21 on January 9,

14 13 of 53 1 Prior to amendment of Rule on February 12, 2010, Comcast filed quarterly reports 2 regarding completion of line extensions identified through house count surveys, as 3 required by Condition 36 of the Docket 7077 CPG. Comcast also conducted annual 4 house count surveys to identify areas that might potentially qualify for construction of 5 line extensions without customer contribution in accordance with its annual calculation of 6 the Qualifying Density ( H ). When Rule was amended on February 12, 2010, it 7 relieved all cable operators of the requirement to perform house count surveys. 8 9 In its quarterly line extension report filed on April 29, 2010, Comcast informed both the 10 Board and the Department that, because there was no longer a requirement to conduct 11 annual house count surveys, there were no longer any line extensions identified through 12 house count surveys and thus Comcast would no longer file quarterly line extension 13 reports regarding completion of line extensions identified through house count surveys. 14 Comcast invited comment from both the Board and the Department if either had a 15 different interpretation of Comcast s obligations (which letter is provided as Exhibit 16 DMG 13). Notwithstanding the rule change, it is important to note that Comcast has 17 built approximately 416 line extension miles without regulatory requirement. These line 18 extension miles are publicly reported in the section entitled Significant Events of 19 Comcast s cable operator annual report filed every year by April Comcast is willing to provide annual updates on line extensions built to comply with 22 specific requirements and is willing to consult with the Department regarding the format

15 14 of 53 1 of the reports. However, Comcast does not agree with the condition proposed by Mr. 2 Chase, because it is outdated as it references line extensions identified through house 3 count surveys (and is thus inconsistent with the Board s rules as revised). See Chase pf. 4 at 16:29 17: Q12. Please discuss the Department s proposed condition to provide courtesy Internet service 7 to each AMO, school, public library, and municipality with the Comcast service area. 8 A12. Comcast respectfully submits that CPG Conditions regarding the provision of Internet 9 service, including courtesy Internet service, are outside the scope of a cable television 10 franchise as Internet service is an unregulated service and should not be included by the 11 Board as a requirement of a renewal CPG for cable service. However, Comcast 12 understands there is a long standing history of including CPG Conditions requiring cable 13 television operators to provide courtesy Internet service In Condition 24 of the Revised Proposed Renewed Certificate of Public Good, Comcast 16 voluntarily agrees to, at no charge, provide or arrange to provide Internet access (and a 17 cable modem if required for Internet access) to each AMO base production facility within 18 its service territory Currently, Comcast also provides courtesy Internet service to K 12 schools and public 21 libraries as part of its commitment to community investment. 22

16 15 of 53 1 Internet, Wi Fi, and wireless services are not cable services and are not lawful conditions 2 of a cable franchise renewal under the Cable Act. The FCC s January Order 3 confirms that: it is unreasonable under Section 621(a)(1) for an LFA to refuse to grant a 4 franchise based on issues related to non cable services or facilities because an LFA s 5 jurisdiction applies only to the provision of cable services over cable system pursuant to 6 Section Nevertheless, as the Department and the State are aware, Comcast already provides 9 significant complimentary broadband services to many public libraries, K 12 schools and 10 other public locations in Vermont. Comcast is willing, as a matter of business updates, to 11 share with the Department general matters about our broadband services and plans for the 12 future, as they become available. However, Comcast will not agree to additional 13 obligations related to these topics being included in a cable franchise or renewal CPG 14 (other than those proposed by Comcast) II. Response to VAN s Testimony 17 Q13. After reviewing the testimony of VAN s witnesses, do you have any comments about 18 Comcast and its commitment to PEG access? 19 A13. Yes. Comcast has a long history of supporting the provision of PEG access programming 20 in Vermont. Comcast has contractual relationships with 22 AMOs across the state. Since 21 entering the state as a cable service provider, Comcast has complied with the terms and 22 conditions of its contractual relationships. This is supported by the fact that no

