Google finds some:
http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civica/filebank/blobdload.asp?BlobID=7364
"The Franchise Agreement requires AT&T to pay the City $0.88 per residential subscriber per month to maintain and enhance PEG access services provided by MPAC. AT&T has chosen to pass this $0.88 fee on
to
subscribers, which it is not prohibited to do under Federal law." ...
If you look at that agreement, you will see that it specifically does not apply to Internet services, and it specifically prohibits any monopolies. This is simply a charge for access to "public right of way" or a payment to the city for stuff the city has to maintain to support AT&T's infrastructure. For example, if AT&T undergrounds cables under a street, this increases the maintenance cost of that street because they must now be sure to avoid AT&T's cables when they dig and must take those cables into consideration for any civil engineering work they do. I don't see that as an "access fee for subscribers". What I am concerned with happening is a cash-strapped city seeing Comcast (or any provider, really) trying to charge for access to subscribers and then the city saying "wait a minute, who are you to sell access to our people to a third party? If you are going to charge third parties for access to those eyeballs, then you can pay us, in turn for that access." And from there it all goes down hill. Comcast charges for access to eyeballs and then the cities turn around and charge Comcast an "access" fee and then it becomes ubiquitous and cities start charging all ISPs for "eyeball" access as a revenue source. It is the opening of a box that is better left closed, in my opinion.