HomeMy Public PortalAbout1992 - Cable Quality Commission Periodic Review city
O � -
B e r s o n Louise Gardner
MAYOR
320 E. McCarty St. 314-634-6300
Jefferson City, Missouri 65101
May 12, 1992,
Mayor Louise Gardner
City Council Members
320 East McCarty
Jefferson City, MO 65101
Dear Mayor Gardner and City Council Members:
One of the responsibilities assigned to the Cable Quality Commission is the
preparation of a periodic review. The Commission has been working to perform its
responsibilities over the last several months, and I am happy to transmit the final
draft of the first Periodic Review for your information.
Should you have any questions or comments, please feel free to call upon myself or
any members of the Commission.
Sincerely,
J ne Hood, Chairman
able Quality Commission
ljo
Enclosure: 1
CABLE TELEVISION PERIODIC REVIEW
PREPARED BY THE CABLE QUALITY COMMISSION
Jane Hood, Chairman
Grayson Peters
Bob Weber
Randall Hughes
Bob Robuck
Lawson Phaby
Bob Hyder
Frank Newell
Dave Griffith, Alternate
TABLE OF CONTENTS
I. History and Membership of the Commission . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
II. Franchise Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Fees
Subscriber Survey
Customer Complaints/Service Calls
Local Access-JCTV
III. Proposed Changes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
Proposed Changes to Franchise Agreement
Request for WGN Pursuant to Franchise
Number of Subscribers to be Surveyed
Length of Franchise Term
Channel Suggestions from Subscribers
IV. Technologies Available . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Fiber Optics
Wireless
Traditional Cable System (Cable Overbuild)
Direct Broadcast Satellite (DBS)
Programming
V. Players in the Game . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Citizens of Jefferson City
Federal Communications Commission
Congress
Existing Operator
Potential Operators
Public Service Commission
Educational Institutions
Telephone Companies (Telcos)
City Government
VI. Legal Aspects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Pending Legislation
Judicial Rulings
Regulatory
VII. Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Appendix A-Revised Quarterly Report
Appendix B-Summary of Advertising Sales
Appendix C-Subscriber Survey
Appendix D-Response Time to Complaints
ii
I. History and Membership of the Commission
The Cable Quality Commission was created on May 18, 1987, with passage and
approval of Ordinance 10833. The first Commission meeting was held on July 13,
1987, with six members appointed by the Mayor and approved by the Council.
Two members were to serve a one year term, two members were to serve a two
year term, and two members were to serve a three year term. The seventh
member was a City Council member elected by the City Council to serve a one
year term.
On December 11, 1990, Ordinance 11517 amended the Code of the City of
Jefferson, by revising the membership of the Cable Quality Commission. The
Commission was increased to nine members and one alternate to serve staggered
three year terms. All members had to be registered voters in the City. The
ordinance further provided that one member of the City Council was to serve as
an ex-officio member for a one year term.
The Cable Quality Commission is currently comprised of eight members and one
alternate member, all of whom are appointed by the Mayor and approved by the
Council. The Council Liaison to the Commission is Councilman Larry Vincent.
The Commission members presently serving are Jane Hood, Chairman; Grayson
Peters; Bob Weber; Robert Hyder; Lawson Phaby; Randy Hughes; Bob Robuck;
Frank Newell; J. Patrick Healey; and Alternate Dave Griffith. Allen Garner, City
Counselor, serves as the assigned staff representative to the Commission.
Meetings are held on the third Thursday of each month at City Hall. Commission
subcommittee meetings are called as the need arises. The Complaints and
Compliance Subcommittee has conducted meetings to discuss TCI's noncompliance
with the franchise. Members of the Public Access Subcommittee have met to
review and discuss the renewal of the contract for public access television.
II. Franchise Requirements
The following areas are of concern to both the City and cable television
subscribers.
1. Fees
2. Subscriber Survey
3. Customer Complaints/Service Calls
4. Local Access-JCTV
Fees. A revised quarterly report for TCI to submit with its quarterly franchise
fee was adopted by the Commission. A copy of that form is attached to this report
1
as Appendix A. The form provides a detailed breakdown of TCI's revenue and
expenses and brings TCI closer to compliance with the provisions of the quarterly
reporting requirements of the franchise agreement. The City has received four
quarterly payments from TCI for the calendar year 1991: first quarter payment on
April 30, 1991; second quarter payment on July 31, 1991; the third quarter
payment on November 2, 1991; and the fourth quarter payment on February 4,
1992. The City has received $170,871.23 in franchise fees for the 1991 calendar
year.
On July 15, 1991, TCI paid the City $16,664.62 for underpayment of
advertising sales revenue for 1988 through 1990. Attached as Appendix B is a
copy of a chart submitted by TCI representing a summary of advertising sales
revenue for the Jefferson City franchise.
Subscriber Survey. A survey by Talmey-Drake Research & Strategy, Inc. was
conducted in fall of 1991 to research viewing preferences for the existing cable
channel line-up, as well as to determine what types of programming cable TV
subscribers would like to have in the future. The resulting mail survey was
designed to fulfill one of TCI's requirements under the franchise agreement.
The procedures used by Talmey-Drake Research & Strategy were based on
mail and telephone surveys by Don A. Dillman. Data collection occurred from
November 15, 1991 to December 23, 1991.
A random sample of 3,260 (30% of cable TV subscribers in Jefferson City)
was generated from a list of subscribers provided by TCI. From this random
sample, the first mailing went out on November 15, 1991. The mailing consisted
of a cover letter inviting participation in the survey, a survey, and a self-addressed
stamped envelope. All potential survey respondents were sent a reminder
postcard one week after the survey mailing. The third mailing was sent ten days
after the postcard and was procedurally identical to the first mailing. Another
copy of the survey was sent to all individuals who had not returned their survey
by the time of the third mailing.
Editing the completed responses included checking for response clarity and
eliminating dual responses. All editing was conducted by one editor. After the
editing was completed, a commercial data entry firm double-entered and verified
the data on the questionnaires on to a readable computer disk. The complete file
was examined systematically to remove any data entry errors. Data cleaning
involved checking for out-of-range values.
The overall response rate was 50%.
The full survey and its results appear in Appendix C.
Customer Complaints/Service Calls. The Commission has worked in conjunction
with TCI on the issues of customer complaints and service calls to bring TCI in
compliance with franchise requirements. Beginning in July 1991, a monthly
service call log has been furnished to the legal department by TCI. The data is
generated into a readable one-page spreadsheet format titled"Response Time to
2
u'
Complaints", which are attached as Appendix D. This format allows a one-glance
look at the days involved in response time as well as the opportunity to compare
the present month's information to that of the previous month.
The average number of calls per month is 469. The average response time
to calls for problems such as cable completely out, snowy reception, cable lines,
premium service, partial service outage and other problems is shown in the charts.
83.75% of the calls are responded to by the day after the complaint is lodged with
TCI. These figures include data from July 1991 to February 1992.
Local Access-JCTV. Community Access Television JCTV provides Jefferson City
with a variety of local programming ranging from television City Council meetings
to area school concerts and television shows. JCTV continues its efforts to obtain
underwriters for educational programming, money and materials for the upcoming
year.
At the direction of the Commission, requests for proposals for public access
television were sent out in July 1991. The Commission's Public Access
Subcommittee met with Lincoln University representatives to reach an agreement
on the financial portion of the-proposed contract. Lincoln's proposal called for
increased funding from the City and an extended contract period. At its
September 16, 1991 meeting the subcommittee made a motion to present to the
Council its recommendations for funding to JCTV.