17 16 of 53 1 compliance issue to our knowledge has been referred to the Department or the Board 2 since Comcast began offering cable services in Vermont in Additionally, Comcast 3 has renewed contracts with each of its 22 designated AMOs since it began offering cable 4 services in the state in All of these renewal contracts were achieved through 5 professional negotiations between the parties without the resources or involvement of the 6 Department, the Board or the added expense of contracted legal services. 7 8 Comcast notes the prefiled testimony of Ms. Davitian that states that AMOs have 9 generated $7.1 million in operating and capital revenue. Comcast explains that the 10 generated funds are almost entirely provided by Comcast. This is demonstrated in 11 Comcast s annual reports filed with the DPS and Board which outline AMO funding and 12 will be discussed later in my testimony Regarding the Testimony of Lauren Glenn Davitian 15 Q14. Have you reviewed VAN s proposed CPG conditions in Exhibit LGD 9? If so, please 16 discuss these proposed conditions. 17 A14. We note that VAN seeks to include various outdated and unnecessary conditions 18 currently found in the Docket 7077 CPG which are either not found in recent CPGs 19 issued to other cable television operators or were intended to address Adelphia s 20 noncompliance issues. 21

18 17 of 53 1 Q15. Regulatory Affairs Manager; Exh. LGD 9, p. 1 : Exhibit LGD 9 to Ms. Davitian s 2 testimony proposes a CPG condition requiring Comcast to employ a Regulatory Affairs 3 Manager for the duration of the CPG. See also Ms. Byer s testimony at page 5, line 12, 4 to page 9, line 13, discussing VAN s perceived need for a Regulatory Affairs Manager 5 and this proposed CPG condition. Please address VAN s proposed condition and the 6 testimony in support of this condition. 7 A15. Comcast submits that it is in full compliance with the Regulatory Affairs Manager 8 condition from Docket In addition, Comcast submits that it has responded to 9 inquiries raised by an AMO or regulatory body in Vermont in a timely and satisfactory 10 manner. Comcast does not limit itself to this position. Comcast employs leaders across 11 the state serving the needs of our customers and responding to inquiries presented. In 12 addition, Comcast makes executives available for any matter requiring attention. 13 Comcast empowers front line employees to respond to the needs of customers, but also 14 has vice president level employees that have developed strong relationships with AMOs 15 as they have worked together on issues for the provision of meaningful PEG access In Condition 1 of the Revised Proposed Renewed Certificate of Public Good, Comcast is 18 proposing to designate a Regulatory Affairs staff person whose responsibilities will 19 include day to day oversight of Comcast s compliance with Vermont statutes, rules, 20 orders, and other regulations governing cable operators. This person will also be the 21 primary liaison to CAPI. We believe the responsibilities of the position are more

19 18 of 53 1 important than the title held by the person filling that position. Comcast opposes VAN s 2 proposed CPG Condition. (See Byer pf. at 9:9 13 and Exhibit LGD 9 p. 1). 3 4 Q16. Cable Advisory Board; Exh. LGD 9, p. 1 : Exhibit LGD 9 to Ms. Davitian s testimony 5 proposes CPG conditions requiring Comcast to fund a statewide advisory board and to 6 conduct community planning meetings. See also Ms. Byer s testimony at page 9, line 16, 7 through page 12, line 21, and page 12, line 24 through page 15, line 14, discussing these 8 proposed CPG conditions. Please address VAN s proposed conditions and the testimony 9 in support of these conditions. 10 A16. Condition 7 of the Docket 7077 CPG requires Comcast to fund a statewide cable advisory 11 board ( CAB ) which shall be self governing and independent of Comcast to provide 12 public input on community needs and to serve as a vehicle for two way communication 13 with the Company. Comcast is also required to at least annually request to meet with the 14 statewide advisory board. (Emphasis added) Comcast established the CAB, has provided space for meetings, and worked with the 17 CAB to establish guidelines for the CAB. Additionally, Comcast provides mileage 18 reimbursement to CAB members, if requested. Comcast also requests, at least annually, 19 to meet with the CAB. Comcast believes it has fulfilled its obligations. As the CAB is 20 supposed to be self governing and independent of Comcast, it is the CAB s responsibility 21 to schedule and conduct meetings. The CAB last met on November 9, 2009; and there 22 have been no further meetings since that time.

