Loading...
CC SR 20201006 02 - Cox CommunicationsCITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: 10/06/2020 AGENDA REPORT AGENDA HEADING: Regular Business AGENDA TITLE: Consideration and possible action to receive a presentation from Cox Communications regarding its services. RECOMMENDED COUNCIL ACTION: (1) Receive and file a presentation by Cox Communications regarding its internet speed and reliability services. FISCAL IMPACT: None Amount Budgeted: N/A Additional Appropriation: N/A Account Number(s): N/A ORIGINATED BY: Jesse Villalpando, Senior Administrative Analyst REVIEWED BY: Karina Bañales, Deputy City Manager APPROVED BY: Ara Mihranian, AICP, City Manager ATTACHED SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: A. RPVMC 13.12 (page A-1) B. Digital Infrastructure and Video Competition Act (DIVCA) (page B-1) C. California Public Utilities Commission FAQs about DIVCA (page C-1) D. Cox Renewed Franchise Certificate (page D-1) E. Cox Communications slide presentation (page E-1) F. Public Correspondence through September 29, 2020 (page F-1) BACKGROUND AND DISCUSSION: In 1998, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 339, the City’s Telecommunications Regulatory Ordinance, which was codified as Chapter 13.12 of the Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code (RPVMC) (Attachment A). The ordinance established regulations for cable television systems, open video systems, and other telecommunications services and systems, including procedures for granting local franchise agreements. In 2006, this all began to change with the enactment of the state’s Digital Infrastructure and Video Competition Act (DIVCA) (Attachment B). DIVCA shifted franchise agreement authority from local agencies to the California Public 1 Utilities Commission (CPUC) but obliged local agencies to retain the responsibility for enforcing customer service standards (Attachment C). On December 30, 2016, the CPUC granted a California Video Franchise Certificate to Cox Communications applicable toward various California entities, including the City of Rancho Palos Verdes (Attachment D). This certificate grants authority to Cox Communications to provide video service in the service area and authority to use the public rights-of-way in exchange for the franchise fee adopted in CAL. PUB. UTIL. CODE §. 5840(q), subject to state laws. This certificate has been in effect since April 27, 2017 and has an expiration date of April 27, 2027. In response to several public inquiries, Staff verified that other providers can enter the City’s market but would need to obtain a California Video Franchise Certificate from the CPUC. In late 2019, the new coronavirus known as SARS-CoV-2 — which causes the disease known as COVID-19 — was discovered in Wuhan City, Hubei Province, China. On January 30, 2020, the World Health Organization (WHO) declared COVID-19 a public health emergency of international concern. On January 31, the United States Health and Human Services Secretary declared COVID-19 a public health emergency in the United States. On March 19, in response to escalating COVID infection rates, both the County of Los Angeles (“Safer at Home” Order) and Governor Newsom (Executive Order N 33-20) issued shelter-in-place orders for their respective jurisdictions, with exceptions for essential businesses/organizations. This Governor’s order was issued pursuant to Government Code §§ 8567, 8627 & 8665. This order can be found at : https://covid19.ca.gov/img/Executive-Order-N-33-20.pdf. Since “Safer at Home” Orders were issued, many residents have been working from home and school instruction is taking place virtually, as schools remain closed. More so than in the past, City Staff has received a flood of inquiries from residents who are experiencing problems with their internet connection and are concerned about staying connected for distance learning. On August 20, City Manager Mihranian and the three other Peninsula city managers held a virtual meeting with staff from Cox Communications representing various divisions, including government affairs, marketing, customer service and construction. Around the same time in August, a similar meeting was held with the mayors from four Peninsula cities. The purpose of this meeting was to express the community’s dissatisfaction with the services and customer service provided by Cox when it comes to internet speed and reliability, and to identify measures to improve services provided to residents of the Peninsula. Cox Communications provided troubleshooting resources for residents, including frequently asked questions, videos, a wifi optimization guide, infographic, and tips, such as having the most recent model modem, and the cities agreed to assist in disseminating this information to the community. Subsequently, the city managers and mayors agreed to continue meeting with Cox on a monthly basis, but as joint meetings to stay up to date with Cox’s infrastructure improvements. The first joint meeting was held in September. At this meeting, among other things discussed, it was agreed that representatives from Cox communication would attend a city council meeting to provide the community with information on internet speed and reliability, and to address community questions and concerns. On September 22, the 2 City publicized tonight’s meeting on social media and to Breaking News listserv subscribers, advising residents to submit their questions and concerns to CC@rpvca.gov. As of the writing of this report, Staff has received 14 emails from the public regarding this item (Attachment F). These comments range from the availability of Fiber Optic Cable installations, poor customer service, poor speed and reliability as well as a frequent increase in costs to consumers. Staff has been coordinating with representatives from Cox Communication government affairs divisions in responding to these concerns in advance of the meeting, and they will also be addressed during tonight’s presentation. Michael Hadland, Government Affairs Manager for Cox Communications, confirmed his participation at tonight’s meeting to discuss residents’ concerns experiencing problems with their internet connection and staying connected for distance learning. Specifically, the presentation will encompass Cox Communications internet speeds, reliability and infrastructure improvements (Attachment E). 3 Chapter 13.12 - TELECOMMUNICATIONS REGULATORY ORDINANCE Sections: Article I. - General Provisions 13.12.010 - Title. This chapter is known and may be cited as the "Telecommunications Regulatory Ordinance" of the city of Rancho Palos Verdes. (Ord. 339 § 2 (part), 1998) 13.12.020 - Purpose and intent. A. The city council finds and determines as follows: 1. The development of cable television and other telecommunications systems may provide significant benefits for, and have substantial impacts upon, the residents of the city. 2. Because of the complex and rapidly changing technology associated with telecommunications services and systems, the public convenience, safety, and general welfare can best be served by establishing regulatory powers to be exercised by the city. 3. This chapter is intended to establish regulatory provisions that authorize the city to regulate telecommunications services and systems to the extent authorized by federal and state law, including but not limited to the Federal Cable Communications Policy Act of 1984, the Federal Cable Television Consumer and Competition Act of 1992, the Federal Telecommunications Act of 1996, applicable regulations of the Federal Communications Commission, and applicable California statutes and regulations. B. The purpose and intent of this chapter is to provide for the attainment of the following objectives: 1. To enable the city to discharge its public trust in a manner consistent with rapidly evolving federal and state regulatory policies, industry competition, and technological development. 2. To authorize and to manage reasonable access to the city's public rights-of-way and public property for telecommunications purposes on a competitively neutral and nondiscriminatory basis. 3. To obtain fair and reasonable compensation for the city and its residents for authorizing the private use of the public rights-of-way and public property. 4. A-1 To promote competition in telecommunications services, minimize unnecessary local regulation of telecommunications service providers, and encourage the delivery of advanced and competitive telecommunications services on the broadest possible basis to local government and to the businesses, institutions, and residents of the city. 5. To establish clear local guidelines, standards, and time frames for the exercise of local authority with respect to the regulation of telecommunications service providers. 6. To encourage the profitable deployment of advanced telecommunications infrastructures that satisfy local needs, deliver enhanced government services, and provide informed consumer choices in an evolving telecommunications market. (Ord. 339 § 2 (part), 1998) 13.12.030 - Defined terms and phrases. Various terms and phrases used in this chapter are defined below in Article V, Section 13.12.400. (Ord. 339 § 2 (part), 1998) Article II. - Cable Television Systems 13.12.100 - Authority and findings. A. In accordance with applicable federal and state law, the city is authorized to grant one or more nonexclusive franchises to construct, reconstruct, operate, and maintain cable television systems within the city limits. B. The city council finds that the development of cable television and related telecommunications services may provide significant benefits for, and substantial impacts upon, the residents of the city. Because of the complex and rapidly changing technology associated with cable television, the city council further finds that the public convenience, safety, and general welfare can best be served by establishing regulatory powers to be exercised by the city. This article is intended to specify the means for providing to the public the best possible cable television and related telecommunications services, and every franchise issued in accordance with this article is intended to achieve this primary objective. It is the further intent of this article to adopt regulatory provisions that will enable the city to regulate cable television and related telecommunications services to the maximum extent authorized by federal and state law. (Ord. 339 § 2 (part), 1998) 13.12.110 - Franchise terms and conditions. A. Franchise Purposes. A franchise granted by the city under the provisions of this article may authorize the grantee to do the following: 1. To engage in the business of providing cable service and such other telecommunications services as may be authorized by law and which grantee elects to provide to its subscribers within the designated franchise service area. 2. A-2 To erect, install, construct, repair, rebuild, reconstruct, replace, maintain, and retain, cable lines, related electronic equipment, supporting structures, appurtenances, and other property in connection with the operation of the cable system in, on, over, under, upon, along and across streets or other public places within the designated franchise service area. 3. To maintain and operate the franchise properties for the origination, reception, transmission, amplification, and distribution of television and radio signals, and for the delivery of cable services and such other services as may be authorized by law. B. Franchise Required. It is unlawful for any person to construct, install, or operate a cable television system within any street or public way in the city without first obtaining a franchise under the provisions of this article. C. Term of the Franchise. 1. A franchise granted under this article will be for the term specified in the franchise agreement, commencing upon the effective date of the ordinance or resolution adopted by the city council that authorizes the franchise. 2. A franchise granted under this article may be renewed upon application by the grantee in accordance with the then- applicable provisions of state and federal law and of this article. D. Franchise Territory. A franchise is effective within the territorial limits of the city, and within any area added to the city during the term of the franchise, unless otherwise specified in the ordinance or resolution granting the franchise or in the franchise agreement. E. Federal or State Jurisdiction. This article will be construed in a manner consistent with all applicable federal and state laws, and it applies to all franchises granted or renewed after the effective date of this article, to the extent authorized by applicable law. F. Franchise Non-Transferable. 1. Grantee may not sell, transfer, lease, assign, sublet, or dispose of, in whole or in part, either by forced or involuntary sale, or by ordinary sale, contract, consolidation, or otherwise, the franchise or any of the rights or privileges therein granted, without the prior consent of the city council and then only upon such terms and conditions as may be prescribed by the city council, which consent may not be unreasonably denied or delayed. Any attempt to sell, transfer, lease, assign, or otherwise dispose of the franchise without the consent of the city council is null and void. The granting of a security interest in any assets of the grantee, or any mortgage or other hypothecation, will not be deemed a transfer for the purposes of this subsection. 2. The requirements of subsection (F)(1) of this section apply to any change in control of grantee. The word "control" as used herein is not limited to the ownership of major stockholder or partnership interests, but includes actual workingA-3 control in whatever manner exercised. If grantee is a corporation, prior authorization of the city council is required where ownership or control of more than ten percent of the voting stock of grantee is acquired by a person or a group of persons acting in concert, none of whom, singularly or collectively, owns or controls the voting stock of the grantee as of the effective date of the franchise. 3. Grantee must notify the city in writing of any foreclosure or judicial sale of all or a substantial part of the grantee's franchise property, or upon the termination of any lease or other interest covering all or a substantial part of that franchise property. That notification will be considered by the city as notice that a change in control of ownership of the franchise has taken place, and the provisions of this paragraph that require the prior consent of the city council to that change in control of ownership will apply. 4. For the purpose of determining whether it will consent to an acquisition, transfer, or change in control, the city may inquire as to the qualifications of the prospective transferee or controlling party, and grantee must assist the city in that inquiry. In seeking the city's consent to any change of ownership or control, grantee or the proposed transferee, or both, must complete Federal Communications Commission Form 394 or its equivalent. This application must be submitted to the city not less than one hundred twenty days prior to the proposed date of transfer. The transferee must establish that it possesses the legal, financial, and technical capability to operate and maintain the cable system and to comply with all franchise requirements during the remaining term of the franchise. If the legal, financial, and technical qualifications of the applicant are satisfactory, the city will consent to the transfer of the franchise. The consent of the city to that transfer will not be unreasonably denied or delayed. 5. Any financial institution holding a pledge of the grantee's assets to secure the advance of money for the construction or operation of the franchise property has the right to notify the city that it, or a designee satisfactory to the city, will take control of and operate the cable television system upon grantee's default in its financial obligations. Further, that financial institution must also submit a plan for such operation within ninety days after assuming control. The plan must insure continued service and compliance with all franchise requirements during the period that the financial institution will exercise control over the system. The financial institution may not exercise control over the system for a period exceeding one year unless authorized by the city, in its sole discretion, and during that period of time it will have the right to petition the city to transfer the franchise to another grantee. 6. Grantee must reimburse the city for the city's reasonable review and processing expenses incurred in connection with any transfer or change in control of the franchise. These expenses include, without limitation, costs of administrative review, financial, legal, and technical evaluation of the proposed transferee, consultants (including technical and legal experts and all costs incurred by these experts), notice and publication costs, and document preparation expenses. No reimbursement may be offset against any franchise fee payable to the city during the term of the franchise. G. Geographical Coverage. 1. Grantee must design, construct, and maintain the cable television system so as to have the capability to pass every dwelling unit in the city, subject to any service-area line extension requirements of the franchise agreement. 2. After service has been established by activating trunk or distribution cables for any service area, grantee must provide service to any requesting subscriber in that service area within thirty days from the date of request, provided that the A-4 grantee is able to secure on reasonable terms and conditions all rights-of-way necessary to extend service to that subscriber within that thirty-day period. H. Nonexclusive Franchise. Every franchise granted is nonexclusive. The city specifically reserves the right to grant, at any time, such additional franchises for a cable television system, or any component thereof, as it deems appropriate, subject to applicable state and federal law. If an additional franchise is proposed to be granted to a subsequent grantee, a noticed public hearing must first be held in accordance with the provisions of Government Code Section 53066.3. I. Multiple Franchises. 1. The city may grant any number of franchises, subject to applicable state and federal law. The city may limit the number of franchises granted, based upon, but not necessarily limited to, the requirements of applicable law and specific local considerations, such as: a. The capacity of the public rights-of-way to accommodate multiple cables in addition to the cables, conduits, and pipes of the existing utility systems, such as electrical power, telephone, gas, and sewerage. b. The benefits that may accrue to subscribers as a result of cable system competition, such as lower rates and improved service. c. The disadvantages that may result from cable system competition, such as the requirement for multiple pedestals on residents' property, and the disruption arising from numerous excavations within the public rights-of-way. 2. The city may require that any new grantee be responsible for its own underground trenching and the associated costs if, in the city's opinion, the rights-of-way in any particular area cannot reasonably accommodate additional cables. (Ord. 339 § 2 (part), 1998) 13.12.120 - Franchise applications and renewal. A. Filing of Applications. Any person desiring an initial franchise for a cable television system must file an application with the city. A reasonable nonrefundable application fee in an amount established by resolution of the city council must accompany the application. That application fee will cover all costs associated with reviewing and processing the application, including without limitation costs of administrative review, financial, legal, and technical evaluation of the applicant, consultants (including technical and legal experts and all costs incurred by those experts), notice and publication requirements, and document preparation expenses. If those costs exceed the application fee, the applicant must pay the difference to the city within thirty days following receipt of an itemized statement of those costs. B. Applications—Contents. An application for an initial franchise for a cable television system must contain, as applicable: 1.A-5 A statement as to the proposed franchise service area. 2. A resume of the applicant's prior history, including the experience and expertise of the applicant in the cable television and telecommunications industry. 3. A list of the partners, general and limited, of the applicant, if a partnership, or the percentage of stock owned or controlled by each stockholder, if a closely-held corporation. If the applicant is a publicly-owned corporation, each owner of ten percent or more of the issued and outstanding capital stock must be identified. 4. A list of officers, directors, and managing employees of the applicant, together with a description of the background of each such person. 5. The names and addresses of any parent or subsidiary of the applicant, or any other business entity owning or controlling applicant in whole or in part, or that is owned or controlled in whole or in part by the applicant. 6. A current financial statement of the applicant verified by a certified public accountant or otherwise certified to be true, complete, and correct to the reasonable satisfaction of the city. 7. The proposed construction and service schedule. 8. Any additional information that the city deems to be reasonably necessary. C. Consideration of Initial Applications. 1. Upon receipt of an application for an initial franchise, the city manager or the city manager's designee must prepare a report and make recommendations to the city council concerning that application. 2. A public hearing will be noticed prior to any initial franchise grant, at a time and date approved by the city council. Within thirty days after the close of the hearing, the city council will make a decision based upon the evidence received at the hearing as to whether the franchise should be granted, and, if granted, subject to what conditions. The city council may grant one or more franchises, or may decline to grant any franchise. D. Franchise Renewal. Franchise renewals will be processed in accordance with then-applicable law. The city and grantee, by mutual consent, may enter into renewal negotiations at any time during the term of the franchise. (Ord. 339 § 2 (part), 1998) A-6 13.12.130 - Contents of cable television franchise agreements. A. The terms and provisions of a franchise agreement for the operation of a cable television or related telecommunications services may relate to or include, without limitation, the following subject matters: 1. The nature, scope, geographical area, and duration of the franchise. 2. The applicable franchise fee to be paid to the city, including the amount, the method of computation, and the time for payment. 3. Requirements relating to compliance with and implementation of state and federal laws and regulations pertaining to the operation of the cable television system. 4. Requirements relating to the construction, upgrade, or rebuild of the cable television system, as well as the provision of special services, such as outlets for public buildings, emergency alert capability, and parental control devices. 5. Requirements relating to the maintenance of a performance bond, a security fund, a letter of credit, or similar assurances to secure the performance of the grantee's obligations under the franchise agreement. 6. Requirements relating to comprehensive liability insurance, workers' compensation insurance, and indemnification. 7. Requirements relating to consumer protection and customer service standards, including the resolution of subscriber complaints and disputes and the protection of subscribers' privacy rights. 8. Requirements relating to the grantee's support of local cable usage, including the provision of public, educational, and governmental access channels, the coverage of public meetings and special events, and financial support for governmental access channels. 9. Requirements relating to construction, operation, and maintenance of the cable television system within the public rights-of-way, including compliance with all applicable building codes and permit requirements of the city, the abandonment, removal, or relocation of facilities, and compliance with FCC technical standards. 10. Requirements relating to recordkeeping, accounting procedures, reporting, periodic audits, and performance reviews, and the inspection of grantee's books and records. 11. A-7 Acts or omissions constituting material breaches of or defaults under the franchise agreement, and the applicable penalties or remedies for such breaches or defaults, including fines, penalties, liquidated damages, suspension, revocation, and termination. 12. Requirements relating to the sale, assignment, or other transfer or change in control of the franchise. 13. The grantee's obligation to maintain continuity of service and to authorize, under certain specified circumstances, the city's operation and management of the cable system. 14. Such additional requirements, conditions, policies, and procedures as may be mutually agreed upon by the parties to the franchise agreement and that will, in the judgment of city staff and the city council, best serve the public interest and protect the public health, welfare, and safety. B. If there is any conflict or inconsistency between the provisions of a franchise agreement authorized by the city council and provisions of this article, the provisions of the franchise agreement will control. (Ord. 339 § 2 (part), 1998) 13.12.140 - Fee for support of local cable usage. A fee paid to the city is hereby established for the support of public, educational, and governmental access facilities and activities within the city. Unless a higher percentage is authorized by applicable state or federal law, this fee shall be one percent of a grantee's gross annual cable service revenues, as that term is defined below in Section 13.12.400, or in the grantee's franchise agreement, or in applicable provisions of state or federal law. This fee is also applicable to a state video franchise holder operating within the city, which shall pay to the city one percent of its gross revenues, as defined in California Public Utilities Code Section 5860. (Ord. 454 § 1, 2007: Ord. 455U § 1, 2007) 13.12.150 - Special provisions applicable to holders of state video franchises. A. Franchise Fee. A state video franchise holder operating in the city shall pay to the city a franchise fee that is equal to five percent of the gross revenues of that state video franchise holder. The term "gross revenues" shall be defined as set forth in Public Utilities Code Section 5860. B. Audit Authority. Not more than once annually, the city may examine and perform an audit of the business records of a holder of a state video franchise to ensure compliance with all applicable statutes and regulations related to the computation and payment of franchise fees. C. Customer Service Penalties Under State Video Franchises. 