Loading...
PWM198904120 PUBLIC WELFARE COMMITTEE - CITY OF MUSKEGO MINUTES OF MEETING HELD APRIL 12, 1989 The meeting was called to order at 8:05 P.M. by Chairman Patterson. Also in attendance were Committee Member Taube, Ald. Elect Simmons and those per the attached list. The Committee reviewed with Reid Ingersoll a letter received from Mr. Bill York, S71 W13524 Woods Road, Muskego, WI 53150, requesting cable service for a new home since March of 1988. It was brought to the Committee's attention that several homes along Woods Road have not been provided the opportunity to hook into cable. Mr. Ingersoll will check with Mark Karl and respond to Mr. York, Linda Yakich and the other 6 affected neighbors as to how soon cable could be connected. Mr. Ingersoll will send a letter within five (5) working days. The Committee reviewed correspondence dated April 11, 1989 , attached, from Ingersoll Cable Corporation advising the City of new developments, along with information on Syndex II and WWOR. Mr. Ingersoll explained why he is dropping two channels (WWOR & WFLD) and substituting with TNR and The Sports Channel of America, respectively. He also advised that a change in the FCC • laws will result in an additional $1.66 in copyright fees per month per basic subscriber. Ingersoll Cable Co. is willing to absorb the cost of substituting WWOR with TNT and WFLD with The Sports Channel, as both TNT and Sports Channel of America are more expensive than their replacements, in order to avoid the $1.66 additional monthly charge. Channel 58 out of Milwaukee has been added to the basic channel line-up and is currently being shown on Channel 8. Shop Television Network (STN) will be added shortly and will be on Channel 30. Tempo has gone out of business. Ingersoll Cable will replace Tempo with NBC's new cable channel, CNBC. CNBC will be shown on Channel 34. Cinemax will be launched as a pay service on July 1st. As a promotion, Ingersoll Cable will air Cinemax system wide for 7 days at no cost to all basic subscribers. If a customer elects to add Cinemax without dropping another pay service, they will receive Cinemax free for a month and will only be charged a nominal $5.25 upgrade fee. Cinemax will be shown on Channel 14. . The Committee discussed with Mr. Ingersoll the following items: • Public Welfare Committee - Page 2 April 13, 1989 $20,000 Street Restoration Bond submitted by Ingersoll Cable Co. for Star Cablevision during their proposed take-over. Check for $500 made out to reimburse Ingersoll Cable for City bills which were paid by Star during the proposed take-over - check was a duplication. Insurance Policy submitted by Ingersoll Cable Co. expired on August 17, 1988. Franchise Bond for $50,000 has not been submitted. Second Quarter Franchise payment to the City for 1988 has not been submitted - there is a 12% late fee per the ordinance. $500 lease payment for Historical Society property due on March 1st of every year has not been submitted. Mr. Ingersoll requested a two week extension to submit all of the • above fees and documents, as well as the delinquent personal property taxes. The Committee agreed to the two week extension to Thursday, April 27, 1989. Mr. Ingersoll advised the Committee that his crews will start on April 24, 1989, to bury cables, sweep and balance, and stop signal leakage. The Committee discussed Youth Activities. Mr. Robert Rammer, Principal of Muskego High School, appeared before the Committee and explained how the youth program in West Bend was started. As a somewhat new venture, problems did occur after six months due to a fall off in availability of volunteers. He stated that the High School is not compartmentized to allow sections to be closed off. The number of people needed depends on the number of type of activities. Dotty Rector suggested that possibly the Parks Department could coordinate the whole program and set guidelines to create what type of behavior is acceptable. Some parents are better at controlling kids than others who may be too lenient or too strict. Bob Reinke suggested that the kids pay something so that they feel they are contributing to the program; possibly 50� or $1.00. An Ad Hoc committee should be created to set guidelines, goals and perimeters. Their recommendations could then be presented to the Parks & Recreation Board and the School Board to determine if some activities could be outdoors vs always • at the High School. In order to develop a Committee to work on Youth Activities, an invitation will be sent to interested groups to meet at City Hall on Thursday, April 27, 1989, at 7:00 P.M., in the Lions