20 19 of In lieu of continuing the CAB, which has not proven to be a particularly effective means 3 for providing public input on community needs or for serving as a vehicle for two way 4 communication with the Company, we believe that continued status quo communications 5 with AMO Boards of Directors is a more effective means of communication. In order for 6 AMOs to effectively carry out their responsibilities, as outlined in VPSB Rule 8.420, 7 AMOs need to regularly interact with individuals and organizations in the communities 8 they serve. Thus, the AMOs are well situated to know about AMO related matters of 9 importance to their communities. Additionally, inviting city and town government 10 officials to attend AMO board meetings may help increase awareness of PEG access 11 programming and services provided by AMOs Comcast s proposed CPG Condition is similar to Condition 19 in the Docket 7820 CPG 14 issued to The Helicon Group, L.P., d/b/a Charter Communications ( Charter ), a docket 15 in which VAN was a party and supported the proposed CPG condition ordered by the 16 PSB. Comcast opposes VAN s Proposed CPG Conditions regarding the CAB and 17 planning meetings as unnecessary, not effective and duplicative. (See Byer pf. at 12: , 13:14 22, and 14:16 28; Exhibit LGD 9 p. 1) Q17. PEG Access Plan & PEG Access Report; Exh. LGD 9, p. 1 2, 6 : Exhibit LGD 9 to Ms. 21 Davitian s testimony proposes CPG conditions concerning a PEG Access Report and a 22 PEG Access Plan. See also Ms. Byer s testimony at page 16, line 7, through page 20,

21 20 of 53 1 line 18, discussing these proposed CPG conditions. Please address VAN s proposed 2 conditions and the testimony in support of these conditions. 3 A17. In the prefiled testimony offered by Lisa Byer, there seems to be some confusion 4 regarding PEG Access Plans and PEG Access Reports. 5 6 Access Management Organizations ( AMOs ) have an obligation under VPSB Rule (A)(9) to prepare an access plan which is designed to anticipate the future cable 8 related community needs and demand for PEG services. Although VPSB Rule 8.420(B) 9 allows cable operators to retain this responsibility, Comcast has, through PEG 10 Agreements with individual AMOs, elected to have this responsibility remain with its 11 designated AMOs. Thus, each Comcast designated AMO is ultimately responsible for 12 preparing an access plan for their individual organization although Comcast encourages 13 VAN s member AMOs to share best practices and templates for access plans with each 14 other. AMOs also have an obligation under VPSB Rule to file an AMO Annual 15 Access Report. The AMO Annual Access Report shall include planning considerations 16 and expectations for how community needs will be identified and met for the current and 17 future fiscal years. It is reasonable to think that the access plan prepared by the AMO in 18 compliance with VPSB Rule 8.420(A)(9) would be useful in providing the planning 19 considerations required as part of the AMO Annual Access Report Pursuant to VPSB Rule 8.419, cable operators are required to annually file a Cable 22 Operator PEG Access Report. There is no specific requirement to include an access plan

22 21 of 53 1 in the Cable Operator PEG Access Report. However, Condition 11(1) of the Docket CPG directs that, at the time of filing its Annual Report pursuant to 30 V.S.A. 22, 3 Comcast shall also file a copy of Comcast s PEG Access Report under PSB Rule (formerly referred to as a PEG Access Plan). Comcast s PEG Access Report is filed 5 annually with Comcast s Cable Operator Annual Report, most recently filed on April 15, It should be noted that the Board s rules have been revised since the Docket CPG, and are clearer in their description of plans, reports and notices, all of which are 8 reflected properly in Comcast s proposed CPG conditions Comcast had proposed a CPG Condition similar to the CPG condition in the Docket CPG issued to Charter, which was supported by VAN in that docket. However, in order 12 to simplify matters, Comcast now proposes the following condition as Condition 20 of 13 the Revised Proposed CPG: The Company shall keep a current PEG Access Report on file with the Board. As 16 allowed by Rule 8.420, Comcast may delegate to one or more AMOs the task of 17 preparing PEG access Plans This condition does not impose additional reporting obligations on AMOs and is 20 consistent with the PSB Rules. 21

