My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
2011-02-23 CC Packet
Centerville
>
City Council
>
Agenda Packets
>
1996-2022
>
2011
>
2011-02-23 CC Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
2/18/2011 3:02:05 PM
Creation date
2/18/2011 3:01:55 PM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
143
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
�abl� Commissian — -- - <br /> �[E[C���Ef i�[�IL���[f[�f f [f [�Efl ��.so � .�: �Iii <br /> � �.. <br /> � � �µ: <br /> Heidi A.rnson ' <br /> Executive Director .��, � ' 4 <br /> 763.231.2801 ° �'? ��?"� <br /> harnson@northmetrotv.com � �� <br /> . , _ 1`y� <br /> Effective Competition Filings <br /> First, a historical background regarding the Commis- The community that filed the opposition did so on the <br /> sion's ongoing effective competition filings: grounds that it would not be in the public's best inter- <br /> est for the FCC to approve Comcast's request. This <br /> Comcast filed a petition with the FCC in 2008 asking community did not make any argument whether the <br /> for regulatory relief in the seven North Metro Mem- 15% competitive penetration threshotd had been met. <br /> ber Cities. In order to be granted relief, Comcast The FCC arbitrarily rejected that argument. <br /> had to prove that at least 15% of households in the <br /> area were receiving multi-channel video services This could set a precedent regarding a similar argument <br /> from satellite providers. in the North Metro's effective competition proceeding. <br /> However, in addition to the best interest argument, the <br /> The Commission reviewed Comcast's petition and North Metro argument is based on data and did show <br /> filed an opposition. The grounds being the ques- that the 15% threshold was not met. The North Metro's <br /> tionable reliability of using five digit zip codes to case in that particular area is strong. <br /> determine address locations within city limits, and <br /> the use, by Comcast, of 2000 census data. The FCC has not yet made a decision regarding the <br /> North Metro effective competition proceeding. <br /> Comcast then filed a reply to the Commission's op- <br /> position, utilizing zip+four numbers, and the most Tower S itin OrC�eT' ' <br /> recent census data g <br /> In 2009, the FCC adopted an order addressing local <br /> After examining the data, the Commission deter- authority over cell-tower siting requests, and set up a <br /> mined the penetration levels were still below 15% 90 day review limit for co-location requests, and a 150 <br /> in some cities, so they filed a motion with the FCC day review limit for new tower requests. The FCC <br /> to file a surreply to Comcast's reply. also adopted a 30 day deadline for cities to inform an <br /> applicant that an application was incomplete and toll <br /> Comcast then replied to the Commission's surreply. those deadlines. <br /> �'he Commission replied to this reply with evidence <br /> that another of the seven cities was below the 15% petitions for a stay were fi led because it was felt that <br /> threshold. Comcast then replied to this reply, the timelines were unrealistic and could result in bad <br /> decisions. The petitions were denied by the FCC, so <br /> At this point, legal counsel recommended no ad- cities have to abide by the deadlines. <br /> ditional filings. The Commission's objectives had <br /> been accomplished, and it would not be cost effec- petitions for reconsideration were then filed. The FCC <br /> tive to do sa denied the reconsideration request as well. <br /> That brings us to 2010. While the FCC didn't act �ere is litigation underway in Texas, regarding the <br /> on the North Metro filings, it did issue a decision matter, so there is a chance the decision could be <br /> on a different effective competition proceeding. overturned by the courts. <br /> � � � � � � � � i � � � � � � E � � �; � <br /> 25 NMTV 2010 Annual Report <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.