III. Proposed Changes
Proposed Changes to Franchise Agreement
Request for WGN Pursuant to Franchise. The results of the Subscriber Survey
indicated that 57% percent of those surveyed would like to see WGN on the
channel line-up. As a result of the survey, the Commission voted to invoke
paragraph 7.13(i) of the Franchise Agreement which allows the Commission to
request a service not currently offered if over 51% of the survey respondents
request it. An official letter requesting WGN will be presented to TCI.
Number of Subscribers to be Surveyed. The franchise agreement shall be
amended to allow the pollsters to determine the number of subscribers within the
City who should be surveyed in order to determined the programming and service
preferences of the viewers. The language in the present agreement requires at
least 25% of the subscribers in the City to be surveyed.
Length of Franchise Term. An ordinance has been drafted which will change the
length of the franchise term listed in the present cable ordinance from seven years
to not longer than eleven years. The franchise agreement states that the
franchise shall be in effect for not longer than eleven years but the ordinance
3
�J
which authorized the franchise agreement stated the term of the agreement as
seven years.
Channel Suggestions from Subscribers
Several citizens spoke at the February 20, 1992 meeting regarding ETWN, the
largest Christian network in the United States. The format of the station is
religious services, speakers and children's programming. The speakers presented
a petition with 1,094 signatures requesting ETWN. A similar petition containing
1,000 solid signatures and circulated by the Knights of Columbus was submitted
to TCI about three years ago.
IV. Technologies Available
Fiber Optics. Fiber Optics is an expanding, developing technology which utilizes
light rays contained in a strand of glass to convey electronic messages. Because of
the nature of the material it is not sensitive to electrical and magnetic sources to
the extent traditional cable is. Its drawback for some time has been a difference
in the cost for the fiber versus traditional wire. That cost differential has been
decreasing very rapidly to the point that it now is similar to costs of traditional
wire. The obstacle to the use of fiber in many situations is the age or lack of age
of the wire on the pole. Because of depreciation schedules and - for phone
companies - Public Service Commission rules on replacing assets with useful life
left, a conversion to a pure fiber optics system does not appear to be in the
immediate future. Backboning fiber systems do appear to be current technology
providing a large link up for the central core passageways with traditional wire
being used particularly from the curb to the houses. As time passes, more and
more plant will be built using fiber optics, leaning to potentially increased
competition through sharing of a single cable. Fiber optics also lends itself to
multiple users using the same line. For example, the capacity of fiber is such that
it would be possible to have a multichannel television source sharing a large cable
with computer generated transmissions between fixed points providing a source of
revenue to the owner of fiber optics line. Different sources have indicated that
fiber and mixed systems still have problems in passing signals back and forth.
Again technology is gradually solving these problems and many new miles of
strand are being built using the fiber technology in place of traditional.
The estimated cost of implementing a fiber optics cable system is $3 to $4
million dollars.
Wireless. Wireless cable is a direct line of sight broadcasting method using a
certain spectrum for channel capacity that allows multiple channels to be
broadcast from one tower to an antennae similar to a regular antennae mounted
on rooftops. Its traditional drawback has been a lack of power and what is known
as "shadowing." Shadowing refers to areas which because of either a natural
4
barrier such as a hill, forest or manmade barrier (such as a tall building) cannot
receive the signal because they are not in the line of sight position. Wireless has
begun to overcome these difficulties with a piece of technology known as an "aim
bender." Through use of such technology, wireless systems are now beginning to
reduce the shadowed portion of their service territories. Recent FCC action has
also allowed them to increase the power output of their signals giving them a
broader customer base for their primary towers.
With the wireless system, once a heading and tower site are prepared, all
that remains to hook up a customer is to go to the customer's location, mount an
antennae pointed in the appropriate direction and run the wire from the base of
the antennae into the house where it hooks to a converter box on top of the
television. Because of this, there can be a flow of revenue almost from day one
and the flow increases as fast as installations can be made. This is significantly
different than a traditional cable system which must place miles of plant into
operation before it can begin to make hook ups to a significant number of houses.
Wireless has not yet overcome all the shadowing problems and current operators
have indicated that an assumption of 20% shadow is common to the industry. If a
municipal owned wireless system was built, the shadowed percentage may not be
acceptable to citizens who find themselves in the shadow of a municipally owned
system.
The estimated cost for implementing a wireless cable system is $2.3 to $2.8
million dollars.
Traditional Cable System (Cable Overbuild). The earliest competition for cable
appeared to center on an overbuild technology where a second company would
string a second line on the poles to give customers a choice as to which system
they wish to subscribe to. The cost to overbuild the system is as great as to build
the system originally. On a city-wide basis this would involve at least two million
dollars. Because of this investment level, and with the limited number of
subscribers to the system, it places any cable overbuilder in an economically
difficult position. In addition to the traditional problems with a direct competition
where the challenger must invest significant dollars in order to compete for a
limited customer base, certain other problems make Jefferson City difficult. The
poles within Jefferson City do not belong to the City, they belong to Union Electric
and the phone company. The ability to attach additional wire to the poles is
limited by regulations on spacing. If a pole is not available, the cost to place a
taller pole at the same location is approximately $500.00 per pole. Given the
number of poles that are at capacity this would be a significant additional cost to
the new competitor. The alternative to using pole space would be to bury the
cable underground. Generally, undergrounding has a higher initial up front cost
which may or may,not be made up by reduced maintenance costs. The economic
reality is that more up front money is needed and you may or may not recover
your money long-term if you get sufficient customers. Because of the significant
5
a
costs and the multiple problems associated with it, a true overbuild is unlikely to
occur in the small market.
The estimated cost of implementing a traditional cable system (cable
overbuild) is $2 million dollars.
Direct Broadcast Satellite (DBS). Much has been written recently about new
technology in the form of satellites with higher powers at different trajectories
which will transmit a pay-per-view, pay-per-channel programming to individual
homes over large segments of the earth. This technology has been utilized on the
European continent and has been relatively successful. As a competitor to
traditional cable the jury is still is out as to whether or not it will be a competitor
or a supplement. Direct broadcast satellite will not provide local programming
due to the method of receiving and transmitting signals involved in synchronous
orbit satellites. Since one of the two reasons customers subscribe to cable systems
is improved reception of local signals, that benefit is totally absent from direct
broadcast satellite. The second reason for subscribing is additional programming,
which direct broadcast satellite will provide. But it will not necessarily pull
customers away from the cable system. While the programming lineup is a matter
of speculation at this time, it appears that direct broadcast satellite will use a
significant portion of its capacity for niche marketing whereby a program which
may not have sufficient customers in any given locality has sufficient attraction on
a nation-wide market basis to attract a return on investment sufficient to pay for
the broadcast. Because of billing techniques and other technological
breakthroughs, the pay-per-view and subscription to single services in an a la
carte method appears to be the role of direct broadcast satellite. Some of the
providers of direct broadcast services have already indicated a desire to form
alliances with cable operators to provide ground support for the satellite service.
The ground support would consist of billing, installations, and service calls for
customers of the direct broadcast satellite service. While the connection is logical,
it does not necessarily enhance competition if direct broadcast satellite vendors
and traditional cable vendors enter into an agreement for the same entity to
service both needs. The launching of direct broadcast satellites has been delayed
repeatedly and may continue to be delayed as agreements are sought between the
parties and the methods of delivery are perfected.