23 22 of 53 1 Q18. PEG Channel Reassignment; Exhibit LGD 9, p. 3 : Exhibit LGD 9 to Ms. Davitian s 2 testimony proposes a CPG condition in the event that PEG channel reassignment is 3 necessary. See also Ms. Byer s testimony at page 20, line 21, through page 25, line 6, 4 discussing channel reassignment and the proposed CPG condition. Please address 5 VAN s proposed condition and the testimony in support of this condition. 6 A18. While Comcast understands VAN s concerns regarding changes in PEG channel 7 positions, VAN s concerns are unfounded. In their responses to Comcast s First Set of 8 Interrogatories and Requests to Produce ( VAN Responses ), Ms. Davitian, Mr. 9 Campitelli, Mr. Mobley, Mr. Chapman, and Ms. Byer were unable to identify any 10 instance where Comcast changed the channel positions of the PEG channels for their 11 AMOs within the past ten years. As it has done throughout the past ten years, Comcast 12 continues to make best efforts to maintain PEG channel positions. Any change in 13 channel position is not lightly done. During the past ten years, there has only been one 14 instance where there was a change in a PEG channel position. When Comcast rebuilt its 15 Newport system in 2010, it was necessary to change the PEG channel positions from and 15 to 15 and 17. Comcast worked with the affected AMO, NorthEast Kingdom 17 Television, negotiated a reasonable amount for costs related to the reassignment, and 18 provided customer notification Channel reassignment is addressed in the individual PEG agreements between Comcast 21 and its designated AMOs. Should it be necessary to reassign a PEG channel, we believe 22 that costs related to reassignment and promotional support are best negotiated between

24 23 of 53 1 Comcast and the individual AMO. The conditions VAN seeks to impose on Comcast 2 through its proposed CPG Condition (See Byer pf. at 23:22 25:6) are not justified, 3 excessive, and unprecedented in Vermont. Such conditions would unjustifiably increase 4 fees passed through to Comcast s Vermont customers who already will pay the maximum 5 fees allowed under federal law. Thus, Comcast opposes VAN s proposed CPG Condition 6 (See Exhibit LGD 9 p. 3) 7 8 Q19. Statewide Interconnectivity; Exhibit LGD 9, p : Exhibit LGD 9 to Ms. Davitian s 9 testimony proposes a CPG condition requiring Comcast to provide PEG Access statewide 10 connectivity. See also Mr. Chapman s testimony at page 35, line 3, through page 50, line 11 13, Mr. Crawford s testimony at page 27, line 17, through page 34, line 18, and Mr. 12 Campitelli s testimony at page 29, line 20, through page 30, line 28, discussing statewide 13 interconnectivity and the proposed CPG condition. Please address VAN s proposed 14 condition and the testimony in support of this condition. 15 A19. The prefiled testimony provided by multiple VAN witnesses discusses their perceived 16 need for a new, statewide Institutional Network ( I Net ) and a viewable, statewide 17 channel. This perceived need is misguided and ill placed. Comcast reminds VAN that it 18 contracts with 22 individual AMOs across Vermont. The purpose for these individual 19 AMOs is that they, through their own claims, are able to provide individualized and 20 unique PEG access programming to the communities they serve. Each of these AMOs is 21 served by a network to allow for the provision of live remote programming. VAN seems 22 to be arguing that they would like to also have the capability for one single AMO on a

25 24 of 53 1 statewide basis. As Comcast has stated in its discovery responses, it is willing at any 2 time to discuss consolidation opportunities with VAN members. Such consolidation may 3 be able to provide a combination of resources, reduction in customers costs, and a more 4 cost effective method of allocating the more than $7.2 million Comcast provided to the 5 AMOs in the 2015 calendar year. 6 7 Comcast has satisfied its obligations with respect to Condition 20 of the Docket CPG. Condition 20 states, in pertinent part: 9 10 Comcast must provide a statewide PEG access channel, and this commitment may 11 be met through the provision of interconnection bandwidth rather than as a 12 viewable channel. At a minimum, this Network shall enable digital file sharing 13 between AMOs and the ability for AMOs to distribute programs to Comcast 14 subscribers in its Vermont territories The obligation in Condition 20 was carried over from the Docket 6101 CPG issued to 17 Adelphia, Comcast s predecessor in CPG. In 2004, VAN, through its Statewide 18 Interconnect Task Force ( VSITF ), and Adelphia began discussions regarding this 19 obligation. These discussions continued with Comcast, after Comcast acquired 20 Adelphia s Vermont systems. Through discussion and negotiation, both parties agreed 21 establishing a digital file sharing network would suffice. This led to the creation of 22 Vermont Media Exchange ( VMX ) which is now used by VAN s member AMOs,

