Thank you very much. Are you -- so I understand for the record, your organization is in favor of this proposed OVS agreement or opposed or neutral or --
I couldn't speak on behalf of the Wynnefield Residents Association since I'm not actually a member.
Okay, okay. Thank you. Mr. Royal, please. (Witness comes forward.)
Okay, I just want 323 10/31/00 PUBLIC PROPERTY, BILL 000452 to make sure. Good evening. Please identify yourself.
Good evening. My name is James Royal. I'm the president of the Community Involvement Corporation in Strawberry Mansion. And we thank the committee and the committee chair for this opportunity to talk about RCN and also OVS and also public access. First of all, we did not know that much about RCN, and somebody asked a good question: What does it mean? And since I've been in the building, I've run into three or four of my friends that work for RCN. So I don't know what that means. But, anyway, it's important from the testimony that we heard earlier today that it is clear that there are more than 800-pound gorillas in the room, and also the fact that the Philadelphia Community Access Coalition, of which we are a member, is soon to be 800 pounds. It's important that the Council -- and we would believe that, as Reverend Shine has also said, that the Council has really the 324 10/31/00 PUBLIC PROPERTY, BILL 000452 responsibility to work through this maze to understand the real ramifications. We are for local unions. We know there are problems in all corporations. We understand what Comcast has done in the past. But the issue now is, what is Comcast, RCN, Channel 6, and City Council going to do now to help us get our public access together? I think it's important to understand that OVS means to me "obvious vexed spirit," because we've been sitting here over the last six or seven hours and we've heard a lot of numbers being thrown around, so I would say to Council, in general, we are -- we want the competition, I think everybody said they want it. But it's the level playing field really that has to really be established by the Council and not so much by the entities that are coming here. I think it's also important that Council understand that on Year 16 that the public access is really needed at this juncture at a very bad time, because regardless of who becomes the beneficiary of the services and/or the dollars, there are still going to be some folk left out, and we're talking folks on the wagon, there's 325 10/31/00 PUBLIC PROPERTY, BILL 000452 folks falling off the wagon. And we would also like to reiterate there are more than just the Black Clergy there. There are four other religious groups in the black community that represent the ministers throughout the City. And so the Black Clergy is one, and it's not the largest one. I'd like to further state that it's important for us to understand, with all of the dynamics -- and again, like Reverend Shine, usually when it's time for us to testify, the community, we're always at the end. But what we're always ask to do first is pay, regardless of whether we want to or not. And on my movie screen, I saw these big things up here with the surround sound, well, our movie screens, I think, are back there. When you look out that window, that's my video-audio camera. And those are the people out there that need our help. So I'm saying to the community today, we think it's a great idea to have RCN come in. We also believe that whatever problems they have, they can be worked out. And it was also intimated 326 10/31/00 PUBLIC PROPERTY, BILL 000452 that by getting this OVS from the federal government, then they could come in whether we like them to come in or not. So I think it would behoove us to get as much as we can in the opening part, because what Council can't do in opening part, the community, again, can do at the very, because we are the ones that have to pay. And if we organize ourselves well and become 800 pounds, then they will give us at least what we deserve, if not more. Thank you, sir.
Good evening. Thank you for waiting. Can we please turn on the microphone for Miss Preston. I want to make sure they get the microphone on first. Please proceed.
Thank you. I'm Joan Preston and this is Mr. Barberton Davis, and we 327 10/31/00 PUBLIC PROPERTY, BILL 000452 represent the Time of Deliverance Television Ministry and the Christian or religious community. If it's okay, Mr. Barberton just wants to speak for about two minutes. And then I will proceed.
I would simply like to say that first of all, I consider it an extreme honor to be here tonight.
And I would like to express my sincere gratitude for the opportunity. I would like to take for granted that it's common knowledge before this Council, who are also members of the Philadelphia community, that the current deplorable state of the mortality among the young people of this community, and not only this community alone, but those throughout nation, I would propose, has a cause to lack of moral and self-esteem among young Americans. We feel unimportant and our impressions insignificant. Is it then a marvel that open floodgates of frustration displaying themselves in disruptive and destructive behavior? 328 10/31/00 PUBLIC PROPERTY, BILL 000452 But now before this body lies the opportunity to give a voice to the people, the young people of this community. This body, through its decision, can speak confidence and inspiration into the hearts and minds of the members of this community, the young members of this community. Let the people of this community speak to the people of this community. Let the people of this community teach, encourage, and inspire the people of this community. Public access is the answer.
