Laserfiche WebLink
When the request for transfer was received, Indian River County Staff arranged a meeting with <br />the other Franchising Authorities in the County that would be dealing with this same request <br />(Fellsmere and Sebastian). At the meeting, some common concerns were identified and it was <br />agreed that these concerns should be discussed with Charter Communications and AT&T <br />Broadband before presenting the transfer request to the approving governmental bodies. Such a <br />meeting was arranged by County Staff and on April 3, 2001, representatives of AT&T <br />Broadband, Charter Communications, the Town of Fellsmere, the City of Sebastian,. the Town of <br />Palm Bay, a Southern Brevard County property owners association, and Indian River County met <br />at Sebastian City Hall The questions raised at that meeting or as a result of that meeting were <br />sent to AT&T Broadband since most of the questions had to do with how issues would be <br />handled after the transfer. That written request and the subsequent response are included in the <br />backup. A letter was also sent to Charter Communications concerning some missing <br />information in the transfer request and an outstanding issue having to do with poor response to <br />service problems. That letter and the Charter Communications response are also included in the <br />backup. <br />ANALYSIS <br />Indian River County Ordinance 82-7, Section 9, in dealing with transfer requests, states that <br />approval by the Commission may not be unreasonably withheld. FCC form 394 has long been <br />the standard for demonstrating the transferee's legal technical and financial qualifications. A <br />copy of that information has been submitted and made available for review in the Commission <br />office. AT&T Broadband is already a licensed CATV operator in Indian River County, and that <br />license allows AT&T Broadband to provide service throughout the County. One could argue <br />that the approval of a transfer is not needed in this case; however, even though AT&T <br />Broadband is already authorized to provide CATV service throughout the County, they have not <br />been approved as the owner of the headend and system that now exists generally in the northern <br />part of the County and is currently operated by Charter This distinguishing point (2 separate <br />systems) may dictate to some extent how AT&T Broadband will be allowed to operate in the <br />County. <br />Staff recognizes that the service levels provided by the UA/TCl/AT&T operation in the southern <br />part of the County have been considered very good. Customer satisfaction surveys conducted by <br />the operator have shown that the system in the southern part of the County is far above the <br />industry average. Customer satisfaction for those receiving service from the <br />Jones/Falcon/Charter system in the northern part of the County is low. This area has suffered <br />with old plant and a lack of resources capital and personnel, for many years. Only recently as a <br />result of the system rebuild to 860 MHz, have there been signs of improvement. The large <br />commitment of capital by Charter Communications probably would have eventually resulted in <br />acceptable levels in North County. While a rebuilt 860MHz system under the direction of the <br />AT&T Broadband team with a proven track record of good customer service might seem to be <br />the best possible situation, there is some reason for concern. <br />AT&T Broadband has delayed building into some new areas in Indian River County due to <br />capital restraints. The rebuild of the AT&T Broadband system in St. Lucie County was to have <br />started last year, but has not yet commenced Staff also received reports that the rebuild of the <br />Davie Florida system has not been completed. Staff questions the recent track record of AT&T <br />Broadband in meeting its commitments Since the arrangement between Charter <br />Communications and AT&T Broadband calls for the completion of the system rebuild before the <br />transfer, the question of the current ability of AT&T Broadband to complete a rebuild may not <br />be pertinent. <br />May 22, 2001 <br />20 <br />01/ <br />Ui <br />