1. The holder of a state video franchise shall comply with all applicable state and federal customer service and protection standards pertaining to the provision of video service.A-8 2. The city shall monitor a state video franchise holder's compliance with state and federal customer service and protection standards. The city will provide to the state video franchise holder written notice of any material breaches of applicable customer service and protection standards, and will allow the state video franchise holder thirty days from receipt of the notice to remedy the specified material breach. Material breaches not remedied within the thirty-day time period will be subject to the following monetary penalties to be imposed by the city in accordance with state law: a. For the first occurrence of a violation, a monetary penalty of five hundred dollars shall be imposed for each day the violation remains in effect, not to exceed one thousand five hundred dollars for each violation. b. For a second violation of the same nature within twelve months, a monetary penalty of one thousand dollars shall be imposed for each day the violation remains in effect, not to exceed three thousand dollars for each violation. c. For a third or further violation of the same nature within twelve months, a monetary penalty of two thousand five hundred dollars shall be imposed for each day the violation remains in effect, not to exceed seven thousand five hundred dollars for each violation. 3. A state video franchise holder may appeal a monetary penalty assessed by the city within sixty days. After relevant evidence and testimony is received, and staff reports are submitted, the city council will vote to either uphold or vacate the monetary penalty. The city council's decision on the imposition of a monetary penalty shall be final. D. City Response to State Video Franchise Applications. 1. Applicants for state video franchises within the boundaries of the city must concurrently provide to the city complete copies of any application or amendments to applications filed with the California Public Utilities Commission. One complete copy must be provided to the city clerk. 2. The city will provide any appropriate comments to the California Public Utilities Commission regarding an application or an amendment to an application for a state video franchise. E. PEG Channel Capacity. A state video franchise holder that uses the public rights-of-way shall designate sufficient capacity on its network to enable the carriage of at least three public, educational, or governmental (PEG) access channels. 1. PEG access channels shall be for the exclusive use of the city or its designees to provide public, educational, or governmental programming. 2. A-9 Advertising, underwriting, or sponsorship recognition may be carried on the PEG access channels for the purpose of funding PEG-related activities. 3. The PEG access channels shall be carried on the basic service tier. 4. To the extent feasible, the PEG access channels shall not be separated numerically from other channels carried on the basic service tier, and the channel numbers for the PEG access channels shall be the same channel numbers used by the incumbent cable operator unless prohibited by federal law. 5. After the initial designation of PEG access channel numbers, the channel numbers shall not be changed without the prior written consent of the city, unless the change is required by federal law. 6. Each PEG access channel shall be capable of carrying a National Television System Committee (NTSC) television signal. F. Interconnection. Where technically feasible, a state video franchise holder and an incumbent cable operator shall negotiate in good faith to interconnect their networks for the purpose of providing PEG access channel programming. Interconnection may be accomplished by direct cable, microwave link, satellite, or other reasonable method of connection. State video franchise holders and incumbent cable operators shall provide interconnection of the PEG access channels on reasonable terms and conditions and may not withhold the interconnection. If a state video franchise holder and an incumbent cable operator cannot reach a mutually acceptable interconnection agreement, the city may require the incumbent cable operator to allow the state video franchise holder to interconnect its network with the incumbent's network at a technically feasible point on the holder's network as identified by the holder. If no technically feasible point for interconnection is available, the state video franchise holder shall make an interconnection available to the channel originator and shall provide the facilities necessary for the interconnection. The cost of any interconnection shall be borne by the state video franchise holder requesting the interconnection unless otherwise agreed to by the parties. G. Emergency Alert System and Emergency Overrides. A state video franchise holder must comply with the emergency alert system requirements of the Federal Communications Commission in order that emergency messages may be distributed over the holder's network. Provisions in city-issued franchises authorizing the city to provide local emergency notifications shall remain in effect, and shall apply to all state video franchise holders in the city for the duration of the city-issued franchise, or until the term of the franchise would have expired had it not been terminated pursuant to subdivision (m) of Section 5840 of the California Public Utilities Code, or until January 1, 2009, whichever is later. (Ord. 454 § 2, 2007: Ord. 455U § 2, 2007) Article III. - Open Video Systems 13.12.200 - Applicability. The provisions of this article are applicable to an open video system operator, as defined below in Article V, that intends to deliver video programming to consumers in the city over an open video system. (Ord. 339 § 2 (part), 1998) 13.12.210 - Application required. A-10 A. Before commencing the delivery of video programming services to consumers in the city over an open video system, the open video system operator must file an application with the city. That application must include or be accompanied by the following, as applicable: 1. The identity of the applicant, including all affiliates of the applicant. 2. Copies of FCC Form 1275, all "Notices of Intent" filed under 47 CFR Section 76.1503(b) (1), and the Order of the FCC, all of which relate to certification of the applicant to operate an open video system in accordance with Section 653(a) (1) of the Communications Act and the FCC's rules. 3. The area or areas of the city that the applicant desires to serve. 4. A description of the open video system services that will be offered by the applicant over its existing or proposed facilities. 5. A description of the transmission medium that will be used by the applicant to deliver the open video system services. 6. Information in sufficient detail to establish the applicant's technical qualifications, experience, and expertise regarding the ownership and operation of the open video system described in the application. 7. Financial statements prepared in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles that demonstrate the applicant's financial ability to: a. Construct, operate, maintain and remove any new physical plant that is proposed to be constructed in the city. b. Comply with the city's public, educational, and governmental access requirements as specified below in Section 13.12.230 (B)(4). c. Comply with the city's requirement that gross revenue fees be paid in the sum of five percent, as specified below in Section 13.12.230 (B)(2). 8. An accurate map showing the location of any existing telecommunications facilities in the city that the applicant intends to use, to purchase, or to lease. 9. A-11 If the applicant's operation of the open video system will require the construction of new physical plant in the city, the following additional information must be provided: a. A preliminary construction schedule and completion dates. b. Preliminary engineering plans, specifications, and a network map of any new facilities to be constructed in the city, in sufficient detail to identify: i. The location and route requested for the applicant's proposed facilities. ii. The locations, if any, for interconnection with the facilities of other telecommunications service providers. iii. The specific structures, improvements, facilities, and obstructions, if any, that the applicant proposes to remove or relocate on a temporary or permanent basis. c. The applicant's statement that, in constructing any new physical plant, the applicant will comply with all applicable ordinances, rules, and regulations of the city, including the payment of all required permit and processing fees. 10. The information and documentation that is required to be submitted to the city by a video provider, as specified below in subsection B of Section 13.12.310. 11. Such additional information as may be requested by the city manager. 12. A nonrefundable filing fee in an amount established by resolution of the city council. B. If any item of information specified above in subsection A of this section is determined under paramount federal or state law to be unlawful, the city manager is authorized to waive the requirement that such information be included in the application. (Ord. 339 § 2 (part), 1998) 13.12.220 - Review of the application. Within thirty days after receipt of an application filed under Section 13.12.210 that is deemed to be complete, the city manager will give written notice to the applicant of the city's intent to negotiate an agreement setting forth the terms and conditions under which the operation of the proposed open video system will be authorized by the city. The commencement of those negotiations will be on a date that is mutually acceptable to the city and to the applicant. (Ord. 339 § 2 (part), 1998) A-12 13.12.230 - Agreement required. A. No video programming services may be provided in the city by an open video system operator unless the operator and the city have executed a written agreement setting forth the terms and conditions under which the operation of the proposed open video system will be authorized by the city. B. The agreement between the city and the open video system operator may contain terms and conditions that relate to the following subject matters, to the extent that such terms, conditions, and subject matters are not preempted by federal statute or regulations: 1. The nature, scope, and duration of the agreement, including provisions for its renewal or extension. 2. The obligation of the open video system operator to pay to the city, at specified times, fees on the gross revenues received by the operator, as authorized by 47 CFR Section 76.1511, in accordance with the following standards and procedures: a. The amount of the fees on the gross revenues will be five percent, and will be paid in lieu of the franchise fees permitted under Section 622 of the Communications Act. b. The term "gross revenues" means (i) all gross revenues received by an open video system operator or its affiliates, including all revenues received from subscribers and all carriage revenues received from unaffiliated video programming providers; and (ii) all advertising revenues received by the operator or its affiliates in connection with the provision of video programming, where such revenues are included in the calculation of the cable franchise fee paid to the city by the franchised cable operator. The term "gross revenues" does not include revenues, such as subscriber or advertising revenues, collected by unaffiliated video programming providers. 3. The obligation of the open video system operator to comply with requirements relating to information collection and recordkeeping, accounting procedures, reporting, periodic audits, and inspection of records in order to ensure the accuracy of the fees on the gross revenues that are required to be paid as specified above in subsection (B)(2) of this section. 4. The obligation of the open video system operator to meet the city's requirements with respect to public, educational, and governmental access channel capacity, services, facilities, and equipment, as provided for in 47 CFR Section 76.1505. In this regard, the following standards and procedures are applicable: a. The open video system operator is subject to the same public, educational, and governmental access requirements that apply within the cable television franchise service area with which its system overlaps. b. A-13 The open video system operator must ensure that all subscribers receive all public, educational, and governmental access channels within the franchise service area in which the city's subscribers are located. c. The open video system operator may negotiate with the city to establish the operator's obligations with respect to public, educational, and governmental access channel capacity, services, facilities, and equipment. These negotiations may include the city's franchised cable operator if the city, the open video system operator, and the franchised cable operator so desire. d. If the open video system operator and the city are unable to reach an agreement regarding the operator's obligations with respect to public, educational, and governmental access channel capacity, services, facilities, and equipment within the city's jurisdiction, then the following obligations will be imposed: i. The open video system operator must satisfy the same public, educational, and governmental access obligations as the city's franchised cable operator by providing the same amount of channel capacity for public, educational, and governmental access and by matching the city's franchised cable operator's annual financial contributions in support of public, educational, and governmental access services, facilities, and equipment that are actually used by the city. For in- kind contributions, such as cameras or production studios, the open video system operator may satisfy its statutory obligation by negotiating mutually agreeable terms with the city's franchised cable operator, so that public, educational, and governmental access services to the city are improved or increased. If such terms cannot be agreed upon, the open video system operator must pay to the city the monetary equivalent of the franchised cable operator's depreciated in-kind contribution, or, in the case of facilities, the annual amortization value. Any matching contributions provided by the open video system operator must be used to fund activities arising under Section 611 of the Communications Act. ii. The city will impose upon the open video system operator the same rules and procedures that it imposes upon the franchised cable operator with regard to the open video system operator's use of channel capacity designated for public, educational, and governmental access use when that capacity is not being used for such purposes. e. The city's franchised cable operator is required under federal law to permit the open video system operator to connect with its public, educational, and governmental access channel feeds. The open video system operator and the franchised cable operator may decide how to accomplish this connection, taking into consideration the physical and technical characteristics of the cable and the open video systems involved. If the franchised cable operator and the open video system operator cannot agree on how to accomplish the connection, the city has the right to decide. The city may require that the connection occur on city-owned property or on public rights-of-way. f. All costs of connection to the franchised cable operator's public, educational, and governmental access channel feed must be borne by the open video system operator. These costs will be counted towards the open video system operator's matching financial contributions set forth above in subsection (B)(4)(d)(i) of this section. g. The city will not impose upon the open video system operator any public, educational, or governmental access obligations that are greater than those imposed upon the franchised cable operator. h. A-14 If there is no existing franchised cable operator, the provisions of 47 CFR Section 76.1505(d)(6) will be applicable in determining the obligations of the open video system operator. i. The open video system operator must adjust its system to comply with new public, educational, and access obligations imposed on the city's franchised cable operator following a renewal of the cable television franchise; provided, however, that the open video system operator will not be required to displace other programmers using its open video system to accommodate public, educational, and governmental access channels. The open video system operator must comply with such new public, educational, and governmental access obligations whenever additional capacity is or becomes available, whether it is due to increased channel capacity or to decreased demand for channel capacity. 5. If the city and the open video system operator cannot agree as to the application of the FCC's rules regarding the open video system operator's obligations to provide public, educational, and governmental access under the provisions of subsection (B)(4) of this section, then either party may file a complaint with the FCC in accordance with the dispute resolution procedures set forth in 47 CFR Section 76.1514. No agreement will be executed by the city until the dispute has been finally resolved. 6. If the open video system operator intends to maintain an institutional network, as defined in Section 611(f) of the Communications Act, the city will require that educational and governmental access channels be designated on that institutional network to the same extent that those channels are designated on the institutional network of the city's franchised cable operator. 7. The authority of an open video system provider to exercise editorial control over any public, educational, or governmental use of channel capacity will be restricted in accordance with the provisions of 47 CFR Section 76.1505(f). 8. The obligation of the open video system operator to comply with all applicable federal and state statutes and regulations relating to customer service standards, including the Cable Television and Video Customer Service and Information Act (Government Code Sections 53054, et seq.), and the Video Customer Service Act (Government Code Sections 53088, et seq.) 9. If new physical plant is proposed to be constructed within the city, the obligation of the open video system operator to comply with the following rights-of-way use and management responsibilities that are also imposed by the city upon other telecommunications service providers in a nondiscriminatory and competitively neutral manner: a. Compliance with all applicable city building and zoning codes, including applications for excavation, encroachment, and construction permits and the payment of all required permit and inspection fees. b. The coordination of construction requirements. c. Compliance with established standards and procedures for constructing lines across private property. d.A-15 Compliance with all applicable insurance and indemnification requirements. e. The repair and resurfacing of construction-damaged streets. f. Compliance with all public safety requirements that are applicable to telecommunications service providers using public property or public rights-of-way. 10. Acts or omissions constituting breaches or defaults of the agreement, and the applicable penalties, liquidated damages, and other remedies, including fines or the suspension, revocation, or termination of the agreement. 11. Requirements relating to the sale, assignment, or transfer of the open video system. 12. Requirements relating to the open video system operator's compliance with and implementation of state and federal laws, rules, and regulations pertaining to the operation of the open video system. 13. Such additional requirements, conditions, terms, policies, and procedures as may be mutually agreed upon by the city and the open video system operator and that will, in the judgment of the city council, best serve the public interest and protect the public health, welfare, and safety. (Ord. 339 § 2 (part), 1998) Article IV. - Other Telecommunications Services and Systems 13.12.300 - Other multichannel video programming distributors. The term "cable system," as defined in federal law and as set forth in Article V below, does not include a facility that serves subscribers without using any public rights-of-way. Consequently, the categories of multichannel video programming distributors identified below are not deemed to be "cable systems" and are therefore exempt from the city's franchise requirements and from certain other local regulatory provisions authorized by federal law, provided that their distribution or transmission facilities do not involve the use of the city's public rights-of-way. A. Multichannel multipoint distribution service ("MMDS"), also known as "wireless cable," which typically involves the transmission by an FCC-licensed operator of numerous broadcast stations from a central location using line-of-sight technology. B. Local multipoint distribution service ("LMDS"), another form of over-the-air wireless video service for which licenses are auctioned by the FCC, and which offers video programming, telephony, and data networking services. C. Direct broadcast satellite ("DBS"), also referred to as "direct-to-home satellite services," which involves the distribution or broadcasting of programming or services by satellite directly to the subscriber's premises without the use of ground A-16 receiving or distribution equipment, except at the subscriber's premises or in the uplink process to the satellite. Local regulation of direct-to-home satellite services is further proscribed by the following federal statutory provisions: 1. 47 U.S.C. Section 303(v) confers upon the FCC exclusive jurisdiction to regulate the provision of direct-to-home satellite services. 2. Section 602 of the Communications Act states that a provider of direct-to-home satellite service is exempt from the collection or remittance, or both, of any tax or fee imposed by any local taxing jurisdiction on direct-to-home satellite service. The terms "tax" and "fee" are defined by federal statute to mean any local sales tax, local use tax, local intangible tax, local income tax, business license tax, utility tax, privilege tax, gross receipts tax, excise tax, franchise fees, local telecommunications tax, or any other tax, license, or fee that is imposed for the privilege of doing business, regulating, or raising revenue for a local taxing jurisdiction. (Ord. 339 § 2 (part), 1998) 13.12.310 - Video providers—Registration—Customer service standards. A. Unless the customer protection and customer service obligations of a video provider, as that term is defined in Article V, are specified in a franchise, license, lease, or similar written agreement with the city, a video provider must comply with all applicable provisions of the following state statutes: 1. The Cable Television and Video Customer Service and Information Act (Government Code Sections 53054, et seq.) 2. The Video Customer Service Act (Government Code Sections 53088, et seq.) B. All video providers that are operating in the city on the effective date of the ordinance codified in this chapter, or that intend to operate in the city after the effective date of said ordinance, must register with the city. The registration form must include or be accompanied by the following: 1. The video provider's name, address, and local telephone numbers. 2. The names of the officers of the video provider. 3. A copy of the video provider's written policies and procedures relating to customer service standards and the handling of customer complaints, as required by Government Code Sections 53054, et seq. These customer service standards must include, without limitation, standards regarding the following: a. Installation, disconnection, service and repair obligations, employee identification, and service call response time and scheduling.A-17 b. Customer telephone and office hours. c. Procedures for billing, charges, refunds, and credits. d. Procedures for termination of service. e. Notice of the deletion of a programming service, the changing of channel assignments, or an increase in rates. f. Complaint procedures and procedures for bill dispute resolution. g. The video provider's written commitment to distribute annually to the city, and to its employees and customers, a notice describing the customer service standards specified above in subsections (B)(3)(a) through (f) of this section. This annual notice must include the report of the video provider on its performance in meeting its customer service standards, as required by Government Code Section 53055.2. 