Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My Public Portal
About
19810326 special
82 SPECIAL COUNCIL MEETING, March 26, 1981 Meeting called to order by Mayor Pro tem ilequembourg. Roll Call : Councilmen present : Borgmeyer, Brant , Crader , Halsey, Prenger, Wade and Whitecotton. Councilmen absent : Gordon and Kliegel A quorum was declared present. The Special Council Meeting was called for the purpose of hearing Cable the Consultant' s report on the three proposals submitted for TV. Cable Television Franchise. Before giving his report Mr. Smalling requested City Attorney Graham to read the attached letter, wherein it was stated they did not feel that the proposal of T.C. I . Cablevision, Inc. could be considered. After Mr. Graham read the letter, Mr. Smalling read the report , copy of which is attached. Questions and answers are also included in the attached transcript ti{ tij ` ilt ` k a i i 7 ? i i k 3 tt1 .th.=..y-f-,,,,,,-k..,%'.'•' .^... y .,t �i. rt; ,>i`. :';i•; ..0 r, ,i .y :i}! 3 .iy�`0.•ro.zi'r'th, ,;t•.t.e.. f.bc k?w N r5 � 3 s 'i -., :' 5. ?; "V -� 4.1 i i,-U S' •�;.s? r " ts.. �Cc : r.c �- s.3; .e v S. "i 1^: i i- 3 ^.. f •t.,�.t ,.Ls kd #.,Y'j,,;4 .f� J'•'xto-+,r,s i`�-b*=G•:� ,i�� ,, :...u,.,; ..:,�' �,� � '. i :4 ^` .t�....: '`:.$':,',,,,:' „. 1' � 4•;: ".`t'L"�-r`�• o '?� ..:i;n.•*�.:'cl?;U••u. ., . .. l..`+x., ?:'...,,.,.^,Y ..,`1.0 2'. .. �•r.k. s.y t;.s. ... .. '.i�..t.. '° 7 f rr... . ,: } SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING `1;`. • 2 March 26, 1981 • 3 o0o J _ ` 4 SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING TO RECEIVE THE RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE CONSULTANT FOR THE CITY? BASED ON THE REQUEST FOR 4 ''' S PROPOSALS THAT WERE SUBMITTED . 6 o0o 7 BEFORE* - G t Mayor Pro Tem Hequam Bourg ” . , ' ;`r q { ,' « n +4� � Ha l e�ey -r 1 9 ! t i F; 4 . . .i <;`j i.ott� BaI: yer =t �© : 'fit 1Ci Oman WTI tecotton o ,, ,` . *C,ounct t Wads y i , , ' r cila Cr*der ` �,„, t 1I ; .; Caunc/lam Pranger I' , 0'. 4. councilm*n Brant Q p ERS„ H 13 o0o . { t,1 14 PRESENT* la 16 Gary Hamburg, City Administrator `' . n < *Oa 17 x 18 APPEARANCES* • For the City Councils CHRISTOPHER GRAHAM ' 19 City Counsel GRAHAM AND GRAHAM 20 300-B Eas t High Jefferson City, Missouri 65101 2x o0o 22 23 REPPORTED BY, Beverly Jean Dierks 24 Certified Shorthand Reporter M 25 1 ItAitygq.*#04.14P.vivki=4,3t,,v'clokl,„,t1.4` f*futilkoski,pke-fi.irwi.4 .74:,:ilt t£ .st, .. ...,*. '4',.,1* '070 M'''S.iX • ' '; ' . - . . I .. . - Pa itEA lia gRIfi . , era.7..1:,% 0 . •:*,,.*.yi :1+7.1*.i`,•.' •• . ''•• ,, •• • 2 , , ' MAYOR PRO TEM HEQUEMBOU101 We'll call the meeting • ,,,„... ,,f,„,:i.•::,,I ,,, ,,,,,,,.1,: ' .' ' . ,,,.., .-,:. to order. This meeting has been convened to receive th,? recommendations of the consultant for the City based on the 44.7.:1,-.,., rItO 5 Request for Proposals that have been submitted. ;,'.,,,,.;,..,„' 41-•,\ 4Pp.t.„ 0 The Council members have a copy of these proposals , 04 , ttp 11,44. .. 41,4 7 There will be other copies available following the sleeting. tli 70:10 • At this time and in the discussion this evening, we will ,illyli 444 ,k-t N1r, ri:tf, ' 0 restrict discussionpunless the Council wishes to do other- ONA • ,, • ,,: 10 U160, to members of the Council.and the consultant and the 4-5,..*,•4 11 City Attorney. Each of the companies involved will have . • iiie.vc ' •.1.s-,kr • 12 4n opportunity to make their comments known 4t, the time Pv4, 4',lili • 1:2.11k t Ugs'i 13 they make their presentation to the Council during the ,3 ,. . ,**■*t (.1 .,V.'C: `t,r4. • ' tok• 14 public hearing. , . --Nbt i'''11 ,',,- 1V ' • ' So at thin point in time, I will introduce our 1,1•:,',.''•1' , 1 16 eoneultant and let him kind of go through what he's presente the Comet', Elmer, if you'd like, and then it will be .-- . opened. up or t) Council to ask questions. ,. . ', . i 19 MR. SMALLINGs There is something else Mr. Graham 20 should read first. 21 MAYOR PRO TEM REQUEMBOURO: O.K. That's fins. ?2 la 0 GRAHAM$ Elmer has asked me to read the•23 following, letter addressed to Mayor HartsfieldU. • , . 24 Mr. Mayor, In the matter of the Jefferson City 25 Request for Proposals for Cable Television Service, Janet • • 2 . . . 4 k!"; k* Ly• • ' 1i 4 07:4, h'e `i 1d te _Al u w 3 Y y t ..t:.. y ` ':- ;r r .1.64;,1:-k4 ss v.„.,,,,,,,1 r;v 5., t7e: -,„ �3v7 e4"4 fi V2PA ^ M va u C ,4 S , i : ' •s ° t vke . 'u ,i Ls a ' ' ' Consultants Corporation was hired to provi tecbnil 1 1>. .....t,_4: s 2 review services for each of 'the bids Thin have done . F> fi xis 1" ' 3 and so aub�aait for the bids from Jefferson City fable stun riiiiv i , 4 and Central Telecommunications, Inca too re unable to ;_ kJ, 5 properly evaluate the bid of TCI Cable vision,, Inc. The '' , o. • 6 r non for our n ev slued in as follows. r,; •r 7 It should be noted that al , of om objections ..,-1,. ,:.' • • 8 Stem f1 the cover letter of the document and the accov- i 0 ponying "Definition of case 1 a and case ,2. , Ne further *b, ec : 414Y' 10 tiona or opinions were made or assumed from the document 'f-':, A . '. 11 itself. Our inability to review this proposal should not `°e'? a } 12 be interpreted as being prejudicial to TCZ. We Are kin Y 13 no judgment on the merit or suitability of the proposal ',',2=.?' r , ,x .. t 1I. , itself. What ye,are saying is that since TCl excepted t; yf5, itself from the requirements of the RFf', refused to atuiowlod. ' 1G, thee .authority of the City to promulgate ulgate. rule and require*, '1 t • iletnts .re Live to the provision of cable television service' , 18 and made no commitumnt or contract to supply the facilities . jz a� described in the document submitted, there is no basis on x , W . e 20 which Jone+l Corporation can Make a determination of t 21 ' adequacy and/or suitability of the technical featurest A ,22 summary of these objections is provided below. ". 23 1, REFUSES TO « %...tt . 4A !'+ Moo, At 10 •• • " ' '24 • , . ., .10 tt. ,,,.' sat. . OF TH` :1 0 1 . .,,%S ., .4 T s!: a . _ . 26 t‘,$0,....,1.10;1.0. v • �`` �.. ''." y:ve:, 'w-'�.,,''y{±"'`v',; :% tizgi e ,k.w""y' ` i .mot' y��M c; r.�" 41...'� .r�7_ S7�"°��'r•.��i � v. ..,"`l' •:„,,,, ,,-,;:;..r .� .xiy�i+t',. r a"�;* k t i }�v., r x+ nz � uc�. .'��s�.n �� 'S�SyS-i�G.."`G�t? �74'-��S";�T'�'•.,.,.."'2`5�.°�E�S�a�u: ��'� ��,�' .. �h +�. �' a'`n "kz.. . '°z.'�. 'Csa lt;4 i.,��.. . eba v� cs '� nr A. f ,, 1 From their cover letter from Mr. Paul P. Alden-- k oo # , , i�{��, # _... ., dated 9 March 1981. . ..TCI Cablevision, Inc., it not 3.;. a- ry proposing to contractually cit itself to that City of txna:, . ter � �y'dfj:• `,. : . Jefferson to eithorz`. ..aagree to provide or to not provide y ,, . fi specific programming as demanded by City officials icials s . . . `� 6 as ,^ere to the substitution of thn judgment of City officials `'� , 7 for that of company officials as to the nature and type of• Pr' 6 capital facilities required to provide its services (or to , tv..,::4, `� the method of operating and maintainii g the same). . .".ae). . .S9. If s ;- o the judgment of the City is not accepted then also the . . _.' . 11 judgment of the consultants hired by the City is equally ,4 12 ' unacceptable. Also, from the same letter "t. . 1* City is ' ,` -';',i. { 13 3 cautioned that it should not conaatruo the accompanying nying 1 ' to ; , •p osol as, a contractual offer, in all its det:ailB. . .". ,6:! is Since the details 'which are not to be construed as bin, a L 5 . , •y v5� 16 contractual of ier are not numerated, the entire document ± * O� -� has to be considered a non-binding document, • ,. a g s',a 11; {. ' Since the proposal is non-binding as defined by _, r if) the applicant and since the judgment nr of the City (or the ' ' . 7,-., a a 20 City's consultants) are not acceptable to the applicant,. 9 21 there is no basis for Jenal, Consultants Corporation acting 22 in the City's behalf to make any evaluation or determination 23 of the document. 24 2. 'RO'OSAX. SY T ;- . i A,- ::. 25 � �� Q • r' 4 F.. Y hVt.$y.ir.' '.���-.z r.�= � �� „ n i4 y 4 „,„1•„,,s, "7<r"r,Y ~ qf kte .r �� a�� ,W..c; �. w wv6a . « v .,.� _ 7a s cr, L... _ e_ 'tSf. • sr. gs-"svu.«a;as, L�.,. ...„, �t:� .a.....,. u..s :.»LLr Y�e4,.j.:.. r. 'GMs 4 if'mss-a,b. . k .f,;. : Xn the document entitled "Definitions of Case 1 -'-1 and Case 2" the applicant explicitly excepts itself from r a the requirements of the RFP, and state that its proposal ,s l,;. 4',,;; ? 4 is not in compliance with that document. "The second ':: aj;. rE 41 5 system (called "Case 2" and sot forth on yell colored ,1 ., pagmn) d ncr .b s what thm City's RFP calla for, and illnstra s ,-,, 44 IV , that thy! requirements + nts of thm RFP, ware they to be accepted , ;!5'4_ ,,..0,. .., "''' N,+'4 M. 8 b a cable television company, c al,d result in an extra- ,°:, i '- . g ordinarily rily system which is of debatable 'Y 10 technological feasibility and which, in event, would . v -,,' 11 far exceed the needs of the community-or the level of fore. k; , seeable cent:miser der nd. TCI Cablevision is not proposing K y.. ' 13 , to build or operate the nystt m described in Case 2, 'tense , x e ;. , 14 such a proposal ' is neither economically realistic nor in the 4. of r . ':. 