Programming. A common source of difficulties for competitors with traditional
cable has been the reluctance or refusal of programmers to sell needed
programming to either wireless or second cable systems. The recent efforts at
legislation have had a positive impact in this area in that the program providers
have begun to market their product to multiple transmission sources. While there
is still a difference in pricing between the traditional first-in cable system and
either second traditional setups (overbuilds) or wireless, at least the programming
is available. With the programming in hand the competitors are able to offer
similar services and then engage in a pricing battle as well as enhance customer
service battles to attract a sufficient customer base to compete. The Paragould
experiment indicates that municipally operated systems in competition can obtain
programming, although perhaps not all programming, as is available to first
operators.
V. Players in the Game
Citizens of Jefferson City. The citizens of Jefferson City have expressed over a
period of time dissatisfaction with the current cable operator for various reasons.
The report prepared by the special committee of the Council during renewal of the
franchise is a well-documented report that reflects the areas of concern. These
areas have not changed significantly since renewal with the possible exception of
some aspects of customer service. The areas of concern were rates, program
selection, ability to reach representatives of the operator with problems,
complaints and orders, installation service, burial of cable and general attitude
towards the customer. In addition, citizens who live north of the Missouri River
in Jefferson City are without any form of multi-channel service?. Citizens of
Jefferson City are not significantly different than others in the country who expect
to receive a decent product at a reasonable rate and appreciation and concern for
the citizen as a consumer. Studies within the cable industry reflect a significant
percentage (approximately 25% of the customer base) would change to a second
entity, sight unseen, if the cost for the product was equal. If there is any
difference between the price, meaning that a new entity has a lower price, as
many as eighty percent of the customers would change vendors.
Federal Communications Commission. Federal Communications Commission has
jurisdiction over several aspects of multi-channel operators. They are the
exclusive agency for regulating wireless systems and play a significant role in the
traditional cable setting. In addition, in a shared role with the Missouri Public
Service Commission, they have jurisdiction over telephone companies and
traditional utilities. Recent changes in the makeup of the membership of the FCC
have caused a change in their viewpoint, but it still appears to be antagonistic
towards local government. The FCC through its staff continues to recommend
only a limited role for local government.
Congress. Congress spent a significant amount of energy and time during the last
session looking at bills pertaining to the cable industry. The effort did not result
in legislation, but sets the stage for legislative enactment in 1992. Congress,
much as the FCC, appears to denigrate the role of local government. The bills
which appear to come closest to passage were ones in which the role of the FCC
was increased and that of local government decreased. Lip service is paid
repeatedly by members of Congress to the idea of competition rather than
regulation. At the same time these statements are being made, little if anything
is being done to improve the competitive positions of entities which might
challenge the entrenched cable systems.
7
Existing Operator. The existing franchise operator, TCI, has responded in various
ways to the current environment. Following the renewal of the franchise in
Jefferson City, improvement was made in customer service. At the same time,
rates have been escalating far in excess of either the consumer price index or
national averages for increases in cable rates. While rates have gone up
exponentially, the quality of service has not unproved in the same quantum. On
the national scale, TCI, continues to control a significant part of the market place,
to be a prime player in legislative proposals, and to have its fingers around the
throat of the direct broadcast satellite entities.
Potential Operators. The City has been contacted by at least two potential
traditional cable operators who are interested primarily in the North Jefferson
City operation. Neither operator expressed interest in competing with TCI on a
head to head city-wide basis. When informed of franchise requirements for city-
wide plans, both operators withdrew their expression of interest. If a decision is
made to grant a franchise for a specific area, it is likely that at least one of them
might re-enter the game.
Public Service Commission. The Missouri Public Service Commission has been
presented as an alternate to local regulation of cable. During development of
national legislation, the possibility of using state regulatory agencies to replace
local government was viewed with mixed attitudes by the other players. From
testimony of the Chairman of the Missouri Public Service Commission, it does not
appear the Commission desires to be placed into that role. If telephone companies
or electric utilities enter the area, the involvement of the PSC and its equivalent
in other states would become more likely.
Educational Institutions. Lincoln University currently provides via a contract
with the City the operating capability for the Public Access Channel. Without
going into an overall review of this operation, it appears to have been a successful
arrangement between two governments to provide service to the constituents of
both at a reasonable rate. In addition to providing this service, educational
institutions have a role under the current licensing provisions for wireless
operators. If a decision is made to pursue the wireless alternatives, educational
institutions, including at least the University of Missouri-Columbia and Lincoln
University will necessarily be involved.
Telephone Companies (Telcos). Telephone companies are playing a significant
role in the development of national policy through legislation. Involvement in the
local area has not been significant. If legislation finally passes permitting telco
entry either as a video dial tone provider or as a direct competitor, it is possible
that United Telephone Company or some other phone company will choose to
compete directly in Jefferson City. One of the problems with their competition in
8
r
i
Jefferson City is the lack of a fiber system on the poles and the capital costs
associated with getting into the game.
City Government. The final players in the game in Jefferson City are the Mayor
and City Council. The City owns the right-of-way over which traditional cable
operators must pass in order to provide service to the home. Under the current
state of the law, a franchise is necessary and certain controls, not including rate
regulation, are available to the City. Policy decisions as to the role the City
wishes to play and the extent to which it wishes to be involved in multi-channel
television is the real subject of this report. The options open to the City cover a
number of ventures, some of which would involve City funds, others would involve
a facilitator role for the City - any and all of which involve conscious policy
decisions which need to be addressed by the City. The City also has played a role
in the development of national legislation. If the City wishes to remain a player
at this level, not only will funds have to be expended, but other resources
including time and office support will have to be devoted. While Jefferson City is
relatively small in terms of population, on a national scale - because of past
publicity and participation - the City may be uniquely situated to continue to
influence national legislation.
VI. Legal Aspects
Pending Legislation. Since the beginning of the 102nd Congress in January of
1991, at least eighteen pieces of legislation have been introduced pertaining to
cable television. Several address the major issues of rate regulation, consumer
protection, and restoration of local authority. The primary vehicle by which cable
legislation may move in this Congress are 5.12 and H.R.1303, which are discussed
below.
S.12. The Senate recently passed 5.12 in a 73-18 vote. The key provisions
of 5.12 cover rate regulation, multiple franchising, must carry and channel
positioning, customers service, limitations on franchising authority liability,
program access and anti-discrimination, and retransmission consent. A less
onerous alternative, which was supported by the cable industry, the Bush
administration, and a coalition of Republicans and Democrats was rejected by a
vote of 35-54.
H.R.1303. H.R.1303 is the Consumer Protection and Competition Act. The
main areas of this bill include regulation and definition of"basic service tier",
franchise requirements cost allocation, regulation of unreasonable or abusive
rates, franchise transfers, and customer service standards. This bill is almost
identifical to H.R. 5267, which passed the Hourse of Representatives in 1990 by
voice vote.
Other pending legislation includes H.R.3560, the 1991 Cable Consumer
Protection Act, H.R. 550 and 5.211, another Cable Consumer Protection Act, and
9
H.R. 506, a bill which would immunize franchising authorities from monetary
damage claims arising from a franchising authority's decision to grant or deny a
franchise.
Judicial Rulings. A federal decision was handed down recently in which a district
court found that Gillette, Wyoming could set rates and roll rates back to lower
levels, that a city can link rate reductions to customer satisfaction and that a
decrease in services was an increase in rates. The Court refused to deregulate
expanded basic rates and ruled that TCI had the authority to re-tier its services.
Additionally, the court found that additional outlet charges are not basic service
charges under the Cable Act, and are not subject to regulation.