4. Unless a video provider is exempt under federal law from its payment, a registration fee in an amount established by resolution of the city council to cover the reasonable costs incurred by the city in reviewing and processing the registration form. 5. In addition to the registration fee specified above in subsection (B)(4) of this section, the written commitment of the video provider to pay to the city, when due, all costs and expenses reasonably incurred by the city in resolving any disputes between the video provider and its subscribers, which dispute resolution is mandated by Government Code Section 53088.2(o). C. The city council may establish by ordinance a schedule of monetary penalties for the material breach by a video provider of its obligations under subparagraphs (a) through (n) of Government Code Section 53088.2. As used herein, the term "material breach" means any substantial and repeated failure to comply with the consumer service standards set forth in Government Code Section 53088.2. The provisions of that ordinance must be consistent with the provisions of Government Code Section 53088.2. The schedule of monetary penalties may also impose a penalty, as authorized by Government Code Section 53056(a), for the failure of a video provider to distribute the annual notice required by Government Code Section 53055.1, which penalty may not exceed $500 for each year in which the notice is not distributed as required by state statute. (Ord. 339 § 2 (part), 1998) 13.12.320 - Antennas for telecommunications services. A. Section 17.76.020 (Antennas) of Chapter 17.76 (Miscellaneous Permits and Standards) of Title 17 (Zoning) of this code sets forth the city's regulatory requirements relating to the siting and construction of the following categories of antennasA-18 that are commonly used in providing or receiving telecommunications services: 1. Satellite earth station antennas, (also known as "satellite dish antennas"), which are parabolic or dish-shaped antennas which are in excess of one meter in diameter or devices that are designed for over-the-air reception of radio or television broadcast signals, multichannel multipoint distribution service, or direct broadcast satellite services. 2. Commercial antennas, which are unstaffed facilities for the transmission or reception of radio, television, and communications signals, commonly consisting of an antenna array, connection cables, a support structure to achieve the necessary elevation, and an equipment facility to house accessory equipment, which may include cabinets, pedestals, shelters, and similar protective structures. B. Notwithstanding any other provision of this chapter, Chapter 12.18 (Wireless Telecommunications Facilities in the Public Right-of-Way) of this code shall apply to siting, modification and construction of wireless telecommunication facilities, as defined therein, which in whole or in part, itself or as part of another structure, rests upon, in, over or under the public right-of-way, including, but not limited to, any such facility owned, controlled, operated or managed by an entity entitled to construct within the right-of-way pursuant to a franchise with the city or state law. (Ord. 339 § 2 (part), 1998) (Ord. No. 578U, § 3, 1-19-16; Ord. No. 580, § 3, 3-15-16) 13.12.330 - Telecommunications service provided by telephone corporations. A. The city council finds and determines as follows: 1. The Federal Telecommunications Act of 1996 preempts and declares invalid all state rules that restrict entry or limit competition in both local and long-distance telephone service. 2. The California Public Utilities Commission ("CPUC") is primarily responsible for the implementation of local telephone competition, and it issues certificates of public convenience and necessity to new entrants that are qualified to provide competitive local telephone exchange services and related telecommunications service, whether using their own facilities or the facilities or services provided by other authorized telephone corporations. 3. Section 234(a) of the California Public Utilities Code defines a "telephone corporation" as "every corporation or person owning, controlling, operating, or managing any telephone line for compensation within this state." 4. Section 616 of the California Public Utilities Code provides that a telephone corporation "may condemn any property necessary for the construction and maintenance of its telephone line." 5. Section 2902 of the California Public Utilities Code authorizes municipal corporations to retain their powers of control to supervise and regulate the relationships between a public utility and the general public in matters affecting the health,A-19 convenience, and safety of the general public, including matters such as the use and repair of public streets by any public utility and the location of the poles, wires, mains, or conduits of any public utility on, under, or above any public streets. 6. Section 7901 of the California Public Utilities Code authorizes telephone and telegraph corporations to construct telephone or telegraph lines along and upon any public road or highway, along or across any of the waters or lands within this state, and to erect poles, posts, piers, or abatements for supporting the insulators, wires, and other necessary fixtures of their lines, in such manner and at such points as not to incommode the public use of the road or highway or interrupt the navigation of the waters. 7. Section 7901.1 of the California Public Utilities Code confirms the right of municipalities to exercise reasonable control as to the time, place, and manner in which roads, highways, and waterways are accessed, which control must be applied to all entities in an equivalent manner, and may involve the imposition of fees. 8. Section 50030 of the California Government Code provides that any permit fee imposed by a city for the placement, installation, repair, or upgrading of telecommunications facilities, such as lines, poles, or antennas, by a telephone corporation that has obtained all required authorizations from the CPUC and the FCC to provide telecommunications services, must not exceed the reasonable costs of providing the service for which the fee is charged, and must not be levied for general revenue purposes. B. In recognition of and in compliance with the statutory authorizations and requirements set forth above in subsection A of this section, the following regulatory provisions are applicable to a telephone corporation that desires to provide telecommunications service by means of facilities that are proposed to be constructed within the city's public rights-of- way: 1. The telephone corporation must apply for and obtain, as may be applicable, an excavation permit, an encroachment permit, or a building permit ("ministerial permit"). 2. In addition to the information required by this code in connection with an application for a ministerial permit, a telephone corporation must submit to the city the following supplemental information: a. A copy of the certificate of public convenience and necessity issued by the CPUC to the applicant, and a copy of the CPUC decision that authorizes the applicant to provide the telecommunications service for which the facilities are proposed to be constructed in the city's public rights-of-way. b. If the applicant has obtained from the CPUC a certificate of public convenience to operate as a "competitive local carrier," the following additional requirements are applicable: i. As required by Decision No. 95-12-057 of the CPUC, the applicant must establish that it has timely filed with the city a quarterly report that describes the type of construction and the location of each construction project proposed to be undertaken in the city during the calendar quarter in which the application is filed, which information is sufficient to enable the city to coordinate multiple projects, as may be necessary.A-20 ii. If the applicant's proposed construction project will extend beyond the utility rights-of-way into undisturbed areas or other rights-of-way, the applicant must establish that it has filed a petition with the CPUC to amend its certificate of public convenience and necessity and that the proposed construction project has been subjected to a full-scale environmental analysis by the CPUC, as required by Decision No. 95-12-057 of the CPUC. iii. The applicant must inform the city whether its proposed construction project will be subject to any of the mitigation measures specified in the negative declaration ["Competitive Local Carriers" (CLCs) Projects for Local Exchange Communication Service throughout California] or to the mitigation monitoring plan adopted in connection with Decision No. 95-12-057 of the CPUC. The city's issuance of a ministerial permit will be conditioned upon the applicant's compliance with all applicable mitigation measures and monitoring requirements imposed by the CPUC upon telephone corporations that are designated as "competitive local carriers." C. In recognition of the fact that numerous excavations in the public rights-of-way diminish the useful life of the surface pavement, and for the purpose of mitigating the adverse impacts of numerous excavations on the quality and longevity of public street maintenance within the city, the following policies and procedures are adopted: 1. The city manager is directed to ensure that all public utilities, including telephone corporations, comply with all local design, construction, maintenance and safety standards that are contained within, or are related to, a ministerial permit that authorizes the construction of facilities within the public rights-of-way. 2. The city manager is directed to coordinate the construction and installation of facilities by public utilities, including telephone corporations, in order to minimize the number of excavations in the public rights-of-way. In this regard, based upon projected plans for street construction or renovation projects, the city manager is authorized to establish on a quarterly basis one or more construction time periods or "windows" for the installation of facilities within the public rights-of-way. Telephone corporations and other public utilities that submit applications for ministerial permits to construct facilities after a predetermined date may be required to delay such construction until the next quarterly "window" that is established by the city. D. Chapter 9.04 of Title 9 of this Code sets forth the city's regulatory requirements that apply to the installation and operation of burglar alarm devices within the city. (Ord. 339 § 2 (part), 1998) Article V. - Definitions 13.12.400 - Defined terms and phrases. A. For the purposes of this chapter, the words, terms, phrases, and their derivations set forth in this article have the meanings set forth below. Words used in the present tense include the future tense, and words in the singular include the plural number. "Affiliate" means, when used in relation to any person, another person who owns or controls, is owned or controlled by, or is under common ownership or control with, such person. For purposes of this definition, the term "own" means to own an equity interest, or its equivalent, of ten percent or more. A-21 "Cable service" means the one-way transmission to subscribers of video programming, or other programming services, and subscriber interaction, if any, that is required for the selection or use of that video programming or other programming service. For the purposes of this definition, "video programming" means programming provided by, or generally considered comparable to programming provided by, a television broadcast station; and "other programming service" means information that a cable system operator makes available to all subscribers generally. "Cable system," or "cable communications system" or "cable television system," means a facility, consisting of a set of closed transmission paths and associated signal generation, reception, and control equipment that is designed to provide cable service that includes video programming and that is provided to multiple subscribers within a community. The term "cable system" does not include: a. A facility that serves only to retransmit the television signals of one or more television broadcast stations; b. A facility that serves subscribers without using any public right-of-way; c. A facility of a common carrier that is subject, in whole or in part, to the provisions of Title II of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, except that such facility will be considered a cable system (other than for purposes specified in Section 621(c) of the 1984 Cable Act) to the extent such facility is used in the transmission of video programming directly to subscribers, unless the extent of such use is solely to provide interactive on-demand services; d. An open video system that complies with Section 653 of Title VI of the Telecommunications Act of 1996; or e. Any facilities of an electric utility that are used solely for operating its electric utility system. "Cable system operator" means any person or group of persons: a. Who provides cable service over a cable system and directly or through one or more affiliates owns a significant interest in that cable system; or b. Who otherwise controls or is responsible for, through any arrangement, the management and operation of that cable system. "City" means the city of Rancho Palos Verdes as represented by its city council or by any delegate acting within the scope of its delegated authority. "_____ CFR Section _____" means the Code of Federal Regulations. Thus, the citation of "47 CFR 80.1" refers to Title 47, part 80, section 1, of the Code of Federal Regulations. "Communications Act" means the Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. Sections 153, et seq.), as amended by the Cable Communications Policy Act of 1984, the Cable Television Consumer Protection and Competition Act of 1992, and the Telecommunications Act of 1996. "FCC" or "Federal Communications Commission" means the federal administrative agency, or any lawful successor, that is authorized to regulate telecommunications services and telecommunications service providers on a national level. A-22 "Franchise" means an initial authorization, or the renewal of an initial authorization, issued by the city council, whether such authorization is designated as a franchise, permit, license, resolution, contract, certificate, agreement, or otherwise, that authorizes the construction or operation of a cable system. "Franchise fee" means any fee or assessment of any kind that is authorized by state or federal law to be imposed by the city on a grantee as compensation in the nature of rent for the grantee's use of the public rights-of-way. The term "franchise fee" does not include: a. Any tax, fee, or assessment of general applicability (including any such tax, fee, or assessment imposed on both utilities and cable operators or their services); b. Capital costs that are required by the franchise to be incurred by grantee for public, educational, or governmental access facilities; c. Costs or charges that are incidental to the award or enforcement of the franchise, including payments for bonds, security funds, letters of credit, insurance, indemnification, penalties, or liquidated damages; or d. Any fee imposed under Title 17, United States Code. "Franchise service area" or "service area" means the entire geographic area of the city as it is now constituted, or may in the future be constituted, unless otherwise specified in the ordinance or resolution granting a franchise, or in an franchise agreement. "Grantee" means any person that is awarded a franchise in accordance with this chapter, and that person's lawful successor, transferee, or assignee. "Gross annual cable service revenues" means the annual gross revenues received by a grantee from all operations of its cable television system within the city, excluding uncollected bad debt, refundable deposits, rebates or credits, and further excluding any sales, excise, or other taxes or charges that are required to be collected for direct pass-through to the local, state or federal government. Revenues identified and collected from subscribers as franchise fees may not be excluded from a grantee's gross annual cable service revenues. "Gross annual telecommunications service revenues" means the annual revenues received by a grantee from the operation of a cable system to provide telecommunications services other than video programming services. "Multichannel video programming distributor" or "video programming distributor" means a person such as, but not limited to, a cable system operator, a multichannel multipoint distribution service, a direct broadcast satellite service, or a television receive-only satellite program distributor, who makes available multiple channels of video programming for purchase by subscribers or customers. "Open video system" means a facility consisting of a set of transmission paths and associated signal generation, reception, and control equipment that is designed to provide cable service, including video programming, and that is provided to multiple subscribers within the city, provided that the FCC has certified that such system complies with 47 CFR Section 1500 et seq., entitled "Open Video Systems." "Open video system operator" means any person or group of persons who provides cable service over an open video system and directly or through one or more affiliates, owns a significant interest in that open video system, or otherwise controls or is responsible for the management and operation of that open video system. "Person" means an individual, partnership, association, joint stock company, trust, corporation, or governmental entity. A-23 "Public, educational or government access facilities" or "PEG access facilities," means the total of the following: a. Channel capacity designated for noncommercial public, educational, or government use; and b. Facilities and equipment for the use of that channel capacity. "Subscriber" or "customer" or "consumer" means any person who, for any purpose, subscribes to the services provided by a multichannel video programming distributor and who pays the charges for those services. "Street" or "public way" means each of the following that has been dedicated to the public and maintained under public authority or by others and is located within the city limits: streets, roadways, highways, avenues, lanes, alleys, sidewalks, easements, rights-of-way, and similar public property that the city from time to time authorizes to be included within the definition of a street. "Telecommunications" means the transmission, between or among points specified by the user, of information of the user's choosing, without change in the form or content of the information as sent and received. "Telecommunications equipment" means equipment, other than customer premises equipment, used by a telecommunications service provider to provide telecommunications service, including software that is integral to that equipment. "Telecommunications service" means the offering of telecommunications directly to the public for a fee, or to such classes of users as to be effectively available directly to the public, regardless of the equipment or facilities that are used. "Telecommunications service provider" means any provider of telecommunications service. " U.S.C. Section _____" means the United States Code. Thus, the citation of "47 U.S.C. Section 153" refers to Title 47, section 153, of the United States Code. "Video programming provider" means any person or group of persons who has the right under the federal copyright laws to select and to contract for the carriage of specific video programming on an open video system. "Video provider" means any person, company, or service that provides one or more channels of video programming to a residence, including a home, condominium, apartment, or mobilehome, where some fee is paid for that service, whether directly or as included in dues or rental charges, and whether or not public rights-of-way are used in the delivery of that video programming. A "video provider" includes, without limitation, providers of cable television service, master antenna television, satellite master antenna television, direct broadcast satellite, multipoint distribution services, and other providers of video programming, whatever their technology. B. Unless otherwise expressly stated, words, terms, and phrases not defined in this article will be given their meaning as used in Title 47 of the United States Code, as amended, and, if not defined in that Code, their meaning as used in Title 47 of the Code of Federal Regulations. (Ord. 339 § 2 (part), 1998) Article VI. - Violations—Severability 13.12.500 - Violations—Enforcement. A. Any person who wilfully violates any provision of this chapter is guilty of a misdemeanor and is punishable as provided for in Chapter 1.08 of Title 1 of this Code.A-24 B. The misdemeanor penalty specified above in subsection A of this section is not applicable to a violation of any provision of this chapter for which another sanction or penalty may be imposed under any franchise, license, lease, or similar written agreement between the city and a multichannel video programming distributor or other telecommunications service provider. C. The city may initiate a civil action in any court of competent jurisdiction to enjoin any violation of this chapter. (Ord. 339 § 2 (part), 1998) 13.12.510 - Severability. If any provision of this chapter is determined by any court of competent jurisdiction, or by any federal or state agency having jurisdiction over its subject matter, to be invalid and in conflict with any paramount federal or state law or regulation now or hereafter in effect, or is determined by that court or agency to require modification in order to conform to the requirements of that paramount law or regulation, then that provision will be deemed a separate, distinct, and independent part of this chapter, and such determination will not affect the validity and enforceability of any other provisions. If that paramount federal or state law or regulation is subsequently repealed or amended so that the provision of this chapter determined to be invalid or subject to modification is no longer in conflict with that law or regulation, then that provision will again become effective and will thereafter be binding on the city and any affected telecommunications service provider; provided, however, that the city must give the affected telecommunications service provider thirty days written notice of that change before requiring compliance with that provision, or such longer period of time as may be reasonably required for the telecommunications service provider to comply with that provision. (Ord. 339 § 2 (part), 1998) A-25 Code:Select Code Section:1 or 2 or 1001 Searc 5800. 5810. Up^Add To My Favorites PUBLIC UTILITIES CODE - PUC DIVISION 2.5. THE DIGITAL INFRASTRUCTURE AND VIDEO COMPETITION ACT OF 2006 [5800 - 5970] ( Division 2.5 added by Stats. 2006, Ch. 700, Sec. 3. ) This act shall be known and may be cited as the Digital Infrastructure and Video Competition Act of 2006. (Added by Stats. 2006, Ch. 700, Sec. 3. Effective January 1, 2007.) (a) The Legislature finds and declares all of the following: (1) Increasing competition for video and broadband services is a matter of statewide concern for all of the following reasons: (A) Video and cable services provide numerous benefits to all Californians including access to a variety of news, publ information, education, and entertainment programming. (B) Increased competition in the cable and video service sector provides consumers with more choice, lowers prices, speeds the deployment of new communication and broadband technologies, creates jobs, and benefits the California economy. (C) To promote competition, the state should establish a state-issued franchise authorization process that allows market participants to use their networks and systems to provide video, voice, and broadband services to all residen of the state. (D) Competition for video service should increase opportunities for programming that appeals to California’s diverse population and many cultural communities. (2) Legislation to develop this new process should adhere to the following principles: (A) Create a fair and level playing field for all market competitors that does not disadvantage or advantage one serv provider or technology over another. (B) Promote the widespread access to the most technologically advanced cable and video services to all California communities in a nondiscriminatory manner regardless of socioeconomic status. (C) Protect local government revenues and control of public rights-of-way. (D) Require market participants to comply with all applicable consumer protection laws. (E) Complement efforts to increase investment in broadband infrastructure and close the digital divide. (F) Continue access to and maintenance of the public, education, and government (PEG) channels. (G) Maintain all existing authority of the California Public Utilities Commission as established in state and federal statutes. (3) The public interest is best served when sufficient funds are appropriated to the commission to provide adequate staff and resources to appropriately and timely process applications of video service providers and to ensure full compliance with the requirements of this division. It is the intent of the Legislature that, although video service providers are not public utilities or common carriers, the commission shall collect any fees authorized by this division the same manner and under the same terms as it collects fees from common carriers, electrical corporations, gas corporations, telephone corporations, telegraph corporations, water corporations, and every other public utility providing service directly to customers or subscribers subject to its jurisdiction such that it does not discriminate against video service providers or their subscribers. Home Bill Information California Law Publications Other Resources My Subscriptions My Favorites B-1 5820. 