Attachment 1 CITY OF Los ANGELES J'l!ssE R. JUARROS CALIFORNIA INF'ORMATIONTECHNOLOGY AGENCY RooM l400, crrv HALL E:A.s-r FRANK 'r. i lar-rrnez 200 NORTH MAIN STRE'E:T Los ANGEL'ES, CA 90012 (2.131 485:2892 FAX {21 31 847<1512 USTANT GE...E:RAL MAr4AGERS JAMES t.o'i. CRAJt>J DENNIS Eo FRADY MARV K. KOTZMAN RICHARD J. RIORDAN MAYOR ROBERT B. LfTTLEFI ELD December 8 6 1999 REF: PPE-685-99 Honorable Richard J. Riordan Mayor, City of Los Angeles Room 800, City Hall East Los.Angles, California 90012 Dear Mayor Riordan: FEASIBILITY OF ACQUIRING CAPACITY FOR OVER- THE-AIR BROADCAST OF LA CITYVIEW CHANNEL 3S Back~round In 1987 the City of Los Angeles acquired access to channel capacity on all cable television systems operating in Los Angeles. through the cable television franchising process. City Council dedicated a revenue stream from cable franchise fees in order to guarantee that the City could establish, operate and provide quality programming using this capacity. In 1989 the City began providing programming over the local cable systems on cable channel 35 ("cablecasting") throughout the city. Branded as "L.A. CityView 35," the City's cable channel provides live cablecast of City Council meetings, as well as important live and taped programs concerning local government, public utility, public safety, and public health issues.. The quality and relevance ofl.a. CityView's non-commercial, public interest programming have developed to the point that distribution of this important programming beyond Los Angeles cable television subscribers is desirable. Currently, the signal for Channel 35 is distributed by cable television providers throughout the city as part of the basic cable subscription. Based on information submitted by the City' scable operators, as of December of 1998, there are over 1,349,000 dwelling units in Los Angeles that have access to cable television. However, of that number, only 601,397, or 44.6% subscribe to basic cable television service. At the direction of City Council, the Information Technology Agency (ITA or the "Agency") investigated the feasibility of LA Cityview 35 transmission via over-the-air broadcast. In consultation with Council District 15, several options were identified and investigated. In addition, several policy issues were raised which need to be addressed by the City. AN EQUAL EMPLOYI\'IEi'!T OPPORTUNITY - AFFIRMATIVE ACTION E1'IIPLOY":R
Honorable Richard 1. Riordan Page 2 Option One: Purchase Airtime on Existing Broadcast Television Stations The City could purchase airtime on one or more non-commercial broadcast stations. In the Los Angeles market, at least two non-commercial stations operate on the UHF band: KCET, the Los Angeles PBS station, and KLCS. the Los Angeles Unified School District Channel. The Agency contacted KCET regarding policies for obtaining airtime. KCET informed the Agency that the station does not "sell" airtime, and reserves exclusive discretion as to what programming will air. Accordingly, it is not likely that an arrangement could be made to dedicate daily airtime slots to L.A. CityView. It may be possible to submit specific programs for carriage, but the actual decision to carry any program would be up to KCET. The Agency also contacted KLCS to inquire about the availability and cost of airing the City Council meetings. The Agency was informed that the only time slots currently available are Mondays, Thursdays, Saturdays and Sundays from 12 midnight to 5:00 a.m. The cost for this time slot would be $100 per hour. The rate for slots outside this schedule, assuming it was available, was quoted at $400 per hour. It is recommended that the City submit a formal request to KLeS to determine the best time slots and rates to air the City Council meetings and to further determine if KLCS can provide a more flexible schedule. Option Two: Purchase Airtime for Audio-only Broadcast Over Television Spectrum The Agency contacted Cable Radio Network (ern) to inquire about the feasibility of providing simulcast of the audio portion of City Council meetings to broadcast stations. ern informed the Agency that carriage of City Council audio feed is feasible through KPXN, a local television station on the UHF band. The audio feed would be incorporated and broadcast as SAP (Second Audio Programming). The cost is $350.00 per hour with a one-time set-up charge of approximately $750 to reconfigure the audio feed. CRN also has proposed the following related concepts for the City's consideration: Make the City Council meetings available to non-english-speaking residents through partnerships with foreign language radio stations. ern proposes working with the City to avoid out-of-pocket costs by obtaining funding through sponsorships and deferred payments.. Live broadcasts of Council meetings on CRN cable radio stations. Reported charges are $500 per hour, which includes bonus spots to promote City events. Tape-delayed broadcasts of Council meetings on CRN cable radio stations. Reported charges are $400 per hour.
