|
Wiki Help NW-AR.COM |
TelecomWatch'' About TelecomWatch: 'We recycle news and background information about Fayetteville's electronic media, generating fresh insights from your comments. And we're now planning to redesign this whole web site (wiki) for you, as a do-it-yourself opinion-editorial page, with everyone in our community free to add their own commentary. Our primary goal is to help ensure community-wide electronic participation that will shape local government and civic events. Thus key topics include television, Internet, telephone and other telecommunications issues in Fayetteville and Northwest Arkansas. The site is cumulative, so you can take a spin back in time by surfing down the pages. We realize that the content is dated, which we see as an accurate reflection of the Telecom scene in Fayetteville. (So we're now deconstructing - see below.) ' '' Digital Dumpster Diving Digging Deeper 2008 Telecom Watch Replays 2004, 2005,2006,2007 and counting 'Since 2004, our "State-of-Fayetteville Telecom Addresses " have been largely cut-and-paste rehashes. We've had little to recycle since 2004, when the City decided to "table indefinitely" decisions on the recommendations of earlier Telecom Boards regarding the Cox Franchise renewal, as well as the (now defunct) TTIP Task Force’s broader charges for telecommunications strategy and infrastructure development. Since then,however, we've seen a complete change in Telecom Board and some Council membership. We also added AT&T as a new digital player in town in 2007, add their television service to their internet, telephone, and wireless services. In addition, we've heard rumblings of City organizational changes at the PEG Center, along with revised policies and procedures for 2008. It's encouraging to see that that the Telecom Board will be presenting a "first of its kind " Telecom progress report at its January 2008 meeting. So we're booting up again in 2008 to do our digital best to help bring you into Fayetteville's telecom infrastructure development process . We’ll be going for a more interactive wiki and maybe a change in venue to a blog and/or other electronic formats. ''' WATCH THIS SPACE ''[+++(We honor electronic "green" stamps and sustainable digital infrastructure growth.) +++]' For now, we'll repeat , : "In our view, after looking in TelecomWatch's rear-view monitor (SquintEyed), the hardworking volunteer members of the Telecom Board have pushed the limits of what our Fayetteville community can reasonably expect from planning and oversight efforts based on volunteer members -- no matter how well qualified and energetic. The current relatively-new Board members are top-notch. They have voluntarily taken on complex technical tasks that in many cities demand large, highly trained staffs, and hefty budgets. Several current City Council Members, notably Jordan, Cook, Thiel, and Allen have been especially thoughtful leaders in working alongside the volunteers to ensure closer attention to the City’s needs in our 21st Century “Knowledge-based Society”. However, the City staff and financial support anticipated under earlier Council's Resolutions never materialized. Fayetteville does not yet have a City organizational chart or planning schema for telecommunications staffing, infrastructure, and strategy issues, which were some of the charges for earlier City Task Forces. Similarly, the Cox Franchise negotiations remain at about the same stage as a decade ago, when negotiations began in 1997. Clearly, the Telecom ball remains in the court of the Mayor and City Council to resolve their telecom resolutions and provide senior City staff support and budgeting to accomplish the charges made in the Telecom Ordinance that established the Telecom Board. ''Watchmaster footnote: ' In some weird way, the City’s continued dearth of Telecom planning and documentation may actually rank as the top telecom story of 2007 -- and of the last decade. (Thus we may have buried our best lead for our 2007 Story-Of-The-Year.) Sadly, however, we are certain that our wimpy website remains the only place in town where you're likely to find the background on most of these local telecommunications topics, whether on paper, or in other media or entity. (And if you think TelecomWatch is loosely organized, take a look at some of the City’s web sites. Unfortunately, the Telecom Board's archives are no longer being archived, but we hope to report reestablishment of that crucial function