5830. (4) Providing an incumbent cable operator the option to secure a state-issued franchise through the preemption of a existing cable franchise between a cable operator and any political subdivision of the state, including, but not limited to, a charter city, county, or city and county, is an essential element of the new regulatory framework established by this act as a matter of statewide concern to best ensure equal protection and parity among providers and technologi as well as to achieve the goals stated by the Legislature in enacting this act. (b) It is the intent of the Legislature that a video service provider shall pay as rent a franchise fee to the local entity whose jurisdiction service is being provided for the continued use of streets, public facilities, and other rights-of-way the local entity in order to provide service. The Legislature recognizes that local entities should be compensated for t use of the public rights-of-way and that the franchise fee is intended to compensate them in the form of rent or a tol similar to that which the court found to be appropriate in Santa Barbara County Taxpayers Association v. Board of Supervisors for the County of Santa Barbara (1989) 209 Cal. App. 3d 940. (c) It is the intent of the Legislature that collective bargaining agreements be respected. (d) It is the intent of the Legislature that the definition of gross revenues in this division shall result in local entities maintaining their existing level of revenue from franchise fees. (Amended by Stats. 2007, Ch. 123, Sec. 1. Effective January 1, 2008.) (a) Nothing in this division shall be deemed as creating a vested right in a state-issued franchise by the franch holder or its affiliates that would preclude the state from amending the provisions that establish the terms and conditions of a franchise. (b) Nothing in this division shall be construed to eliminate or reduce a telephone corporation’s or video service provider’s obligations under any applicable state or federal environmental protection laws. The local entity shall serve as the lead agency for any environmental review under this division and may impose conditions to mitigate environmental impacts of the applicant’s use of the public rights-of-way that may be required pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (Division 13 (commencing with Section 21000) of the Public Resources Code). (c) The holder of a state franchise shall not be deemed a public utility as a result of providing video service under thi division. This division shall not be construed as granting authority to the commission to regulate the rates, terms, an conditions of video services, except as explicitly set forth in this division. (Added by Stats. 2006, Ch. 700, Sec. 3. Effective January 1, 2007.) For purposes of this division, the following words have the following meanings: (a) “Broadband” means any service defined as broadband in the most recent Federal Communications Commission inquiry pursuant to Section 706 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 (P.L. 104-104). (b) “Cable operator” means any person or group of persons that either provides cable service over a cable system an directly, or through one or more affiliates, owns a significant interest in a cable system; or that otherwise controls or responsible for, through any arrangement, the management and operation of a cable system, as set forth in Section 522(5) of Title 47 of the United States Code. (c) “Cable service” is defined as the one-way transmission to subscribers of either video programming, or other programming service, and subscriber interaction, if any, that is required for the selection or use of video programmin or other programming service, as set forth in Section 522(6) of Title 47 of the United States Code. (d) “Cable system” is defined as set forth in Section 522(7) of Title 47 of the United States Code. (e) “Commission” means the Public Utilities Commission. (f) “Franchise” means an initial authorization, or renewal of an authorization, issued by a franchising entity, regardle of whether the authorization is designated as a franchise, permit, license, resolution, contract, certificate, agreement or otherwise, that authorizes the construction and operation of any network in the right-of-way capable of providing video service to subscribers. (g) “Franchise fee” means the fee adopted pursuant to Section 5840. (h) “Holder” or “holder of a state franchise” means a person or group of persons that has been issued a state franchi from the commission pursuant to this division. (i) “Incumbent cable operator” means a cable operator or OVS serving subscribers under a franchise in a particular city, county, or city and county franchise area on January 1, 2007. B-2 5840. (j) “Local entity” means any city, county, city and county, or joint powers authority within the state within whose jurisdiction a holder of a state franchise under this division may provide cable service or video service. (k) “Local franchising entity” means the city, county, city and county, or joint powers authority entitled to require franchises and impose fees on cable operators, as set forth in Section 53066 of the Government Code. (l) “Network” means a component of a facility that is wholly or partly physically located within a public right-of-way a that is used to provide video service, cable service, voice, or data services. (m) “Open-video system” or “OVS” means those services set forth in Section 573 of Title 47 of the United States Cod (n) “OVS operator” means any person or group of persons that either provides cable service over an open-video system directly, or through one or more affiliates, owns a significant interest in an open-video system, or that otherwise controls or is responsible for, through any arrangement, the management of an open-video system. (o) “Public rights-of-way” means the area along and upon any public road or highway, or along or across any of the waters or lands within the state. (p) “State franchise” means a franchise that is issued pursuant to this division. (q) “Subscriber” means a person who lawfully receives video service from the holder of a state franchise for a fee. (r) “Video programming” means programming provided by, or generally considered comparable to programming provided by, a television broadcast station, as set forth in Section 522(20) of Title 47 of the United States Code. (s) “Video service” means video programming services, cable service, or OVS service provided through facilities locat at least in part in public rights-of-way without regard to delivery technology, including Internet protocol or other technology. This definition does not include (1) any video programming provided by a commercial mobile service provider defined in Section 332(d) of Title 47 of the United States Code, or (2) video programming provided as part and via, a service that enables users to access content, information, electronic mail, or other services offered over th public Internet. (t) “Video service provider” means an entity providing video service. (Amended by Stats. 2007, Ch. 123, Sec. 2. Effective January 1, 2008.) (a) The commission is the sole franchising authority for a state franchise to provide video service under this division. Neither the commission nor any local franchising entity or other local entity of the state may require the holder of a state franchise to obtain a separate franchise or otherwise impose any requirement on any holder of a sta franchise except as expressly provided in this division. Sections 53066, 53066.01, 53066.2, and 53066.3 of the Government Code shall not apply to holders of a state franchise. (b) The application process described in this section and the authority granted to the commission under this section shall not exceed the provisions set forth in this section. (c) Any person or corporation who seeks to provide video service in this state for which a franchise has not already been issued, after January 1, 2008, shall file an application for a state franchise with the commission. The commissio may impose a fee on the applicant that shall not exceed the actual and reasonable costs of processing the applicatio and shall not be levied for general revenue purposes. (d) No person or corporation shall be eligible for a state-issued franchise, including a franchise obtained from renewa or transfer of an existing franchise, if that person or corporation is in violation of any final nonappealable order relati to either the Cable Television and Video Provider Customer Service and Information Act (Article 3.5 (commencing wit Section 53054) of Chapter 1 of Part 1 of Division 2 of Title 5 of the Government Code) or the Video Customer Service Act (Article 4.5 (commencing with Section 53088) of Chapter 1 of Part 1 of Division 2 of Title 5 of the Government Code). (e) The application for a state franchise shall be made on a form prescribed by the commission and shall include all o the following: (1) A sworn affidavit, signed under penalty of perjury by an officer or another person authorized to bind the applican that affirms all of the following: (A) That the applicant has filed or will timely file with the Federal Communications Commission all forms required by the Federal Communications Commission before offering cable service or video service in this state. (B) That the applicant or its affiliates agrees to comply with all federal and state statutes, rules, and regulations, including, but not limited to, the following:B-3 (i) A statement that the applicant will not discriminate in the provision of video or cable services as provided in Secti 5890. (ii) A statement that the applicant will abide by all applicable consumer protection laws and rules as provided in Section 5900. (iii) A statement that the applicant will remit the fee required by subdivision (a) of Section 5860 to the local entity. (iv) A statement that the applicant will provide PEG channels and the required funding as required by Section 5870. (C) That the applicant agrees to comply with all lawful city, county, or city and county regulations regarding the time place, and manner of using the public rights-of-way, including, but not limited to, payment of applicable encroachme permit, and inspection fees. (D) That the applicant will concurrently deliver a copy of the application to any local entity where the applicant will provide service. (2) The applicant’s legal name and any name under which the applicant does or will do business in this state. (3) The address and telephone number of the applicant’s principal place of business, along with contact information f the person responsible for ongoing communications with the commission. (4) The names and titles of the applicant’s principal officers. (5) The legal name, address, and telephone number of the applicant’s parent company, if any. (6) A description of the video service area footprint that is proposed to be served, as identified by a collection of Unit States Census Bureau Block numbers (13 digit) or a geographic information system digital boundary meeting or exceeding national map accuracy standards. This description shall include the socioeconomic status information of al residents within the service area footprint. (7) If the applicant is a telephone corporation or an affiliate of a telephone corporation, as defined in Section 234, a description of the territory in which the company provides telephone service. The description shall include socioeconomic status information of all residents within the telephone corporation’s service territory. (8) The expected date for the deployment of video service in each of the areas identified in paragraph (6). (9) Adequate assurance that the applicant possesses the financial, legal, and technical qualifications necessary to construct and operate the proposed system and promptly repair any damage to the public right-of-way caused by th applicant. To accomplish these requirements, the commission may require a bond. (f) The commission may require that a corporation with wholly owned subsidiaries or affiliates is eligible only for a single state-issued franchise and prohibit the holding of multiple franchises through separate subsidiaries or affiliates The commission may establish procedures for a holder of a state-issued franchise to amend its franchise to reflect changes in its service area. (g) The commission shall commence accepting applications for a state franchise no later than April 1, 2007. (h) (1) The commission shall notify an applicant for a state franchise and any affected local entities whether the applicant’s application is complete or incomplete before the 30th calendar day after the applicant submits the application. (2) If the commission finds the application is complete, it shall issue a state franchise before the 14th calendar day after that finding. (3) If the commission finds that the application is incomplete, it shall specify with particularity the items in the application that are incomplete and permit the applicant to amend the application to cure any deficiency. The commission shall have 30 calendar days from the date the application is amended to determine its completeness. (4) The failure of the commission to notify the applicant of the completeness or incompleteness of the application before the 44th calendar day after receipt of an application shall be deemed to constitute issuance of the certificate applied for without further action on behalf of the applicant. (i) The state franchise issued by the commission shall contain all of the following: (1) A grant of authority to provide video service in the service area footprint as requested in the application. (2) A grant of authority to use the public rights-of-way, in exchange for the franchise fee adopted under subdivision (q), in the delivery of video service, subject to the laws of this state. B-4 (3) A statement that the grant of authority is subject to lawful operation of the cable service or video service by the applicant or its successor in interest. (j) The state franchise issued by the commission may be terminated by the video service provider by submitting at least 90 days prior written notice to subscribers, local entities, and the commission. (k) It is unlawful to provide video service without a state or locally issued franchise. (l) Subject to the notice requirements of this division, a state franchise may be transferred to any successor in intere of the holder to which the certificate is originally granted, provided that the transferee first submits all of the information required of the applicant by this section to the commission and is in compliance with Section 5970. (m) In connection with, or as a condition of, receiving a state franchise, the commission shall require a holder to not the commission and any applicable local entity within 14 business days of any of the following changes involving the holder of the state franchise: (1) Any transaction involving a change in the ownership, operation, control, or corporate organization of the holder, including a merger, an acquisition, or a reorganization. (2) A change in the holder’s legal name or the adoption of, or change to, an assumed business name. The holder sha submit to the commission a certified copy of either of the following: (A) The proposed amendment to the state franchise. (B) The certificate of assumed business name. (3) A change in the holder’s principal business address or in the name of the person authorized to receive notice on behalf of the holder. (4) Any transfer of the state franchise to a successor in interest of the holder. The holder shall identify the successor interest to which the transfer is made. (5) The termination of any state franchise issued under this division. The holder shall identify both of the following: (A) The number of subscribers in the service area covered by the state franchise being terminated. (B) The method by which the holder’s subscribers were notified of the termination. (6) A change in one or more of the service areas of the holder of a state franchise pursuant to this division that woul increase or decrease the territory within the service area. The holder shall describe the new boundaries of the affecte service areas after the proposed change is made. (n) Prior to offering video service in a local entity’s jurisdiction, the holder of a state franchise shall notify the local entity that the video service provider will provide video service in the local entity’s jurisdiction. The notice shall be given at least 10 days, but no more than 60 days, before the video service provider begins to offer service. (o) Any video service provider that currently holds a franchise with a local franchising entity is entitled to seek a stat franchise in the area designated in that franchise upon meeting any of the following conditions: (1) The expiration, prior to any renewal or extension, of its local franchise. (2) A mutually agreed upon date set by both the local franchising entity and video service provider to terminate the franchise provided in writing by both parties to the commission. (3) When a video service provider that holds a state franchise provides the notice required pursuant to subdivision (n to a local jurisdiction that it intends to initiate providing video service in all or part of that jurisdiction, a video service provider operating under a franchise issued by a local franchising entity may elect to obtain a state franchise to repla its locally issued franchise. The franchise issued by the local franchising entity shall terminate and be replaced by a state franchise when the commission issues a state franchise for the video service provider that includes the entire service area served by the video service provider and the video service provider notifies the local entity that it will begin providing video service in that area under a state franchise. (p) Notwithstanding any rights to the contrary, an incumbent cable operator opting into a state franchise under this section shall continue to serve all areas as required by its local franchise agreement existing on January 1, 2007, unt that local franchise otherwise would have expired. However, an incumbent cable operator that is also a telephone corporation with less than 1,000,000 telephone customers in California and is providing video service in competition with another incumbent cable operator shall not be required to provide service beyond the area in which it is providin video service as of January 1, 2007. B-5 5850. 5860. (q) (1) There is hereby adopted a state franchise fee payable as rent or a toll for the use of the public rights-of-way holders of the state franchise issued pursuant to this division. The amount of the state franchise fee shall be 5 perce of gross revenues, as defined in subdivision (d) of Section 5860, or the percentage applied by the local entity to the gross revenue of the incumbent cable operator, whichever is less. If there is no incumbent cable operator or upon th expiration of the incumbent cable operator’s franchise, the amount of the state franchise fee shall be 5 percent of gro revenues, as defined in subdivision (d) of Section 5860, unless the local entity adopts an ordinance setting the amou of the franchise fee at less than 5 percent. (2) (A) The state franchise fee shall apply equally to all video service providers in the local entity’s jurisdiction. (B) Notwithstanding subparagraph (A), if the video service provider is leasing access to a network owned by a local entity, the local entity may set a franchise fee for access to the network different from the franchise fee charged to a video service provider for access to the rights-of-way to install its own network. (Amended by Stats. 2007, Ch. 123, Sec. 3. Effective January 1, 2008.) (a) A state-issued franchise shall only be valid for 10 years after the date of issuance, and the holder shall app for a renewal of the state franchise for an additional 10-year period if it wishes to continue to provide video services the area covered by the franchise after the expiration of the franchise. (b) Except as provided in this section, the criteria and process described in Section 5840 shall apply to a renewal registration, and the commission shall not impose any additional or different criteria. (c) Renewal of a state franchise shall be consistent with federal law and regulations. (d) The commission shall not renew the franchise if the video service provider is in violation of any final nonappealab court order issued pursuant to this division. (Amended by Stats. 2007, Ch. 123, Sec. 4. Effective January 1, 2008.) (a) The holder of a state franchise that offers video service within the jurisdiction of the local entity shall calculate and remit to the local entity a state franchise fee, adopted pursuant to subdivision (q) of Section 5840, as provided in this section. The obligation to remit the franchise fee to a local entity begins immediately upon provision video service within that local entity’s jurisdiction. However, the remittance shall not be due until the time of the first quarterly payment required under subdivision (h) that is at least 180 days after the provision of service began. The f remitted to a city or city and county shall be based on gross revenues, as defined in subdivision (d), derived from th provision of video service within that jurisdiction. The fee remitted to a county shall be based on gross revenues earned within the unincorporated area of the county. No fee under this section shall become due unless the local ent provides documentation to the holder of the state franchise supporting the percentage paid by the incumbent cable operator serving the area within the local entity’s jurisdiction. The fee shall be calculated as a percentage of the holder’s gross revenues, as defined in subdivision (d). The fee remitted to the local entity pursuant to this section ma be used by the local entity for any lawful purpose. (b) The state franchise fee shall be a percentage of the holder’s gross revenues, as defined in subdivision (d). (c) No local entity or any other political subdivision of this state may demand any additional fees or charges or other remuneration of any kind from the holder of a state franchise based solely on its status as a provider of video or cab services other than as set forth in this division and may not demand the use of any other calculation method or definition of gross revenues. However, nothing in this section shall be construed to limit a local entity’s ability to impose utility user taxes and other generally applicable taxes, fees, and charges under other applicable provisions of state law that are applied in a nondiscriminatory and competitively neutral manner. (d) For purposes of this section, the term “gross revenues” means all revenue actually received by the holder of a sta franchise, as determined in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles, that is derived from the operation of the holder’s network to provide cable or video service within the jurisdiction of the local entity, including all of the following: (1) All charges billed to subscribers for any and all cable service or video service provided by the holder of a state franchise, including all revenue related to programming provided to the subscriber, equipment rentals, late fees, and insufficient fund fees. (2) Franchise fees imposed on the holder of a state franchise by this section that are passed through to, and paid by the subscribers. B-6 (3) Compensation received by the holder of a state franchise that is derived from the operation of the holder’s netwo to provide cable service or video service with respect to commissions that are paid to the holder of a state franchise compensation for promotion or exhibition of any products or services on the holder’s network, such as a “home shopping” or similar channel, subject to paragraph (4) of subdivision (e). (4) A pro rata portion of all revenue derived by the holder of a state franchise or its affiliates pursuant to compensat arrangements for advertising derived from the operation of the holder’s network to provide video service within the jurisdiction of the local entity, subject to paragraph (1) of subdivision (e). The allocation shall be based on the numb of subscribers in the local entity divided by the total number of subscribers in relation to the relevant regional or national compensation arrangement. (e) For purposes of this section, the term “gross revenue” set forth in subdivision (d) does not include any of the following: (1) Amounts not actually received, even if billed, such as bad debt; refunds, rebates, or discounts to subscribers or other third parties; or revenue imputed from the provision of cable services or video services for free or at reduced rates to any person as required or allowed by law, including, but not limited to, the provision of these services to pub institutions, public schools, governmental agencies, or employees except that forgone revenue chosen not to be received in exchange for trades, barters, services, or other items of value shall be included in gross revenue. (2) Revenues received by any affiliate or any other person in exchange for supplying goods or services used by the holder of a state franchise to provide cable services or video services. However, revenue received by an affiliate of th holder from the affiliate’s provision of cable or video service shall be included in gross revenue as follows: (A) To the extent that treating the revenue as revenue of the affiliate, instead of revenue of the holder, would have t effect of evading the payment of fees that would otherwise be paid to the local entity. (B) The revenue is not otherwise subject to fees to be paid to the local entity. (3) Revenue derived from services classified as noncable services or nonvideo services under federal law, including, not limited to, revenue derived from telecommunications services and information services, other than cable services or video services, and any other revenues attributed by the holder of a state franchise to noncable services or nonvideo services in accordance with Federal Communications Commission rules, regulations, standards, or orders. (4) Revenue paid by subscribers to “home shopping” or similar networks directly from the sale of merchandise throu any home shopping channel offered as part of the cable services or video services. However, commissions or other compensation paid to the holder of a state franchise by “home shopping” or similar networks for the promotion or exhibition of products or services shall be included in gross revenue. (5) Revenue from the sale of cable services or video services for resale in which the reseller is required to collect a fe similar to the franchise fee from the reseller’s subscribers. (6) Amounts billed to, and collected from, subscribers to recover any tax, fee, or surcharge imposed by any governmental entity on the holder of a state franchise, including, but not limited to, sales and use taxes, gross receip taxes, excise taxes, utility users taxes, public service taxes, communication taxes, and any other fee not imposed by this