Den. Public Welfare Committee - Page 3 April 13, 1989 The Committee discussed Recycling which is scheduled for the 3rd Saturday of every month. Dorothy Reinke was present as a representative of the Muskego VFW Post and Auxiliary 8171 and the VFW has agreed to operate the recycling on the 3rd Saturday of November. The revised schedule will be as follows: May Green -Up Muskego (Chamber) June Marlin Aquatics July Muskego Women's Club August Muskego High School Booster September Muckey 4-H Club October Little Muskego Lake Assn. November VFW Post and Auxiliary 8171 Any information for the VFW regarding Recycling should be sent to Dorothy Reinke, W197 57516 Ridge Road, Muskego, WI 53150. The Committee had nothing new to report on Green -Up Muskego. Private well reports submitted by Muskego Landfill were reviewed and placed on file. • The meeting adjourned at 11:15 P.M. Respectfully submitted, Ald. David Taube Secretary ca -0- 73�) MAVC) _ 19 e L Pic • INGERSOLL CABLE CORP. P.O. BOX 425 MUSKEGO, WISCONSIN 53150 PHONE: (414) 422-1700 City of Muskego 4/11/89 P.O. Box 903 Muskego, WI 53150 Dear City of Muskego, 0PE C /?/3« _ I �, It d*s q/)3 In an effort to continue the communicatios between Ingersoll Cable and The City of Muskego, I am not only writing this letter to the Common Council, but a similiar and shorter letter will be sent to all the current subscribers of Ingersoll Cable. The intention is to keep the City and our subscribers abreast of the developments here at Ingersoll. 1) In an attempt to improve our phone service, we will be phasing into operations a Automated Response Unit (ARU) that should alleviate phone congestion and raise overall performance of our Customer Service Representatives. Unfortunately, during the conversion onto this system, we have and probably will experience some problems. Please be patient, as we feel this ARU will only enhance our level of service. 2) Construction is due to begin in the next few weeks. Although we don't anticipate many damage claims, undoubtedly, there will be some. We will honor all legitimate damage claims and will correct them as soon as possible. 3) Ingersoll Cable is now utilizing a lock -box for payments received. All subscribers will be notified that they are not to write on the return porion of their bill. Instead, subscribers can write a note on a separate piece of paper and include it in with their payment for change of services, etc. This policy will go into effect 30 days after notification. 4) We have had some customers who have been taking advantage of our disconnect policy. They have been paying their bills when our service men come to the door, thereby avoiding the $26.25 reconnect charge. Our service men have numerous cost onto the subscriber. Consequently, Ingersoll Cable is • willing to absorbe the cost of substituting WWOR with TNT and WFLD with The Sports Channel, as both TNT and Sports Channel of America are more expensive than their replacements, in order to avoid this $1.66 additional monthly charge. 6) Channel 58 out of Milwaukee has been added to our basic channel line-up and is currently being shown on Channel 8. 7) Shop Television Network (STN) will be added shortly and will be on�channel 30. 8) Tempo has gone out of business. Ingersoll Cable will replace Tempo with NBC's new cable channel, CNBC. CNBC will be shown on channel 34. 9) Cinemax will be launched as a pay service on July 1st. As a promotion, we will air Cinemax system wide for 7 days at no cost to all basic subscribers. If a customer elects to add Cinemax without dropping another pay service, they will receive Cinemax free for a month and will only be charged a nominal $5.25 upgrade fee. Cinemax will be shown on channel 14. Finally, Ingersoll Industries, Inc. will be refinancing with The Bankers Trust Company. This is a very positve move for • Ingersoll and we will be officially notifying you in the next couple of days. Please don't hesitate to call if you have any questions. Sincerely, -( -� C- J S. Reid Ingersoll President Ingersoll Industries, Inc. ' �b i, LC,�I MEMEN The why's and wherefore's of Syndex 11 The FCC order laying out the details of the syndicated exclusivity rules adopted unanimously by the FCC last Wednesday (see "Top of the Week") is being polished —and, possibly, changed in significant respects ---by the three com- missioners and various FCC staffers. As a consequence, it may not be released by the commission for several weeks. While auaiting the order, the FCC's best explanation of the rules and the reasons behind their adoption comes from Kenneth Gorden, senior economist in the Office of Plans and