soon.) So TelecomWatch's only sure promise for 2008 is this: If our City ever manages to establish an organizational framework and systematic documentation for local telecom issues, we’ll gladly fade even further into virtual obscurity. In the meantime, we wish our Fayetteville City leaders a productive New Year and hope to see Telecommunications line items more clearly identified and strongly supported in the City’s planning and budgeting. They’ll be coining some mint-fresh wikiwords for our Story-of-the-Year for 2006, which should put our stale old stories and current wikiwords out of circulation and into that great virtual history wiki in the sky. In the meantime, we urge you to watch upcoming Telecom Board and City Council meetings to monitor Fayetteville's progress in adapting to the wide array of technological, legal and political issues that will have strong impacts on our City's telecommunications infrastructure and our ability to compete in the digital world. "A Community-Wide Wireless Hot Spot!" Wednesday, August 24 (2005) 7:00 p.m. -- City Hall Room 219 Community-Building With Broadband -- Round Table IV 'For this local round-table shown live on Channel 16, our own home-grown telecom experts and power users will advocate the potential for wireless broadband connectivity throughout the community, which some envision as an information utility. They'll examine successful approaches used in other communties and exchange ideas and demonstrate how our homes, businesses, and schools will gain from wireless broadband, as well as from other digital tools now reaching into Fayetteville and Northwest Arkansas.' Please join in the wide-ranging discussions represent diverse viewpoints and backgrounds, and no commercial sales pitches. For those who haven't explored broadband, the topics range from current and future uses in business offices and schoolrooms, to the so-called "generation gap" in digital access, to the effects of foreign competition in the telecommunication industry. The panel includes: Roland McKinney, Jeff Erf, Larry Long, Lioneld Jordan, Neil Bilbe, Jeff Waits, Sky Blaylock and Jim Bemis, (Moderator). They welcome questions and comments on any telecommunications topic important to you and our Fayetteville community. (You can email or call-in your comments and questions, or join the live audience in Room 219 at Fayetteville City Hall at 113 W. Mountain Street. Send your email anytime to: governmentchannel@yahoo.com -- and it will be read on air, or call 575-8299 during the broadcast to query panel members in real time. Before or after the discussion, you can use the same email address or call the Government Channel office at 444 3436) For additional information, please contact: Marvin Hilton Cable Administrator, City of Fayetteville Phone 444 3436 -- Cell phone 466 9240; or email: mhilton@ci.fayetteville.ar.us Telecom Board Extreme Makeover? Watchmaster: Both the August and July Telecom Board meeting agendas shows clear signs of a rigorous self-examination by the Telecom Board and the City Administration. They are two major players guiding our local “PEG” television channels – which we know as the CAT, UATV, and the Government channels. Telecomwatch has fresh hopes that the new members of the Board and the energetic and systematic work of the City’s newly appointed Public Information and Policy Officer can help quickly revamp Fayetteville’s telecom scene. Perhaps the Board and the City were spurred by the JuneTimesEditorial, which took over some of Telecomwatch’s role as both critic and supporter. We’ll let that editorial and the Telecom Board’s JuneMinutes speak for the us today, awaiting the actions at the meeting. Hopefully, the City Council and thecommunity (as well as Telecomwatch) can join them in reappraising our own roles in helping achieve a new vision and mission for the City’s telecom future. Look for an update on the August Board meeting soon. ________________________________________________________________________ June Telecom Board Meeting ON again Watchmaster: Just in from the Cable Administrator -- with note from Telecommunications Board Chair Susan Cromell on the Board's listserv. The meeting could include the introduction of the four newly nominated Board members approved this week by the City Council. See NewMembersApplications2005 The Telecommunications Board meeting will be June 29, 5:30 PM in Room 219 in City Hall. Marvin Hilton Cable Administrator City of