section. (7) Revenue from the sale of capital assets or surplus equipment not used by the purchaser to receive cable services video services from the seller of those assets or surplus equipment. (8) Revenue from directory or Internet advertising revenue, including, but not limited to, yellow pages, white pages, banner advertisement, and electronic publishing. (9) Revenue received as reimbursement by programmers of specific, identifiable marketing costs incurred by the holder of a state franchise for the introduction of new programming. (10) Security deposits received from subscribers, excluding security deposits applied to the outstanding balance of a subscriber’s account and thereby taken into revenue. (f) For the purposes of this section, in the case of a video service that may be bundled or integrated functionally with other services, capabilities, or applications, the state franchise fee shall be applied only to the gross revenue, as defined in subdivision (d), attributable to video service. Where the holder of a state franchise or any affiliate bundles integrates, ties, or combines video services with nonvideo services creating a bundled package, so that subscribers p a single fee for more than one class of service or receive a discount on video services, gross revenues shall be determined based on an equal allocation of the package discount, that is, the total price of the individual classes of service at advertised rates compared to the package price, among all classes of service comprising the package. The B-7 5870. holder’s offering a bundled package shall not be deemed a promotional activity. If the holder of a state franchise doe not offer any component of the bundled package separately, the holder of a state franchise shall declare a stated ret value for each component based on reasonable comparable prices for the product or service for the purpose of determining franchise fees based on the package discount. (g) For the purposes of determining gross revenue under this division, a video service provider shall use the same method of determining revenues under generally accepted accounting principals as that which the video service provider uses in determining revenues for the purpose of reporting to national and state regulatory agencies. (h) The state franchise fee shall be remitted to the applicable local entity quarterly, within 45 days after the end of th quarter for that calendar quarter. Each payment shall be accompanied by a summary explaining the basis for the calculation of the state franchise fee. If the holder does not pay the franchise fee when due, the holder shall pay a la payment charge at a rate per year equal to the highest prime lending rate during the period of delinquency, plus 1 percent. If the holder has overpaid the franchise fee, it may deduct the overpayment from its next quarterly paymen (i) Not more than once annually, a local entity may examine the business records of a holder of a state franchise to t extent reasonably necessary to ensure compensation in accordance with this section. The holder shall keep all busine records reflecting any gross revenues, even if there is a change in ownership, for at least four years after those revenues are recognized by the holder on its books and records. If the examination discloses that the holder has underpaid franchise fees by more than 5 percent during the examination period, the holder shall pay all of the reasonable and actual costs of the examination. If the examination discloses that the holder has not underpaid franchise fees, the local entity shall pay all of the reasonable and actual costs of the examination. In every other instance, each party shall bear its own costs of the examination. Any claims by a local entity that compensation is no in accordance with subdivision (a), and any claims for refunds or other corrections to the remittance of the holder of state franchise, shall be made within three years and 45 days of the end of the quarter for which compensation is remitted, or three years from the date of the remittance, whichever is later. Either a local entity or the holder may, in the event of a dispute concerning compensation under this section, bring an action in a court of competent jurisdictio (j) The holder of a state franchise may identify and collect the amount of the state franchise fee as a separate line ite on the regular bill of each subscriber. (Amended by Stats. 2007, Ch. 123, Sec. 5. Effective January 1, 2008.) (a) The holder of a state franchise shall designate a sufficient amount of capacity on its network to allow the provision of the same number of public, educational, and governmental access (PEG) channels, as are activated and provided by the incumbent cable operator that has simultaneously activated and provided the greatest number of PE channels within the local entity under the terms of any franchise in effect in the local entity as of January 1, 2007. Fo the purposes of this section, a PEG channel is deemed activated if it is being utilized for PEG programming within the local entity’s jurisdiction for at least eight hours per day. The holder shall have three months from the date the local entity requests the PEG channels to designate the capacity. However, the three-month period shall be tolled by any period during which the designation or provision of PEG channel capacity is technically infeasible, including any failur or delay of the incumbent cable operator to make adequate interconnection available, as required by this section. (b) The PEG channels shall be for the exclusive use of the local entity or its designee to provide public, educational, and governmental channels. The PEG channels shall be used only for noncommercial purposes. However, advertising underwriting, or sponsorship recognition may be carried on the channels for the purpose of funding PEG-related activities. The PEG channels shall all be carried on the basic service tier. To the extent feasible, the PEG channels sha not be separated numerically from other channels carried on the basic service tier and the channel numbers for the PEG channels shall be the same channel numbers used by the incumbent cable operator unless prohibited by federal law. After the initial designation of PEG channel numbers, the channel numbers shall not be changed without the agreement of the local entity unless the change is required by federal law. Each channel shall be capable of carrying National Television System Committee (NTSC) television signal. (c) (1) If less than three PEG channels are activated and provided within the local entity as of January 1, 2007, a loc entity whose jurisdiction lies within the authorized service area of the holder of a state franchise may initially reques the holder to designate not more than a total of three PEG channels. (2) The holder shall have three months from the date of the request to designate the capacity. However, the three- month period shall be tolled by any period during which the designation or provision of PEG channel capacity is technically infeasible, including any failure or delay of the incumbent cable operator to make adequate interconnectio available, as required by this section. B-8 (d) (1) The holder shall provide an additional PEG channel when the nonduplicated locally produced video programm televised on a given channel exceeds 56 hours per week as measured on a quarterly basis. The additional channel sh not be used for any purpose other than to continue programming additional government, education, or public access television. (2) For the purposes of this section, “locally produced video programming” means programming produced or provide by any local resident, the local entity, or any local public or private agency that provides services to residents of the franchise area; or any transmission of a meeting or proceeding of any local, state, or federal governmental entity. (e) Any PEG channel provided pursuant to this section that is not utilized by the local entity for at least eight hours p day as measured on a quarterly basis may no longer be made available to the local entity, and may be programmed the holder’s discretion. At the time that the local entity can certify to the holder a schedule for at least eight hours of daily programming, the holder of the state franchise shall restore the channel or channels for the use of the local entity. (f) The content to be provided over the PEG channel capacity provided pursuant to this section shall be the responsibility of the local entity or its designee receiving the benefit of that capacity, and the holder of a state franch bears only the responsibility for the transmission of that content, subject to technological restraints. (g) (1) The local entity shall ensure that all transmissions, content, or programming to be transmitted by a holder of state franchise are provided or submitted in a manner or form that is compatible with the holder’s network, if the loc entity produces or maintains the PEG programming in that manner or form. If the local entity does not produce or maintain PEG programming in that manner or form, then the local entity may submit or provide PEG programming in manner or form that is standard in the industry. The holder shall be responsible for any changes in the form of the transmission necessary to make it compatible with the technology or protocol utilized by the holder to deliver service If the holder is required to change the form of the transmission, the local entity shall permit the holder to do so in a manner that is most economical to the holder. (2) The provision of those transmissions, content, or programming to the holder of a state franchise shall constitute authorization for the holder to carry those transmissions, content, or programming. The holder may carry the transmission, content, or programming outside of the local entity’s jurisdiction if the holder agrees to pay the local entity or its designee any incremental licensing costs incurred by the local entity or its designee associated with that transmission. A local entity shall not enter into a licensing agreement that imposes higher proportional costs for transmission to subscribers outside the local entity’s jurisdiction. (3) The PEG signal shall be receivable by all subscribers, whether they receive digital or analog service, or a combination thereof, without the need for any equipment other than the equipment necessary to receive the lowest cost tier of service. The PEG access capacity provided shall be of similar quality and functionality to that offered by commercial channels on the lowest cost tier of service unless the signal is provided to the holder at a lower quality o with less functionality. (h) Where technically feasible, the holder of a state franchise and an incumbent cable operator shall negotiate in goo faith to interconnect their networks for the purpose of providing PEG programming. Interconnection may be accomplished by direct cable, microwave link, satellite, or other reasonable method of connection. Holders of a state franchise and incumbent cable operators shall provide interconnection of the PEG channels on reasonable terms and conditions and may not withhold the interconnection. If a holder of a state franchise and an incumbent cable operato cannot reach a mutually acceptable interconnection agreement, the local entity may require the incumbent cable operator to allow the holder to interconnect its network with the incumbent’s network at a technically feasible point o the holder’s network as identified by the holder. If no technically feasible point for interconnection is available, the holder of a state franchise shall make an interconnection available to the channel originator and shall provide the facilities necessary for the interconnection. The cost of any interconnection shall be borne by the holder requesting t interconnection unless otherwise agreed to by the parties. (i) A holder of a state franchise shall not be required to interconnect for, or otherwise to transmit, PEG content that i branded with the logo, name, or other identifying marks of another cable operator or video service provider. For purposes of this section, PEG content is not branded if it includes only production credits or other similar information displayed at the conclusion of a program. The local entity may require a cable operator or video service provider to remove its logo, name, or other identifying marks from PEG content that is to be made available through interconnection to another provider of PEG capacity. (j) In addition to any provision for the PEG channels required under subdivisions (a) to (i), inclusive, the holder shall reserve, designate, and, upon request, activate a channel for carriage of state public affairs programming administer B-9 5880. 5885. by the state. (k) All obligations to provide and support PEG channel facilities and institutional networks and to provide cable servic to community buildings contained in a locally issued franchise existing on December 31, 2006, shall continue until th local franchise expires, until the term of the franchise would have expired if it had not been terminated pursuant to subdivision (o) of Section 5840, or until January 1, 2009, whichever is later. (l) After January 1, 2007, and until the expiration of the incumbent cable operator’s franchise, if the incumbent cable operator has existing unsatisfied obligations under the franchise to remit to the local entity any cash payments for th ongoing costs of public, educational, and government access channel facilities or institutional networks, the local ent shall divide those cash payments among all cable or video providers as provided in this section. The fee shall be the holder’s pro rata per subscriber share of the cash payment required to be paid by the incumbent cable operator to th local entity for the costs of PEG channel facilities. All video service providers and the incumbent cable operator shall subject to the same requirements for recurring payments for the support of PEG channel facilities and institutional networks, whether expressed as a percentage of gross revenue or as an amount per subscriber, per month, or otherwise. (m) In determining the fee described in subdivision (l) on a pro rata per subscriber basis, all cable and video service providers shall report, for the period in question, to the local entity the total number of subscribers served within the local entity’s jurisdiction, which shall be treated as confidential by the local entity and shall be used only to derive th per subscriber fee required by this section. The local entity shall then determine the payment due from each provide based on a per subscriber basis for the period by multiplying the unsatisfied cash payments for the ongoing capital costs of PEG channel facilities by a ratio of the reported subscribers of each provider to the total subscribers within th local entity as of the end of the period. The local entity shall notify the respective providers, in writing, of the resultin pro rata amount. After the notice, any fees required by this section shall be remitted to the applicable local entity quarterly, within 45 days after the end of the quarter for the preceding calendar quarter, and may only be used by th local entity as authorized under federal law. (n) A local entity may, by ordinance, establish a fee to support PEG channel facilities consistent with federal law that would become effective subsequent to the expiration of any fee imposed pursuant to subdivision (l). If no such fee exists, the local entity may establish the fee at any time. The fee shall not exceed 1 percent of the holder’s gross revenues, as defined in Section 5860. Notwithstanding this limitation, if, on December 31, 2006, a local entity is imposing a separate fee to support PEG channel facilities that is in excess of 1 percent, that entity may, by ordinance establish a fee no greater than that separate fee, and in no event greater than 3 percent, to support PEG activities. T ordinance shall expire, and may be reauthorized, upon the expiration of the state franchise. (o) The holder of a state franchise may recover the amount of any fee remitted to a local entity under this section by billing a recovery fee as a separate line item on the regular bill of each subscriber. (p) A court of competent jurisdiction shall have exclusive jurisdiction to enforce any requirement under this section o resolve any dispute regarding the requirements set forth in this section, and no provider may be barred from the provision of service or be required to terminate service as a result of that dispute or enforcement action. (Amended by Stats. 2007, Ch. 123, Sec. 6. Effective January 1, 2008.) Holders of state franchises shall comply with the Emergency Alert System requirements of the Federal Communications Commission in order that emergency messages may be distributed over the holder’s network. Any provision in a locally issued franchise authorizing local entities to provide local emergency notifications shall remain i effect, and shall apply to all holders of a state-issued franchise in the same local area, for the duration of the locally issued franchise, until the term of the franchise would have expired were the franchise not terminated pursuant to subdivision (o) of Section 5840, or until January 1, 2009, whichever is later. (Amended by Stats. 2007, Ch. 123, Sec. 7. Effective January 1, 2008.) (a) The local entity shall allow the holder of a state franchise under this division to install, construct, and maintain a network within public rights-of-way under the same time, place, and manner as the provisions governing telephone corporations under applicable state and federal law, including, but not limited to, the provisions of Section 7901.1. (b) Nothing in this division shall be construed to change existing law regarding the permitting process or compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (Division 13 (commencing with Section 21000) of the Public Resources Code) for projects by a holder of a state franchise.B-10 5890. (c) (1) For purposes of this section, an “encroachment permit” means any permit issued by a local entity relating to construction or operation of facilities pursuant to this division. (2) A local entity shall either approve or deny an application from a holder of a state franchise for an encroachment permit within 60 days of receiving a completed application. An application for an encroachment permit is complete when the applicant has complied with all statutory requirements, including the California Environmental Quality Act (Division 13 (commencing with Section 21000) of the Public Resources Code). (3) If the local entity denies an application for an encroachment permit, it shall, at the time of notifying the applicant of the denial, furnish to the applicant a detailed explanation of the reason for the denial. (4) The local entity shall adopt regulations prescribing procedures for an applicant to appeal the denial of an encroachment permit application issued by a department of the local entity to the governing body of the local entity. (5) Nothing in this section precludes an applicant and a local entity from mutually agreeing to an extension of any tim limit provided by this section. (d) A local entity may not enforce against the holder of a state franchise any rule, regulation, or ordinance that purports to allow the local entity to purchase or force the sale of a network. (Added by Stats. 2006, Ch. 700, Sec. 3. Effective January 1, 2007.) (a) A cable operator or video service provider that has been granted a state franchise under this division may not discriminate against or deny access to service to any group of potential residential subscribers because of the income of the residents in the local area in which the group resides. (b) Holders or their affiliates with more than 1,000,000 telephone customers in California satisfy subdivision (a) if al the following conditions are met: (1) Within three years after it begins providing video service under this division, at least 25 percent of households w access to the holder’s video service are low-income households. (2) Within five years after it begins providing video service under this division and continuing thereafter, at least 30 percent of the households with access to the holder’s video service are low-income households. (3) Holders provide service to community centers in underserved areas, as determined by the holder, without charge at a ratio of one community center for every 10,000 video subscribers. The holder shall not be required to take its facilities beyond the appropriate demarcation point outside the community center building or perform any inside wiri The community center may not receive service from more than one state franchise holder at a time under this sectio For purposes of this section, “community center” means any facility operated by an organization that has qualified fo the California Teleconnect Fund, as established in Section 280 and that will make the holder’s service available to the community. (c) Holders or their affiliates with fewer than 1,000,000 telephone customers in California satisfy this section if they offer video service to all customers within their telephone service area within a reasonable time, as determined by th commission. However, the commission shall not require the holder to offer video service if the cost to provide video service is substantially above the average cost of providing video service in that telephone service area. (d) When a holder provides video service outside of its telephone service area, is not a telephone corporation, or offe video service in an area where no other video service is being offered, other than direct-to-home satellite service, there is a rebuttable presumption that discrimination in providing service has not occurred within those areas. The commission may review the holder’s proposed video service area to ensure that the area is not drawn in a discriminatory manner. (e) For holders or their affiliates with more than 1,000,000 telephone customers in California, either of the following shall apply: (1) If the holder is predominantly deploying fiber optic facilities to the customer’s premise, the holder shall provide access to its video service to a number of households at least equal to 25 percent of the customer households in the holder’s telephone service area within two years after it begins providing video service under this division, and to a number at least equal to 40 percent of those households within five years. (2) If the holder is not predominantly deploying fiber optic facilities to the customer’s premises, the holder shall provide access to its video service to a number of households at least equal to 35 percent of the households in the holder’s telephone service area within three years after it begins providing video service under this division, and to a number at least equal to 50 percent of these households within five years.B-11 (3) A holder shall not be required to meet the 40-percent requirement in paragraph (1) or the 50-percent requireme in paragraph (2) until two years after at least 30 percent of the households with access to the holder’s video service subscribe to it for six consecutive months. (4) If 30 percent of the households with access to the holder’s video service have not subscribed to the holder’s vide service for six consecutive months within three years after it begins providing video service, the holder may submit validating documentation to the commission. If the commission finds that the documentation validates the holder’s claim, then the commission shall permit a delay in meeting the 40-percent requirement in paragraph (1) or the 50- percent requirement in paragraph (2) until the time that the holder does provide service to 30 percent of the households for six consecutive months. (f) (1) After two years of providing service under this division, the holder may apply to the state franchising authorit for an extension to meet the requirements of subdivision (b), (c), or (e). Notice of this application shall also be provided to the telephone customers of the holder, the Secretary of the Senate, and the Chief Clerk of the Assembly. (2) Upon application, the franchising authority shall hold public hearings in the telephone service area of the applican (3) In reviewing the failure to satisfy the obligations contained in subdivision (b), (c), or (e), the franchising authorit shall consider factors that are beyond the control of the holder, including, but not limited to, the following: (A) The ability of the holder to obtain access to rights-of-way under reasonable terms and conditions. (B) The degree to which developments or buildings are not subject to competition because of existing exclusive arrangements. (C) The degree to which developments or buildings are inaccessible using reasonable technical solutions under commercially reasonable terms and conditions. (D) Natural disasters. (4) The franchising authority may grant the extension only if the holder has made substantial and continuous effort t meet the requirements of subdivision (b), (c), or (e). If an extension is granted the franchising authority shall establ a new compliance deadline. (g) Local governments may bring complaints to the state franchising authority that a holder is not offering video service as required by this section, or the state franchising authority may open an investigation on its own motion. T state franchising authority shall hold public hearings before issuing a decision. The commission may suspend or revo the franchise if the holder fails to comply with the provisions of this division. (h) If the state franchising authority finds that the holder is in violation of this section, it may, in addition to any othe remedies provided by law, impose a fine not to exceed 1 percent of the holder’s total monthly gross revenue receive from provision of video service in the state each month from the date of the decision until the date that compliance i achieved. (i) If a court finds that the holder of the state franchise is in violation of this section, the court may immediately terminate the holder’s state franchise, and the court shall, in addition to any other remedies provided by law, impose fine not to exceed 1 percent of the holder’s total gross revenue of its entire cable and service footprint in the state in the full calendar month immediately prior to the decision. (j) As used in this section, the following definitions shall apply: (1) “Access” means that the holder is capable of providing video service at the household address using any technology, other than direct-to-home satellite service, providing two-way broadband Internet capability and video programming, content, and functionality, regardless of whether any customer has ordered service or whether the owner or landlord or other responsible person has granted access to the household. If more than one technology is utilized, the technologies shall provide similar two-way broadband Internet accessibility and similar video programming. (2) “Customer’s household” means those residential households located within the holder’s existing telephone service area that are customers of the service by which that telephone service area is defined. (3) “Household” means, consistent with the United States Census Bureau, a house, an apartment, a mobilehome, a group of rooms, or a single room that is intended for occupancy as separate living quarters. Separate living quarters are those in which the occupants live and eat separately from any other persons in the building and which have direc access from the outside of the building or through a common hall. B-12 5900. (4) “Low-income household” means those residential households located within the holder’s existing telephone servic area where the average annual household income is less than thirty-five thousand dollars ($35,000) based on the United States Census Bureau estimates adjusted annually to reflect rates of change and distribution through January 2007. (k) Nothing in this section shall be construed to require a holder to provide video service outside its wireline footprin or to match the existing service area of any cable operator. (Amended by Stats. 