Honorable Richard J. Riordan Page 3 Option Three: Radio Broadcast In addition to the above, there are a number of non-commercial radio stations that may be interested.incooperating with the City to broadcast City Council meetings. For example, radio station KCR W, a National Public Radio affiliate, currently provides live coverage of Santa Monica City Council meetings. Radio station KPFK has previously indicated some interest in discussing the broadcast of City Council meetings in exchange for cross-promotional opportunities such as on-air broadcast credits, and on-air recognition by the President of the Council. Option Four: Direct Acquisition of Television Broadcast License and Facilities City acquisition of its own broadcasting license and facilities would clearly be the most costly of all options. The Agency believes between three to five million dollars, at a minimum, would be required for purchase and construction of broadcast equipment, antenna tower, support structure, and licensing costs. There is no guarantee that television broadcast spectrum would be available at the time the City applies for a Federal license. The City would require the expertise of a consultant experienced inbroadcast facilities acquisition to further investigate this option. The Agency believes that retention of a consultant for performance of a feasibility study is appropriate only after dear direction from City Council to proceed. Option Five: Expand CablecastofL.A. CityView to Cable Systems Beyond Los Aneeles Proper It is technically feasible to provide the Channe135 signal to cable systems in adjacent communities. It is not likely that cable operators in those communities would willingly permit Channel 35 to utilize cable system channel capacity at less than market rates, even assuming such spectrum was available. However; there are two avenues which maybe pursued.. First, the City may purchase cable "leased access" capacity. Under this scenario, the City may purchase cable channel capacity on cable systems in neighboring cities for rates which are determined by a formula set forth in Federal regulations. There is no guarantee that leased access capacity would be available on the dates or at the times preferred by the City. Further. it is almost certain that the leased access programming would not appear on channel 35 inthe neighboring cities where the City leases access. The City's programming would appear on whatever channel the cable operator has reserved for leased access programmers. Secondly, the City may enter into agreements under which the city-owned government access channels in neighboring communities may agree to carry programming created by L.A City'View. Editorial control over these channels rests with the communities themselves, and the decision to air L.A. CityView programming would rest with them. There is no guarantee that time slots or dates preferred by the City would be available, even if a neighboring community agreed to carry L.A. CityView programming. However, many (but not all) government access channels are positioned at channel 35, which would permit subscribers to more readily locate the City's programs. There is prior precedent for the government access channels of neighboring cities to share programming.
Honorable Richard J. Riordan Page 4 The City of Beverly Hills has in the past requested to cablecast Los Angeles City Council meetings, based on the relevance of specific agenda items. Option Six; Satellite Uplink It is feasible for the City to provide the Channel 35 signal to a satellite uplink provider in order to permit individuals with satellite receivers the ability to receive L.A. CityView. The uplink capability, if the City were to purchase such a service, would not automatically permit subscribers of direct service satellite services such as Echostar, USSB, or DirecTV to receive L.A. CityView. A separate contract of carriage with one or more of these video providers would be required, and such a contract may be cost-prohibitive. Without a carriage contract, the L.A. CityView signal would be viewable only by owners ofc-bandsateilite receivers who subscribe to a service allowing them to downlink from the satellite carrying the City's signal. The cost of satellite time is approximately $850 per hour. However, a long-termcontract may yield a 10% to 20% reduction in the hourly rate. An additional cost involved would be the satellite uplink facility. The uplink facility is required to receive the City's signal and transmit it to the satellite in orbit. PSSI, a local satellite vendor, quoted the Agency $1,500 per uplink which includes a discount of$1,000 per uplink if the City awards an annual contract. Option Seven: Internet Streamine Video The City can consider streaming video and/or audio on Internet. Currently, the City does not have all the necessary components required in order to have full-motion, 24-hour video and audio stream capability on the Internet. However, streaming can be achieved through a number independent Internet providers until such time that the City acquires the necessary components. The cost depends on number of hours programming is displayed on the Internet, and length of contract with the Internet provider. The City, however, may opt to pursue the option of establishing its own Internet capabilities if funding is available. This possibility is the subject ofa separate report to Council. ITA is ready to further pursue any options approved by the City Council and to report back with its findings. Respectfully yours, '.:-.~.--... fl. -.. Jesse ~ R. Juarr;~"~ General Manager cc: Honorable Alex Padilla, Chair, Information Technology & General Services Committee Honorable Laura Chick, Committee Vice Chair Honorable Rudy Svorinich, Jr., Committee Member Janice Wood, President, Board ofinformation Technology Commissioners Ana Cubas, Seventh Council District Edward J. Perez, Assistant City Attorney Roy Morales, Office of the City Legislative Analyst
bee: Paul Janis, Acting Assistant General Manager Tony Ighani, L.A. CityView Station Manager u:airbloadcastlad0c99.wpd