1ta boot ,ilntateots Of the community." i. s P l 4, ,, ,: tiehol Consultants Corporation feels that, a to it ' ' , 4 1/ to conduct and submit A review of TCI's proposal, wm would =' � _ 1f1 begin effect, tacitly accepting TCr's judgment in variance "' is with the RFP. It is not a proper function of the consultant ` 20 to take determinations of merit about either the RFP or y 21 alternative proposals unresponsive to the tn. It is our 22 position that the judgment of the City, as expressed in 23 the RFP is the statement for purpose, merit, and require* 24 marts for operating a cable television facility in the City, 25 Any deviations from the RFP are a matter of merit and as 5 z: `,, :-"°t- R . �i 0' .. .,, f ..f 'M._ 1. j4.• '. d >-i d. `�'� ak?."���c�a� f-:. i -vva?�" ? arxa-.,�*., �„� ..c r7t+�'rS3t *5.:' ..fix k.:, . x q! : I ,AA1's 't�.`°s,i tcr.* i,, ,-.Ac roi 'twitk..i.v.t,„,;:.: , „ ,i„,� �i ' 'Y ” $ s kol .f 1 .. soda are the proper concern of only than City and the bidders 1". 2.. Jen�l Con uJ.tnnts Corporation has no standing to judge the , • ��r - 3 merits of any deviation fro the RFP We are constrained t i, r>r�t.r. fs • IMF r' to accept- it 7;s it is. •, .) 3. M W„raS Vtv R'V M1 � 1 Tom°. Rot ' I '-A?,; �,, ,.F,., R.. a, n .. ram.., ,, s �� 's Le lCIM �� TV jU 12 BE CROSSLY UNFA*R #. , . V yp.+,g�r����yy�.;may �{;}� •;e2.'z:... 3t� :. ' y I14%0;0 1Wo of the three bidders responded to the PR a �;e or loss faithfully i.y beki,aviing that tho RFP legal h, , r ,,. . 10 document t at had .to complied wth. If we accept H . ..9..-q4-41?` T(,I V e position -that compliance with the RFP " result A+; xtv n I j. 0 A ATxd 4 `kil • ' - . .— ; 12 id an extraordinarily expensive system which in of debatable •-.i�1. .,:'444,4g 13 . , t chno1ogicu1 feasibility. .."A" then both of the bidders 3 a? � i • i • 14 o ►ich responded to the 'RFP are in a significantly ' °' 0 r:, lb d .sedventageens position. ,A:;;:. :;:, an Furthermore, since there are many companies ,4 ,x4, '3 .Y 1/ providing service similar to that sought by the City in the r,." '. tB . RFP in communities mailer, larger and about the same else, 19 of Jefferson City, we must assume some disability on the ' . . 20 . part of Tt;I not shared by either of the two bidders or y . • • A - 21 other companies which prevents TCI from offering the ` 22 requested services in an economical manner. : . ' . '23 ' If the City is to accept TCI's. position that then ' 24 UP does not and cannot apply, then the other. bidden 25 should be given the opportunity to respond on a similar ( 6 ;3,...„. �;+j�k”'�l i '-�."�r���'a°;:: "w: t"v�E"{�*�+� :Vi,µ �� •'�"�� 4'`�� ak"�. i�s ��'' f �-s�; -�•`...�`�`�"cl�t.��,w:��i,t..•�.,. � �f�»,��� i��`-ti-� k�, . '1 "x,...4.a,n '`-.:UN.algriW S,.'.c„." ':3;-;i ti+ ''+F• tia 3� :b: i "-''�' ;'.ia. - FN�`�rx'"..Alg4 �., -�'w .�c� .a-».itu;r°s...: 'Z`'`;...a. , rg ru ;4 -u We eve revie d each of the other bidden in ' baei,e Y 2 reference to the RFP and to include TCI which in not =#t,: rt c r , , . rospontiva to the ar s RFP, regdl.esn of e f th merit of TCI's �. t 3 ' �: Y ;.` position, rould be Bros sly unfair to the other btddnrn. , 0 ^ Therefore, .Tone ' Consultants Corporation c ? not, dr i in all good conscience and without rn adicin TCI n cane , ., or position, review the propene' submitted by TCI in any m a of itn renpccts. Wn do not intend to ca iticize TCI in thi 11�, e matter. Their pocition may be valid', but that is a matter .:. t,st. ± . 10 to be resolved between TCI and the City. Sine+ rely, . fit, ''3 Eimer $mnlling, ft President & Chairman, Jane" e.,w 11 ; , o 12 Coneu1tante Corporation. '44 13 , ' MR. $MALLIt"C e I have our report, which is , ` 9 S t # .,1,1 ' = twenty same pa gee. It's customary to road thtm and I gill. ee ry ` pi F I won't rend the charts and Sraphvi, but X think everyone r•, 1 b }; = r tee a copy. r 17 I mentioned in the cover, letter "We have analyzed ', 3 .Pi ' 18 RFP forme H, It J, K, and M and include our suggestions - - ifl and recommendations an well as questions to be answered by each ach applicant which will provide further clarification s 21 of the proposals f©r the City Council.VI 2 22 Again, this is twenty pages. I'm sorry about :_ 23 that. Here we go. 24 FOLLOWING 30 PAGES CONTAIN FORM H, FORM I, TABLE I, TABLE 2, TABLE 3-‘'Hz TABLES WERE NOT READ INTO 25 THE RECORD--FORM J, FORM g, FORM M, QUESTIONS FOR CENTRAL TELECOMMUNICATIONS, QUESTIONS FOR JEFFERSON CITY CABLEVISION AND A SUMMARY THAT MR, SMALLING READ INTO TIM SAD.) FORM H: SERVICE AREAS, CONSTRUCTION SCHEDULES, AND , I CONSTRUCTION PRACTICES SERVICE AREAS Both applicants propose to provide service to all areas of the city South of the Missouri River. Neither applicant proposes service North of the River. The RFP requires service to all areas of the city. Both applicants claim that little if any housing density exists North of the River. However, one applicant (CTI) does mention two schools that operate on the North side and proposes to provide service to them via single channel microwave. We recommend that both applicants give further consideration to providing full service North of the River at least as far as the two schools mentioned. CONST UJCTION SCHEDULE Both applicants propose to complete all construction (South of the River) 1 IP by year two. There does not appear to be any significant difference be- tween the proposed construction schedules. ' CONSTRUCTION PRACTICES Both applicants propose to utilize turnkey contractors. jCC has selected its own affiliated contractor to do all construction work. CTI has not selected 1 , a contractor. Both applicants proposed to follow all construction codes relevant to the cable industry. • 8 \? FORM I: CHANNEL CAPACITY AND SYSTEM DESIGN The RFP requires the successful applicant to build two cable systems. The first cable is called in this report the "Consumer Cable" and it is re- _ quired that this cable reach all parts of the City. The other cable is re- - ferred to in this report as the "Institutional Cable" and is required to access all state, county, local government buildings, all schools including universities, hospitals, community centers, and leased access users including businesses. In addition to the two cable systems described above, the RFP also requires that both cables be two-way cables and that they be interactive. Two-way cables allow pictures and computer data to be sent back to the head end to be used for various purposes. Two-way pictures would only be sent on the Institutional Cable, and would not be accessible to consumer users. However, two-way data would be available on both cables and would provide consumers with tiomc significant advantages. For instance, two-way data could be used to provide low cost security services to every home in Jefferson City which was connected to the cajole. Other examples of the use of two-way data will be developed below . Aside from the cable plant itself, the applicants are required to propose interconnection service with surrounding cable systems. Applicants are also required to propose relevant technical specifications which meet or exceed current FCC specifications and to provide details on equipment calibrations and performance measurements. Applicants were also required to propose a system by which responsible individuals of the city government could in- terrupt programming for the purpose of emergency announcements affecting the health and welfare of the citizens of the community. 9 ICONSUMER CABLE The RFP requires a two-way interactive consumer cable with the capacity , for 50 video channels, 35 of which are to be activated initially. JCC proposes to build a 52 channel two-way interactive system and activate all channels initially. CTI proposes to build a 42 channel system and activate 31 channels initially. This is not responsive to the RFP. CTI states that their system will be "designed for 54 channel capacity" but it is not known what this statement means. JCC estimated that their consumer plant would total 145 miles and CTI estimated their consumer plant at 125 miles. According to the 1979 Cable Television Factbook, the current Jefferson City cable plant is 125 miles long, so that both applicants would seem to have made reasonable estimates of their system length. INSTITUTIONAL CABLE IDThe RFP requires a two-way interactive institutional cable with 35 channel capacity. The RFP makes no provision for allocating upstream and downstream capabilities. JCC proposes,to build a 39 channel two- way interactive institutional cable with 22 channels downstream and 17 channels upstream. CTI proposes to build a two-way interactive institutional cable with 35 channels upstream and 4 channels downstream. Both applicants propose to activate the upstream channels on an as-needed basis. It appears that the division of 22/17 proposed by JCC will be more flexible than the 35/4 division of CT1 , and we judge the JCC proposal superior in this respect. JCC estimates their institutional plant at 21 miles and CTI estimates 13 miles. Since neither applicant provided a detail list of the buildings to be served with the institutional loop, it is not possible to determine if these numbers are realistic. II DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM CABLE AND EQUIPMENT Both applicants have proposed acceptable and equivalent components. 