2007, Ch. 123, Sec. 8. Effective January 1, 2008.) (a) The holder of a state franchise shall comply with the provisions of Sections 53055, 53055.1, 53055.2, and 53088.2 of the Government Code, and any other customer service standards pertaining to the provision of video service established by federal law or regulation or adopted by subsequent enactment of the Legislature. All customer service and consumer protection standards under this section shall be interpreted and applied to accommodate newe or different technologies while meeting or exceeding the goals of the standards. (b) The holder of a state franchise shall comply with provisions of Section 637.5 of the Penal Code and the privacy standards contained in Section 551 and following of Title 47 of the United States Code. (c) The local entity shall enforce all of the customer service and protection standards of this section with respect to complaints received from residents within the local entity’s jurisdiction, but it may not adopt or seek to enforce any additional or different customer service or other performance standards under Section 53055.3 or subdivision (q), (r or (s) of Section 53088.2 of the Government Code, or any other authority or provision of law. (d) The local entity shall, by ordinance or resolution, provide a schedule of penalties for any material breach by a holder of a state franchise of this section. No monetary penalties shall be assessed for a material breach if it is out o the reasonable control of the holder. Further, no monetary penalties may be imposed prior to January 1, 2007. Any schedule of monetary penalties adopted pursuant to this section shall in no event exceed five hundred dollars ($500) for each day of each material breach, not to exceed one thousand five hundred dollars ($1,500) for each occurrence a material breach. However, if a material breach of this section has occurred, and the local entity has provided notice and a fine or penalty has been assessed, and if a subsequent material breach of the same nature occurs within 12 months, the penalties may be increased by the local entity to a maximum of one thousand dollars ($1,000) for each day of each material breach, not to exceed three thousand dollars ($3,000) for each occurrence of the material brea If a third or further material breach of the same nature occurs within those same 12 months, and the local entity has provided notice and a fine or penalty has been assessed, the penalties may be increased to a maximum of two thousand five hundred dollars ($2,500) for each day of each material breach, not to exceed seven thousand five hundred dollars ($7,500) for each occurrence of the material breach. With respect to video providers subject to a franchise or license, any monetary penalties assessed under this section shall be reduced dollar-for-dollar to the exte any liquidated damage or penalty provision of a current cable television ordinance, franchise contract, or license agreement imposes a monetary obligation upon a video provider for the same customer service failures, and no othe monetary damages may be assessed. (e) The local entity shall give the video service provider written notice of any alleged material breach of the custome service standards of this division and allow the video provider at least 30 days from receipt of the notice to remedy t specified material breach. (f) A material breach for the purposes of assessing penalties shall be deemed to have occurred for each day within th jurisdiction of each local entity, following the expiration of the period specified in subdivision (e), that any material breach has not been remedied by the video service provider, irrespective of the number of customers or subscribers affected. (g) Any penalty assessed pursuant to this section shall be remitted to the local entity, which shall submit one-half of the penalty to the Digital Divide Account established in Section 280.5. (h) Any interested person may seek judicial review of a decision of the local entity in a court of appropriate jurisdictio For this purpose, a court of law shall conduct a de novo review of any issues presented. (i) This section shall not preclude a party affected by this section from utilizing any judicial remedy available to that party without regard to this section. Actions taken by a local legislative body, including a local franchising entity, pursuant to this section shall not be binding upon a court of law. For this purpose, a court of law shall conduct de nov review of any issues presented. B-13 5910. 5920. 5930. (j) For purposes of this section, “material breach” means any substantial and repeated failure of a video service provider to comply with service quality and other standards specified in subdivision (a). (k) The Public Advocate’s Office of the Public Utilities Commission shall have authority to advocate on behalf of video subscribers regarding renewal of a state-issued franchise and enforcement of this section, and Sections 5890 and 5950. For this purpose, the office shall have access to any information in the possession of the commission subject t all restrictions on disclosure of that information that are applicable to the commission. (Amended by Stats. 2018, Ch. 51, Sec. 48. (SB 854) Effective June 27, 2018.) (a) The holder of a state franchise shall perform background checks of applicants for employment, according t current business practices. (b) A background check equivalent to that performed by the holder shall also be conducted on all of the following: (1) Persons hired by a holder under a personal service contract. (2) Independent contractors and their employees. (3) Vendors and their employees. (c) Independent contractors and vendors shall certify that they have obtained the background checks required pursuant to subdivision (b), and shall make the background checks available to the holder upon request. (d) Except as otherwise provided by contract, the holder of a state franchise shall not be responsible for administerin the background checks and shall not assume the costs of the background checks of individuals who are not applicant for employment of the holder. (e) (1) Subdivision (a) only applies to applicants for employment for positions that would allow the applicant to have direct contact with or access to the holder’s network, central office, or subscriber premises, and perform activities th involve the installation, service, or repair of the holder’s network or equipment. (2) Subdivision (b) only applies to persons that have direct contact with or access to the holder’s network, central office, or subscriber premises, and perform activities that involve the installation, service, or repair of the holder’s network or equipment. (f) This section does not apply to temporary workers performing emergency functions to restore the network of a holder to its normal state in the event of a natural disaster or an emergency that threatens or results in the loss of service. (Amended by Stats. 2007, Ch. 123, Sec. 10. Effective January 1, 2008.) A holder of a state franchise employing more than 750 total employees in California shall annually report to th commission all of the following: (a) The number of California residents employed by the holder, calculated on a full-time or full-time equivalent basis (b) The percentage of the holder’s total domestic workforce, calculated on a full-time or full-time equivalent basis. (c) The types and numbers of jobs by occupational classification held by residents of California employed by holders state franchises and the average pay and benefits of those jobs and, separately, the number of out-of-state residents employed by independent contractors, companies, and consultants hired by the holder, calculated on a full-time or fu time equivalent basis, when the holder is not contractually prohibited from disclosing the information to the public. T paragraph applies only to those employees of an independent contractor, company, or consultant that are personally providing services to the holder, and does not apply to employees of an independent contractor, company, or consultant not personally performing services for the holder. (d) The number of net new positions proposed to be created directly by the holder of a state franchise during the upcoming year by occupational classifications and by category of full-time, part-time, temporary, and contract employees. (Amended by Stats. 2015, Ch. 612, Sec. 64. (SB 697) Effective January 1, 2016.) (a) Notwithstanding any other provision of this division, any video service provider that currently holds a franchise with a local franchising entity in a county that is a party, either alone or in conjunction with any other local franchising entity located in that county, to a stipulation and consent judgment executed by the parties thereto and approved by a federal district court shall neither be entitled to seek a state franchise in any area of that county, B-14 5940. 5950. 5960. including any unincorporated area and any incorporated city of that county, nor abrogate any existing franchise befo July 1, 2014. Prior to July 1, 2014, the video service provider shall continue to be exclusively governed by any existi franchise with a local franchising entity for the term of that franchise and any and all issues relating to renewal, transfer, or otherwise in relation to that franchise shall be resolved pursuant to that existing franchise and otherwise applicable federal and local law. This subdivision shall not be deemed to extend any existing franchise beyond its ter (b) When an incumbent cable operator is providing service under an expired franchise or a franchise that expires before January 2, 2008, the local entity may extend that franchise on the same terms and conditions through Januar 2, 2008. A state franchise issued to any incumbent cable operator shall not become operative prior to January 2, 200 (c) When a video service provider that holds a state franchise provides the notice required pursuant to subdivision (n of Section 5840 to a local entity, the local franchising entity may require all incumbent cable operators to seek a stat franchise and shall terminate the franchise issued by the local franchising entity when the commission issues a state franchise for the video service provider that includes the entire service area served by the video service provider and the video service provider notifies the local entity that it will begin providing video service in that area under a state franchise. (Amended by Stats. 2007, Ch. 123, Sec. 11. Effective January 1, 2008.) The holder of a state franchise under this division who also provides stand-alone, residential, primary line, bas telephone service shall not increase this rate to finance the cost of deploying a network to provide video service. (Added by Stats. 2006, Ch. 700, Sec. 3. Effective January 1, 2007.) The commission shall not permit a telephone corporation that is providing video service directly or through its affiliates pursuant to a state-issued franchise as an incumbent local exchange carrier to increase rates for residential primary line, basic telephone service above the rate as of July 1, 2006, until January 1, 2009, unless that telephone corporation is regulated under rate of return regulation. However, the commission may allow rate increases to reflect increases in inflation as shown in the Consumer Price Index published by the Bureau of Labor Statistics. This section does not affect the authority of the commission to authorize an increase in rates for basic telephone service that is bundled with other services and priced as a bundle. Nothing in this section is intended to prohibit implementation of commission decision D. 06-04-071 to the extent it has not been implemented prior to July 1, 2006. (Added by Stats. 2006, Ch. 700, Sec. 3. Effective January 1, 2007.) (a) For purposes of this section, “census tract” has the same meaning as used by the United States Census Bureau, and “household” has the same meaning as specified in Section 5890. (b) Every holder, no later than April 1, 2008, and annually no later than April 1 thereafter, shall report to the commission on a census tract basis the following information: (1) Broadband information: (A) The number of households to which the holder makes broadband available in this state. If the holder does not maintain this information on a census tract basis in its normal course of business, the holder may reasonably approximate the number of households based on information it keeps in the normal course of business. (B) The number of households that subscribe to broadband that the holder makes available in this state. (C) Whether the broadband provided by the holder utilizes wireline-based facilities or another technology. (2) Video information: (A) If the holder is a telephone corporation: (i) The number of households in the holder’s telephone service area. (ii) The number of households in the holder’s telephone service area that are offered video service by the holder. (B) If the holder is not a telephone corporation: (i) The number of households in the holder’s video service area. (ii) The number of households in the holder’s video service area that are offered video service by the holder. (3) Low-income household information: (A) The number of low-income households in the holder’s video service area. B-15 5970. (B) The number of low-income households in the holder’s video service area that are offered video service by the holder. (c) All information submitted to the commission pursuant to this section shall be disclosed to the public only as provided for pursuant to Section 583. (Amended by Stats. 2015, Ch. 612, Sec. 65. (SB 697) Effective January 1, 2016.) Subject to the requirements of this division, a state franchise may be transferred to any successor in interest o the holder to which the certificate originally is granted, whether this transfer is by merger, sale, assignment, bankruptcy, restructuring, or any other type of transaction, provided that the following conditions are met: (a) The transferee submits to the commission all of the information required by this division of an applicant. (b) The transferee agrees that any collective bargaining agreement entered into by a video service provider shall continue to be honored, paid, or performed to the same extent as would be required if the video service provider continued to operate under its franchise for the duration of that franchise unless the duration of that agreement is limited by its terms or by federal or state law. (Added by Stats. 2006, Ch. 700, Sec. 3. Effective January 1, 2007.) B-16 1 California Public Utilities Commission January 2016 Frequently Asked Questions ________________________________________________________________________ Digital Infrastructure and Video Competition Act of 2006 Q: What has changed in video franchising? A: The Legislature passed, and Governor Schwarzenegger signed, Assembly Bill 2987 (Nunez), which established a new state video franchise process. The Digital Infrastructure and Video Competition Act of 2006 (DIVCA) creates a new state franchise process that replaces the current local franchise process to speed new infrastructure investment and to promote competition for broadband and video services in California. Q: What is the California Public Utilities Commission’s (PUC) role in video franchising? A: DIVCA directs the California Public Utilities Commission (PUC) to issue state video franchises for the provision of video. The PUC has a limited role set forth by DIVCA that involves approving applications; enforcing antidiscrimination and build-out rules; preventing the use of stand-alone, residential, primary line, basic phone service revenues from being used to pay for deployment of video infrastructure; and handling complaints brought forth by local governments regarding discrimination or build-out. Q: What aspects of video franchising does the PUC not regulate? A: Local entities, not the PUC, have sole authority to regulate the public, education, and government (PEG) channel requirements; Emergency Alert System requirements imposed by the Federal Communications Commission; and federal and state customer service and protection standards. A local entity will be the lead agency for any environmental review with respect to network construction, installation, and maintenance in local rights-of-way. The PUC expects to work in partnership with the local entities to ensure that issues of concern are promptly dealt with. C-1 2 Q: What is the main benefit of a state video franchise program? A: This state video program facilitates market entry of those companies that are most eager to compete against existing cable and satellite video companies. Under current law, absent a state video franchise program, a company that wants to provide video service must obtain local cable franchises from each local city or town. This new law means that new video competitors may greatly speed up their deployment of state-of-the-art infrastructure that will deliver video and broadband services to Californians. Q: What are the consumer benefits of the new video franchise order? A: The California video franchise law will bring new competitors to cable and satellite video providers. This new competition is expected to drive down prices for video services (e.g., rates for cable and satellite video services from providers like DISH Network and DirecTV). Once this new advanced infrastructure is in place, it also may be used to provide very fast Internet service to consumers, in addition to new services like on- demand television, movies, music, and more. Q: What is the PUC doing to protect consumers, especially low-income and rural Californians? A: The PUC intends to vigorously enforce the antidiscrimination rules and build-out requirements of the DIVCA to ensure that the “Digital Divide” is narrowed in California. An enforcement process is set forth in the video franchise decision that makes it clear that the PUC intends to enforce these provisions, using sanctions ranging from monetary fines, suspension, and revocation of the video franchise license. Q: Who will consumers call if they have a problem with their cable or video service bill? A: Consumers will continue to contact their local franchise authority – usually a city or county – about their cable or video service bills. The PUC does not have authority to enforce customer service issues related to cable; that authority remains with local government pursuant to state and federal law. Q: Who is responsible for rate increases and changes in promotional packages? A: Rates for video programming are deregulated, and the CPUC has no jurisdiction in pricing issues. Q: Who has authority to enforce video customer service rules? A: Cities and counties have the sole jurisdiction to enforce video customer service rules. Disputes between local entities and franchise holders can be settled in court. For more information on the CPUC, please visit www.cpuc.ca.gov. C-2 D-1 STATE OF CALIFORNIA PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION 505 VAN NESS AVENUE SAN FRANCISCO CA 94102-3298 Dece mber 30, 20 16 Esther Northrup Senior Director, State Regulatory Affairs Cox Communications 5887 Copley Drive, Suite 300 San Diego, CA 9211 I Dear Ms. Northrup: Edmund G. Brown Jr., Governor The Commission has determined that the application for the renewal of a sta te video franchise s ubmitted by Cox Communications on December 6, 20 16 is complete, and accordingl y issues the enclosed state franchise certificate. Should you have any questions, please contact Glenn Semow at 4 15.703.4 153. Sincerely, imothy J. Sullivan Executive Director D-2 STATE OF CALIFORNIA PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION 505 Van Ness Avenue San Francisco, C A 94102 www .cpuc .ca .gov CALIFORNIA VIDEO FRANCHISE CERTIFICATE' FRANCHISE NUMBER: 0003 1) Franchise Holder: Name: Cox Communication s California, LLC dba Cox Communications Address: 5887 Copley Drive, Suite 300 San Diego, California 921 11 2) Application Date: December 6, 2016 3) Franchise Effective Date: April 27, 2017 4) Franchise Expiration Date: April 27, 2027 5) Affected Local Entities2 Attached Issued at San Francisco this 30th Day of December, 2016 . 1 This Certificate constitutes a grant of authority to provide video service in the service area footprint requested in the Application referenced herein, including but not limited to authority to use the public rights-of-way in e xchange for the franchise fee adopted in CAL. Pus. UTtL. CODE§. 5840(q), subject to the Jaws ofthis state. This grant of authority is subject to lawful operation of the cable service or video service by the applicant or its successor in interest. 2 The state video franchise granted herein may include all or part of the affected local entities ' territory. For more information on the video service area covered by this franchise , contact the Californ ia Public Utilities Commission. D-3 STATE OF CALIFORNIA PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION 505 Van Nes s A venue San Franci s co, CA 941 02 www.cpuc.ca.gov CALIFORNIA VIDEO FRANCHISE CERTIFICATE FRANCHISE NUMBER: 0003 Affected Local Entities for Franchise No. 0003, issued to Cox Communications California, LLC, dba Cox Communications on December 30,2016: A li so Viejo , C ity of Carls bad, C ity of Ch ul a Vista, C ity of Coro nad o, C ity of Dana Point, C ity of El Cajo n, City of Encin it as , City of Escondido, City of Go le ta, C i ty of Imperial Beach, C ity of Ir vine, City of La Me sa , City of Laguna Beach , City of Lagun a Hills, C it y of Laguna Niguel, City of Lagun a Woods, City of Lake Forest, C ity of Lemon Grove, City of Lo s Angeles/San Pedro, City of Los Angeles, County of Mission Viejo, C ity of Nat iona l C it y, City of Newport Beach, City of Oceansid e , City of Orange, City of O ran ge , County of Palos Verdes Estates, City of D-4 STATE OF CALIFORNIA PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION 505 Van Ness Avenue San Francisco, CA 94102 www.cpuc.ca.gov CALIFORNIA VIDEO FRANCHISE CERTIFICATE FRANCHISE NUMBER: 0003 Affected Local Entities for Franchise No. 0003 , issued to Cox Communications California, LLC, dba Cox Communications on December 30, 2016, continued: Poway, C it y of Rancho Palos Verdes, C i ty of Rancho Santa Margarita, City of Rolling Hill s, City of Rolling Hills Estates, City of an C lemente, City of San Diego, City of an Diego, County of San Juan Capistrano, City of San Marcos, City of Santa Barbara, City of Santa Barbara, County of Santee, City of Solana Beach, City of Tustin , C it y of V ista, City of Cox’s Response to High Node Utilization in Rancho Palos Verdes During COVID-19 City Council Briefing October 6, 2020 E-1 Introduction Michael Hadland Manager, Government Affairs Michael.Hadland@cox.com Kristen Camuglia Director, Government Affairs Kristen.Camuglia@cox.com E-2 Agenda •How Internet usage has changed during COVID-19 •Understanding the network •Customer communication •COVID-19 customer relief offerings •Customer care options E-3 Internet usage has changed during COVID-19 E-4 Overall Downstream growth of 25% E-5 Upstream surge of 35% growth 2 years of usage growth in less than 6 weeks E-6 How people are using the Internet during COVID-19 Source: Sandvine Source: Sandvine E-7 the early darling of stay-at-home Source: Sandvine E-8 Understanding the Network E-9 data and speed plans 940Mbps 35 Mbps 300 Mbps 30 Mbps 150 Mbps 10 Mbps 50 Mbps 3 Mbps E-10 Network Investment DOCSIS 3.1 99%+ of all homes passed have access to 1 Gig speeds Enables512 homes passed 64 homes passed Legacy Architecture New Architecture ~400 Ft. ~1500 Ft. DOCSIS 3.0 DOCSIS 3.1 Fiber Optical Node Coax Coax Fiber Remote PHY Node EnablesFull Duplex 10 Gig Full Duplex DOCSIS 3.1 DOCSIS 3.1 Fiber Deeper Bringing fiber closer to homes to increase capacity and improve network reliability 27 completed node actions since 2019. 47 planned node actions through 2021 in the Peninsula. 