Fayetteville, Arkansas 72701 479 444 3436 fax 479 444 3437 cell 479 466 9240 Date: Fri, 24 Jun 2005 10:06:44 -0500 Reply-To: Fayetteville Telecom Board <[log in to unmask]> Sender: Fayetteville Telecom Board <[log in to unmask]> From: Susan Cromwell <[log in to unmask]> Subject: New Members and Next Meeting of Telecom Board Dear Telecom Board- I'd like to welcome Greg Boyle back to the board. Greg has been re-appointed to the Board until 2009! Now, that's a long-term commitment! And I'd like to welcome our new board members, Angie Graves of Acxiom, David Bruce, UofA? Computing Services, and Dale Thompson, UofA? College of Engineering. Below is contact information for all members of this newly constituted board. So, what do you say...let's meet! I hope all members can join this coming Wednesday evening, May 29th, 5:30 p.m., City Administration Building, Room (Marvin will tell us which room). I will prepare an agenda early next week. Please advise if you have agenda items for the group. There will be a CAT policy update and a look at Government Channel policy. Hopefully also an update on the UATV contract. I see that this group is very much interested in the telecommunications infrastructure issues so hopefully we can get the business of PEG channels behind us quickly and move on to infrastructure planning. Craig can update the group on the status of the Task Force. Also, Craig will update the Telecom Board listserv to add our new members and remove the old. Further incoming email will be addressed to you via [log in to unmask] Looking forward to seeing you Wednesday! Susan Cromwell Chair, Telecommunications Board 479-973-8659 Susan Cromwell 111 N. Fletcher Fayetteville, AR 72701 443-4078 – Home 973-8659 – Work Replaced Don Elkins 06/30/01 to 08/15/03 1st Term 10/01/03 to 06/30/06 2nd Term David Bruce 2164 Magnolia Dr. Fayetteville, AR 72703 582-4068 – Home 575-2901 – Work Replaced Elliott Nance 07/01/05 to 6/30/09 Craig A. Brown 236 Fletcher Fayetteville, AR 72701 521-3892 – Home 575-8639 – Work Replaced Rowland McKinney? 06/30/02 to 08/15/03 1st 10/01/03 to 06/30/06 2nd Angie Graves PO Box 452 Fayetteville, AR 72702 442-5628 – Home 527-9762 x-24575 – Work Replaced John Loftin 07/01/05 to 6/30/09 David A. Young 833 East Ash Street Fayetteville, AR 72703 443-9061 – Home 444-3050 – Work Replaced Brian E. Richard 03/31/03 to 06/30/07 Dale Thompson 1690 N. Charlee Ave. Fayetteville, AR 72703-3065 521-3544 – Home 575-5090 – Work Replaced Stephan Smith 07/01/05 to 6/30/07 Unexpired Term Gregory Boyle 2047 E. Oaks Drive Fayetteville, AR 72703 443-9871 - Home 283-9692 - Work Replaced Gary Cochran 07/01/04 to 06/30/05 Unexpired Term 07/01/05 to 6/30/09 1st Term Back to: Top of message | Previous page | Main TELECOMBOARD-L page LISTSERV.UARK.EDU TELECOMMUNICATIONS BOARD MEETING AGENDA June 29, 2005 at 5:30 PM City Administration Bldg., Room 219 113 West Mountain Street 1. Call to order and roll call. 2. Introduction of new members and participants 3. Approval of the minutes from January 2005 4. Citizen Comments from audience and live call-in. (575-8299) 5. PEG Equipment Committee – Susan Thomas 6. Update on UATV Contract - Susan Thomas 7. TTIP Task Force – Craig Brown 8. Update from CAT – Michelle Key 9. Government Channel Policy Discussion – Susan Cromwell 10. Adjourn Broadband Telecommunications Roundtable III: Community-Building With Broadband: What's Next! : "Live from City Hall" Thursday, June 30 7:00 p.m. Email or call-in your comments and questions, or join the live audience in Room 219 at Fayetteville City Hall at 113 W. Mountain Street. Send your email anytime to: governmentchannel@yahoo.com -- and it will be read on air, or call 575-8299 during the broadcast to query panel members in real time. Before or after the discussion, you can use the same email address or call the Government Channel office at 444 3436) Press Release COMMUNITY BUILDING WITH BROADBAND: Round III Fayetteville Government Channel 16 Live 7:00 PM, Room 219 Thursday, June 30, 2005 Live Phone Call-In: 575-8299 Live Email: GOVERNMENTCHANNEL@YAHOO.COM Or call Government Channel 444 3436 Local telecom experts and power users will continue their conversations on broadband telecommunications potential here in Fayetteville and Northwest Arkansas. Topics focus on the newer digital technologies (cellular and wireless, as well as other digital applications for homes, businesses, and education. The public is encouraged to join in the wide-ranging discussions