Policy, who was the primary author of the rules. The follow- ing is the text of Garden's presentation at the open meeting just prior to the vote. On April 23 a year ago, the commission released a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking seeking comment on whether it should revise its program exclusivity rules by ■ Reinstituting some form of syndicated exclusivity to permit local broadcasters to buy and enforce the exclusive right to broadcast syndi- cated programs; • Expanding the similar protection already afforded to local network affiliates by our existing non -duplication rules; and Aft Modifying, or possibly eliminating, the current territorial exclusivity s. which limit the area within which local broadcasters may purchase exclusive program rights vis-a-vis other broadcasters. The commission was concerned that the rapid changes in the video marketplace in recent years may have rendered inadequate, or even counterproductive, the existing regulatory framework within which the broadcast and cable industries compete. In particular, the commission was concerned that the current framework may not permit the broadcast and cable industries to provide the quantity quality and diversity of programing that is otherwise potentially available. Specifically, with reference to the absence of exclusivity protection for syndicated programing. ■ The commission was concerned that the absence of syndicated exclusivity rules. by limiting broadcasters' ability to enter into exclusive contracts for programing, might impair their ability to obtain and efficiently make available the programing quality and variety sought by viewers. ■ In addition, the commission was concerned that the inability of broadcasters to enforce exclusive rights to programing, while their cable competitors are able to do so, leaves them at a competitive disadvantage that is a regulatory artifact, rather than a reflection of the real economic advantages or disadvantages of their business. With reference to the network non -duplication rules, the commission expressed its concern that simultaneous protection might no longer be sufficient to protect networks' ability to efficiently distribute high -quality programing on a regional or national basis. The ease with which network affiliates'signals may be transported to markets in other time zones, and the increasing importance of other means for distributing programing on a national basis, led the commission to question whether an increase in protection was necessary. Finally, the commission suggested that its current territorial exclusivity les might no longer be necessary given the strength of competitive ces in broadcast markets, and that they may unduly limit brodcasters' '11111111111115ifity to compete both with each other, and with other media that are becoming increasingly important. Additionally, the commission ques- tioned whether such a broad rule, applying to all broadcasters regardless of their individual circumstances, could serve the public interest. As a result of the notice, an extensive record, particularly as to the first two issues, has been compiled, upon which to base a decision. Although each of these issues is closely related to the others, I shall dicuss each separately srntiiaw E:rJ a"Y The record in this proceeding demonstrates that cable, far more than was imagined in 1980, has become an important competitor for programing, viewers and advertising alike. Continued growth and success for cable is predicted. Cables success is at least partly attributable to the fact that cable programers are able to purchase exclusive programing and control the distribution of that programing. As you will recall, the commission has recognized and approved cables distribution methods in other dockets. The record also shows, however, that this growth has been accompa- nied by substantial duplication of local syndicated programing as a result of cables continued use of distant broadcast signals and diversion of viewers of particular programs away from local broadcasters and toward these distant signals. The result has been harm to the broadcasting industrys ability to compete for the best possible programing, and substantial foregone program diversity for the viewing public. The record also establishes that time diversity, an important consider- ation in the commissions 1980 decision to eliminate syndicated exclusiv- ity, is much less significant today. The increased availability of altemative satellite -delivered programming means time diversity, per se, is of rela- tively less importance than it was at that time. Additionally, as