10 MICROWAVE SYSTEMS Both applicants have proposed to use microwave systems for interconnection to other franchises, and JCC has proposed in addition,to use their microwave system for signal importation from St. Louis and Kansas City. CTI proposed to use AML type microwave for interconnection between systems. JCC did not specify the type of microwave they planned to use but we suspect they are considering FML type microwave which is definitely superior to AML. . Since JCC did not specify the type of microwave to be used, no comparison can be made. EARTH STATIONS Both applicants proposed to build two satellite earth stations to receive signals from the SATCOM I and WESTAR III satellites. JCC proposed a HUGIIE'S 5 meter antenna and CTI proposes to install a SCIENTI FIC- ATLANTA 4.6 meter antenna. The differences between the two systems is ,_t,,b,,, minor and both applicants should be able to provide adequate service pi" satellite pickup. ADDRESSABLE CONVERTERS Moth applicants propose to provide addressable converters in their initial installation as required by the RFP. CTI will make addressable converters available to all subscribers, and JCC will make addressable converters available to all subscribers requiring more than the basic 12 channel tier. Addressable converters provide two functions in modern cable plants. Like any converter their basic function is to convert or translate the additional channels on the cable (those over and above the basic 12 channels tuned by a standart TV set) onto a channel useable by the consumer's set. The second function of addressable converters is to provide certain program security and consumer two-way data services. 11 • • £ , a . f .T tx as � .....``r i ...., h.'.s., a, ...,^•-�•Cam,".1£1'Xfia Program security can be provided by these converters in two ways. The converters proposed by both applicants have the capability to unscramble scrambled premium channels provided by the headend. The purpose of this service is to prevent unauthorized reception of premium services by individuals j with illegal converters. The other method of program security is to provide means by which the converter can be controlled by a central computer at the head end. If a consumer attempts to tune to a premium channel to which he/she rr . "` is not authorized, the computer can sense this and prevent the channel from 'ar;+ appearing on the consumers set. Addressable converters can also be used for pay- per-view programming where the computer determines if the consumers converter is tuned to a pay-per-view channel and update billing records ac- R:_;; cordingly. Neither of the applicants proposed to provide pay -per-view service although CT mentioned this as a possibility. The addressable converter is also the basic means of providing interactive services as described below. • Both applicant, proposed addressable converters as described above x._ which are equal or equivalent . ICC proposes to use the scrambled program :` °_* ' security system exclusively while CTI proposed to use a combination of scrambling and addressability. The advantage of CFI 's approach is that It would not be necessary for service technicians to enter the customer's prernisis in order to change authorization for premium service. This is not only a convenience for the customer, but also allows the cable operator to withhold premium service if the customer is not current in paying bills. )CC apparently has no immediate plans to utilize the addressability of the converters. In this respect CTI is judged superior since they utilize the full capabilities intended for the addressable converters, however, CTI did not indicate what facilities would be used to provide the central data processing system (computer) necessary to operate the addressable converters. 12 INTERACTIVE SERVICES The RFP suggests that the applicants consider various interactive services " such as security, polling, data retrieval, and shop at home. Both applicants make recommendations concerning security services. Both applicants consider use of the TOCOM -IIIA security system which would be compatible with their proposed systems. JCC proposes to operate their own service while CTI pro- d poses to lease channel capacity to an existing local security company, a pro- ceeding that is explicitly allowed by the RFP. Both applicants indicate that security services would be provided upon showing of economic feasibility. We find both proposals to be acceptable and responsive to the RFP. Both proposals discuss various other interactive services which may be included in the future. However, both indicate that inclusion of these serviceS at this time is probably not economically feasible . Interactive illservices (viewer polling, data retreival, shop at home)are in their infancy at this time. Although the technology exists, it is expansive to implement in every consumer's home ,,and ' satisfactory software is not yet available. Many of the services that have been suggested for interactive application simply have not been developed yet. And, only the larger urban system, MOS operators, and manufacturers can afford the tremendous development costs involved. Once these services have been designed and development costs underwritten, these services will become available and affordable to the smaller market systems. It is only prudent then for the successful Jefferson City applicant to wait until these services can be provided on a more economical basis. INTERCONNECTION . The RFP requires interconnection to neighboring systems when required by the City Council. JCC proposes to interconnect initially with their existing • 13 • • franchise in Columbia via CARS band microwave. CTI proposes to inter- connect as directed by the City using similar equipment. We find both applicants in compliance with the RFP but since JCC proposes to interconnect regardless, we find their proposal to be superior. PERFORMANCE SPECIFICATIONS As required by the Uniform Data Forms, both applicants submitted per- formance criteria. Both applicants indicated performance criteria better than that required by the FCC as required by the RFP. jCC provided complete ' descriptions of their initial proof of performance and annual system measure- ments. CTI referred to literature prepared by equipment manufacturers. We ' find the JCC proposal much superior in this area. Additionally, JCC provided superior detail on equipment calibration, complaint procedures, and technician qualifications and responsibilities. We find the JCC proposal much superior in • all respects of system performance. • SYSTEM MAP Both applicants were required to provide a map showing locations of headend, antenna tower, studio(s), microwave facilities, and earth stations. CTI did not provide this information. JCC provided adequate information. JCC shows the microwave tower to be separated from the headend by a dis- tance of approximately two miles, but did not specify how the microwave site would be interconnected with the headend. HEADEND BLOCK DIAGRAM Both applicants were required to provide a headend block diagram showing all major components. CTI showed a headend block on an unnumbered page prior to page 81 which is in the wrong place. The diagram shown is for a 12 channel system, not the 31/42 channel system proposed, shows none of the receiving facilities, and does not show the institutional cable. The headend • block diagram provided by CTI is completely inadequate. 14 JCC showed a fairly complete block diagram in the proper place (page 89). However, the arrangement of the components is poor and makes little technical sense. Several questions will be addressed to JCC clarifying the function and purpose of the arrangement shown. The diagram shown is not satisfactory. FUNCTIONAL DIAGRAMS • Both applicants were required to show functional diagrams of local operations facilities including studio, control room, and equipment center; access studios, institutional facilities, government facilities, educational facilities, and remote vans. Neither applicant provided any information in these areas. JCC did show a proposed studio configuration which would be virtually unworkable. EQUIPMENT LISTS Both applicants were required to provide equipment lists for all areas 0 including the municipal studio, and proposed local origination studio and mobile van. JCC did provide a short list of equipment on page 99 under local origination which would be completely inadequate to support any type of local origination operation. No list of origination facilities was provided in the proper section by either applicant. We find that neither applicant responded isproperly in this area are local prcrarnti %n , 60. FUNCTIONAL DIAGRAM - TWO WAY CABLE & COMPUTER INTERFACE Both applicants were to provide a functional diagram of the two-way cable system and the computer interface. Neither applicant complied. Neither applicant provided any information on the computer equipment necessary to activate the addressable converters although CTI mentioned the use of the addressable converters to provide pay-per-view services. Both applicants mentioned use of the TOCOM 111-A security computers but these • do not use or control the addressable converters. CTI proposed to use the 15 Scientific Atlanta Status Monitoring/Bridger Switching System for maintenance purposes, but this does not use the addressable converters either. EMERGENCY OVERRIDE SYSTEM Neither applicant provided sufficient detail on the operation of the emergency override system as required by the proposed ordinance. Also it appears that neither applicant took into consideration that the emergency . override system was to operate on the audio portion of the programs only. Both applicants failed to designate a channel for emergency announcements and neither applicant proposed to provide a character generator for emergency announcements. 