My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
1998_0713_packet
Roseville
>
City Council
>
City Council Meeting Packets
>
1998
>
1998_0713_packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
10/6/2011 1:03:36 PM
Creation date
10/6/2011 12:49:58 PM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
128
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
oralie Wilson <br /> May 14, 1998 <br /> specific costs are to be aid by the cities for maintenance of I-Net? <br /> . What ��� � <br /> (See Renewal Proposal page 4, item E-1 ). <br /> 4. Reliability will be a critical factor on the successful performance of the I-Net. What <br /> is the penalty for failure to attain the reliability factor (see Exhibit item - )? Does <br /> than reliability facto' include all down time? <br /> f"Grant of Nonexclusive Authority"need further definition (see Ordinance <br /> B. The issues� � <br /> art _ on page . The cities routinely grant the use of right-of-way and <br /> section : � R � � <br /> the language as <br /> written is somewhat unclear. For example,the use of the City's right- <br /> of-way by Brooks does not include the same territory, does not include all cities in the <br /> ion and does fret provide the same service as is prescribed in the <br /> Cable Commission, � <br /> . is the i precluded from that or similar grants of use of right-of- <br /> way? Franchise � <br /> the definition of provision of cable service? This definition should be <br /> �nray. �JVhat is � . <br /> ,red so as not to preclude the City's rights of granting use of right-of-way <br /> carefully deft � <br /> in the future. <br /> C. Ther e continues to be concern regarding the aggressiveness of Media one to pursue <br /> cornpetltiorl <br /> with U.S. West. While the Cable Company has and continues to make <br /> investment the i has granted considerable value to the cable <br /> a substantial i � , <br /> franchise by <br /> virtue of the terms contained in the ordinances and the effective <br /> monopoly City's <br /> monopoly of the grant rant of authority to the Cable Company. Terms of Media <br /> ' direction are not specific c (see Ordinance page 12t item �1-13). Further <br /> One's business � <br /> definition is needed so that we can be assured that the City's value conveyed to the <br /> b virtue of the essentially exclusive franchise aggressively pursues <br /> Cable Company ]� <br /> options in the best interest of the community. <br /> D. The Memorandum contains a number of issues which carry forward into the new <br /> franchise. <br /> Does the Cable Commission have the legal authority to execute a <br /> ich essential) changes terms of the franchise approved by the <br /> Memorandum: f� ]� � <br /> cities created the Cable Commission to represent their interests; <br /> cities? The c <br /> however, the Cable commission has executed the Memorandum of Understanding <br /> to the Cable omission and not the city. Does the cable <br /> that accrues benefit <br /> ` he legal authority for the Memorandum of Understanding? Was <br /> Commission ion have t � t <br /> there a legal opinion prepared to advise the Cable Commission? <br /> • r staff use only.. I hope that we can get together sometime the <br /> This memo is intended for y � <br /> week of May 26 to discuss these and other issues regarding the proposed franchise. If <br /> dale preferably on Wednesday* May 7 or Thursday, May 8, <br /> there •�s a time on your schedule, � y <br /> please let me know. <br /> ndin the refranchise process and the proposed Ordinance is <br /> Your held in better understanding � <br /> appreciated- <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.