The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals has rejected claims by a cable operator
that the first amendment prevents cities from denying renewal of their franchise.
The decision is an indication that the courts are rejecting cable operator's claims
that they have a first amendment right to occupy public property.
The California Supreme Court has refused to review a lower court ruling
upholding user taxes. The court found that cable transmits its service through
public easements and is subject to some service regulation.
Reaulatory. The FCC has ruled that video dial tone services are not subject to the
1984 Cable Communications Policy Act's franchising requirements. If upheld,
this ruling could prevent cities from imposing on VDS the same franchising
requirements that are imposed on cable operators.
The FCC has released a proposed amendment to its present rate
regulations. Because those people who do not subscribe to basic cable service do
not have six television channels available, "effective competition" has not been
established in the City, and the City could regulate basic cable under the proposed
amendment if it chose to do so.
VII. Recommendations
The following recommendations are made by the Cable Quality Commission:
1. Response to Subscriber Complaints. 83.75% of the complaints and services
calls received by TCI are responded to by the day after the complaint is lodged
with TCI. TCI should endeavor to improve its response times.
2. Subscribers have complained to the City about the lack of competition
within the city and the perception that TCI's rates within the City are higher-than
the rates that are charged to other communities in the mid-Missouri area.
Additionally, subscribers complained about TCI's manner of introduction of the
10
Encore channel. The Commission should seek a viable competing franchise
which would allow subscribers a choice of cable carriers.
3. Subscribers have requested that WGN be added to the channel line-up.
TCI should present the Commission with the actual costs to the franchise and the
costs that would be passed on to subscribers in order to determine whether
subscribers would be willing to take on the additional costs of the new station.
4. TCI is consistently late in complying with its quarterly reporting
requirements. The Commission should determine whether the existing payment
schedule could be changed to ensure compliance with the schedule.
5. The Commission should investigate community interest in getting EWTN
and where and how the channel could be obtained if there is enough community
interest.
6. The Cable Quality Commission should establish a subcommittee to study
methods and costs associated with adding channels and adjusting channel
alignment to provide greater flexibility and to meet subscribers' desires or
changes.
7. An audit on some level should take place of the books of TCI. An initial
review of financial information should be conducted by the Finance Director and
City Counselor to determine what level of auditing should be utilized.
11
s
� a
J
QUARTERLY REPORT TO CITY OF JEFFERSON
Reporting Period From to
BASIC
Econ Basic
Expand Basic
Bulk Rate Rev
Cable Guide
Less Adjust-
Subtotal
OTHER
Equip Rental
Equip Sales
Less Adjust
Subtotal
Pay Revenue
Install Revenue
All Above Subtotal
Shop Channel Rev
Advertising Sales
Gross Revenue
Less Adjust
Adjust Gross Revenue
5% Franchise Fee 0.05 0.05 0.05
FRANCHISE FEE DUE
I, ,do hereby certify that the above figures are true and accurate
reflections of the gross revenue of TCI of Missouri, Inc., for the franchise area covered by the franchise
granted by the City of Jefferson, Missouri.
Attach to this report detailed financial records verifying the above figures.
If any adjustments are entered above they must be explained either on this form or by the attachments.
APPENDIX A
y
4 v
09-Jul-91
JEFFERSON CITY, MISSOURI
AD SALES REVENUE
1988 REVENUE 1989 REVENUE 1990 REVENUE
JANUARY $6,371.52 JANUARY $12,469.58 JANUARY $11,170.55
FEBRUARY $4,449.98 FEBRUARY $9,605.59 FEBRUARY $10,992.21
MARCH $4,569.99 MARCH $9,125.94 MARCH $5,407.14
APRIL $9,853.36 APRIL $13,813.54 APRIL $9,799.32
MAY $7,865.82 MAY $13,855.89 MAY $8,581.44
JUNE $6,615.65 JUNE $10,815.12 JUNE $6,399.88
JULY $11,668.90 JULY $13,008.78 JULY $9,024.98
AUGUST $8,911.85 AUGUST $6,375.00 AUGUST $9,748.53
SEPTEMBER $10,472.71 SEPTEMBER $0.00 SEPTEMBER $13,125.42
OCTOBER $6,002.09 OCTOBER $16,051.22 OCTOBER $10,731.23
NOVEMBER $6,002.09 NOVEMBER $4,74.6.92 NOVEMBER $12,483.67
DECEMBER $9,673.36 DECEMBER $9,557.41 DECEMBER $ .71
TOTAL $92,457.32 TOTAL $119,424.99 TOTAL $12211,441010.08
1988 $92,457.32 w :N.OTE: Revenue.is not allocated and represents
1989 $119,424.99 a.possible over payment.of 7.5%
1990 $121,410.08
TOTAL $333,292.39 Future:revenue will,be:allocated
FEE PERCENT 5% I*.customers>:ri;francfi se:;areas::
FEE DUE $16,664.62
............
ro
z
d
H
�C
W
}
a RECENg) AN 3 1992
- JEFFERSON CITY SUBSCRIBERS SURVEY
We need -your help to find out what kinds of cable TV programming Jefferson City i
cable TV subscribers would like to see in the future. Only one out of every;
four cable TV subscribers are being sent this survey. Please write your answer
,below, the question or circle the number which corresponds to 'your current
situation. All individual responses will be kept confidential .
I. Below is a listing of all the channelsyou currently receive on your cable
TV. Please read througgh the list, and let other members of your household
also look through the, list.
Please circle how often you and other members of your household watch each
of these channels that you receive.
------ HOW OFTEN DOES YOUR HOUSEHOLD WATCH ------
REGULARLY
WATCH OCCASIONALLY SELDOM WATCH
(at least 2 WATCH (At least 2
Channel or 3 times (At least or 3 times NEVER
Number Name of Channel a week) once a week) a month) WATCH
2 HBO (Home Box 29% °
Office) (387) _ (114) (67) (779)
3 JCTV (Educat- 6% 18% 38% 38%
ional Access) (88) (259) (568) (566)
4 KMIZ (ABC- 66% 22% 8% 351.
-Columbia) (1002) (333) (127) (46)
5 TDC (The Discovery 36% 30% 21% 135.
Channel) (539) (448) (322) (197)
6 KMOS (PBS- 18% 23% °
-Sedalia) (263) (337) (405) (452)
7 KOMO (NBC- 76% 15% °
-Columbia) (1162) (234) (86) (51)
8 FOX (FOX 27% 34% °
Network) (400) (494) (311) (255)
9 C-SPAN (U.S. 12% 16% °
House) (173) (241) (444) (625)
10 KPLR (Indep.- _ 42% °
-St. Louis) (618). (499) (238) (129)
11 WTBS (Superstation 39% 28% 18% 15%
-Atlanta) (550) (398) (253) (218)
12 KRCG-- (CBS- 88% 925 2% 1%
a
-Jeff. City) (1373) (132) (32) (20)
S 13 KNLJ (Indep.- 6% %
t
-Jeff. City) (88) (150) (358) (843)
14 ENC (Encore) 21% 24% °
(295) (339) (296) (472)
15 TNN (The Nashville 27% 19% °
Network) '(402) (284) (338) (471)
[CONTINUED ON THE NEXT PAGE]
i APPENDIX C
,. -2-
------ HOW OFTEN DOES YOUR HOUSEHOLD WATCH ------
[CONTINUED] REGULARLY
WATCH OCCASIONALLY SELDOM WATCH
(at least 2 WATCH (At least 2
Channel or 3 times (At least or 3 times NEVER
Number Name .of Channel a week) once a week) a month) WATCH
16 KETC (PBS- 24% 22% 26% 27%
} -St. Louis) (350) (325) (380) (397)
3 17 MAX (Cinemax) 15% 5% 76%
(194) (59) (48) (958)
18 A&E (Arts & 23% 26% 24% 28%
Entertainment) (328) (365) (340) (398)