16 • TABLE 1 BROADCAST TELEVISION STATION CARRIAGE STAT AFFIL CITY RFP CTI JCC KCBJ ABC COLUMBIA X X , X KOMU NBC COLUMBIA X X X KRCG CBS JEFF CITY X X X . KMOS PBS SEDALIA OPT X X KTVI ABC ST.LOUIS OPT X X KCPT PBS KAN CITY OPT -- X I KSDK NBC ST.LOUIS OPT X X • KCMO CBS KAN CITY OPT X X KMOX CBS ST.LOUIS OPT X X KETC PBS ST.LOUIS OPT X X KMBC ABC KAN CITY OPT X X WDAF NBC KAN CITY OPT X - KOLR CBS SPRINGFLD OPT X - KDNL IND ST.LOUIS OPT X - WOR IND NEW YORK OPT X - WGN IND CHICAGO OPT X - WTBS IND ATLANTA OPT X - KBMA IND KAN CITY OPT - - KPLR IND ST.LOUIS OPT X X • 17. TABLE 2 . SATELLITE CARRIAGE SERVICE BIRD TRANS CTI JCC NICKELODEON SAT 1 X X i PTL SAT 2 X X WGN SAT 3 X - TMC SAT 5 X X WTBS SAT 6 X .- ESPN SAT 7 X X CBN SAT 8 X X USA NETWORK SAT 9 X X BET SAT 9 X - CSPAN SAT 9 X - SHOWTIME SAT 10 X X AETN • SAT 10 - - • CNN SAT 14 X - ACSN SAT 16 X -- WWS SAT 16. X - WOR SAT 17 X GALAVISION SAT 18 - - CINEMAX SAT 20 X X HTN SAT 21 - x MSN SAT 22 - - , HBO SAT 22 X . X NCN COM 7 - - BRAVO COM 7 - - TBN COM 13 X - SIN WES 15 X - • ' SPN WES 17 X X 18 TABLE 2 SATELLITE CARRIAGE SERVICE BIRD TRANS CT1 JCC FUTURE SERVICES ALPHA SAT ? - CBS CABLE COM ? _ X • SAT SATCOM I COM .• COMSTAR D-2 WES �' WESTAR 111 Anik NOTES: * CT1 proposed carriage of TBN but since TBN has recently moved from SATCOM to COMST4R will not be able to receive due to lack of third earth station. 19 • TABLE 3 RADIO STATION CARRIAGE STAT FORM CITY CTI JCC KCOU EDUC COLUMBIA X — KUMR EDUC ROLLA X — KLUM EDUC JEFF CITY X X KOPN EDUC COLUMBIA X — KBIA EDUC COLUMBIA X X KCBW ROCK SEDALIA X — KLDN * MOR ELDON X — KRMS GM O.BEACH X — KCEZ BM KAN CITY X — KWWR BM MEXICO X — KTGC CONT COLUMBIA X — KKCA + MOR FULTON X X KFMZ CONT COLUMBIA X X KFUO CLASS CLAYTON X — KDBX MOR BOONEVILLE X — KMBR BM KAN CITY X — KJMO TOP 40 JEFF CITY X X KMFL C&W MARSHALL X — KMOX MOR ST.LOUIS X X KVCM GM MONT CITY X — KRES C&W MOBERLY X — KZNN C&W ROLLA X — KKSS SOUL ST.LOU IS — X KSHE ROCK CRESTWOOD X X WIL C&W ST'LOUIS — X • KGRC . TOP 40 'HANNIBAL — X KJFF MOR JEFF CITY — X 20 ,1 .... ... ._army... 111 TABLE 3 RADIO STATION CARRIAGE STAT FORM CITY CTI JCC `{ KUMR CLASS ROLLA - - KWMU CLASS ST.LOUIS - - KSIS CONT SEDALIA - KCFM CONT ST.LOUIS X - KSAT * CONT. ST.LOUIS - - KXTR CLASS KAN CITY - - KTXR BM SPRINGFLD - - KYSD C&W WAYNESVILLE -- - f KJEL CONT LEBANON -• • 21 FORM j: PROPOSED SIGNAL CARRIAGE AND ALLOCATIONS TELEVISION SERVICES The RFP requires the successful applicant to carry all broadcast signals now required or permitted by the Federal Communications Commission, plus five municipal use channels for community, leased access, government, educational, and local programming. FCC rule 76.59 requires carriage of all local network television stations and any other commercial television stations that are "significantly viewed" in the community. In addition, the system may carry additional commercial television stations in order • to provide full network service not provided by the local stations, and may carry any noncommercial station if no local stations exist (which seems to be the case in Jefferson City). • Thus, the only stations on the "must carry" list would be KRGC, KOMU, and KCE3J . Any additional network stations imported from Kansas City or St . Louis must either be shown to be "significantly viewed" in Jefferson City or it must be shown that the local stations do not provide full network service. Since no noncommercial station exists in the market, the system is free but not required to carry any noncommercial station it desires. BROADCAST STATION CARRIAGE Both applicants propose to carry the FCC required stations KRGC, KOMU, and KCBJ . In addition, both applicants propose to carry independent St. Louis station KPLR, and noncommercial stations KMOS-Sedalia and KETC-St.Louis. JCC intends to also carry noncommercial station KCPT Kansas City. This se o�be in compliance with the rules. Both applicants intend to carry the following additional stations: • KTVI/ABC/STL, KSDK/NBC/STL, KCMO/CBS/KS, KMOX/CBS/STL, and 22 KMBC/ABC/KC. CTI intends to carry in addition WDAF/NBC/KC, and KDNL/IND/STL. Carriage of these stations would appear to be contingent on a showing of "significantly viewed" as defined by the FCC, or a showing (in the case of the network stations) that full network service was not being provided by the local stations. Neither applicant made such showing. Therefore, it cannot be determined whether all the stations listed by the applicants can be provided under existing FCC rules. However, it should be mentioned that the FCC is in the process of revising these rules and may make unrestricted carriage of any television broadcast stations. This rulemaking, if concluded, may allow all the stations listed above acceptable to the FCC. CTI has proposed to carry 18 off- air television stations including 5 independent stations. JCC has proposed to carry 12 off-air stations in- eluding only 1 independent station. It appears that the CTI proposal is II superior due to the variety of independent stations proposed. METHOD OF RECEPTION IMPORTED BROADCAST SIGNALS Both applicants propose to import television broadcast signals from Kansas City and St. Louis as suggested by the RFI'• Significant differences liexist in the methods of importation proposed by the various applicants. JCC proposes to receive the import signals via an existing microwave system which is currently providing service to their affiliated system in Columbia. CTI proposes to receive these signals by direct off-air reception from a 500 foot tower located on the campus of Lincoln University. The method of reception can be a highly significant factor in the ' rpv i elect• eft determination of the quality of the service . Microwave trans- mission in the CARS band is subject to rainfall attenuation as well as • atmospheric effects and the adequacy of the original design. Off-air 23 reception is subject also to atmospheric effects, low signal levels due to the distances involved, and, in this case, to severe co-channel interference problems caused by stations in St. Louis and Kansas City operating on the same channels. The quality of reception of a television signal can be characterized by two parameters a). the carrier to noise level of the worst case channel, and b). the percentage of time that this parameter is likely to be less than . specified. All television transmissions whether off-air or microwave are subject to signal level fluctuations over a period of time due to the influences a mentioned above. It is generally not either technically or economically feasible to provide 100% service under all circumstances. Therefore, television reception is usually quantified as a minimum acceptable signal level (eicpressed for cable systems as carrier to noise) and the percentage of time that this level cannot be achieved (which can be statistically pre- dicted from available resources). • ' Neither applicant provided sufficient information upon which a technical . judgement of imported sugnal quality can be made. Since this determination . depend, upon detailed knowledge of the reception system, this determination cannot be supplied by the consultant. Each applicant should provide the above indicated information regarding the imported signal quality so that a fair comparison can be made. ! SATELLITE SERVICES Both applicants proposed construction of two five meter (approx.) earth stations for reception of satelltie services from SATCOM 1 and . WESTAR III . There are twenty three television channels available to • the applicants from these satellites(suitable for family viewing), of which • seventeen were mentioned as desireable by the RFP. CT1 proposed to 24 . • carry twenty of the available services, and JCC proposed to carry twelve. We question the paucity of services proposed by JCC (five of the satellite services proposed are pay TV channels which leaves only six for basic viewing) especially in light of the fact that some of the services skipped will be available on existing receivers (i.e. CSPAN and BET will be available on the same receiver as USA NETWORK, and AETN is shared on the same receiverasSHOWTIME). We also note that JCC passed up all three independent "super stations" (WGN, WOR, and WTBS) as well as CNN which is the 24 hour a day cable news network. CTI does not mention carriage of either of the "cultural" channels to be available shortly on the satellites whereas JCC plans to carry an additional service of this type (CBS CULTURAL) when it becomes available. it appears'in balance that CT,1 intends to provide a broader range and greater variety of services • by making more use of the facilities available than does JCC. We do note that CT1 plans to carry the religious service of Trinity Broadcasting Network. CTI should be advised that this service is no longer available on SA'I'GON 1 due to failure of transponder 13. This service has been moved to another satellite (COMSTAR D-2) which is • not receivable on the proposed facilities. Since two other religious services have been offered by CTI and the cost of constructing a third earth station