Thank you. The Time of Deliverance television Ministry is a part of the (unintelligible) Evangelistic Church located at 2001 West Lehigh Avenue, where Pastor Benjamin Smith, Sr. is the pastor. Our church has approximately 8,000 329 10/31/00 PUBLIC PROPERTY, BILL 000452 parishioners. Also, there are numerous churches and other religious organizations in this city who deserve public access. Time of Deliverance and PCAC (that's the Philadelphia Community Access Coalition) have been in the trenches for approximately 3.5 years. Primarily, we have been sending the same, repetitious message: We want public access, we want Comcast to do what the ordinance mandated. That is, render public access to the community. Comcast has not. We were encouraged on October 18th by a presentation delivered by Mr. Anthony Riddles, the director of MNN, and that is the magazine that you have before you. That is the Manhattan Neighborhood Network. It's a public access station in New York City. Mr. Riddle disclosed how successful has been in New York City. He also distributed copies again of the weekly program provided on a day-to-day basis. The program disclosed how MNN has reached out to the community to educate the youth, they have developed training programs for those individuals who are interested in the field, and any number of opportunity for 330 10/31/00 PUBLIC PROPERTY, BILL 000452 the neighborhood and the youth in the community. Public access has proven in other major cities that the access opportunity is a benefit to the cable company and the community. There are many complaints about Hollywood and the kind of programs that they are sending across the tubes and how this kind of programming impacts the behavior of our children. I'm especially impressed with the Link of America. This is a Saturday night program that enables the youth from California, Chicago and Washington DC to communicate live. Where is Philadelphia's link? There are statistics that shows this program alone has kept thousands of youth off the streets, thus eliminating the volume of crime. And I say to you in closing, the community will support the cable company that is willing to support the community. Thank you for your time.
Mr. Olivetti, 331 10/31/00 PUBLIC PROPERTY, BILL 000452 please. (Witness comes forward.)
Good evening. Please identify yourself for the record.
Hi. My name is Robert Olivetti. I'm testifying as a private citizen and a Comcast subscriber. A couple people mentioned that they thought they'd be giving out Halloween candy tonight. For myself, when I get home, I have to explain to my wife daughter why I'm spending my birthday here instead of home.
Then I'd be in real trouble. Let me suggest a couple things real quickly: Pads on these seats. And possibly a policy where citizens testifying on their own don't always end up at the end of the list. If you want to encourage citizens to -- it's the second time I've testified, but now this time, I did call late, but I mean, it seems like there 332 10/31/00 PUBLIC PROPERTY, BILL 000452 seems to be a pattern that private citizen are at the bottom.
Actually, I can explain that to you. Part of our problem is that when we have technical legislation like this, all of the people who can offer from the City's perspective and from the corporate perspective the technical aspects of the bill, it's a much clearer record. (Unintelligible, parties talking over each other.)
So if we go from the bottom up and reverse, no one would really know what we're talking about until we got to the end.
I understand why you don't want us on the record first. Okay, I just wanted to mention that I've been following the cable industry for about 20 years, even though I don't work in the industry. I have testified before Public Property 333 10/31/00 PUBLIC PROPERTY, BILL 000452 hearings on the cable industry a number of times, mainly in the earlier years, when Comcast first took over their franchise, and I haven't been, as far as I know, to many hearings in recent years. And I try to always be fair in my testimony and say both sides, what's right and what's wrong. Most of my testimony over the years has been very positive, in favor of Comcast and the fact that I thought they were doing a good job. I think they had a rough start when they started, but I think they improved greatly over the years. And so tonight, I'll start out by saying what's right about Comcast. The picture is almost always on, which is good. The service is significantly better than it was in the first couple of years and has gotten better and better, as far as coming out to the house, keeping appointment. The phone service is much better than it's ever been. As far as being a good corporate citizen, obviously, I believe in some ways, they are, but later on in my testimony, when I talk about pricing, I think sometimes if you're 334 10/31/00 PUBLIC PROPERTY, BILL 000452 overcharging the people, you can afford to be a good corporate citizen and still have a lot of money left over. So I think that needs to be kept in mind. I think their prices are getting a little out of control and it hurts me to say that; I've been a big supporter of them for years, and I've testified in favor of them on many occasions, sometimes when I was the only public citizen and the only person at the hearing testifying. Yeah, I won't go into the Inquirer, we know what they've had to say about it. And I think a lot of their figures are accurate, even though there was some testimony that there may have been some distortions. As far as the Disney Channel, the Disney Channel is not a premium channel; it's a basic channel, by all accounts. Premium channels don't have commercials, premium channels don't interrupt your movie. You can tape a move and you can watch it without commercials. Disney is a basic channel; there's no other way around it. So why Comcast continues to charge premium prices for a basic channel beyond me. I knew that we were 335 10/31/00 PUBLIC PROPERTY, BILL 000452 one of the few places in the country and it sounds like tonight we're about the only place in the country that continues to complain to them about it and, obviously, nothing is being done. It sort of follows in a pattern that I noticed over the years with them, where they've frequently been the last cable company to switch premium channels to basics that have converted, such as AMC and Bravo in the past. As far as SportsNet, I can live without SportsNet but half the population in Philadelphia probably can't, including, it sounds like, you. So I don't care really about SportsNet in one sense. But in another sense, it does prevent competition. Keeping SportsNet off the satellite prevents competition. And Comcast, I hate to say it, but they obviously, apparently, are not interested in competition despite what they said tonight. When they say that their costs would be higher if they allowed SportsNet on satellite, that's true, but so would their revenue be higher because, obviously, they'd be able to charge for those additional subscribers, and that point is 336 10/31/00 PUBLIC PROPERTY, BILL 000452 never brought out. So -- and also, they could give people the option. The sports programming is the most expensive programming on TV. They could set up a tier of basic channels that include the channels that cover sports mainly, which are the most expensive, and give people an option as to whether they want those or not.