the cable industry itself has recognized, the widespread availability of VCR's re- duces the need for duplicative broadcast signals as a source of time diversity. Bw oft of syndaba E chmh y Allowing broadcasters to bargain for the same type of enforceable program exclusivity rights that network affiliates, cable, and all the other competitors in the video marketplace may currently enjoy will have a number of benefits. o First. it means that broadcasters will be able to compete on equal terms with cable operators for desirable programing and will thereby better be able to serve all of their viewers. including those who do not subscribe to cable or may not even have the option of subscribing to cable. Each type of programing, whether it happens to be a network show a program delivered by a cable channel, or a syndicated program. will be treated alike. ■ Second, the ability to limit diversion means broadcasters will be able to attract larger audiences, making them more attractive to advertisers, thereby enabling them to obtain more and better programing for their viewers. Cable viewers as well will reap the benefits of this process, although where they truly value the duplicative programing they now receive it can continue to be provided. In short, we expect that this process will lead to the production of a richer and more diverse mix of programs for all viewers. ■ Third, exclusivity will allow more effective promotion of programing and an increased ability by broadcasters to establish themselves as distinctive suppliers of programing in their markets. The ability to obtain programing on an exclusive basis is already available to other video competitors, including cable operators, and is acknowledged by them to be an important competitive tool. This ability may also be important to broadcasters seeking to ensure that their signals are carried by cable systems. ■ Finally, restoration of syndicated exclusivity rights for broadcasters will eliminate a patently unfair element of regulation and will help make it possible to apply here our general policy of relying on competition, wherever feasible, to accomplish our goals under the Communications Act. Coatr of synft&W ExcholvRy The costs involved in reimposing syndicated exclusivity fall into two categories: modification of viewing patterns of cable subscribers and the direct costs to cable operators of complying with the rules. M conclude BroeUc T,,y May 23 13BB f u • LJ /1 T that both types of costs have been substantially overstated by those opposing the reintroduction of syndicated exclusivity Moreover, we have crafted the rules themselves to place the lightest possible burden on cable operators. • First, syndicated exclusivity may not be offered, or broadcasters may not choose to purchase it in every case. ■ Second, even if exclusivity is purchased, a cable operator may seek an agreement to forestall enforcement by the broadcaster if the value to cable of the program in question is sufficiently high. ■Third, if enforcement proceeds, the cable operator may substitute alternative programing for that deleted. Suppliers stand ready to make such programing available. ■ Fourth, broadcasters are currently permitted to buy nationwide non- exclusive rights to the programing they exhibit; that is, the right not to be blacked out. Under the rules that are being proposed today a broadcast station wishing to serve a national market will also be permitted to bargain for exclusive national rights to programing. This will beof particular use to superstations, thereby providing cable viewers with additional protection against disruption. This right will place superstations and others in a better position to compete than they are in today. If superstations avail themselves of these new rights, they need not be blacked out. Belatedly although it is not directly a part of this proceeding, these options help preserve the ability of home dish owners to view superstations. To summarize, we believe the cable industryl; forecast of severe disruption to established viewing patterns to be seriously overstated. The estimates provided by cable of equipment, manpower, and other costs of complying with syndicated exclusivity rules also appear to be overstated. Such expenses, in fact, appear to be reasonable ones for cable systems of any but the smallest size. The item concludes that the benefits of syndicated exclusivity rules outweigh the costs, and that it would be in the public interest for the commission to adopt new syndicated exclusivity rules. We have also carefully examined the question of whether the imposition of syndicated