would not be justifiable to receive this one service, we recommend that CT1 be allowed to remove carriage of TBN from its proposal. AUTOMATED PROGRAMMING Automated programming is generally Understood to mean 24 hour informational services which are usually provided by electronic character • 25 generators with background music. Services provided include local state and national news services, weather information including live radar displays, financial and stock market information, community bulletin boards, cable program information, and classified ad services. JCC proposes to provide four automated services (radar weather, news and local conditions,:financial and stock market, and consumer shopping). L► arty CTI proposes tofr-avlda-only two automated services (news plus local weather, and stock and financial news). In this respect JCC can be considered superior. LOCAL PROGRAMMING JCC proposes to provide 30 hours per week of locally produced programming. However, with a staff of one full time and two part time persons, we fail to see how the applicant will be able to achieve this production level without help. CTI makes no firm commitment to local programming. Neither applicant responded satisfactorily in this area of the REP. RADIO SERVICES With respect to proposed radio station coverage, we find the CTI proposal superior in that they propose to carry 24 stations with a pre- ponderance of stations in the immediate vicinity of Jefferson City vs. 12 stations as proposed by JCC. In addition, we do note that only CTI carries a classical music station. We also note that CTI failed to propose carriage of Jefferson City station K J FF which would be prejudicial to that local station, and failed to propose carriage of KMJM/St. Louis, the only SOUL format station available by direct off-air reception. Since both of these stations are listed in the report by CTI's consultant as receivable • in Jefferson City, we believe this to be an inadvertant omission and would urge CTI to include these last two stations in their lineup. Also, we note 26 that neither applicant mentioned carriage of WFMT the premier classical music station of Chicago, which is available to both applicants via satellite. We urge both applicants to consider carriage of this station as an important service to the Jefferson City area. • • _ _ _ V I • FORM K: LOCAL PROGRAMMING Neither applicant provided satisfactory information regarding local programming and proposed facilities. This is due, unfortunately, to some confusion concerning the intent of the RFP and certain inconsistencies be- tween the RFP and the proposed Ordinance and Franchise Letter of Agree- ment. Both of the latter documents require the successful applicant to con- struct, equip, and operate a production facility of approximately 3500 square • feet. The purpose of this facility was never made clear ( i .e. is this the municipal access studio or the studio to be controlled by the operator?). The RFP is of no help in this matter in that it only "suggests" that applicants consider providing the production facility. The only required • action on the part of the bidders to be in compliance with the RFP is to provide+an "equipment list for on-the-air broadcast quality production necessary for the City to star cnblecasting. . ." (page 15 of the RFI'). It is specifically mentioned on page 20(a) that providing the equipment on this list is strictly voluntary, ". . .while not required, special consideration will be given to proposals which provide technical equipment to be owned by governmental bodies or school systems. . .". Therefore there is a contradiction between the R F P and the ordinance and letter of agreement. In addition, there is inconsistency in the use of the term "local origination studio" vs or "cable company studios". However, the explanatory text in the Uniform Data section seems to . indicate that the term "local origination studio" is intended to mean a studio provided to the City of Jefferson fully equipped and under the control of that body for municipal use even though this is contradictory to the RFP. This studio would then be the studio required to be pro- • vided under the terms of the Ordinance and Franchise Letter of Agreement. 28 Any other studios of any type or use provided by the bidder are strictly voluntary (although once proposed they have to be provided since the proposal becomes part of the Ordinance). , On this basis then the proposals were evaluated as follows. LOCAL ORIGINATION STUDIO Neither applicant provided adequate facilities for the required local origination studio. JCC did not provide the required size, and the equip- ' • ment list provided is not sufficient for television production. CTI pro- posed a facility 850 square feet when the ordinance requires a minimum • of 3500 square feet, CTI did not provide an equipment list. CTI further proposed that Lincoln University provide the space, equipment, and operating staff for the local origination facility. Lincoln University • is not a'party to these proceedings and cannot be held responsible for 410 non-compliance. The proposals of both CTI and JCC are held to be inadequate in the area of the local origination studio. LOCAL ORIGINATION COMMITMENT ' Both applicants were asked what funds and personnel would be provided to the city in support of the local origination studio. JCC provided a list of funds and personnel, but specifically excepted that this list was in reference to ". . .Jefferson City Cablevision operations only." In other words JCC declined to provide any support for the ... municipal use of the local origination facility. CTI proposed to pro-. vide support to the City for operation of the local origination facility of "ten cents per subscriber per month", in other words, the subscribers would underwrite operation of the studio. This may be appropriate, but it may have not been the intention of the City. CTI did not propose to 410 provide any personnel support to the City. We feel that both responses for local commitment are inadequate. 29 1 CABLE COMPANY STUDIO The cable company studio as defined above would be a wholly owned and separate facility from the Local Origination Studio and completely controlled and staffed by the operator. It should be noted that proposal of such a facility was at the option of the bidder. CTI elected to propose a mobile television van in lieu of a permanent studio. This is entirely acceptable under the terms of the RFP and . ordinances. However, CTI did not reveal any details,of this proposed • vehicle or equipment list, so it is therefore not possible to technically evaluate this unit. . , JCC proposed to provide a 1200 square foot studio but did not in- clude an equipment list so this proposal is equally impossible to evaluate. Both applicants mentioned elsewhere, primarily in their system narratives, certain amounts of money to be spent for either local origination facilities or company studios. In absence of any formal technical plans or equipment lists, it is not possible to determine whether these amounts of money are appropriate or adequate. • O . 30 FORM M: PROPOSED RATES Two of the rates defined in both applicant's pro osals are the initial installation and converter fee and the base monthly x Both applicants propose rates which are in-line for the type of services they have proposed. We question the initial charge for the converter requested by CTI . This applicant should define the time they will hold the deposit and the rate of interest to be accrued on the customers money. • JCC does not agree with a three year rate freeze. JCC will charge more for pay services. Notwithstanding JCC's refusal to freeze their rate for three years, and CTI's charge for the converter, we judge both applicants to equal with respect to rate proposals. • SUMMARY OF CHARGES/RATES DESCRIPTION ACC CTI Converter Deposit None $45 Service Charge $20 $22 Average P/UG Additional Outlet - Initially 0 $6 Additional Outlet -- Later $10 $9.50 Reconnect $5 $9.50 Monthly Rate (Full) $8.75 $8.00 Extra Outlet TV $2.25 $1.00 Extra Outlet FM $1.35 $1.00 Commercial Rate 50% of Residential Same as Residential Multiple Dwellings 80% of Residential Same as Residential • Pay Service $9.95 $8.45 31 QUESTIONS FOR CENTRAL TELECOMMUNICATIONS INC. 1 . Please comment on cost and feasibility of providing full service to two schools North of the river. 2. Clarify statement "designed for 54 channel capacity". Will cable, when built, meet RFP requirement for 50 channels? Explain inability to initially activate 40 channels as required by the RFP. If only 31 channels are to be activated initially as shown in your proposal, which of the 40 program services mentioned in FORM J will be left out? 3. Please provide detail list of all buildings/institutions connected by institutional cable. . 4. Reference plans to interconnect systems by AML microwave; can adequate service between Jefferson City and Columbia be provided by AML. microwave. What is the distance involved, number of hops, and 40 fade margin of proposed system? 5. Please comment when you plan to install necessary computer• equipment to activate addressable converters. Please comment on any v interference or incompatability between 4 u-of addressable converters, the TOCOM III--A security system or the Status Monitoring System you plan to install. 