26 25 of 53 1 which include the 22 AMOs designated by Comcast as well as 3 AMOs designated by 2 other cable operators, for sharing PEG programming. Comcast provided $75,000 to 3 VAN in order to establish VMX; these funds had been placed into escrow by Adelphia 4 as the result of a prior regulatory proceeding. It was understood by both Comcast and 5 VAN that once the escrowed funds were paid, Comcast would not have an ongoing 6 obligation to fund VMX. VAN agreed that any costs not covered by the escrowed funds 7 would be addressed by VAN and its member AMOs. It was also understood by both 8 Comcast and VAN that establishment of VMX would satisfy Condition 20. Included as 9 Exhibit DMG 14 are letters dated January 8, 2007, October 26, 2007, and October 29, , regarding satisfaction of Comcast s obligations pursuant to Condition 20. Comcast 11 opposes VAN s Proposed CPG Condition. (See Chapman pf. at 41:21 44:9) In VAN s Statewide Interconnect Proposal to Comcast, dated December 5, 2006 and 14 included as Exhibit DMG 15, VAN contemplated eventually forming and seeking 15 designation of a statewide PEG AMO. VAN understood there was no agreement for 16 additional funding from cable operators for the digital file sharing network, a viewable 17 statewide channel, or a statewide PEG Interconnect. In fact, VAN stated they were 18 researching and pursuing a number of short term and long term sustainable funding 19 strategies, including grant funding, state funding, AMOs funding, statewide producers 20 funding, and alternative revenues. We have not received any updates from VAN to 21 indicate that VAN has completed any of these activities during the nine years which have 22 elapsed since their Statewide Interconnect Proposal. VAN s current proposal for a new,

27 26 of 53 1 statewide Institutional Network (I Net) and viewable statewide channel, as presented in 2 the prefiled testimony of Mr. Chapman, now seeks to have Comcast, and by extension, 3 Comcast s customers, fund this new, statewide I Net and viewable statewide channel. 4 Comcast customers already pay the maximum amount allowed under federal law for 5 funding of PEG access and many also pay an additional amount for ongoing PEG capital 6 funding. Pass through of the costs for a new, statewide I Net and viewable statewide 7 channel would create upward pressure on cable subscriber rates. 8 9 Under federal law, an I Net is a communication network which is constructed or 10 operated by the cable operator and which is generally available only to subscribers who 11 are not residential subscribers. 47 U.S.C. 611(b). Nothing in the Cable Act provides 12 that an AMO or franchise authority may demand a cable operator build it a new network 13 the language talks about capacity on an existing institutional network if the cable 14 operator has one. While Comcast has no intention of constructing such a network, it is 15 important to note that nothing prohibits passing through all I Net related costs to 16 customers as a line item on the bill. The FCC has also said: any municipal projects 17 requested by LFAs unrelated to the provision of cable services that do not fall within the 18 exempted categories in Section 622(g)(2) are subject to the statutory 5 percent franchise 19 fee cap. Implementation of Section 621(a)(1) of the Cable Communications Policy Act 20 of 1984 as amended by the Cable Television Consumer Protection and Competition Act 21 of 1992, Second Report and Order, 22 FCC Rcd 19633, 11 (2007)( Second Report and 22 Order ).

28 27 of A local franchise authority may not make unreasonable demands on cable operators for 3 PEG capacity and I Net construction, and the FCC has found that conditioning the award 4 of a franchise on applicants agreeing to such unreasonable demands constitutes an 5 unreasonable refusal to award a franchise. Implementation of Section 621(a)(1) of the 6 Cable Communications Policy Act of 1984 as amended by the Cable Television 7 Consumer Protection and Competition Act of 1992, Order on Reconsideration, 30 FCC 8 Rcd 810, 2,4, 15 (2015) (and related prior orders). In connection with establishing 9 channel capacity requirements for PEG, the Board or franchise authority may only 10 require adequate assurance that the cable operator will provide adequate PEG access 11 channel capacity, facilities or financial support. 47 U.S.C. 541(a)(4)(B). The FCC has 12 found that completely duplicative PEG capacity requirements if imposed by local 13 franchising authorities are unreasonable The same would be true for duplicative I Net requirements which Comcast believes are 16 unnecessary and should not be required or incurred in Vermont (and were eliminated 17 from the renewal CPG recently issued to Charter in Docket 7820) Q20. Remote Origination Sites; Exhibit LGD 9, p. 4 5 : Exhibit LGD 9 to Ms. Davitian s 20 testimony proposes a CPG condition requiring Comcast to provide Remote Origination 21 Sites. See also Mr. Chapman s testimony at page 5, line 15, through page 34, line 27, 22 and Mr. Campitelli s testimony at page 27, line 17, through page 28, line 23, discussing