19 ESPN (Sports 43% 20% 17° 19 P1.
Network) (636) (297) (251) (280)
20 USA (USA Network) 36% 35% 0°
(517) (502) (287) (146)
21 TNT (Turner Network 35% 35% 19% 11%
Television) (511) (513) (284) (165)
22 CNN (Cable News 50% 23% °
Network) (754) (340) (279) (138)
23a AMC (American 18% 23% 32% 27%
Movie Classics) (263) (332) (470) (398)
23b C-SPAN (U.S. Senate) 8% 12% ° °
(118) (161) (357) (769)
24 KMBC (ABC- 18% 25% .- 3 0%
-Kansas City) (250) (358) (401) (422)
25 SHOW (Showtime) 8% 4 4 8 3°
(108) (57) (55) (1063)
26 BET (Black 3% 3% 9% 86%
Entertainment TV) (35) (42) (129) (1212)
27 NICK (Nickelodeon) 22% - 18% ° 3 5°
(313) (265) (354) (511)
28 DIS (The Disney 7% 5% 65.1, 8 2%
Channel) (94) (62) (79) (1039)
29 KMOV (CBS- 15% 35%
-St. Louis) (208) (315) (398) (487)
30 MTV (Music
11% 13% 24% 53%
i Television) (159) (182) (337) (748)
a
31 LIFE (Lifetime) 16% 30% 3 0°
(222) (429) (431) (350)
i
[CONTINUED NEXT PAGE]
1
i
i
' -3-
------ HOW OFTEN DOES YOUR HOUSEHOLD WATCH ------
[CONTINUED] REGULARLY
WATCH OCCASIONALLY SELDOM WATCH
fat least 2 WATCH (At least 2
Channel or 3 times (At least or 3 times NEVER
Number Name of Channel a week) once a week) a month) WATCH
32 FAM (The Family 18% 27% °
Channel) (262) (394) (415) (371)
33 CNN II (Headline 29% 22% °
News) (419) (325) (333) (371)
34 TWC (The Weather 41% 22% °
Channel) (604) (319) (303) (251)
35 KSDK (NBC- 18% 23% °
-St. Louis) (262) (321) (387) (454)
36 QVC (Shop i ng 7% 556 14% 74%
Channel (97) (78) (208) (1066)
37 CNBC (Consumer 751. 9% 17% 67.
News/Business) (101) (124) (246) (962)
2. Again, below are listed all the channels your household currently gets on
cable TV. Please read .through the list one more time, and let other
members of your household also look through the list.
This time, for the channels that are listed below, Please circle how
you and other members of your household feel .about each channel .
-------- HOW OUR FAMILY FEELS ABOUT THE CHANNELS --------
I LIKE I LIKE I DISLIKE I DISLIKE
IT AND IT BUT IT BUT IT AND
SO DO SOME OTHERS SOME OTHERS SO DO
SOME OTHERS IN MY NOBODY IN MY OTHERS
Channel IN MY HOUSEHOLD REALLY HOUSEHOLD JN MY
Number Name -of Channel HOUSEHOLD DON'T CARES LIKE IT HOUSEHOLD
2 HBO Home Box 46% 5% 29% 4% 17%
Office) (530) (55) (328) (40) (193)
3 JCTV (Educat- 22% 11% 49% 4% 14%
ional Access) (305) (147) (676) (48) (194)
4 KMIZ (ABC- 82% ° 1%
-Columbia) •(1150) (77) (148) (8) (17)
5 TDC (The Discovery 645.1, 13% 16% 4% 4%
Channel) (891) (176) (226) (51) (50)
6 KMOSPBS- 40% 115.1 3 8% 2°
-Se alis) (548) (153) (522) (33) (106)
[CONTINUED ON THE NEXT PAGE]
i
------------
-4-
-------- HOW OUR FAMILY FEELS ABOUT THE CHANNELS --------
I LIKE I LIKE I DISLIKE I DISLIKE
[CONTINUED] IT AND IT BUT IT BUT IT AND
SO DO SOME OTHERS SOME OTHERS SO DO
SOME OTHERS IN MY NOBODY IN MY OTHERS
Channel IN MY HOUSEHOLD REALLY HOUSEHOLD IN MY
Number Name of Channel HOUSEHOLD' DON'T CARES LIKE IT HOUSEHOLD
9 7 KOMO (NBC- 85% 5% 8
Columbia) (1215) (71) (117) (9) (15)
x
8 FOX (FOX 53% 11% °
Network) (731) (156) (371) (52)' (58)
9 C-SPAN (U.S. House) 1951. 16% 40% 4% 21%
(253) (220) (535) (51) (281)
10 KPLR (Independ.- 69 5., 9% 19% 1% 1?1.
-St. Louis) (960) (131) (257) (19) (20)
11 WTBS (Superstation- 65% 10% 21% 2% 32,.
-Atlanta) (854) (127) (279) (22) (43)
12 KR-Jeff. City) (1339) (52) (53) (9) (4)
13 KNLJ (Independ.- 152.1 23 5.,
-Jeff. City) (194) (84) (685) (66) (313) ,
14 ENC (Encore) 41% 12% 35% 45., 9°
(525) (147) (442) (49) (114)
15 TNN (The Nashville 42% 14 5., 27% 6% 12%
Network) (576) (191) (373) (85) (159)
16 KETC (PBS- 44% 12% 36% 3% 62.
-St. Louis) (584) (159) (475) (41) (74)
17 MAX (Cinemax) 28% 4% 51% 2% 14%
(298) - (45) (539) (25) (148)
18 A&E (Arts &' 475. 15% 29% 3% 7%
Entertainment) (626) (195) (385) (34) (86)
19 ESPN (Sports 53% 18% 16% 7% °
Network) (718) (240) (215) (98) (92)
20 USA (USA Network) 66% 13% 175.- °
(893) (168) (223) (35) (30)
21 TNT (Turner Net. 65% 12% 19% 2% 3%
Television) (886) (160) (260) (26) (35)
22 CNN (Cable News 64% 15% 16% 3
Network) (885) (211) (227)* (30) (40)
23a AMC (American 42% 16% 32% 4% 6%
' Movie Classics) (561) (217). (425) (59) (78)
i
[CONTINUED ON THE NEXT PAGE]
� -5-
i
-------- HOW OUR FAMILY FEELS ABOUT THE CHANNELS --------
I LIKE I LIKE I DISLIKE I DISLIKE
[CONTINUED] IT AND IT BUT IT BUT IT AND
SO DO SOME OTHERS SOME OTHERS SO DO
SOME OTHERS IN MY NOBODY IN MY OTHERS
Channel IN MY HOUSEHOLD REALLY HOUSEHOLD IN MY
Number Name of Channel HOUSEHOLD DON'T CARES LIKE IT HOUSEHOLD
23b C-SPAN (U.S. Senate) 16% 13% 47% 35., 20%
(211) (175) (622) (44) (264)
5
24 KMBC (ABC- 42% 11% 42% 1% 4%
-Kansas City) (546) (144) (540) (16) (50)
25 SHOW (Showtime) 25% 4% 54% 2% 16%
(255) (42) (559) (18) (162)
26 BET (Black 5% 3% 54 P. 2% 36%
Entertainment TV (66) (41) (693) (24) (461)
27 NICK (Nickelodeon) 41% 921 30% 11% °
(539) (117) (401) (144) (118)
28 DIS (The Disney 31% 11%
Channel) (321) (50) (506) (46) (116)
29 KMOV (CBS- 44% °
-St. Louis) (563) (123) (519) (21) (5 6)
30 MTV (Music 1925 '10% 315o, 15% 25%
Television) (248) (133) (407) (2.00) (336)
31 LIFE (Lifetime) 48% 15% 29% 4% 4°
(631) (201).. (390) (50) (53)
32 FAM (The Family 49% °
Channel) (646) (162) (417) (51) (56)
33 CNN II (Headline 47% 15% 29% 2% 6°
News) (638) (203) (396) (31) (86)
34 TWC (The Weather 60% °
Channel) (817) (180) (289) (33) (48)
35 KSDK (NBC- 45% °
-St. Louis) (593) (114) (529) (25) (53)
36 RVChannel�in9 (115) (90) (575) (85) (488)
37 CNBC (Consumer 12% 11% 3% 25%
News/Business) (161) (139) (646) (40) (323)
i
3
r -
-6-
3. If you had to choose just one channel as your household's favorite channel ,
which channel would you select as your household's favorite?
