05/27/2014 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Executive Summary FRC's Review of Comcast's Formal Renewal Proposal could easily invest these profits in the NSCC franchise area by providing the level of capital and operating support contained in the RFRP and/or reducing the pass-through burden on the subscribers and still return significant profits to the corporation. I -Net Facilities Comcast has rejected the RFRP requirement to basically maintain the current HFC and fiber I - Net and has instead suggested that the I -Net would only be maintained for only PEG transport and that the balance of the use of the I -Net will be based on "fair -market value."9 As an initial matter,, Comcast is incorrect that the Cable Act limits the use of an I -Net to only PEG transport. Again referring to the legislative history of the 1984 Cable Act, it is clear the Congress intended PEG requirements to be separate and distinct from I -Net requirements. s. The legislative history concludes: A franchising authority, under 611(b), may require as part of its request for proposals the number of channels that an operator must set aside for public, education or governmental use. Subsection 611(b) also permits franchising authorities to require that channel capacity on institutional networks be designated for educational or governmental use. The term "institutional network" means a communication network which is constructed or operated by the cable operator and which is generally available only to non-residential subscribers.10 FRC believes it is clear that PEG needs are separate from I -Net needs based on this legislative history and therefore should reject Comcast unsupported position. Comcast I- et proposal unfairly restricts the needs of the franchising authority. Comcast also fails to consider that the full construction costs (as determined by the cable operator) of these I -Net facilities have been fully recovered from subscribers as part of the PEG fee included in Comcast's regulated service rate. For Comcast to now re -take these paid for I -Net facilities and subsequently charge the NSCC/NSAC for these services at market based rates will allow C ' omcast to earn a profit on these fully paid for I -Net facilities. Such a self-serving proposal does not meet the needs and interests of the subscribers in the NSCC franchise area. 9 Proposal at 10. 10 See H.R. REP. No. 98-934, at 46 (1984), as reprinted in 1984 U.S.C.C.A.N. 4655, 4656. Front Range Consulting, Inc. Page 5