But from my understanding, they insist all the companies that they deal with that SportsNet be carried on pure basic. An additional way -- they talk tonight about the charge for the cable box, about two dollars and something. The charge for the cable box at one time was a big revenue source for Comcast; it started out two or three dollars, then it went to four, and then to five, and then around six, or whatever, until the government stepped in and said, You can't do that, you've got to charge about what the cost of the box costs you to replace. And so what did they do? They lowered the price of the box and they created something now, called "whole-house access," which means if you want your premium channels in your living room 337 10/31/00 PUBLIC PROPERTY, BILL 000452 in addition to your family room, you now pay a charge. Well the government doesn't regulate that. 50 to get the premium channel in the other room. The end result is, you're still paying the $6 for the box. I recently saw on the Internet, if I read it correctly and I believe I did, testimony that Comcast made to the FCC regarding that they would like permission, apparently, to not only control SportsNet the way they do in Philadelphia, but to have the right to control other channels that they have an ownership interest in and not necessarily sell it to everyone. And I believe I read that correctly. And I have that article if necessary. In regard to a couple points that they made tonight, they said they're interested in fair play and they thrive on competition. As I mentioned, I don't know if that's necessarily the case. When they criticized RCN's selection of 338 10/31/00 PUBLIC PROPERTY, BILL 000452 which neighborhoods and which areas of the City they were going to go into and the demographics and this and that and the other thing, I didn't hear them mention that if I believe I'm correct, when they applied for a franchise in Philadelphia initially, they only applied, I believe for Area and 4, the exact same areas that RCN is applying for. And I believe they were selected for Area and Rollins was selected for Area 3, which eventually became Heritage, which eventually Comcast took over and acquired it to areas they were interested in in the beginning. I don't believe they applied for Area 1 or West Philadelphia. So I think that argument sort of loses a little bit of sting. As far as, you know, corporate citizens, they do have their headquarters here, which is great. And obviously a company with their national headquarters in a city would normally be expected to do a little more than a company that doesn't have their national headquarters. So I don't think that's necessarily a completely fair comparison to expect RCN to necessarily do everything that Comcast does. 339 10/31/00 PUBLIC PROPERTY, BILL 000452 Obviously, we expect more of Cignas and the SmithKleins and people like that, who have their national headquarters here. As far as the cost-per-channel argument that they made, cost per channel is very deceptive. There are some channels that are free that they don't charge the cable company. There are other channels that actually pay the cable companies, such as shopping channels and things like that because they -- there's channels that will even give themselves away free in order to get on the dial. So, you know, have to analyze that a lot more closely. You can load up the dial with channels that are free or 5 cents per and say, Well, our average per-channel rate is low. It really depends on what you're carrying. So -- and in general, they mentioned that they choose not to provide SportsNet to DirecTV because they have exclusive programming, and to EchoStar because they have exclusive programming. DirecTV does have the NFL contract. I don't believe EchoStar has any exclusive programming, and I thought it was curious that they didn't mention what the exclusive programming 340 10/31/00 PUBLIC PROPERTY, BILL 000452 on EchoStar was. Just to summarize --
About or years 6 ago, before the City awarded cable franchises, I 7 was in favor of Comcast getting as many franchises 8 as possible. Like I said, I've testified mainly 9 in favor of them over the years. I remember 10 seeing a billboard that was spread around the City 11 at the time that the franchise negotiations were 12 going on. And if I remember correctly it said 13 that Comcast is the only cable company that grew 14 up on hoagies and soft pretzels. They called 15 themselves, I believe, the "home team," and they 16 are the home team, but being the home team doesn't 17 give you the right to consistently overcharge the 18 hometown. 19 (Laughter.) 20
So I say in concluding, and doesn't give me great pleasure to say it, having been a fan of theirs for years, let the competition begin. Thank you.
Thank you for your 341 10/31/00 PUBLIC PROPERTY, BILL 000452 testimony. (Applause.)
That will conclude our list of witnesses. This committee will stand in recess until the call of the Chair. Thank you. (Adjourned at 8:12 p.m.) - - - 342 C E R T I F I C A T E I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing proceedings of the Council of the City of Philadelphia of Tuesday, October 31, 2000, were reported fully and accurately by me, and that this is a correct transcript of same. RE: COUNCIL COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC PROPERTY AND PUBLIC WORKS BILL NO. 000452 __________________________________, JOSEPHINE CARDILLO, Registered Professional Reporter