6. Applicant should complete information on peak-to-valley response on page 86a. If number of amplifiers in cascade is an important consideration in the system design, then the maximum allowable number of amplifiers should be specified thus allowing the equation given to be evaluated. 7. Does applicant intend to use HRC headend? If not, can applicant maintain distortion products at indicated levels on page 86a? 410 - , 32 8. Please supply in own writing detail information on a). test methodology to meet proposed and requirecfi'system performance criteria, b). complete list of test equipmentet-bees supplied for system, c). complete calibration schedule for all test equipment showing traceability to NBS, d). complete list of acceptance testing, initial proof, and routine maintenance testing, e). qualifications and duties of cable technicians, f). revised complaint proceedure providing 24 hour around the clock customer service, g). what charges if any apply to customer service calls? 9. Please submit all information required by page 89 of the Uniform Data Forms including a). system map showing headend, studios, and earth stations and b). correct headend block diagram for this system, c). functional block diagrams for studios, remote vans. 10. Please provide detail equipment list for a). Local Origination Studio (as defined in narrative) and b). remote van. • 11 . Please provide functional diagram of two-way interactive cable and interface to computer system. Provide detail equipment list for interactive and addressable converter computer system. 12. Please provide complete functional diagram for audio only emergency interrupt system. Comment on feasibility and desircability of providing addressable converter override system for home designated as serving hearing impaired. Please comment on feasibility and desire- ability of providing character generator and designated emergency channel for emergency announcements. 13. Please provide basis for allowing carriage of duplicate commercial network stations per FCC rules. • 33 14. Please provide anticipated worst channel carrier-to-noise level, worst case co-channel interference level, and anticipate percentage of time these specifications cannot be met for the proposed off-air receiving system. 15. Please comment on feasibility and desireability of add one of the cultural services to be available shortly on satellite. 16. Please comment on adequacy of support indicated for local origination, estimated income, and lack of personnel support required by RFP. 17. Please comment on feasibility and desireability of carrying classical superstation WFMT available on satellite. 18. Applicant should remove all references on pages 84-85 of proposal regarding hub interconnection. There are no hubs in system. Comments on this page belong under system interconnection on page 86. • , , ) • . • . . 34 QUESTIONS FOR JEFFERSON CITY CABLEVISION 1 . Comment on cost and feasibility of providing full dual trunk service for the two schools on the North side of the river. • • 2. Provide complete detail list of all buildings/institutions to be connected • 44 the institutional cable. 3. When do you intend to install computer control necessary to activate the addressable converters. Please submit detail list of equipment necessary . to activate addressable converters. 4. How is the microwave tower shown on the system map to be interconnected with the headend? 5. Referinp, to the headend block diagram, why do the satellite receivers, imported off-air signals from the microwave and character generators go througluthc video switcher? Please explain what kind of switcher is intended. What is the purpose and function of the computer shown on the diagram? Is IF switching the most effective way to distribute the upstream signals from the institutional cable? Are the videotape recorders and players shown on the diagram to be supplied? 6. Please provide functional diagrams and equipment lists for the Local Origination Studio, the Cable Company Studio, and Remote Van. 7. Please provide functional diagram of two-way interactive cable and . interface to central computer. Please supply a complete list of computer equipment required to activate the addressable converters. 8. Please supply functional diagram of audio only emergency interrupt system. Comment on feasibility of using addressable converters to ac- tivate emergency switching for those homes identified as serving the hearing impaired. Please comment on feasibility and desireability of providing character generator and designated emergency channel for full audio-video emergency announce nts. 35' 9. On what basis are imported commercial network stations allowed to be carried on your proposed system per FCC rules and regulations? • 10. Please comment on feasibility and/or desireability of carriage of additional independent television stations especially those "superstations" available on SATCOM I . 11. From working experience in your Columbia system and by extrapolation for the microwave system, please supply worst channel carrier-to-noise level to be expected on the imported signal system, and percentage of time that this specification will not be met on a statistical basis. What is the anticipated fade margin of your microwave system? 12. Please comment on feasibility of adding more satellite services es- pecially for those services where receivers already exist (i.e. CSPAN and I3ET on USA NETWORK receiver, and AETN on SIIOWTIME receiver. What additional services can be supplied from satellite at reasonable cost? 13. Please comment on feasibility or desireability of providing an automated channel for program billboard. 11,. Please comment on the feasibility or probability of one full time and two part time personnel producing 30 hours a week of local programming. 9 15. Please comment on lack of support for Local Origination by other institutions. ' 16. Please comment on feasibility of carrying classical "superstatlon" WFMT from satellite. 36 • . . 7'::4SIM.A04.44:Ai, 7,3,;,Vii,v.,%." 'Aii."AIWOrirvilig-Avi =7,\,,r1trEIMMtrv.-1%..." ;,:it4.:41-imi.1'4,MWA.z,f4,;),I.,i:...,t,t1:1,r''''eq;Z:Arir.':".'is'''V.,''''-"'' '- ,'4.'4:L',',,'''',•,'"V.,- ' '4'"4• hy44:t1P;f4Sbnitt..140'ke ,*:.:Z.WW:Vt.:e'rii4M .1:7W.f'':',Itt,4 "'S:104:34P14*'1'1‘gt'''k*4'1414" .' '4'k;*''''''''1'1'" '1*4"''t'44'4;t411444414'14": .4.4ig' ZIS , . .• -:e.V'At: . . •.x-:,..:Xi-. W-:.1.' : ' . . , , . ` • ,. ,t'! -:-..,.1:,.,:i e'li!.; • '. .•' . . ,. .,..., .. ' ' .:i'q;:•:: }Vi .-- • , - . ,. . - ,:;-:.,`,F.4:',.. .'', 2 ' In summary, and after carefully assessing the .;;.iY,. . • 4:4,. i. , - • • ' ;1;'%*-';.:V: n.-I-:-Ii; • -"•:,'W . •.;•-r4: ' At;;`k. - • - .'r.-i , ,t1,4 . ' proposals of Central Telecommunications, Inc. and - WM '4-sF • -• , :A:kilZ; 4' 1-4,41,4 - fow %N. 4 - Taltran, Inc. , d/b/a Jefferson City Cablevision, and in • 01 5, conoiderntion of the foregoing analysis nnd the City9s AA, • Kart , pa. 3..*4 . 6 Aeoire to have quality cable television service, we VN 7 recossAnd th4 City Connell look most favorably at the proposA Mg, :,,,i,'i•; - .-:,.•;•-,.: - . ,,.i.-:.• , o of Taltran, Inc. , d/bia Jefferson City Cablevision„ in light . '; ,. .':.:'.--..-• .:,.,. . 9 of the fact that the engineering and techniCal services -- . ......,.. . . . 4wel ... .. . - hich 114VIW 'been:doiined are superhero . . Howfwerf we think that before the City Council .,., . :wet) . 12 makes any decision to award a franchise, that both applicant,, 41:4.-Aii shcadd answer *the questions asked in our rt.view. .' ,',:C. WP• 14 Thank you. MAYOR PRO TM HEQUEMBOURGI O.K. The Council Is has received the report of the consultant. Art there - -'..:. is questions on any of the items that were covered in the :.,::::,::: :.:4'.': 18 • report or questions about the proposals that you would L...., ,:. •-..--. • 10 like to direct toward the consultant? -. .. 1 .Rid 2° ' , . . .. . • •,- , •. • i • ' 21 : COUNCILMAN WADE* Row much time will ha allow '1 :„ : • . 22 to get answers to these questions that he has asked? 23 MAYOR PRO .TEM HEQUEMBOURGI Well, I would assumi -, , ...., . •, , . ,'. ' 24 that if at all Possible these people uhould try to have . . ,.'• -:I 25 these answers when they make their presentation at the • . . . ., , ::.::•::':;1.•.. . .. - , 37 1 ._ _. , i • •. . ' 'f,•!••' , : ' •' i • , .-- . :: b?5 },y; ,4' .si•' .4A.,� +,^coy i; *" --*':. 4~ .``.Y'�" � ';.:�it „ y '.,,fir .ikk `` .:`.,..1. ,*^.'. 2:`••" Er yy x a},,*,v i;,.L., a_^...t,. ~ �t ';.W-AI n �. R.J.Vin. y 2 ° t er e � .4":,„", `x .,' .r• �t - `it"re s, , vq .a '' 'i4: s ,`aa`^i;,".r< ,�i�. yn"w �� v:,� :� ra°r � c• �•.*xe. � sa: asu,�.%i*t`t ;�z" r�s�*.�e b �i��' i �� . . , . ;'f. :kt : public hearing. Rut if its impoesible to do that in that 5 tS ;Y 2 p r .ed of time,, then it will be up to theta tta request an ,,' 3 tention or that' they be able to supply n� of thos • j. 2 Y P� Y '-k;'1}i4: ' 4 answers they've made their proposal. i}:2„,,,, t.. �; An much as poss ''b�e , we would like to keep to 'r s the schedule we 've s t for the hearings. 7 COUNCILMAN WADE* In making replies to th v x~ estions, should they be sent to him in Te xas? ,,,. ' '," '9 r 'MAYOR. PRO TP24 UEQUEMOURG S They should be sent s;,. .';J .. , .,19 . , to Libby, to the: City Clerk, to to recorded. And any of ,,. s 1 i thoae' rcplics would be public information just like any `'12 of the other information that has been submitted no far. _13,. 