exclusivity rules would conflict with the First Amendment rights of cable operators, whether the Copyright Act constitutes a bar to such rules, whether the Cable Act of 1954 prohibits such action, or whether any other legal impediment to adoption of syndicated exclusivity rules exists. The item before you concludes that reimposition of syndicat- ed exclusivity is constitutional and within the statutory authority of the commission. Therefore, in light of this conclusion, and in light of the benefits and costs, the staff recommends that syndicated exclusivity rules be adopted. I shall describe the essential elements of the proposed rules, and comment briefly on each. Rites 1. The new rule would allow any broadcast station to bargain for and enforce syndicated exclusivity rights as provided for in its contract with the program supplier. The compliance requirement is imposed on the cable community unit. There would be no regulatory restriction as to the period of exclusivity or the size of the broadcast market, and no distinc- tions made among the types of syndicated programing. Such terms would be governed by the program contract. In these respects the new rules would be considerably simpler than the former rules. The geograph- ic extent of syndicated exclusivity protection is limited to that available under the territorial exclusivity rule. However, as I will discuss later, the staff recommends that the commission issue a further NPRM on the matter of geographic limits generally, to examine this and other issues. 2. In general, only broadcast station licensees would be entitled to exercise syndicated exclusivity rights. An exception is made for program suppliers for a period of one year from first licensing a program to a broadcast station anywhere in the United States, in order to ensure their ability to market their product throughout the country in an orderly way 3. To exercise any exclusivity rights, a broadcaster would be required to provide details of its exclusivity rights to affected cable systems within 60 days of signing such a contract, and in no case less than 60 days before exclusivity is to commence. Relevant portions of the exclusivity contract, upon request, would have to be made available to the affected cable operator Cable operators, in complying with requests for exclusiv- ity, may rely on generally available sources of programing scheduling, or may request the information from the station being imported. A good faith effort to respond to such requests is required. 4. The staff recommends two exceptions to the rules as laid out so far: First, we recommend that, for the time being, and in order to facilitate an orderly transition to the syndicated exclusivity environment, a community unit should not be required 10 delete a program that is generally available off -the -air, that is, where a cable unit falls, in whole or in part, within the grade B contour of the signal carrying the program or where the signal in question is significantly viewed. Second, the staff recommends that cable systems of under 1,000 subcribers be exempted from compliance with the rule. They are currently exempt from our network non -duplication rules and sports blackout rules, and are small enough that the costs of compliance may be significant on a per -subscriber basis. Exempting these systems would lower overall costs of compliance by cable, about half of all cable systems would be exempt from the rule. 5. For a contract entered into after the publication of the order to be enforceable, it would have to contain syndicated exclusivity language. specified in the rules of the commission, so that there is no ambiguity with respect to the applicability or noun -applicability of exclusivity protection. Contracts entered into before the publication date of the order, to be enforceable, must contain clear language indicating that the parties contemplated syndicated exclusivity rights in the event of reimposition of syndicated exclusivity rules. In the absence of such a specific reference. the rules may be invoked if the contract is amended or the parties clarify in writing that the intent of both parties is to include syndicated exclusivity protection. 