10 completed node actions in Rancho Palos Verdes with 12 more planned through next year. Enabling 10G to all homes in the next ~ 5 years WE ARE HERE E-11 Customer Communication E-12 All done email * Email – 2 weeks prior to cutover * Door hanger placed 48 hours prior to cutover * Cutover Landing Page Self-Mailer – Deploys 2 weeks prior to cutover * BRIEF PLANNED SERVICE OUTAGE OCCURSMy Account bell notification Sandwich Boards Email – 2 days prior to cutover Customer communication – network upgrades E-13 Customer communication – direct Contour (in-platform) WiFi help videosDirect customer emails (sent April, July, August; updates coming Sept-Dec)Customer notifications E-14 Customer communication – indirect Flyers at Cox Solutions Store Commercial on all cross-channels Articles on Cox.com website E-15 Customer communication - media Social Media Outreach Paid Advertorials in Local Publications PSA with Palos Verdes Peninsula Education Foundation E-16 COVID-19 Customer Relief Offerings E-17 Provided flexible payment options Did not terminate service* Opened all Cox outdoor WiFi hotspots to the public During the COVID-19 Pandemic, Cox supported the FCC's Keep America Connected Initiative by: Additionally, Cox committed to: Provided unlimited data for residential customers* Provided free remote desktop support at no extra charge* Partnered with cities, school districts and community-based organizations to connect low-income students to internet. Created affordable flexible internet options; upgraded speeds Keeping our Customers Connected *Offer available to eligible customers; FCC Pledge exp. 07/2020 E-18 Keeping Communities Connected During the COVID-19 Pandemic, Cox supported businesses and the community by: Palos Verdes Peninsula School District:$10,000 for professional development & mental health support for educators and teachers Providing $5 million in PSA airtime for COVID-19 messaging and giving 1,700 restaurants free TV advertising Donating an additional $25,000 through Cox Charities Developing virtual tools and resources to support customers E-19 Customer Care Options E-20 Customer Care Options •COX SUPPORT NUMBER: 1–800–234–3993 •DIGITAL ASSIST: 24/7 Account Services and Technical Support •TEXT: “54512” •VISIT: www.Cox.com/Residential/Contactus.html and access the “Online Chat,” function •Download the “Cox” App on your Phone! E-21 Thank you E-22 1 Jesse Villalpando From:Jesse Villalpando Sent:Tuesday, September 29, 2020 2:00 PM To:Jesse Villalpando Subject:FW: Cox Communications Poor Service   From: lunanrpv <lunanrpv@cox.net>   Sent: Tuesday, September 29, 2020 1:55 PM  To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov>  Subject: Cox Communications Poor Service      Dear City Council,    The Cox Communications cable/internet service is unreliable and incompetent. In the last weeks it has been a nightmare to rely on Cox's internet service. I have a new and compatible modem and a fairly new wireless router but the problem really lies in the Cox connection side and service.     Cox is endangering the Palos Verdes community with poor infrastructure and service. We are heavily dependent on the internet to conduct many of our activities of daily life and work. What is Cox's plan to provide consistent and reliable service? Why is it near impossible to get anybody real person from Cox on the phone? How do you get a Cox representative to conduct a field visit? What will it take for Cox to provide the expected service given that they take our monthly payments for substandard performance? Can the Palos Verdes Peninsula operate its own public internet service?    Sincerely,    Robert Luna      Sent from my T‐Mobile 4G LTE Device    F-1 1 Jesse Villalpando From:Jesse Villalpando Sent:Tuesday, September 29, 2020 1:59 PM To:Jesse Villalpando Subject:FW: Upcomming Cox Communications Presentation From: Aaron <pvsurfer@verizon.net>   Sent: Tuesday, September 29, 2020 1:03 PM  To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov>  Subject: Upcomming Cox Communications Presentation    We have experienced intermittent Cox internet connection issues ever since our March 2020 installation. After several on-site signal measurements by Cox technicians they finally concluded our issues are likely due to a cabling problem in our area. On 8/29/20 Cox field services determined that the problem exists somewhere before reaching our telephone pole and they created a construction request ticket (number ending in 1294). We continue to experience intermittent internet interruptions affecting computers and phone! Today (a month after the aforesaid construction request), I have learned that this construction request is remains open! Aaron Welkowsky 27128 Woodbrook Road Rancho Palos Verdes, 90275 F-2 1 Jesse Villalpando From:Jesse Villalpando Sent:Tuesday, September 29, 2020 8:23 AM To:Jesse Villalpando Subject:FW: Having Trouble With Your Cox Communications Internet Connection? From: Brad JungleT <brad.junglet@gmail.com>   Sent: Monday, September 28, 2020 10:44 PM  To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov>  Subject: Having Trouble With Your Cox Communications Internet Connection?    Please submit your questions and concerns to the City Council in advance of the meeting by emailing them to cc@rpvca.gov   Concerned about possible misleading representations of advertised internet speeds. Their claim of 150 Mbps download  is extremely difficult to achieve, or even half, 75 Mbps. Speed tests are not in and of themselves reliable/accurate  network/internet measurements, as they do not include “LOADs” or “Tolerance” factors. Also, frequent and prolonged  outages are not acceptable.    Respectfully submitted  B. Tapie  28714 Mt Vancouver Ct  RPV 90275    F-3 1 Jesse Villalpando From:Jesse Villalpando Sent:Monday, September 28, 2020 1:14 PM To:Jesse Villalpando Subject:FW: Cox reliability issues in RPV From: Elliot Levy <elliotlevy@gmail.com>   Sent: Sunday, September 27, 2020 12:38 PM  To: michael.hadland@cox.com  Cc: CC <CC@rpvca.gov>  Subject: Cox reliability issues in RPV    Hello Michael,    I am contacting you as suggested by the City of Rancho Palos Verdes to report frequent internet connection reliability  issues. We have been experiencing intermittent outages approximately 3‐5 times a day during school days since the  resumption of virtual school classes where the network connection becomes unavailable. These typically last anywhere  from 2‐15 minutes. We have not noticed this issue occuring during evenings or weekends.     Please let me know what Cox is doing to increase network capacity and address these issues.    Thanks,  Elliot Levy  3566 Vigilance Dr, Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275  F-4 1 Jesse Villalpando From:Jesse Villalpando Sent:Monday, September 28, 2020 1:14 PM To:Jesse Villalpando Subject:FW: Cox Concerns   From: dengarsw@aol.com <dengarsw@aol.com>   Sent: Saturday, September 26, 2020 12:09 PM  To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov>  Subject: Cox Concerns    This is about the upcoming meeting on Cox that requested RPV residents' questions and comments. My comment is that, as someone who lived in Japan for several years as a working adult, I came back to the US see that we have very poor service. Cox and other companies essentially run monopolies. While they may advertise high speeds, these speeds not only tend to be throttled, but have stability issues. In 4 years in Japan, living in a city of over 500,000 people, I can't recall a single time I had to call my cable company- about service or billing issues. In fact, I was completely surprised by the amount of companies I got to choose from for my internet provider. Since returning 4 years ago, I have had innumerable problems with Cox- service outages, billing issues, incompetent service people, and price hikes. I literally replaced a cable modem after telling their tech help multiple times that multiple modems/routers had issues. They swore it wasn't on them, so I trusted them. The new modem failed, so they finally upgraded my status and, sure enough, the problem was with the wiring. During this time, my calls were dropped, service people claimed they had no record of my previous related calls, and having the names of employees did nothing to help me. This is from a communication company. I would strongly urge the city to consider bringing in other companies as direct competition for Cox. My family has lived in RPV since 1992. While Cox may be the best service I've experienced in Southern California (as I lived in Long Beach for my university days), family in Northern California doesn't experience this level of poor service, so this isn't just a "Japan is better" situation. Cox has failed us for too long in the past, and with many of us working from home, it is completely unacceptable for them to be so embarrassingly bad when we need them the most. Thank you. -Andrew Ross F-5 1 Jesse Villalpando From:Jesse Villalpando Sent:Monday, September 28, 2020 1:14 PM To:Jesse Villalpando Subject:FW: Cox Communications     From: mmgatross@aol.com <mmgatross@aol.com>   Sent: Saturday, September 26, 2020 10:40 AM  To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov>  Subject: Cox Communications    City Council Members, We have had Cox service since moving to the peninsula some 28 years. Recently, the service has been very poor, losing connections not only to the television but the internet and phone. When calling in problems, the recorded response is frequently that there is a delay do to numerous calls. I would believe a communication company would hire adequate personnel to cope with the issues. This is not happening. Just today I spent 20 minutes, a short wait compared to previous calls, on the "chat" Cox site! Intermittent outages seem to be the norm over that past several months. Since there is little opportunity to change the carrier here in RPV, a reliable communication system is needed. With much appreciation for taking the time to address the Cox Communication community concerns. Mary Ross 30177 Rhone Drive, RPV F-6 1 Jesse Villalpando From:Megan Barnes Sent:Thursday, September 24, 2020 1:39 PM To:Jesse Villalpando Cc:Karina Banales Subject:FW: Cox Communication Customers: I am Having Internet Problems!     Megan Barnes  Senior Administrative Analyst  City Manager’s Office  City of Rancho Palos Verdes  30940 Hawthorne Blvd.  Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275  310‐544‐5226  mbarnes@rpvca.gov    From: Sylvia Macia <sylmac4040@yahoo.com>   Sent: Thursday, September 24, 2020 1:11 PM  To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov>  Subject: FW: Cox Communication Customers: I am Having Internet Problems!    Dear City Council, I so appreciate your getting Cox to come and speak to the city to answer for their lack of service capacity both prior to and certainly during the pandemic. The pandemic only made the issue worse. I have called and complained many times to no avail. I pay for the fastest speed plan they have and am routinely hung up with not being able to connect to one page or another even when at home without my daughter doing distance learning. Now with DLearning it is much worse. I understand that no one was prepared last March for the onflux of so many users to their services. However, they knew all summer long and since March (and before as I said with my complaints and others’) that their service was not delivering as promised. I hope to hear what they have done since March to improve access and speed of throughput and certainly since school started what they have done to upgrade service to the levels we purchased. Thank you for holding them to account for following through on the services promised or then being in breach of contract if not and they should return our fees paid. Yours, fçÄä|t `tv|ö f{ty|xétwx{ F-7 1 Jesse Villalpando From:Megan Barnes Sent:Thursday, September 24, 2020 8:36 AM To:Jesse Villalpando Cc:Karina Banales Subject:FW: Cox Email October 6th CC Meeting     Megan Barnes  Senior Administrative Analyst  City Manager’s Office  City of Rancho Palos Verdes  30940 Hawthorne Blvd.  Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275  310‐544‐5226  mbarnes@rpvca.gov    From: Herb Stark <pt17stearman@gmail.com>   Sent: Thursday, September 24, 2020 6:06 AM  To: Ara Mihranian <AraM@rpvca.gov>; CC <CC@rpvca.gov>  Subject: Cox Email October 6th CC Meeting    At the October 8th City Council Meeting Cox will respond to complaints from residents who are experiencing problems with their internet connection.    For the past 10 years I have been providing community email messages to our residents in the Ladera Linda Homeowners Association. What I have found is that the Cox email server is not reliable and messages are frequently rejected. Just yesterday it happened again but today it seems to have worked. I have spoken to others who have experienced the same issue of unreliable email service from Cox.    I would hope that you will have Cox address the issue?    Herb Stark 310-541-6646  F-8 1 Jesse Villalpando From:Jesse Villalpando Sent:Thursday, September 24, 2020 11:42 AM To:Jesse Villalpando Subject:Fwd: Question for Cox Communications Presentation   Sent from my iPhone    Begin forwarded message:  From: Teresa Takaoka <TeriT@rpvca.gov>  Date: September 23, 2020 at 1:04:23 PM PDT  To: Jesse Villalpando <jvillalpando@rpvca.gov>  Subject: FW: Question for Cox Communications Presentation      ‐‐‐‐‐Original Message‐‐‐‐‐     Sent: Wednesday, September 23, 2020 1:02 PM  To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov>  Subject: Question for Cox Communications Presentation    Dear RPVCA,    This is a two‐part question for the Cox Communications presentation scheduled for October 6, 2020,  7pm.    We are  long time Cox customers, currently subscribed to Cox telephone and broadband with the  "Internet Preferred 150" product bundle. Our Cox internet connection quality has fallen over the last  nine months. Our putative 150/10 Mbps download/upload seldom achieves half those speeds.  Modem and router resets, caches clearances, router upgrades, etc. do not help.    Our two‐part question:    1) When will service be restored, and    2) When will be be offered modern, symmetrical fiber‐to‐the‐curb broadband service?    Thanks very much for the opportunity to ask, and thanks as well for all your efforts to maintain and  restore service.            F-9 2 The views or opinions expressed in this email are intended to be interpreted as the individual work product of the  author. They do not necessarily reflect an official position of the City Council, staff or other entities.   From: Shu Yen <springvalley567@hotmail.com>  Sent: Wednesday, September 23, 2020 12:16 AM  To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov>  Subject: COX & Fiber Optic      To whom it may concern,    My family have been a loyal customer of Cox for over a decade.  We live in the community enclosed by  Covecrest Drive, Armaga Spring Road, Meadowmist Drive, and Scotmist Drive.  We have been waiting for the  installation of Fiber Optic for many years.  In this April, we received a postcard from Cox saying that you are  installing Fiber Optic and the work should complete in two months.  But when I called Cox in July, to my  disappointment, I was told that it is still not installed.    I would like to know:   1) if there is any plan to install Fiber Optic in our area.    2) If yes, may we know the timeline?   3) If no, I would strongly urge that you install Fiber Optic in my area as soon as possible because the Internet  speed is very slow which greatly affect our daily work ‐‐ especially during the pandemic period when a lot of  people are working from home.      I know that some Cox customers in PV already have Fiber Optic service for many years.  We really hope that  we can also have this urgently‐needed service.  Thank you very much in advance for your consideration!    Sincerely,  Shu        F-10 1 Jesse Villalpando From:Teresa Takaoka Sent:Wednesday, September 23, 2020 9:39 AM To:Jesse Villalpando Subject:FW: Cox FYI    From: Matt Stanovich <mattystano15@gmail.com>   Sent: Tuesday, September 22, 2020 10:52 PM  To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov>  Subject: Cox    How come you let Cox monopolize Palos Verdes Verizon laid 27 miles of fiber optics why don't you work out a deal with  them so Cox has some competition  F-11 1 Jesse Villalpando From:Teresa Takaoka Sent:Wednesday, September 23, 2020 9:39 AM To:Jesse Villalpando Subject:FW: Cox FYI -----Original Message----- From: Irene Lam <ilam4500@gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, September 22, 2020 5:50 PM To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov> Subject: Cox I would appreciate knowing what the City’s relationship is to Cox and what leverage it has to influence Cox services and practices. One issue among many I have had for years with Cox is that rates continue to increase, while service continues to decline. The infamous “discounts” fall off and one has to spend hours on the phone to fight tooth and nail for the latest “discount” every year, usually a losing battle. And every representative will tell you something different. Verizon/Frontier has been equally terrible. With no choice or competition, consumers are at the mercy of Cox. I will say that since the city published the contact information for the government liaison, I have gotten a good response from Cox for the first time ever, which I appreciated (although subsequently Cox techs have not shown up twice for scheduled service appointment to fix my problem of internet service continually dropping). It shouldn’t take extraordinary measures to get a decent response. At some point, not every complaint can be elevated to such an executive level, so I do continue to be concerned about how service and performance will be in the long term. Thanks. F-12 1 Jesse Villalpando From:Teresa Takaoka Sent:Wednesday, September 23, 2020 9:39 AM To:Jesse Villalpando Subject:FW: Cox communication question   FYI  From: Lorraine .Miramontes <lorrainemiramontes@gmail.com>   Sent: Tuesday, September 22, 2020 5:28 PM  To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov>  Subject: Cox communication question    I have had slo, disrupted service, but when i check my account on COx WiFi app, there is no confirmation or indication of  the disruption we experienced. Do you have a system in place which monitors and informs individual houses when there  is a disruption?   What kind of compensation are you going to provide for those of us who have slow, dropped, interrupted connection for  work and school?    Roger miramontes     F-13 1 Jesse Villalpando From:Jesse Villalpando Sent:Tuesday, September 29, 2020 1:37 PM To:Jesse Villalpando Subject:FW: Cox issues (per discussion) From: Ilya Lie‐Nielsen <stickerburr@mac.com>   Sent: Tuesday, September 15, 2020 5:55 PM  To: Ara Mihranian <AraM@rpvca.gov>  Subject: Cox issues (per discussion)    Attachments available until Oct 15, 2020 To: ARA Mihranian, RPV CIty Manager        Hi Ara, It was a pleasure to speak with you today. It is encouraging to know that the cities are working hard to solve the issues  citizens are having with Cox.    I will provide a brief recap of our problems and have attached the letter from Cox Executive Escalations as well as several NextDoor  posts with complaints about Cox. The first post is mine and, for the remainder, I only chose a few of the many threads and tried to  pick those most recent.    We have been having technical issues with Cox for a couple of years, with many technician visits including visits by the executive  level tech team. Initially,, the techs could not find the source of our problems with internet and cable outages and replaced our  interior lines, to no avail. The higher level techs became involved and worked on the lines from our house to the “drop” on the street  and at the “drop” itself. Our service improved but was never consistent nor was our service ever provided at the level for which we  paid. I was given some billing credits for the lack of service at that time.Earlier this year, when our main cable box failed, a tech  switched it out and we began paying a higher fee. We tried to block one channel, which we had done previously with no issues, and,  suddenly, we had to input a PIN to record or watch anything on any other channel. We also were getting cable signals with music  and sound effects tracks but lacking the dialogue track. The executive tech team visited again, several times, trying different fixes,  none of which were successful. We were asked to try various remedies, record our efforts and send to one executive team member,  which we did when asked. We were finally told that both issues had been reproduced by the engineers in the “back office” and were  then to be handled by the Comcast level engineers to be fixed. I assume they are the manufacturers of the box. As the pandemic hit,  I heard nothing more about the resolution of those issues and was hopeful that, with the hopeful cessation of the pandemic, that  the engineers would again work on the glitches, In the meantime, we have lived with the problems.    In August, we began having complete outages of digital phone, internet and cable, occurring several times a day. As I have a senior  living with us, my mom, it is especially concerning to lose a landline. We called Cox tech support and their in‐office reboots were  unsuccessful. A first tech visited and told us that we should have been told to remove the back up battery from the phone modem to  reboot the phone, which we didn’t know existed, but that there was work being done in Luanda Bay which might have caused the  persistent outages. We encountered more complete outages and another tech was sent, who found no issues. Finally, a last tech  was sent and changed the signal booster, also with no improvement. When I reached out to the executive level tech with whom we  had worked on the previous issues, at the suggestion of the third tech, I was directed to Brian, with the Executive Escalations team. I  was informed that I would be getting future service “as is” and not to call Cox tech support. He stated that he would be my only  contact and would make any determination about our ongoing service and any tech support he deemed worthy. I was also told that  we could take our business elsewhere if we didn’t agree, despite the fact that I told him there were very limited options, particularly  in our area. I have been a loyal Cox customer for many years and have always paid our bills on time (or before they were due) and  F-14 2 yet I was made to feel as if we had done something wrong, despite the fact the the initial issues admitted bye the company as the  fault of Cox and the latest were widespread in PV.      The letter that was sent by the company is very upsetting as, first, no correspondence was sent in May as stated, our issues were  completely minimized as minor and, as Brian isn’t a technical person, were wholly incorrect, and it seems very threatening in terms  of our service. His statement on the phone that our service is “as is” was shocking as we are expected to pay in full and they would  have no responsibility to ensure service. Again, service disruptions or lack of service could be calamitous given my mom’s advanced  age.    I hope that this information is helpful in your ongoing discussions with the company. Again, please look at the NextDoor posts which  are representative of the wide dissatisfaction with not only Cox’s technical problems, but worse, the lack of concern and the  untenable behavior of its reps to their customers. Please let me know if you need more NextDoor samples or other information from  our personal experience.  Thanks so much for your time and effort on behalf of all RPV citizens.    Kind regards, Ilya    Ilya Lie‐Nielsen  310.373.3135      Click to Download Cox letter page 1.pdf 9.9 MB Click to Download Cox letter page 2.pdf 8.3 MB Click to Download Post 1.zip 2.4 MB Click to Download Post 2.zip 1.8 MB Click to Download Post 3.zip 4 MB Click to Download Post 4.zip 548 KB Click to Download Post 5.zip 1.2 MB F-15 F-16 September 2 , 2020 Il ya Lie-Nielsen 30 160 Via Victoria Rancho Palos Verdes , CA 90275-44 RE: Account 305288-03 Dear Mrs . Lie-Nielsen, 5159 Federal Blvd San Diego CA 92105 X Br in ing us close Let me begin by thanking you for allowing us the opportunity to provide you with your telecommunication services. This letter is to follow up on our last conversation that took place today September 2 , 2020, regarding your Cox services. On May 12 ,2020 , you were sent a letter advising our field team found the following: • The reason you are unable to record, playback your shows, and/or continually entering a pin code is due to Fox News being blocked from your TV. It was explained to you, ifF ox news is not blocked, you should not have any issues. This is a minor glitch in the system that has not been rectified by the engineering Team with Comcast. At this time , we do not have a date as to when this issue will be fixed. As a courtesy, we issued a two-month credit toward your cable services. You also reported an issue with occasional missing audio dialog on random channels. It was suggested to double-check and turn SAP off when that happens. It's a known issue if the box reboots and when it comes up SAP activates itself. This issue is also being investigated with Comcast. Our Field Technicians have certified your home by checking all splitters, cables , and Cox equipment as well as monitoring pings to your equipment with no noticeable drops. No anomalies or events were captured by recent network diagnostics that would have required further repair efforts. We are confident that our network is meeting and exceeding all technical specifications and requirements. As a result, we will no longer be routing technicians to your residence and no further credits will be applied onto y our Cox account. In addition, if a technician F-17 < ... is sent to your home, we will charge $75.00 onto your Cox account for each visit, unless authorized by the Executive Escalations team. If the quality of the services you are receiving is not to your satisfaction, we certainly understand if you want to explore other service providers. A search of your zip code identified the following alternative providers in your area: Direct TV, Dish, AT&T, Spectrum, Earthlink, Frontier, Viasat, HughesNet, and CyberNet If you have any questions or concerns regarding your Cox account and/or this letter, p lease contact the Executive Escalations team, directly , at 877.982.5917. Please be advised, we are your point of contact when you call into our Corporate Office or have any issues/concerns with your Cox services. Sincerely , Executive Escalat ions Cox Communications -California F-18 nextdoor .. Home 00 Point Vicente 00 0 Map ~ Digest Neighborhood 0 Help Map fiil Businesses 0 For Sale & Free III Local Deals en Events !