29 28 of 53 1 remote origination and VAN s proposed conditions relating to remote origination. Please 2 address VAN s proposed conditions and the testimony in support of these conditions. 3 A20. The imprecise language currently found in Condition 22 of the Docket 7077 CPG has led 4 to differences of opinion regarding interpretation. This language, which was carried over 5 from the Docket 6101 CPG issued to Adelphia, also does not reflect changes in 6 technology for the provision of remote origination capabilities. Comcast s proposed CPG 7 Condition regarding video return lines (a/k/a remote origination sites) resolves these 8 issues by eliminating imprecise language and providing for the use of alternative 9 technologies. The current CPG condition contains the term cable plant, which is not a 10 defined term in either the CPG or the Board Rules. Before the advent of advanced 11 services, such as digital voice and high speed internet, it was possible to use residential 12 cable plant for providing remote origination return line capabilities. However, with the 13 advent of advanced services and changes in technology, remote origination service is 14 now provided through separate and distinct fiber and/or fiber combination coax remote 15 origination return lines. Therefore, the language in this condition needs to be updated to 16 make this distinction clear. VAN s Proposed CPG Condition (See Exhibit LGD 9 p. 4 5) 17 would perpetuate imprecise language and lead to continued differences of opinion. Thus, 18 Comcast opposes VAN s Proposed CPG Condition Q21. Support for PEG Outreach; Exhibit LGD 9, pg.5 : Exhibit LGD 9 to Ms. Davitian s 21 testimony proposes a CPG condition requiring Comcast to support PEG Access outreach. 22 See also Ms. Byer s testimony at page 25, line 16, through page 27, line 16, discussing

30 29 of 53 1 concerns with respect to PEG Access outreach. Please address VAN s proposed 2 condition and the testimony in support of this condition. 3 A21. VAN seeks to maintain various provisions of the Docket 7077 CPG condition regarding 4 PEG Access outreach without demonstrating this PEG Access outreach is effective, 5 relevant, or utilized by AMOs. Comcast believes that support for PEG Access outreach 6 is best negotiated with individual AMOs during the course of PEG Agreement renewal 7 negotiations. 8 9 PEG related advertising in newspapers: Although this benefit is underutilized (i.e. a total 10 of 83 requests from 14 AMOs over 9 years), Comcast is willing to continue providing 11 reimbursement for up to two quarter page newspaper advertisements per calendar year 12 for the purposes of promoting PEG access programming and functions. In order to 13 balance this cable related community need while taking into account the cost of meeting 14 this need and its impact on subscriber rates, we believe it is reasonable to limit the 15 reimbursement to the cost for black and white advertising in instances where the 16 newspaper charges different rates for color versus black and white advertising PEG program listings in local newspapers: Referring to VAN s Responses, Mr. Mobley, 19 Mr. Chapman, and Ms. Byer all indicated they provide PEG program information to local 20 newspapers whereas Ms. Davitian and Mr. Campitelli both stated they do not place PEG 21 program information in local newspapers. None of the PEG AMOs represented by 22 VAN s witnesses have requested assistance from Comcast in placing their program

31 30 of 53 1 listings in local newspapers. Nor have they informed Comcast of any difficulties in 2 placing their program listings. In fact, during the past ten years, Comcast has not 3 received any requests from PEG AMOs for assistance in placing their program listings in 4 local newspapers nor have any PEG AMOs informed us of difficulties in placing their 5 program listings in local newspapers. We believe the condition proposed by VAN is 6 outdated and unnecessary, especially in an era where there is less reliance on print media 7 for obtaining information. Thus, Comcast opposes VAN s Proposed CPG Condition. 8 9 Customer communications: During the course of PEG Agreement renewal negotiations, 10 some AMOs have expressed a desire for the ability to communicate directly with 11 Comcast customers, either through bill statement inserts or messages. In such instances, 12 this has been discussed with the AMO and addressed in the renewal PEG Agreement. 13 We believe such support is best negotiated with individual AMOs. Thus, Comcast 14 opposes VAN s Proposed CPG Condition Access to the Interactive Programming Guide ( IPG ): Issues pertaining to the IPG, 17 including access to the IPG, will be discussed later in this rebuttal testimony Q22. Operating Funding, Capital Funding & Additional Capital Funding; Exhibit LGD 9, p , 6 7 & 13 : Exhibit LGD 9 to Ms. Davitian s testimony proposes CPG conditions 21 requiring Comcast to provide AMOs operating funding, capital funding required by 22 Board Rule 8.417(D), and additional capital funding for equipment and improvements.