HBO (Home .Box Office) . . . . . . . . . . 5% (64
JCTV Educational Access) . . . . . . . . 1% (9
KMIZ ABC--Columbia) . . . . . . . 6% 82
TDC (The Discovery Channel) . . . . . . . 4% 56
KMOS PBS--Sedalia) . . . . . . . . . . 1% 15
KOMO NBC--Columbia) . . . . . . . . . . 12% (165
FOX (FOX Network) . . . . . . . . . . . 2% 20
C-SPAN ( U.S. House) . . . . . . . . . 1% 11
KPLRIndepend.--St. Louis) . . . . . . 3% 45
WTBS (Superstat.ion--Atlanta) . . . . . . 4% 149
KRCG-- (CBS--Jeff. City) 24% (331
KNLJ (Independ.--Jeff. City) 1% (18
ENC (Encore) . . . . . . * (5
TNN The Nashville Network) . . . . . . . 3% 44
KETC (PBS--St. Louis) . . . . . . . . . . . 3% 34
MAXCinemax) . . . . 2% 26
A&E (Arts & Entertainment) . . . . . . . 2% 21
ESPN (Sports Network) . . . . . . . . . . 6% 81
USA JUSA Network) . . . . . . . . 1% 18
TNT Turner Net. Television) . . . . . . 1% 14
CNN Cable News Network) . . . . . . 6% 88
AMC American Movie Classics) . . . . . . 1% 10
C-SPAN (U.S. Senate) . . . . . . . . 1% (8
SHOW (Showtime) . . . . . . . . . . 1% (11
BET (Black Entertainment TV) . . . . * (5
NICK (Nickelodeon) . . . . . . .
DIS (The Disney Channel) . . . . . . . . 1% �18
KMOV (CBS--St. Louis) * 6
MTV (Music Television) * 2
LIFE (Lifetime) . . . . . . . . . 1% 7
FAM (The Family Channel) . . 1% 19
CNN II (Headline News) 1% R 7
TWC (The Weather Channel) . . . . . . . . 15. (7
KSDK (NBC--St. Louis) 1% (14
QVC (Shopping Channel) * 3
CNBC (Consumer News/Business) . * �2
Other. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2% (25
Blank: (223
s
i
i
-7-
1
{
4. Below is a short description of various types of programming that are not
now available on your cable TV, but which may, at some future date, become
available. Please read through the list and mark each one you would like
to see added to your basic service. You may check as many as 'you wish.
If you don't want to add any new channels, just don't check any boxes.
The Fashion Channel . . . . . . . . . . . . 9% 122
The Monitor Channel . . . . . . . . . . . 23% 304
Country Music Television . . . . . . . 28% 369
E!, Entertainment Television . . . . . . 22% 293
Court TV. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19% 251
Comedy Central . . . . . . 39% 524
Nostalgia. . . . . . . . . . 20% 273
The InternationalChannel : . . . . . . . . 7% (96
Prime Sports Network . . . . . . . . . . . 34% 460
The Travel Channel . . . . . . . . . . . . 35% 470 .
WGN. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57% 765
VISN . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8% 105
VH1. 29% 390
Mind
VH1. . 29%
27% 365
Learning Channel . . . . . . . . . 3351. 442
Other. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12% 157
5. Listed below are the same types of programming listed in the previous
question. This time, however, you should assume that each channel you
check would add between 50 cents to $1.25 to your monthly cable bill . For
example, if you check 3 channels, then you are saying you would be willing
to pa between $1.50 to $4.50 more each month to receive these new
channels.
Please once again read through the list of possible new -channels, and check
which ones you would be willing to .pay between 50 cents -and $1.25 more each
month to receive.
And again, if you don't want to add any new channels, just don't check any boxes.
The Fashion Channel . . . . . . . . . . . . 3% 27
The Monitor Channel . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Country Music Television . . . . . . . 16% (148
E! , Entertainment Television . . . . . . 5% (49
Court TV. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6% (59
Comedy Central . . . . . . . . . . . . 20% (188
Nostalgia. . . . . . . . . . 6% 54
The International Channel . . . . . . . . 3% (27
Prime Sports Network . . . . . . . . . . . 225ol- 210
The Travel Channel . . . . . . . . . . . . 11% 102
WGN. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49% 458
VISN . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3% (31
VH1. 13% 121
Mind Extension*UniversYty 17% 164
Learning Channel . . . . . . . . . 16% 150
Other. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12% ill
s
3 _
4
-8-
s
aANSWER QUE 11UN b UNLY IF YUU MARKED MORE MAN ONE CHANNEL M QUES110N 5.
6. If you had to choose the one channel you wanted most to add to your cable
service, which channel , among those you markedin question 5, ' would you choose
to add? [PLEASE ENTER THE LETTER (A, B, C etc.) LOCATED NEXT TO THE BOX.]
The Fashion Channel . . . . . . . . . . 2% 16
The Monitor Channel . . . . . . . . . . 4% 34
Country Music Television : : . . . . . . . 9% (0
E!, Entertainment Television . . . . . . 1% 5
Court TV. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2% 16
o Comedy Central . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8% 61
3 Nostalgia. . . . . . . . 2% 18
The International �Channel . 1% (8
Prime Sports Network . . . . . . . . . . . 10% 76
The Travel Channel . . . . . . . . . . . . 4% (33
WGN. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . 33% (259
VISN . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1% 11
VH1. . . . . . . . . 4% 31
MindExtension*University . . . . . . . . 72-. 54
Learning Channel . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5% 39
Other. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6% 1481
Blank: (816
Our last questions ,are ,.about you and your family. The answers to these
questions help us statistically -classify the results we obtain. Your
responses to these questions, -as well as all others in this survey, will be
kept strictly confidential , and only used when statistically combined with
the hundreds of other interviews conducted for this survey. [PLEASE CIRCLE
THE APPROPRIATE ANSWER, UNLESS OTHERWISE INDICATED]
7. First, are you:
Male . . . .. . . . . . . . . . 54% (841
Female . . . . . . . . . . 46% (725
Blank: (29
8. On the average, approximately how many hours of TV do you personally watch
each week?
