6/5/2001 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

When the request for transfer was received, Indian River County Staff arranged a meeting with the other Franchising Authorities in the County that would be dealing with this same request (Fellsmere and Sebastian). At the meeting, some common concerns were identified and it was agreed that these concerns should be discussed with Charter Communications and AT&T Broadband before presenting the transfer request to the approving governmental bodies. Such a meeting was arranged by County Staff and on April 3 , 2001 , representatives of AT&T Broadband, Charter Communications, the Town of Fellsmere, the City of Sebastian, the Town of Palm Bay, a Southern Brevard County property owners association, and Indian River County met at Sebastian City Hall . The questions raised at that meeting or as a result of that meeting were sent to AT&T Broadband since most of the questions had to do with how issues would be handled after the transfer. That written request and the subsequent response are included in the backup. A letter was also sent to Charter Communications concerning some missing information in the transfer request and an outstanding issue having to do with poor response to service problems. That letter and the Charter Communications backup. response are also included in the ANALYSIS Indian River County Ordinance 82-7, Section 9, in dealing with transfer requests, states that approval by the Commission may not be unreasonably withheld. FCC form 394 has long been the standard for demonstrating the transferee ' s legal, technical and financial qualifications. A copy of that information has been submitted and made available for review in the Commission office. AT&T Broadband is already a licensed CATV operator in Indian River County , and that license allows AT&T Broadband to provide service throughout the County . One could argue that the approval of a transfer is not needed in this case; however, even though AT&T Broadband is already authorized to provide CATV service throughout the County, they have not been approved as the owner of the headend and system that now exists generally in the northern part of the County and is currently operated by Charter. This distinguishing point ( 2 separate systems ) may dictate to some extent how AT&T Broadband will be allowed to operate in the County . Staff recognizes that the service levels provided by the UA/TCl/AT&T operation in the southern part of the County have been considered very good. Customer satisfaction surveys conducted by the operator have shown that the system in the southern part of the County is far above the industry average . Customer satisfaction for those receiving service from the Jones/Falcon/Charter system in the northern part of the County is low. This area has suffered with old plant and a lack of resources , capital and personnel, for many years. Only recently , as a result of the system rebuild to 860 MHz, have there been signs of improvement. The large commitment of capital by Charter Communications probably would have eventually resulted in acceptable levels in North County. While a rebuilt 860MHz system under the direction of the AT&T Broadband team with a proven track record of good customer service might seem to be the best possible situation, there is some reason for concern. AT&T Broadband has delayed building into some new areas in Indian River County due to capital restraints. The rebuild of the AT&T Broadband system in St. Lucie County was to have started last year, but has not yet commenced. Staff also received reports that the rebuild of the Davie, Florida system has not been completed. Staff questions the recent track record of AT&T Broadband in meeting its commitments . Since the arrangement between Charter Communications and AT&T Broadband calls for the completion of the system rebuild before the transfer, the question of the current ability of AT&T Broadband to complete a rebuild may not be pertinent. JUNE 5 , 2001 c p � ; - 42 -