32 31 of 53 1 See also Mr. Chapman s testimony at page 55, line 18, through page 59, line 24, and Mr. 2 Campitelli s testimony at page 23, line 14, through page 24, line 28, discussing PEG 3 funding and VAN s proposed conditions relating to PEG funding. Please address VAN s 4 proposed conditions and the testimony in support of these conditions. 5 A22. Comcast has a long history of supporting the provision of meaningful PEG access in 6 Vermont. In fact, Comcast particularly notes the pre filed testimony of Lauren Glenn 7 Davitian that states AMOs have generated $7.1 million in operating and capital 8 revenue. (See Davitian pf. at 21:25 27). Comcast notes that these funds are almost 9 entirely generated through PEG access fees paid by its subscribers. Comcast references 10 its filed Cable Operator PEG Access Reports for the past five years which outline AMO 11 operating and capital funding as follows: : $4,829, : $5,001, : $5,501, : $5,990, : $6,882, : $7,210, (to be filed with Comcast s Cable Operator PEG Access 19 Report on April 15, 2016) VPSB Rule 8.417(D) states that negotiation between a cable operator and an AMO or 22 AMOs is the preferred method for setting the capital contribution for PEG access.

33 32 of 53 1 Comcast has, and will continue to, negotiate appropriate capital funding with individual 2 AMOs during the course of negotiating renewal AMO Agreements. Thus, Comcast 3 opposes VAN s Proposed CPG Condition regarding capital funding as unnecessary. (See 4 Chapman pf. at 59:7 9 and Exhibit LGD 9 p. 13). 5 6 Comcast believes that the spike funding condition from Docket 7077 is no longer 7 necessary. This provision, which was carried over from the Docket 6101 CPG, was in 8 place solely to address the broadcast digital transition which occurred in Comcast 9 reminds the AMOs that PEG access operating funding is capped at 5% of gross revenues 10 from the operation of Comcast s cable systems to provide cable service. Comcast meets 11 this cap with all 22 AMOs across the state of Vermont. In addition, Comcast has separate 12 capital funding requirements as outlined in individual AMO agreements. Comcast 13 reminds the AMOs that, in accordance with 47 U.S.C. 542(c), the Company may and 14 will pass through to customers any operating, capital, and additional capital ( spike ) 15 PEG access funding payments. The only fair way to do this, with the least impact on 16 customers, is to figure these costs at the time AMO agreements are executed. If unknown 17 capital costs suddenly develop, they should be covered by responsible budgeting of the 18 AMO rather than customers. Comcast opposes VAN s Proposed CPG Condition, 19 including establishment of an Additional Capital Fund. (See Chapman pf. at 56: and Exhibit LGD 9 p. 5 6). 21

34 33 of 53 1 Q23. Remote Origination Site Outreach; Exhibit LGD, p. 7 8 : Exhibit LGD 9 to Ms. 2 Davitian s testimony proposes a CPG condition requiring Comcast to reach out to eligible 3 institutions on an annual basis on Remote Origination Sites ( ROS ) availability. See 4 also Mr. Chapman s testimony at page 15, line 22, through page 16, line 3, discussing the 5 letters that Comcast sends out annually. Please address VAN s proposed condition and 6 the testimony in support of this condition. 7 A23. Contrary to the prefiled testimony presented by Mr. Chapman (See Chapman pf. at 8 15:22 16:3), Comcast includes information regarding remote origination sites in its 9 outreach mailings to municipalities, K 12 schools, and public libraries. This information 10 is part of a document titled Comcast Community Outreach Frequently Asked 11 Questions ( FAQ ) and is included in all outreach mailings. Examples of outreach 12 letters, including the enclosures, are provided as Exhibit DMG 16. The FAQ document 13 directs organizations to work with both Comcast and their local AMO if they are 14 interested in remote origination capabilities. Contact information for all AMOs is also 15 included. These documents are provided to the Board, the Department, and all Comcast 16 designated AMOs in updates regarding Comcast s outreach efforts Neither the Docket 7746 CPG issued to Vermont Telephone Company nor the Docket CPG issued to Charter contain conditions regarding ROS Outreach. Comcast 20 opposes VAN s proposed CPG Condition regarding ROS Outreach as duplicative and 21 unnecessary. (See Exhibit LGD 9 p. 7 8). 22