3 x31.• . 1:3 MR. SMALL/NO I might nay that in assessing both ;.m, `,- A,;., ? 14 systems, the CTI system wan superior programwi.so. `Z`+ho 3CC ,';; 15 system, it's confusing that Jefferson City, with ie the 10 Colulabie group, was superior in the engineering area. 'ry 17 lu the programming area, programming on a cable ;' 1(3 system may be easily changed. You can add or delete .' 10 satellite services, television stations, radio stations, ... 20 et eeterep point simply; but the engineering is something s ;.. 21 you'1.l live with in $ system for the length of the �2 franchise. And that has to be good for anything els, to 23 work. That is the basis of our analysis and our summary. 24 MAYOR PRO TEM REQUEMBOURG1 When you say it's 25 better technically, are you saying they're using better i .,,,•• -..,,,,wr -s,„v.0,-::\I-tm.,4.,-,44,11‘,:-.4.K.3.- .3 I At,* A.• 1..t Jr 1 equipment. they're defining haw ehey're going to do it 2 better, or in What manner? .. . !t., ,• , . c.,•;e::'; ,`' ' '. • .. 3 MR. SMALLING* Their engineering expertise 1 • ,- 4 1 seems to be far superior. The information they inctuded >-,• i': ,.., 5 po in their resnse valid wan good vad information. e teformat' ...„. it The t Al k 6 supplied by CTI, some of it was valid but it really wasn't L-m , 7 generated by itself and it certainly wasn't cmplete* vt There was a consultant's report, X believe, end • .4-,-.,-, 4+ something, else in there, but it didn't really address W ..:: . ,,:•.. ::, • :,,, Out lo• , .: . 'Al ; ' , ' f* ' ' - ' !MAVOR FRO TEM NEQUEMBOURGI I know you indicate •': :;?.::-". 12 there's a Lack of information regarding the inputting s - the reception. Can you comment generally on whether or ,. . , .., 1 not a tower or a microwave system provides better reception? -. ,. A is MR. SMALLING* Well, generally. off air--a :•.: Y ..,.,_ . . 10 microwave link to any area, whether it be Kansas City or - . •,: : 17 St. Louis from here, would be superior if it had a proper • . i , :4 • 18 number of hops and the right power was used, et cetera, . . .,, . . !,.•;;:. i . . . , 19 . et cetera. Off air reception has two or three problems. : . 20 Number one, interference with, I believe, Channel 9-- . . . , 0 . 21 there's a Channel 9 in both cities. So there is a .. tt 22 possibility of same-channel interference* , . 23 There is a drawing, but it's quite inadequate, : .. . ,. 24 Of something called a pheeer. I think it's the manufacturer 25 somebody cells it a phaeer. • . , , 39 - . . , - . ...., h.%� ?��' imf zP� � w§4 ' ': L A y 4e i ; . gRi S,,` . i.:14 0, A :.; 4 �,` .w:" � 7`~5.4 .., V' � ? 0, .y a _ r, Y t�. -t.---Y e � $r .',4.:4.'; 4�e ✓ f�P.44� A� � n.w�Evs�.n � .4,-‘1:4-A.'-7. hi<, _& Kt 9 x X6: ` h s , -, . � . - ', ., _ . „ .. —� . ;;.. 't, ' . 1 ' 'he off air reception lii it is for anyone ,. 2 that heti an antenna na on the roof, although Chase are F 3 Superior antlers mounted much higher in the air, it"z �s 1 8 4 questionable. There is a noise problem. y78 s,`h'� ,y 3 -; , To give you an cable, we personally did some = £'1 ' g; 6 tests an top of the ETire State Building which is 1,000 ;:; ' • 7 time feet', We were looking toward Philadelphia, which a a1 a 85 airline miles, tow, we had a building twice as r 9 ' high, and we Were looking almost htklf as far or two-thirds t . ,r r in s `:f r, imd ~h were pxabi c ms with 1 0 percent reliability. ,. . 7,!::::::-.:1 4. 11 So a microwave hop with a certain number of pre-engineered-- 12 a number of microwave hops that have been pre- engineered, .., Y ' 13 you can statistically- can tell what the fade margin '. , 4.1.: ,.:, :°` 1,1 in going t to be a ,c4 you can pretty well determine the sisal- „ iii to-noise ratio. k t' . ':` . 16 MAYOR PRO TEM 1tEQUEMBOURGt Vince. ;v;. 4 17 COUNCILMAN ktORCMEYERt Mr. St lling, when you ; ti 10 refer to Illeadend block diagram," what are you referring to? . . r x 19 MR. SMALLINO: We've requested* block diagram ;., : 20 is a very simple diagram of blocks in single lines. A 21 television camera might be shown as a block. It says 22 camera with ono line out of it going into a video a twitcher 23 rather than a schematic diagram which would show every {'"i:;_ `: 24 line and detail and will be horribly confusing, Both } 25 block diagrams, we Feel, were quite inadequate. A couple <i. : • 40 ;;;44, S33Y� 3 i� e - ' w4£., 4, �141 4+. 4ik:',-:.°s t- .`+.g.t"' .4.n ..�t :a ii-n N r.. * '* t ro� 3.w,L 5 ...?",,-.. �. 4`rti ' ` 6�. x �� c�f4.$ ";sa§oc o3 r ti, :�L , ix y^1i`� : �` � s <:"a. R:iLe�-:., e,. „s_.teq.—,'A '.n e r,,.�aY �^ a"ts,,q._4«II,.4),.,.." 7 ,:t. �� , � c w .. p z';' . of t diagrams ware nae tanwunot Nor . i i ,F 2 Sr all of those actually in the Ireas we mentioned, thus + .w 3 uere really not up to snuff. They couldn't be built Ake . '-' 4 . , 4 drawn.ttii a :,k . 5 COUNCILMAN BOR t Rt W ell, where� d9 � � ��� �� � 1 x 'frAtE070 f 6 .theta if it could ,i..,-,n,-'n st he built an dry? Do wrl rid Y r 7 different diagram proposed? ex ,r° - 8 MR. SMALLING: 7' s. It is addressed in the list g r,0 of`� ' esti.ns to tho bidders and in the response t o the i;Fi.;1.7., 10 proposals to the RFP. I hope X answered that for you. , . . , 4 a 1 I don't know how technical.cal you want me to get. That goes . ,3� ;{ 1 . for the fade and the on air, off' air, too. u i' m MAYOR PRO TEM R QU�flURGt Dose anyone else, vt"; 1�3 « t1 oths r to cabers o th.6 Co�trac.il htwo unet one "1 - °- 14so COUNCILMAN 8ORGMEYER x Thin will also relate to W a ., Ili the functional diagram that you're relating to on p .„o 9? T;( Nys a• t 1/ MR. SMALLING: I'd have to reed it min. 1 3 t � , . 18 don't know what was on page 9. Whet page are year referring • .1 0 to? y` s r 20 COUNCILMAN BORGMEYERt Page 9 on the first : t.: ! . ' N d1 section. : MR SMALLING O -�:' 22 . : Oh, our page 9. 23 COUNCILMAN WRGMEYERt On functional diagram,. 24 MR. SMALLING: Oh, they're the local operation 5:, 410 25 Facilities, control room, at cetera, yeah. Yeah, we felt p, 41 . . . s • . , L.' , 1 , ii ,,,,,., ' ''''"it,Vot,144.449;t114.iiirPW, ,,z Y.141'- tkin',, , 3,WJISAk*tVgg*t3krsitgglg15VtjAPa.01*.-,IVAIVtNegVtar$MWOVMY-Vgr-Vai.AVd<..-It-'4040,41,--4'1- .,A, 1 rik., 42,V,-, :,,1e...-k -k.-- N.,:, -ffri-z*Q4'er‘:A,' ,-'6,4C"..7'"i-n ',.bra'ii.W.We404144 : ff 1,',.V'1$'.. '^v. V.145 ^75-"glif,=1 "N.= .f. AV, ,^/ ,g . ..."‘*'f* f. ^v" •.^,, f'.. • ":1".",=*. ''UV:016: ;',10';"1"1"7 *VAN • .q ,. ,,,,,,,,,i N.,,,,Axtv, ":i--- ''.f4...;$:-;M 1 those were inadequate and would not work. 2 COUNCILMAN BORGWYER: In either cato. . - ...., 3 MR. SMALLING: In either caso. • 7, ;,,-fieei: --•,'../ , _ MAYOR PRO TEN REQUEMBOUROs When you refer to AT tOrct,nnectIon 'between comumnities," what is thn pnx.i'riste !ifigft,-,4 , A .k..,4,-,... , . . ..,,,, of ineerconnection? What do you gain from that? 7. : , ' '. 104 1 SMALLING: You can. gain emergency data--you - ..-- gain taie' acceiss to emergency data. If you --,-,i ,::::::- „. •- connected--now., 1A's eay a hypothetical town near „!,.. a..„ 10 If you were connected to Sedalia you could ahare, perhaps, :'•--".-,,pw,.4. - 11 echolattic games, institutional material, if your ,:,, . 12 institutional loop Ia connected. You could shore , 4,t, • Ai c.::Yr., ..14. ^ V., WTA.1 A Itt.it'; 13 programming, city programming. It would be more saleable, 'Mc- 14 again, if the institutional loop were, and many of them ,. •<.; 4 C.".ii 16 are, connected to neighboring communities. It would make 't* it a more saleable item. But it just broadens the caumuni- 1/ cations. All the channels donut necessarily have to be ' - - ', 10 shared, but a certain number of them are normally shared ,. .. I0 MAYOR mo TEM HEQUEMBOURGI Did you do any .i, 70 investigation at all into the type of service that either --, - 21 company offers through their present operations In either 22 the KOTIOSO City area or Columbia? . , 23 MR. SMALLING: 14001 Our job was to evaluate the , - ' 24 bidders, period. ' * . . 25 MAYOR PRO TEM REQUEMBOURGI Does that not, thought , . . . 42 r: , . ht},z.'.v-•� :i; `F,8-': .�.";; t4 qw, q.q«r ..l^.:,- . „ r.� a ..i "" a';:,'•ri;;^^ 4 i, ;t.a , .�.i _n'Diu.; K t i4 r..`d c}sa",'.*'V-. 1,r '� -.,i1.'�i'!:`:,h cy5 4#41.1,41 : x,g•� ;„�.n, $a;���,,A0 es�us '�.w. 'u 11 r# y�' t' °. #'3.wt'4 . 404- )44, • { :.., 1 to a certain extent indicate the type of technical , r � c 2 ' expertise they hags? We asked in the �'e s for Chit t, Nr 3 c r t , what experience they' h and they both adores F r1..?? yi , ii,. ,-....L:!. °dam'-y% 1�:e'��'M ,s,:;,•,--,3 �� , that� �� that ,not have � basis. ��u ���� �.��. not 3,�9•�; `� : 7' a . ' to, £ c6 t a n extent say that thy„ typo of service they are a V! i • 'offeritig ' tilt re v...a us *mitt indicatim to v ;sat kind of . 7 service they're re going to Of Ee:�. here? til MR. SM LLING* I'm not expert to answer that;� l , - 9 bit I would fool, yes, it would. I think with , ny y- ' ,rt.,<• • In company bidding You look at their t e k record, no matter ' 3 :f �i whether you're bidding for a table or for a table system. • 1t 'F`' It's hard to look at one thsr gate a 3 . 12 : l' 13 MAYOR PRO 'MN NEQUENDOURGs Chris indicates that 4 if,, ,%:.- :1.ii; ,v,.!,-, 14 ut will try to cOMO3 up with some of that information.