1 6. Finally, in order to give both cable system operators and viewers time to adjust to the new rules, they would not be enforceable until one year has elapsed from the date of the order. I shall be considerably more brief with respect to the second and third issues. Commenters addressing this issue generally agreed that the commis- sion's concern as to the sufficiency of simultaneous duplication protection was justified. As I noted at the outset, the ability to circumvent the simultaneous exhibition nature of network programing has increased as technology, particularly satellite distribution technology, has evolved. The underlying rationale for providing network non -duplication protection, and the harm that befalls affiliates (and indirectly, therefore, networks) and the viewing public that relies on them for programming, parallel the arguments I have related with respect to syndicated exclusivity The staff therefore recommends that the network non -duplication rules be amended so that the period of protection afforded affiliates is that period of time specified in the network -broadcast affiliate contract. While the most likely situations would be taken care of by same -day protection only there are some exceptions. Moreover, if network arrangements evolve in unexpected directions, the rule proposed here should prove sufficiently flexible to meet new needs. Only station affiliates, not networks themselves, may invoke network non -duplication protection. We further recommend that, pending explora- tion in a further notice, the current geographic limits and exemptions from protection be continued. Finally, the staff recommends rescinding our current waiver policy based on economic harm, and terminating existing waivers that fall into that category as of one year from the date of the order. Twirnit W &drum ly In general, the comments and record in this aspect of the proceeding constitutes less adequate basis for action than in the cases of syndicated exclusivity and network non -duplication. Of particular concern in this regard are the effects of alternative exclusivity arrangements in local and so-called overshadowed markets. Therefore, the staff recommends that the current 35-mile territorial limit provisionally be retained, pending the outcome of a further NPRM that addresses the appropriate geographical limits for all three of the program exclusivity rules being addressed in this docket. In addition, the notice will explore the question of whether syndicated exclusivity protection should be available to public broadcasters. There is one respect, however, already alluded to, in which the record does support a change in the territorial limit. In the case of superstations serving a national market, the question of overshadowed stations, or effects within local markets, is not at issue. Superstations compete for viewers in a national market, and compete with a range of networks and cablecasters that also supply programing on a national, exclusive basis. Therefore, we shall allow national superstations the ability to seek and enforce national exclusivity when acquiring broadcast programing. Mr. Chairman, the staff recommends that the commission adopt this report and order. At also request editorial privileges, and will be happy to answer any questions. Broad asuno May 23 1988 0 • Rob Wheeler - Switchout WWOR Milwaukee Market Mon -Fri WWOR WGN 6-630 am Snorks 6-630 amPvt Benjamin 630-7 Popeye 630-7 Jem 7-730 Beverly Hills Teens 7-8 Bozo 730-8 Jestson 8-830 Smurfs 730-8 Gumby 830-9 Gumby 8-830 My Little Pony 9-930 Alice 830-9 Care Bears 930-10 Archie Bunker 930-10 Jeannie 10-11 Charlie's Angels 10-1030 People R' Talking 11-12 Geraldo 1030-12 various 12noon-1 News 12noon-I News 1-130 Honeymooners 1-2 Cannon 130-2 Andy Griffin 2-3 Barnaby Jones 2-230 Beaver 3-30 Sweethearts 230-3 Ghostbusters 330-4 Dating Game 3-30 Bugs Bunny 4-430 Love Connection 330-4 GI Joe 430-5 Newlywed Game 4-430 Cops 5-6 Magnin 430-5 Funhouse 6-7 Matt Houston 5-530 Facts of Life 7-730 Casey Show 530-6 WKRP in Cinn. 730-8 Kate & Allie 6-630 Cheers 8-10 Movie 630-7 Night Court 10-11 News 7-9 Prime Movie 11-1130 Benny Hill 9-930 News 1130-1230 Morton Downey 930-10 USA Tonight 1230-1 Hitchcock 10-1030 Cheers 1-2am Joe Franklin 1030-1130 Hill St. Blues 1130-lam WGN presents 48% duplication Mon -Fri Source: Nielsen Station Index WWOR & Programming on Other Mil. Stations 7-730 am Dennis Menace 7-730 Double Dare 730-8 Gumby C� Z-V 730-8 Bugs Bunny 8-830 Woody Woodpecker 830-9 My Little Pony F3�qC_�_u 830-9 Scooby Don 9-930 Care Bears 631C(� c N - 930-10 Hour Magazine 930-10 Jeannie (31uo 1 1030-11 Dating Game �luckp 10-11 Magnum 15ju�o 1030-11 Facts of Life 11-1130 Three's Company 1130-12 Pvt Benjamin 12noon-1230 Difft Strokes 2-230 Jem 230-3 Popeye 3-4 Geraldo 330-4 Fun House 330-4 Jetsons 4-430 Ghostbusters 430-5 Cops 5-530 Andy Griffin 5-530 Beaver 5-530 Cosby Show 530-6 Kate & Allce 6-630 Family Ties 630-7 Beaver 730-8 Newlywed Game 1030-11 Love Connection 12-lam Morton Downey t314 ck o -x-