None * (4
1 to 5` hours - 9% 144
6 to 10 hours. . . . . . . . . 18% 283
11 to 15 hours . . . . . . . . 17% 268
16 to 20 hours . . . . . . . . 20% 313
21 to 30 hours 18% 283
31 or more hours 17% 269
Blank: (31
9. How many television sets are there in your household?
One. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23% 365
Two. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37-1. 581
Three. . . . . . . . . . . . . 24% 374
Four12% 1186
Five or more 4% (69
Blank: 20
-9-
10. How many of your TV sets are hooked up to cable?
One. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41% 639
Two. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37% 576
Three. . . . . . . . . . . . . 16% 243
Four . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6% 89
Five or more . . . . . . . 1% 17
Blank: 31
R 11. How many children under the age of 18 live in your household?
(
One. .. . . . . . . . . . . . . 45% 245
Two. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40% 219
Three. . . . . . . . . . . . . 12% (66
Four . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3% (17
Five . . . . . . . . . . . 1% (4
Blank: (1044
12. Are you:
Married. . . . . . . 63% 985
Separated/Divorced . . . . . . 13% 200
Widowed. 11% 165
Single [NEVER�MARRIEDI 13% 195
Other. . . . . . . . . . 15.112
Blank: 38
13. And do you own or renty our home?
Own'. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75% (1156
} Rent . . . . . . . . . . . 25% (390
Blank: (49
14. What was the last grade in school you, yourself, had the opportunity to
complete?
No schooling . . * 2
Some grade school . . . . . *
Finished grade school . . . . . 2% 32
Some high school . . . . . 4% (57
Finished high school . . . . . 21% 329
Some college . . . . . . 22% 336
Graduated from college . . . . 22% 340
Some graduate school . . . . . 81.- 122
Graduate school degree . . 17% 260
Blank: (50
15. Approximately how long have you lived at this address? [PLEASE WRITE IN THE
NUMBER OF YEARS. IF YOU HAVE LIVED AT THIS ADDRESS LESS THAN ONE YEAR,
WRITE "0"1
t
1-3 years . . . . . . . . . . . 25% 357
4-6 years . . . . . . . . . . . 20% 288
s 7-10 years. . . . . . . . . 12% 168
s. 43% 600
10 or-more year
Blank: 1.82
t
t
a s
Y
-10-
16. How old are you?
12-17 years . . . . . . . . . . * (3
18-34 years . . . . . . . . . . 23% 345
34-44 years . . . . . . . . . . 26% 385
45 or more years. . . . . . . . 51% 759
Blank: 1103
17. Which of the following income groups includes your family's total annual
income from all sources in 1990?
E Under $10,000. . . . . . . 5% (72
F $10,000 to $20,000 . . . . . . 16% 223
t. $20,000 to $30,000 . . . . . . 21% 286
$30,000 to $40,000 . . . . . . 17% 230
$40,000 to $50,000 . . . . . . 17% 233
$50,000 to $75,000 . . . . . . 17% 233
Over $75,000. . . . . . . 8% 108
Blank: 210
18. Finally -- to be sure all groups are statistically represented -- please
circle what racial or ethnic group you consider yourself to be a member of?
White/anglo. . . . . . . . . . 9.6% (1452
Hispanic . . . . . . * (3
Black/AfricanAmerican . . . . 3% (43
Asian/Oriental . . . . . . . . * (1
Native American Indian . . . . P. 8
Other. . . . . . . . . . . 1% (12
Blank: 76
* less than one percent
not sampled
( ) Number of respondents
YOUR ANSWERS WERE EXTREMELY HELPFUL. I
3
t
i
S
4
1{
�y[
�i
6 -
A
Methodology
In the Fall of 1991,Talmey-Drake Research & Strategy, Inc. was contracted by TCI
in Jefferson City,Missouri,to research viewing preferences for the existing cable channel
line-up, as well as to determine what types of programming cable TV subscribers in
Jefferson City might like to see in the future. The resulting mail survey was designed to
fulfill a requirement under TCI's franchise agreement with the city of Jefferson City.
! The procedures used by Talmey-Drake Research & Strategy were based on Mail
t and Telephone Surveys, by Don A. Dillman. Data collection occurred from November
15, 1991 to December 23, 1991.
i
i
Mailings
[ A random sample of 3,260 (30% of all cable TV subscribers in Jefferson City) was
generated from a list of subscribers provided by TCI. From this random sample, the first
mailing went out on November 15, 1991 consisting of: (1) a cover letter inviting their
participation in the survey, (2) a survey instrument, and (3) a self-addressed stamped
return envelope. All potential survey respondents were sent a reminder postcard one
week after the survey mailing. The third mailing was sent ten days after the postcard,
and was procedurally identical to the first mailing. Another copy of the survey was sent
to all individuals who had not returned their survey by the time of the third mailing.
Editing and Data Entry
Editing the completed surveys included: Checking for response clarity, and
eliminating dual responses. All editing was conducted by one editor. After the editing
was completed,a commercial data entry firm double-entered and verified the data on the
questionnaires on to a readable computer disk. The complete file was examined
-- systematically to remove any data entry errors. Data cleaning involved checking for out-
of-range values.
u
Yp'
F
Y
f
e
1
Completion Status
Surveys were completed and returned by 1595 cable TV subscribers in Jefferson
City, Missouri. The overall response rate was 50%v.1
FINAL STATUS
Status Number Percent
Surveys returned 1595 49%
Refused/Returned blank 44 1%
Surveys not returned 1551 48%
Eliminated:
Unable 12 —
Bad Addresses 35 1%
Not cable subscribers 23 1910
TOTALS: 3260 100%
1 Overall response rate is calculated using the following formula:
Response rate = Completed Questionnaires
Total sent - Eliminated
JULY 1991
RESPONSE TIME TO COMPLAINTS
NATURE OF CALL SAME DAY ONE TWO THREE FOUR FIVE SIX SEVEN EIGHT TWELVE FIFTEEN OVER 20 TOTAL
SNOW 21 19 3 2 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 47
POOR RECEPTION 35 24 6 5 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 73
CHANNELOUT 43 48 10 7 3 2 2 1 1 0 1 0 118
CABLE NOT WORKING 43 18 3 4 4 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 75
TRAP 4 5 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 12
LOCATE CABLE LINE 7 6 3 5 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 23
PICTURE ON AND OFF 17 5 5 1 1 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 33
QUALITY OF SOUND 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 3
LINE HANGING/DOWN 4 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7
PICTURE BLEEDING 2 2 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6
LINES ON SCREEN 3 4 1 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 11
CABLE CUT 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3
FUZZY PICTURE 3 0 0 2 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 6
MISCELLANEOUS 5 3 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 9
Q
TOTAL 191 136 37 27 14 6 5 4 2 1 1 2 426 H
PERCENTAGE 44.84% 31.92% 8.69% 6.34% 3.29% 1.41% 1.17% 0.94% 0.47% 0.23% 0.23% 0.47% 100.00% z
W
a
50.00%
4000%
30.00%
20.00%
10.00%
0.00%
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11' 12
r
AUGUST, 1991
RESPONSE TIME TO COMPLAINTS
NATURE OF CALL SAME DAY ONE TWO THREE FOUR FIVE SIX SEVEN TEN FOURTEEN TOTAL
ALL SNOW/CABLE OUT 105 27 3 8 8 0 0 0 1 0 152
SNOWY RECEPTION 72 47 7 3 5 0 1 0 0 0 135
CUT CABLE LINE 4 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 5