-- ow . -!.i,-'.,• ,E; that might Us some information that would be h 1pfu3 when 3,,•; .'it, :,. ''k.:;,,,tP 10 the p s tations tre made. So of that could be Y 17 dome-tented. t r In UR, SMALLING* May I add s+ t'h . You ash +; 1D about neighboring communities. In Dallas the Water (? t c) 'r' ` • > y Coble was awarded the . this aid they�� +w► gre .ered to ' R 21 interconnect with 23 surrounding communities with the 22 • educational loop, public access, et cetera 5 to 10 channels ya 23 to each► of 23- xi ittea surrounding Dallas, if that gives {y `--;-y< 24 you some idea cif:'the scope of interconnecting,. 25 . Would you went cis to talk briefly about the • Y.. e4 ^x�'"«. � :v,ku- +it. .�. ,x.4�.�x�•#" .�.� r �'.i� ; �� - -+ A:t �'1 1'. �� w ;:,.,, if r� *:r,� 51 k.�. ,,{� '?K - ..Q'C> �r-1 is 5 r'�: .,'a 3 � s� s� �s -`� L °���t •x,•,Y c in a'k'sc"` .- .g:a,:r ,a x .y#,.t;. 4 ... i ,� . ; ; f•,, ;Y : . c + ' e # 434 rR ',.� ,W« ,,, S 4� ;, ; ',"J ri t'i i a;k..`:Ci � 'sr�" Y .,.Mtnc..:, z`S.• '�l.'Stt.,• ���.?.✓a:. t-�a., -. .�,. �ae5�,"°' ,3a« `'�yi.'•,yr . �>�...it.Z���:.2:.b;�,N'»t t:.y.�?z:�r1.k...�i�..'.a.r.: _'.,�.`s'�':�ct�'a.'r�z:l' ..,,a..�,J=+.�:.c1.Y::�k�:�z� ��'+�- �+��, a 6fC,y : 1 fnrtttutir el• lip? 2 - • MAYOR PRO TEM REQU MBOURG s The only thl Wv } '' , ., ai A io tion Y reply to strt� and downstream*gt : • " n X°m a>�suoing that. tour channels downsts means the ceps:. 1, r ° 5j ,bility• of tin ; from an c1 'I.gi studio--ting sts ,. .. • : .Nil, LLINC Four upnty , '' 7 MAO FRO a QUA URGE F =-;11, . 8 . well, CTX proposes to build a two-Nay interactive 9 institutional cable with 35 channels *straw 4 1,6•••; : ;; ' 10 downstream. is that backwards? a ;; i MR, SMALLINGI That r t w...,, :3K.' { 12 even catch it when X read it. Tha downstream a channels ',4 ,,`e= 13 c from the e dorb Theycrt your off-air atattonwa t.,,.4:, ,••••••'1-,, 14 your satellite programming. Your upstream N thos e sigma la •` 15 like data„ And a the institutional lecpp �ri,deo, going '-{ {t. ; 1r back for to t a� � company* t ,f c_,,,: . • 17 MAYOR PRO TEM tiEQUEHBOURG Vine. ' a. . < 18 COUNCILMAN R V I In your emergency override 2 19 system, you said neither one addressed according to the rti},r ' ..fie°. - . • 20 bid specifications; can you clarify that, what you �? 1 + 21 Mk, SMALLING; Well, neither of the bidders 22 actually responded exactly to the RFP., ' 23 COUNCILMAN BOROMIYaki What were you asking tor' - 2a that they. didn't respond to? S- q:• = 25 . SMALLXNGs We were asking for an audio N .� y r e 0 � i „ i t 4r" f :i�. 4c �. 3 ..' r.. e. F,:i { wit �-�. : o, ,, 1:t.� �.,, ''.I?'` 4: g �4*t a ��' "' 14,4;w�-' '�a tl1..4.x a A a�4:� t 4_ 4✓1� rr . . .,.a {r; •" .' .. ,«. t X iu,'.� <t i , v nevivc � �Y.S. lf,* interrupt, that is to nay, a n audio t would a A y ." Y', «OW channel.. l f there were a! tornado coming r " 3 . � -4i ' you have tornadoes in Jefferson City...4f : . 4 there wee a torero c�ng, there would he a .dio N. T:144 .-6 . onnialnutenent on,all channels, all 52, 50 chi l lt- y p A 7 dadenAted from day ono . n the 4,; rsency ehannoto Ph , K z ; , ,, ; 4 IA a The poopl* would tune to Channel g and t h 'M yyre , AO a the chief of police, or the head of the National Guard >. . 10 i,1ld b using the public ,a ccea a facility o a facility y y 1 i in try caves in his office with a little c ra there to rf ;' 12 tell the people chat was happening and �t to do ¢`< A a a MAYOR .0 TEN HEQU OURG a Are there • Y an 1 i S to (:cations? Chris, do you have any other comment*?nt*? , t 1 b . GRAHAM: The only Ching, I wondered whether (,, 7y spay ;'1. 10 Elmer might want to comment on the i ti.tuti. l loop. 11 De you eil understand that? Would you like for him to tU explain alittlevita. a t whet it is and whatit can do? I 4 as Th w se to be s confusion about it., w , : i 20 e . SMALLING= A couple of ttmas people have 21 motioned the•-end again, I don't who or whs - 22 but Lately in connection with this UP people have mentioned 23 that an institutional loop is not a i syiraakar end th5t 4; 24 the people of Jefferson City would pay for it. That is 25 usually not the rase. 45 -. _„3 cv iti;;S''Vf.','s t6,7 ty, l -14 , ,ViC c rt ° ,YA .ro;. £ 8: Y •,.i" 7'11 ,K' ;.der ',,., �,.�`'. � "b� �. *"c � 1 ..�';xa, a�& Sxr. a�a��1.,,} as • •u r, x r, .1. 3 ',��s",��'...:��£. `*73 'X-.,�£>t.: .., k �"°G "�,;�+��L' .�v�i +"`fir <�.(-�'a',v. �&a� .r>r£ i? sT4"�.a�w ����i�°"`'�-1rG a�'�'�. bt•,$ �f�..,C.�u3:'� '.r. � �k �„ �'' a:.' u k•$' . , t .� +,',.L:2',4a^.: ,,.,.r e. Fr= t ''''. ,. iii` fir" 144., �ty �z".J- `�'`�''' a' �+a-• .�,.�a ,! h.y , _ �.����- '�.�*- tr� 't�. w�ss�e-`c . -.., " 'o.. v . fi ' .. (, ,* 1'.‘ ' '' , J - ," . institutional loop pays for iieelE. Therm 2 aai t }gip `cables commies that have 55-channel, 6O*cb tmeZ,, • " r E1l" .3 44-,c t institutional loops. As le, there's .ia • ."AA �l1 is t of state government in Jefferson City, and =r : -,;1; 5 it'o all over tht place. I sae it from one end of town to :,,f,-.Ty A7,1' 6 ! the other, if n1l of then* bu .ldi s '''',,t-,,, r can the ,l'; .. ' institutional loop, they could lease.�..,they would Lease :rAV *::, a a loop, a certain mbar of channels from tho cable company . !. 9 they could use t el.econf enci , two-way data, tol.�si t;}>$. :%.:,i 10 meetings, ,s, bulletit ther�e's no wed to it, z;q 11 All the attorneys in town could have a certain - x>- ;4 ,- 12 channel of service„ Physicians could do the g*o thing for Vi. if. Mil: 13 continuity education for physicians. And am a matter of . "," 14 fact, in 80 of the larger cities■ as far as physici ans - ---, q .,i go, because we've talked to people in New York City about x VI' '-'' It) it-..onus of our clients is o major cable operator the * " 1'}7 3 { ,! 1. 1 r They have found that certain drug coa companies, for a le, F`li 7t 18 will pay for the program, Certain hospitals in New York -F 19 are happy to allow the special surgery or the lessons to ^�Pt1s j „ . 20 go on that*. 'use physicians give of their time or are r. 8 21 paid by the hospital or the drug company so that a farms is . , 22 charged to each physician on a monthly basis .so that he can s° 23 sit there whenever he wants and watch his continuing - 24 *location on a channel that is not available to the public:. `,:' '': 025 sow is scrambled. So there is uo end to the use of it GA". S. 46 'r x fro=•: S +L: >sti .b;:i wt- "fz:: ?,'? i 'Kiz 'r =..x ....nt.su�Ft;�.<� k� .cx^+' '� n:°t'ri'r..•:t; a+ y:... 0,4.� .t s, ?' '�'' 'v ;1 �'c"�' .:f i` ti" s. rr `4a 't N. r { :. .r , sp*_ , _ is s��-.*'. -'''�,, r°� '�'-'. �',-,� -»�,'�y`s"? yr r t. -'?i' ,,�,� 3�f� 'z.�r°�'�,*�' H- '`.z`u �' SG x�` �'`�5.-ir...�:i a''S�.°"sz��S `� 't� +f'd3�S`rr3�k �{ � s 'controlling ell gas meters in every" , reading :-. ` 2 ' water t$ �p Controlling traffic lights. /tae bin d. ,..*':;::;;,': ;: ' 3 more and mores :And if you're familiar with the b ,*r r y3 4 business, you see more and more n systems going ' k 5 in am having an incr + u td proportion of institutional � '"16:4' a loops, institutional oohing). They probably bly 44111 bra t o 7 big money maker for cable, systems in that near futu. ;gy p kb Alti B The major multiple system operators ro going g¢ §3 air x 4_ a this route, and they°ro interested in making '" 10 They are not charging the citizenry for it, and t ,,, n just adding them l A hand over foot. ,o-,,,, 7 ! 12 COUNCILMAN WADE; It can't be pitted up than ; ;3� 1.3 by cunt , homeowners? r� 7 S,xr `,.a, :.."`k, 14 MR. SM ..LING: No, sir, it cannot. In mom 4� . Y ergt f�: Y y4 1ti cities there are two cables or three cables on a lea f -,,,C,;". 16 The institutional loop is available if a physician want ,. ft 17 it in his own ham., In Urge cities they string �. r 5 19 the institutional loop around the tenon along with the x 6.a . consumer loop so that you can tap off either one. But. r 20 this institutional, data, business, bars, physicians, 21 is not available to the regular consumer. 3 : 22 MAYOR PRO TEM ll*ox Are t tka "' other 23 questions from members of the kilt Xf not, I'd satertai . 24 a motion that we adjourn until Monday night. 25 Wl s Sr move. a (THE mama WAS ADJOURNED.) • . 47 h i•gti, • ..y.w,2:. �e..ti,�.i'i„xcti."'M, a' •t'"1�.+3„s,.,,41ar.; 4 .a 1A k ,'4'4. KC '+ i-A` `r - "t q s�`.• -i�"»:ir•>;`i:r. 3 :.i•.s u.s .., .�; 41, K.a c.. u,•. ����'.:�t. .�t„•�`n '$;��a�> sa; f,�.�„��� '�-;F'.6+��,�•`�.. � g� y� ,t��`�t �'d� :;,Js�.pN'r� wF.�€d� ��. 4i± � °.� .�`-�"' $;"��u,,�' � a� . a f� xw .�tz��t. � s 4 � ,�{-„j*' . '11. 9;y •t'^i iS.c' " yrii''1 ,I 4 t' .ev. x„•` i+ r .A ,4t ! `.�43,,,t Mf: i ry •r 3 STATE OP MISSOURI ) i4- • `�y • zM .Y�: ,.„ � ` 41 5 It, Beverly Jean Dierks, a Certified Shorthttrtd 6 Reporter, of the fir of r d n 6a Brad an, do hereby , ',4".1" ,s 7 certify .that 't vvAn 'e ploy d by the law firm of Hendren & ;'. != 8 Antes o the City 'of JofrWter n, County of ale, Suite of $, r a ,'' . 2 9 t .i.eooux ., to r�r cord ve 'bat a, by machine shorthand, the x 10 proceedings herein and thereby became the official reporter R . `f ' w 11 in this ratter; that I was personally present at said . Sifr{if. Iy •r• i a R 12 pro edtnge, an the stenotype notes r o redo at the ti t ; 13 and place mentioned on the title page hereof were transcribed p } ' �3 14 by myself, and that the foregoing 47 pagan constitute a 4t ::z' Q.n;; ; 15 true, completes, and accurate transcript of my said stenotype ,,, r. a r" 16 notes. f. ;•' '' 1. , ; 17 '&45-1 '-'1-,f2te,un 4oid?-4 . , , b 4 u Beverly Jew:n Dierks .-„ 18 Certified Shorthand Reporter 3 19 ► §: 20 1:, 21 22 23 4. - .a ,:.',* .s 25 .'"„ 48