My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
06-09-14-R
ArdenHills
>
Administration
>
City Council
>
City Council Packets
>
2010-2019
>
2014
>
06-09-14-R
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
2/24/2016 3:50:33 PM
Creation date
9/9/2014 3:55:06 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
General
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
111
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
9 <br /> <br />that some participants were not cable subscribers, a small number of participants worked <br />in but do not reside in the NSCC franchise area, random sampling was not used to restrict <br />participation, and the views of the I-Net and PEG access stakeholders were tainted by the <br />fact that they “appear to have a vested interest in I-Net and PEG access.” <br />In response, we note that: (1) non-subscribers in the area have a right to participate in a <br />process that considers the community obligations of a private commercial firm to use <br />public rights of way; (2) people who do not reside in the area but work there may have <br />work-related reasons to use the I-Net and PEG Access resources, and therefore can <br />provide meaningful feedback; and (3) the direct experience of I-Net and PEG access <br />stakeholders can result in valuable comments and suggestions, based upon their actual <br />use of these resources. Using the logic associated with Talmey-Drake’s criticism of these <br />participants, one could conclude that opinions and proposals of Comcast representatives <br />regarding franchise renewal elements should also not be considered as legitimate, due to <br />the “vested interest” of Comcast in negotiating an agreement that is compatible with <br />Comcast’s desired outcomes. <br /> Again, it is important to point out that the Cable Act invites franchising authorities to <br />establish a franchise renewal process “which affords the public in the franchise area <br />appropriate notice and participation for the purpose of (A) identifying the future cable- <br />related community needs and interests, and (B) reviewing the performance of the cable <br />operator under the franchise during the then current franchise term” (emphasis added). <br /> It should also be noted that the language of the Cable Act does not: (1) dictate the <br />nature and suitability of the public input activities to be undertaken; (2) restrict participation <br />in the public input process to cable subscribers (note that the Cable Act states “…affords <br />the public in the franchise area…”); or (3) require every aspect of the public input process <br />to be conducted in accordance with strict adherence to survey research methodology.
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.