LOCATE CABLE LINE 17 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 25
PREMIUM SERVICE 39 9 4 3 2 1 1 0 0 0 59
PARTIAL SERVICE OUTAGE 23 11 2 4 4 1 0 0 0 0 45
BURY.CABLE 9 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 11
LINE DOWN 10 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 13
SERVICE IN AND OUT 14 5 2 2 1 1 1 0 0 0 26
MISCELLANEOUS 14 7 3 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 25
TOTAL 307 117 22 22 21 3 3 0 1 0 496
PERCENTAGE 61.90% 23.59% 4.44% 4.44% 4.23% 0.60% 0.60% 0.00% 0.20% 0.00% 100.00%
70.00%
60.00%
50.00%
40.00%
30.00%
20.00%
10.00%
0.00%
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
SEPTEMBER, 1991
RESPONSE TIME TO COMPLAINTS
NATURE OF CALL SAME DAY ONE TWO THREE FOUR FIVE SIX SEVEN TEN FOURTEEN TOTAL
ALL SNOW/CABLE OUT 65 33 16 19 4 2 0 0 0 0 139
SNOWY RECEPTION 67 22 11 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 105
CUT CABLE LINE 4 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6
LOCATE CABLE LINE 40 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 43
PREMIUM SERVICE 15 13 7 11 0 0 0 0 0 0 46
PARTIAL SERVICE OUTAGE 19 5 5 6 1 1 0 0 0 0 37
BURY CABLE 2 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4
LINE DOWN 3 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4
SERVICE IN AND OUT 2 4 2. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8
MISCELLANEOUS 15 4 4 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 28
TOTAL 232 86 48 46 5 3 0 0 0 0 420
PERCENTAGE 55.24% 20.48% 11.43% 10.95% 1.19% 0.71% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 100.00%
60.00%-
5000%-
40.00%-
30.00%-
20.00%
0.00%5000%40.00%30.00%20.00%
10.00%
0.00%
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
OCTOBER 1991
RESPONSE TIME TO COMPLAINTS
NATURE OF CALL SAME DAY ONE TWO THREE FOUR FIVE SIX SEVEN TEN FOURTEEN TOTAL
ALL SNOW/CABLE OUT 33 46 6 1 0 3 0 0 0 0 89
SNOWY RECEPTION 60 49 8 5 2 5 0 0 0 0 129
CUT CABLE LINE 2 3 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6
LOCATE CABLE LINE 16 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 20
PREMIUM SERVICE 19 21 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 44
PARTIAL SERVICE OUTAGE 13 7 1 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 25
BURY CABLE 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
LINE DOWN 9 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 11
SERVICE IN AND OUT 2 8 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 11
MISCELLANEOUS 10 8 ,1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 21
TOTAL 165 1.47 20 12 5 8 0 0 0 0 357
PERCENTAGE 46.22% 41.18% 5.60% 3.36% 1.40% 2.24% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% '0.00% 100.00%
50.00%-
40.00%-
30.00%-
20.00%
0.00%40.00%30.00%20.00%
10.00%-
0.00%-
1
0.00%0.00% 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
rs
NOVEMBER 1991
RESPONSE TIME TO COMPLAINTS
NATURE OF CALL SAME DAY ONE TWO THREE FOUR FIVE SIX SEVEN EIGHT TEN 10 DA+ TOTAL
ALL SNOW/CABLE OUT 76 16 4 3 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 100
SNOWY RECEPTION 44 71 11 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 132
CUT CABLE LINE 2 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 3 6
LOCATE CABLE LINE 20 9 0 1 4 0 0 0 0 0 1 35
PREMIUM SERVICE 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
PARTIAL SERVICE OUTAGE 53 60 19 5 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 140
BURY CABLE 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2
LINE DOWN 5 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8
SERVICE IN,AND OUT 4 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6
MISCELLANEOUS 34 33 2 2 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 72
0 0
TOTAL 238 195 37 17 7 1 2 0 0 0 4 501
PERCENTAGE 47.50% 38.92% 7.39% 3.39% 1.40% 0.20% 0.40% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.80% 100.00%
50.00%-
40.00%-
30.00%-
f
0.00%40.00%30.00%
20.00%
10.00%
0.00%
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
DECEMBER 1991
RESPONSE TIME TO COMPLAINTS
NATURE OF CALL SAME DAY ONE TWO THREE FOUR FIVE SIX SEVEN EIGHT TEN 10 DA+ -TOTAL
ALL SNOW/CABLE OUT 61 20 2 7 0 2 3 0 0 0 0 95
SNOWY RECEPTION 49 52 5 3 0 1 2 0 0 0 0 112
CUT CABLE LINE 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
LOCATE CABLE LINE 10 10 3 0 1 0 0- 0 0 0 0 24
PREMIUM SERVICE 42 67 9 10 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 132
PARTIAL SE11VICE OUTAGE. 12 12 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 26
BURY CABLE 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
LINE DOWN 2 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4
SERVICE IN AND OUT 11 6 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 19
MISCELLANEOUS 25 22 4 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 52
0 0
TOTAL 212 190 27 22 1 7 5 0 0 0 0 464
PERCENTAGE 45.69% 40.95% 5.82% 4.74% 0.22% 1.51% 1.08% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 100.00%
50.00%-
40.00%-
30.00%-
20.00%
0.00%40.00%30.00%20.00%
10.00%
0.00%
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
JANUARY, 1992
RESPONSE TIME TO COMPLAINTS
NATURE OF CALL SAME DAY ONE TWO THREE FOUR FIVE SIX SEVEN EIGHT TEN 10 DA+ TOTAL
ALL SNOW/CABLE OUT 89 13 0 2 0 2 1 0 0 0 1 108
SNOWY RECEPTION 54 39 8 4 4 3 1 1 2 0 1 117
CUT CABLE LINE 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2
LOCATE CABLE LINE 11 19 2 4 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 37
PREMIUM SERVICE 98 79 15 2 2 0 0 2 0 0 2 200
PARTIAL SERVICE OUTAGE 18 21 6 2 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 50
BURY CABLE 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
LINE DOWN 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 2
SERVICE IN AND OUT 4 7 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 12
MISCELLANEOUS 29 27 5 4 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 66
0 0
TOTAL 306 205 37 18 7 8 2 4 3 0 4 594
PERCENTAGE 51.52% 34.51% 6.23% 3.03% 1.18% 1.35% 0.34% 0.67% 0.51% 0.00% 0.67% 100.00%
60.00%-
50.00%-
40.00%-
30.00%-
20.00%-
10.00%-
0.00%
0.00%50.00%40.00%30.00%20.00%10.00%0.00%
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
FEBRUARY, 1992
RESPONSE TIME TO COMPLAINTS
NATURE OF CALL SAME DAY ONE TWO THREE FOUR FIVE SIX SEVEN EIGHT TEN 10 DA+ TOTAL
ALL SNOW/CABLE OUT 84 13 7 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 106
SNOWY RECEPTION 73 54 18 4 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 151
CUT CABLE LINE 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
LOCATE CABLE LINE 15 13 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 30
PREMIUM SERVICE 68 49 12 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 132
PARTIAL SERVICE OUTAGE 13 15 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 31
BURY CABLE 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
LINE DOWN 5 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6
SERVICE IN AND OUT 12 10 3 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 27
MISCELLANEOUS 24 24 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 51
0 0
TOTAL 295 180 43 15 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 536
PERCENTAGE 55.04% 33.58% 8.02% 2.80% 0.56% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 100.00%
60.00%-
50.00%-
40.00%-
30.00%-
20.00%-
10.00%-
0.00%.
0.00%50.00%40.00%30.00%20.00%10.00%0.00%
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
i ,