%> Real Estate 'T Safety ~ Lost& Found ~ General Groups 22, All Groups Topics '* AIITopics Directories 0 Neighbors = ~ Pets - - Q Search Nextdoor 0 llya Lie-Nielsen Point Vicente • 25 Aug Cox complete outages. We have been having complete Cox outages (cable, digital phone and internet). multiple times a day and lasting for -10-15 minutes, even after two tech visits showing it wasn't within our house but perhaps at the drop and possibly neighborhood wide. Has anyone else been experiencing this same type of outage? We have a new tech appointment, hopefully the third time is the charm, and would like to inform the tech if others are having similar issues. Posted in General to 10 neighborhoods Q Like CJ 24 Comments Carl Taylor • Portuguese Bend Portuguese Bend is OK 25 Aug Like Reply v v Katherine Henning • Crest v I just got off an online chat with Cox as we have been experiencing the same issue as well as a 10 hour outage last Friday. They told me the issue is being caused by "increased internet traffic and the engineers are working to quickly provide the best experience. However fixing the problem is taking longer due to COVID . The estimated time to have everything back to normal is August 30". BTW we have their Gigablast service and when I complained about the impact this is having on our ability to perform our work they did put a small credit on my account ($26). At least it was something ... which was more than I expected from Cox. Tells me they really know they have an issue. 25 Aug Like Reply ., v 0 llya Lie-Nielsen • Point Vicente HA! Tells me too that they know they have a bigger issue! The last tech said the issue was because of system upgrades and switched out our system amplifier, to no avail. No credits for us, even three months ago when we had sound effects and music on channels but nothing from the dialogue track! 25 Aug Like Reply ;.; 1 Selene Dogan • Lunada Bay v ~ We are having same issues in Lunada Bay but I didn't call since it's usually a waste of time. 25 Aug Like Reply ., c.& o-=- F-19 nextdoor Q Search Nextdoor 0 0 1\atnerme Hennmg • cresi v I hesitate to call too and spend forever on hold, which means I spend less time working which is exactly the reason I am calling/complaining. I used the online chat which felt a little less painful of a way to get it done ... and bonus, you can email yourself the chat transcript in case you need it to refer back to ... like when the credit doesn't show up on your bill like promised ®. Also, the reason I posted that they did issue a credit is that if more people complain and ask for a credit they may expedite the repair in efforts to decrease their financial exposure. Edited 25 Aug Like Reply Gwen MacLellan • Point Vicente v We are experiencing the same thing with outages. Everyone should call, I was on hold about 5 minutes before I got thru. The more people who are having outages that call the more serious they will be about fixing the issue. had a tech here today and supervisor will come later this week. Besides the outages and contour TV acting up, having odd phone problems they are blaming on our phone wiring in the walls. 25 Aug Like Reply .2 llya Lie-Nielsen • Point Vicente v If they blame you for something happening in the interior, you may be in the hook for a $75 service call. We are losing cable tv, digital phone and internet, all at once, and all of our interior lines were replaced late last year so I said no, ai wouldn't be paying any fee. It's pretty obvious, I believe, that it is an area problem and not within any of our homes. 25 Aug Like Reply Ronnie Rotenberg • Point Vicente v Having the same issue. COX said there were no outages. 25 Aug Like Reply ., Kris Watson • Point Vicente v We had a similar issue a year or so ago. After several visits from their contracting technicians, we finally had an actual Cox technician come out. He replaced the wiring from our outside connection point to our new modem and we haven't had a problem since. Knock Knock! 25 Aug Like Reply ., paul hughes • Los Verdes v Oh boy. After moving in 2 weeks ago, we just had internet and cable connected yesterday from Cox . I'm super happy right now, but you scare me about my choice. 25 Aug Like Reply c.& o-=- F-20 nextdoor 0. Search Nextdoor paul hughes • Los Verdes v Oh boy. After moving in 2 weeks ago, we just had internet and cable connected yesterday from Cox . I'm super happy right now, but you scare me about my choice. 25 Aug Like Reply David Hughes • Lunada Bay v Is there one? Had no internet phone for 8 hours on Friday. No doubt my bill will go up again 30 Aug Like Reply A Karla Dillenberg • Lunada Bay v W Outages on and off all day!!! Very hard when working from home!!! _. Very disappointed .... 25 Aug Like Reply ., Barbara Bethke • Lunada Bay v There is a node upgrade in my area. Notice of possible outages for 48 hours 25 Aug Like Reply • 1 JoAnn Michetti • Point Vicente v How on earth did you get an appointment? I have been trying for over 3 days to get help! 27 Aug Like Reply Tim McCully • Crest v If you can't get help ask for the customer service supervisor and get her name. We don't get actual outrages in Crestridge that I know of, but sometimes blocky video reception, which is likely overstress with prime time TV signal transmission via internet. 27 Aug Like Reply Tim McCully • Crest v It's entirely possible COX equipment for specific neighborhoods goes out and needs upgrade compared to other neighborhoods. It's also possible for one street's COX cable to need replacing for reliability. COX might need to hear from your next door neighbor also if that's it. 27 Aug Like Reply ., c.GD o-=:. F-21 nextdoor 0. Searc h Nextdoor 0 0 0 Deb Kagei • Point Vicente v We have been having the same issues with Cox-random, frequent outages (for various amounts of time)of internet and TV. It might have also affected the phone, but I didn't notice because I'm usually using my cell. 27 Aug Like Reply .1 llya Lie-Nielsen • Point Vicente v We have an in-house tech scheduled, next level will be tier three. I hope to get real answers and, at minimum, an eta for the issues to be resolved, not just for us but for the neighborhood. 27 Aug Like Reply .1 Brian Dwan • Point Vicente v Yes I have had nothing but issues with them when I had Direct TV never a problem in 5 years but where I live I have to use Cox 27 Aug Like Reply .2 Michelle Moebius • Lunada Bay v ~ has been terrible in Del Cerro, internet comes in and out, as does Cox telephone service. In fact two weeks ago I had to call 911 to get an ambulance and the phone line just dropped. I am calling tomorrow. So sick of Cox. Grrrrr. Edited 27 Aug Lik e Reply .1 llya Lie-Nielsen • Point Vicente v They sent the in house tech yesterday and he said, after checking the drop on the street, that it has to be escalated to the executive tech team. I'm awaiting their call. l'lllet you all know what they say when the escalation team checks out our home and the surrounding area . 28 Aug Like Reply .2 llya Lie-Nielsen • Point Vicente Just received a nasty phone call from Cox's escalation team. They don't seem to want to take any responsibility and only will say that the issue of complete loss of services "may" be connected to planned outages in nearby areas. Unbelievable. I suggest that everyone experiencing such terrible service call customer service or corporate to complain. There is, indeed, strength in numbers. I wish we had more options because despite being a loyal customer for so many years and always paying our bills on time, we are treated like garbage. 2 Sep Like Reply v       F-22       F-23   F-24 F-25 nextdoor • Home 00 Point Vicente 00 0 Map El Digest Neighborhood 0 Help Map tw Businesses <) For Sale & Free m Local Deals en . Events IX> Real Estate '? Safety ~ Lost & Found ~ General Groups 2P:. All Groups Topics * AIITopics Directories ~ Neighbors v 0. Search Nextdoor • Jonathan Bernd La Cresta • 3 Sep Cox Internet Issues. Hi, We are frustrated Cox customers in RPV who do not have a choice of vendor. Cox is so unreliable, I mostly work on hotspot. Our new neighbors' first question was, 'Do you have really bad internet?' Does anyone see a way to actually make Cox listen to us and do something meaningful to remedy the situation up here? Posted in Recommendations to 18 neighborhoods v Q Like 0 27 Comments .:..:8 See 5 previous comments Mike Taba • La Cresta People need to complain to their city officials about this monopoly and escalate the case in the county and state. 4 Sep Like Reply v .3 • Jay Lee • Lunada Bay v Please voice your concerns to the city. It is unfortunate, but COX is the sole ISP (Internet Service Provider) on much of the hill (Verizon FiOS/Frontier does not service much of the homes on the PV Peninsula). We need competition. We will not see improvements in service nor price, otherwise. ~ Tag a business 4 Sep Like Reply • Laura Gray • Palos Verdes Drive South I have both Cox and Frontier. Cox is better. ~ Tag a business 4 Sep Like Reply • Jill Perry • Point Vicente From this week's RPV COVID community update: + Having Trouble with Your Internet Connection?+ .3 v .2 v The City has received inquiries from residents who are experiencing problems with their internet connection and are concerned about staying connected for distance learning . Any Cox Communications customers who F-26 nextdoor Topics "'k AIITopics Directories g. Neighbors ~ Pets fill Public Agencies He lp · Guidelines · Pri v acy About · Jobs · Pre ss · Blog Do not sell my personal information © 2020 Nextdoor 0. Search Nextdoor • Jill Perry • Point Vicente From this week's RPV COVID community update: v + Having Trouble with Your Internet Connection?+ The City has received inquiries from residents who are experiencing problems with their internet connection and are concerned about staying connected for distance learning. Any Cox Communications customers who are having trouble with their internet connection are advised to contact Government Affairs Manager Michael Had land directly at michael.hadland@cox.com. Please provide your address. Customers can also report problems to Customer Support at 1-800-234-3993. 4> Tag a business Edited 5 Sep Like Reply ., ~ Swan Wedekind • Point Vicente v .., We have both Cox and Frontier, and Cox is better. We use our own Netgear Nighthawk router instead of Cox router and rarely ever have any prob lem with Cox, even with half a dozen simultaneous users. If you have a larger home (over 5,000sf) or need even network higher speed, Netgear Orbi is top of the line performance-wise in the industry and price is comparable to Google Mesh. • 0 If you wish to have more control over your network (eg. parental control etc) Netgear devices are superior to Mesh. Prices of Netgear Nighthawk devices are ~1/4 to 1/2 of the Google Mesh or Netgear Orbi. 4> Tag a business Edited 5 Sep Like Reply .:.:5 Swan Wedekind • Point Vicente v Folks, also regularly rebooting/restarting your home network (router, modem) every month or two can greatly improve your network performance and security. That alone may help improve your connection/performance issues. 5 Sep Like Reply Robert Hakimian • Crest v Unfortunately when there is no competition this is what happens. They are really going down for service and charges. I did complain about their service and they don't even care if you leave them. Any idea to make a difference and get our voice heard. I will be available. 5 Sep Like Reply c.GD 0':) F-27 nextdoor Q Search Nextdoor 0 5 Sep Like Reply Robert Hakimian • Crest v Unfortunately when there is no competition this is what happens. They are really going down for service and charges. I did complain about their service and they don't even care if you leave them. Any idea to make a difference and get our voice heard. I will be available. 5 Sep Like Reply • Jay Lee • Lunada Bay v Please voice your concerns to city hall. We need more than one ISP, for the sake of competition. We will not see improvements in service nor price, otherwise. ~ Tag a business 6 Sep Like Reply Carol Sciortino • Montema laga v I am a parent who is DLA my second grader at MM. Suzanne Seymour one of our school board members posted this and I thought I would share. Best of luck ~ Tag a business ..,.,..._ ~ ...... -.,.,.._ ... ._...,. --... _. ........ ~~-.. ___ .....,.. __ ,_ ........................... ....,. . .,._ ............. .. ____ ._..., ........ .. __ ..__ ....... .._......_ ""' ....... ~ ... --·· --·-·-.. ...._,. _ ___, ---c-.----·""'· ___ .................. _ _.. -----~- 5 Sep Like Reply '+ See 1 previous rep ly ~ Kristy Lesan • Crest ~ Lora Ackermann YES! That is exactly what has happened to me. ~ Tag a business 19 hr ago Like Reply .2 v ~ Samad Masoud • Palos Verdes Drive South v .. I have horrible internet service I complained to Cox customer service several times they came few times to fix it but the problems continue and I am tired of calling them again and again we need to do something collectively because their service sucks ~ Tag a business 5 Sep Like Reply .1 c.& 0~ F-28 next door Q Search Nextdoor Carol Sciortino • Montemalaga v I am a parent who is DLA my second grader at MM. Suzanne Seymour one of our school board members posted this and I thought I would sha re. Best of luck ~ Tag a business ...,......_ 10111111 --·---··._..... -... ..................... _ .. ..._ __ .....,... .. _""' ............. ~ .. _. ............... __.... .... ... _ ...... --......... . .. .., ............ ..._ ..... ...... ... -~-... ... ---· --·-·-----.-..-.... __ ..__.._._,~~~o~. ----....-. ....... -----.... ~- 5 Sep Like Reply '+ See 1 previous reply ~ Kristy Lesan • Crest ~ Lora Ackermann YES! That is exactly what has happened to me. ~ Tag a business 19 hr ago Like Reply .2 v ~ Samad Masoud • Palos Verdes Drive South v ~ I have horrible internet service I complained to Cox customer service several times they came few times to fix it but the problems continue and I am tired of calling them again and again we need to do something collectively because their service sucks ~ Tag a business 5 Sep Like Reply .1 0 llya Lie-Nielsen • Po int Vicente v Please see my thread on Cox complete outages for numerous other complaints. The company doesn't care about its customers as long as they have a monopoly on service. The cities need to band together, on behalf of their citizens, and demand more and also to solicit other companies to invest in the equipment for the benefit of our communities. I am at the point with my service that they have threatened me, a long time customer who has always pa id on time or before a bill was due, with cancelling my account, all due to their technical issues. I was just told I pay for my service now "as is" despite their admitted issues. I was shocked. 5 Sep Like Reply .2 • Jay Lee • Lunada Bay v I completely agree with you with regard to needing another ISP to be available in the PV Peninsula. Please voice your concerns to city hall. c.& 0~ F-29 nextdoor Q. Search Nextdoor ~ Rot:>ert HaK1m1an • crest ~ This is disaster. The monopoly has to go. v 5 Sep Like Reply ~ Madeline Kurrasch • Ro lling Hi lls Estat es v ~ They used to have offices on the hill and going in and complaining in front of others was effective but the offices aren 't open now 5 Sep Like Reply • 1 Davis Yook • Crest v Cox is definitely a monopoly and they know it. Their service and infrastructure will not get better, it will most likely get worse. I don't have Frontier as an option. The only solution is to allow a 5G w ireless network in PV. It's super fast, wireless, and is the most reliab le network out there. It doesn't rely on old cables. I will definitely contact the Cox Government Affairs Manager you complain, but also contact Verizon and T Mobile to get a 5G antenna up here. ~ Tag a business 6 Sep Like Reply James Shuster • Lunada Bay v I am on the same Cox Internet as everyone else. WiFi, Internet, Phone and TV is working pretty much 100% of the time at full speed. I am an Internet and web engineer and have worked as a network instal ler for commercia l setups since 1994. Anyone who had an Internet problem who posted their comment could, of course, have some loca l street cable issue outside their property. In my experience 98% of the time for directly connected Internet, the problem is in the house, with some setup. cable problem or other hardware. Wifi problems are completely separate issue and can be caused by, incorrect setup, printer settings, neighbor sta rted to use the same channel , even a computer update can interrupt Internet access plus over 20 other WiFi settings in gear owned by the resident and nothing to do with Cox equipment. Commercial offices usually have an in-house network engineer or hire a Network contractor to setup everything. Also, most offices only keep Wifi for client use. There is a good reason for that. Trying to run a business using WiFi connection is not such a good idea and doubles + the support budget. F-30 nextdoor 0. Search Nextdoor Commercial offices usually have an in-house network engineer or hire a Network contractor to setup everything. Also, most offices only keep Wifi for client use. There is a good reason for that. Trying to run a business using WiFi connection is not such a good idea and doubles + the support budget. Cox supports signal strength to the cable box, router if you're renting theirs, bandwidth to the main TV or DVR and splitters. They will upgrade street to house cables, internal cables if they are outside a wall. This support brings bandwidth to cable box .. After the cable box, there are a good 70+ items that can screw up an Internet connection. Fixing this is a network engineer's work. Offices hire Network engineers all the time, but few residents believe hiring anyone extra is necessary, probably because they feel the amount everyone pays to the cable company should cover it. Cox install team would probably suggest hardware updates as a solution. I don't think they do Network troubleshooting outside of a quick couple of minutes overview. Again, my Internet with Cox has worked fine, at full speed, with hardly any issues for over 8 years. I have checked, updated and fixed probably 30 + issues with hardware, setups and configurations. I also make sure that firmware is up to date, printers are setup correctly, Wifi, position and antenna is optimal, network security settings are correct, online attacks are stopped and the in-house Wifi is set to the optimal channel for the area. When I have worked for residents, I typically found over a dozen issues, on average, with any home setup. Quite often, old cable and routers need to be replaced. A lot of computers, tablets and phones cause connectivity problems. You can fix it yourself, DIY, if you look online for setup tips. Cox page, actually has a few tips. Youtube has some good videos. Cox homeowner Wifi page aims more at upgrading, but has some good tips: https://www.cox.com/residentialjinternetjguides/improving-wifi.html I believe Cox does not offer network troubleshooting beyond a quick visit and again, their answer is to upgrade the house. This usually solves the problem and why would they assign a $75 I hour person to spend sever al hours to find and fix a printer setup error that interferes with the router WiFi signal every 20 seconds and causes disconnects? Hope that helps. F-31 nextdoor 0. Search Nextdoor Network engineers all the time, but tew residents believe hiring anyone extra is necessary, probably because they feel the amount everyone pays to the cable company should cover it. Cox install team would probably suggest hardware updates as a solution. I don't think they do Network troubleshooting outside of a quick couple of minutes overview. Again, my Internet with Cox has worked fine, at full speed, with hardly any issues for over 8 years. I have checked, updated and fixed probably 30 + issues with hardware, setups and configurations. I also make sure that firmware is up to date, printers are setup correctly, Wifi, position and antenna is optimal, network security settings are correct, online attacks are stopped and the in-house Wifi is set to the optimal channel for the area. When I have worked for residents, I typically found over a dozen issues, on average, with any home setup. Quite often, old cable and routers need to be replaced. A lot of computers, tablets and phones cause connectivity problems. You can fix it yourself, DIY, if you look online for setup tips. Cox page, actually has a few tips. Youtube has some good videos. Cox homeowner Wifi page aims more at upgrading, but has some good tips: https://www.cox.com/residential/internetjguides/improving-wifi.html I believe Cox does not offer network troubleshooting beyond a quick visit and again, their answer is to upgrade the house. This usually solves the problem and why would they assign a $75 I hour person to spend several hours to find and fix a printer setup error that interferes with the router WiFi signal every 20 seconds and causes disconnects? Hope that helps. ~ Tag a business Edited 7 Sep Like Reply • Jonathan Bernd • La Cresta v Thanks for the insight James. I agree that often house set ups are an issue. However, I am a tech architect and I can say that Cox is responsible for many issues, including said poor install, (as I discovered on arrival). You may be more fortunate where you live compared to up here on the top of the hill. ~ Tag a business 6 days ago Like Reply Add a comment... c.& 0~ F-32 next door • Home 00 Point Vicente 00 0 Map ~ Digest Neighborhood 0 Help Map rw Businesses <0 For Sale & Free m Local Deals en . Events ~ Real Estate '? Safety ~ Lost & Found ~ General Groups 2~ All Groups Topics i;{ AIITopics Directories g. Neighbors v Q Search Nextdoor ~ Frank Glaser .. Point Vicente • 31 Aug Cox Internet and phone continual outages. I have had continual outages some for only a few minutes are those for longer many times a day with Cox. They sent out technical people who say it was probably just that they are overloaded. I've also contacted the RPV city And ask them to intervene on all of our behalf. The RPV daily briefing Included A paragraph on the many complaints that they have received and who to send an email to at Cox. Of course nothing has happened and things are getting worse. I feel sorry for those that have small children that are trying to learn virtually on their computers if they continue to internet goes out on them. If anybody has contacts at the higher level of Cox please get in touch with him. Also let RPV city know and any other city in PV To put pressure on Cox to do something about it. Then we may be able to get somethin g done. Posted in General to 10 neighborhoods v Q Like CJ 2 Comments •. 2 ~ Frank Glaser • Point Vicente v .. Please excuse my spelling and what spellcheck did to me but I think you get the gist of it 31 Aug Like Reply .1 Leo Aguirre • Lunada Bay v Yes, we have been experiencing the same here in the Lunada Bay Area, apparently they upgraded the service and infrastructure and that was the reason of the outages last week but today we had some issues as you did. Edited 31 Aug Like Reply • • 2 Add a comment... c.& 0"::) F-33 nextdoor .. Home 00 Point Vicente 00 0 Map El Digest Neighborhood 0 Help Map firr Businesses ~ For Sale & Free m Local Deals en . Events (%) Real Estate ~ Safety ~ Lost & Found ~ General Groups 22. All Groups Topics "{):{ AIITopics Directories 0 v Q Search Nextdoor ~ Steven Soloski ~ Lunada Bay •11 Aug Cox Internet. Our Cox internet goes down occasionally during the day for short periods. We have noticed that one of the times that it disconnects every day is at exactly 12:28pm for 3 min. During this time, the tv and phone and WiFi continue to work but the internet connection is lost. Anyone else having this problem? Posted in General to 14 neighborhoods v Q Like CJ 15 Comments -6 • Marian Beiler • Crest I have no service this morning 11 Aug Like Reply .. Anjali Jain • Los Verdes ~ I had no service half an hour ago 11 Aug Like Reply Mimi Emery • Palos Verdes Drive South Oh yeah. Not sure it is the same time as yours. 11 Aug Like Reply • Michael Schauer • Rolling Hills Estates Yes. Up and down right now. Cox = pathetic 11 Aug Like Reply maryann rimoin • Crest Are you talking about Cox rebooting your TV? morning at around 3:30am. 11 Aug Like Reply Virginia Mcneill • Malaga Cove Cox internet has been getting terrible lately 11 Aug Like Reply Jessica Hunter • Lunada Bay v v v v v My TV gets rebooted every v v We use Cox WiFi for calling and we have been having issues since last Thursday. 11 Aug Like Reply F-34 nextdoor ~ Neighbors ~ Pets fill Public Agencies Help · Guidelines · Pri vacy About · Jo bs · Press · Blog Do not se ll my personal information © 2020 Nextdoor 0. Search Nextdoor ~ Maria Lathrop • Lunada Ba y v ~ We have been having high latency (slowness) and disruptions throughout the day for some time now. We had a lot of packet loss (drops in service) today and yesterday. As I type this, there is latency right now. Last month, Cox sent an independent contractor who was not knowledgeable, neither was his supervisor. It seems that the issues are with Cox. They need to update their infrastructure and equipment. 11 Aug Like Reply :: 1 Mimi Emery • Palos Verdes Drive South v If this continues I plan on only paying a portion of my bill. I'm not getting full service that they promise! 11 Aug Like Reply :: 1 Carolyn Price • Lunada Bay Yep. 12 Aug Like Reply ~ Ginny Whittier • Lunada Ba y .., All the time 12 Aug Like Reply v v Ling Tang • Lunada Bay v way too much problem with Cox, and we have no other company to use at all. This is a huge problem for PV that I hate it for over 12 years 12 Aug Like Reply Doris Staub • Los Verdes v We have Frontier/Fios. For over a month TV freezes about 3 times a day and we have to reboot it. Internet seems to work. So similar problems! 12 Aug Like Reply Jo Ann Michetti • Point Vicente Yes! Weird! 12 Aug Like Reply v • Alice Chang • Country Club v I've had the worst service since moving here last year with COX, which I've only had since March! I was just online with them and there is a confirmed outage but no ETA for repairs. The only silver lining is they will credit you for the days which there was no service, so for me that was 15 days since March. Get your money back! Call or chat with them and they will do the same. Maybe if enough people get their money refunded for no service, it will inspire them to fix the issue. Money talks!