that span our local emerging telecommunications capabilities. These topics range from current and future uses in business offices and schoolrooms to the so-called "generation gap" in digital access, as well as foreign competition in the telecommunication industry. Panelists welcome questions and comments on any telecommunications topic that might apply to our community. As a followup to an initial Community Access Television Conference Workshop in April, this Broadband Round Table III will be televised live on the Fayetteville Government Channel. The public and press are welcome to be seated and join in at the City Council meeting room 219 in City Hall. CURRENT/CONVERSION ISSUES & TOMORROW’S TECHNOLOGY Moderator - Jim Bemis Roland McKinney? Jeff Erf Gary Cochran Larry Long Lioneld Jordan Michelle Key Contact: Marvin Hilton Cable Administrator, City of Fayetteville Phone 444 3436 Cell phone 466 9240 mhilton@ci.fayetteville.ar.us 25th CATAnniversary Jon Carlson, CAT Technology Coordinator, recently returned to his home in Fayetteville from a two-year tour in Iraq. See this young veteran's take on CAT and Free Speech at JonCarlson. "....A community media center is a place where free speech is honored, the First Amendment the highest priority, and absolutely all are welcome to make use of their services to whatever ends they see fit. ...That odd little building on the outskirts of the Fayetteville Town Square is much more then locally produced programming. It is, in the greatest sense of the definition, a community media center for all citizens to take part in and exploit, the same as your local public library or the many beautiful parks in and around Fayetteville. Although this can bring in, inevitably, an opinion or behavior that is unpopular and scandalous, the flip side to that effect is that any individual so inclined can bring their own differing opinion to the same public forum and make it heard... "  Fayetteville's Telecommunications Board and CAT Board a joint meeting on Feb.10, which provided little additional information on the Fayetteville franchise negotiations with Cox. (However, the meeting produced some collaborative thinking about common interests and issues that might provide a strategyy for dealing with Cox and other longer range media issues. ) Cox Petition Whole-Hogging TV Control; Cox Cable(TCA Cable Partners) has challenged Fayetteville’s right to regulate local rates and programming of Cox’s TV offerings, which are carried over the City-owned rights-of-way. (See Times story: CoxPetitionsFCC) Nationally, FCC rulings govern video programming, and Cox’s petition basically asks that their company's local TV offerings be “deregulated” because of increased competition from other providers, such as the dish networks, which are said to offer “comparable” programming. For Fayetteville and 18 other Arkansas communities, Cox's petition asks that the Commission “revoke the local franchising authorities’ certifications to regulate rates for basic tier services and related equipment and facilities”. TelecomWatch Alert: Cox Now Bullying Elkins;Springdale Next? As featured in TelecomWatch and in the NWA Times PokerGame article recently , Elkins seems to be facing the same bullying tactics that Cox has used in Fayetteville. TelecomWatch finds clear evidence that Cox is attempting to bulldoze the Elkins City Council, as they have in Fayetteville's contentious franchise negotiations, and now Springdale seems to be the next Cox franchise target. (See SpringdaleSpeaksOut1.) Cox is now plying the City of Elkins with "complimentary" services in separate letters of agreement, as was done with the County franchise. (See ComplimentaryLetters, ElkinsFranchiseCox2004) For a better idea of the substantial additional compensation that can rightfully be requested from Cox in Elkins, Fayetteville, and Springdale, please take a look at: FranchiseRenewal101. There's nothing that we can see in Cox's Elkins' proposal about the many potential services that Elkins will lose if it accepts Cox's proposed 7-year franchise extension. (See the full "survival kit" for franchise renewals at FranchiseSurvivalKit.) However, ElkinsCouncilMemberMartens has some excellent suggestions for new services in the Times article of Jan 31.' In Fayetteville, the CAT Board and staff apparently fully support the Telecom Board listserv comments by Board members Brown and Smith regarding the dubious statements by Cox representative James Anderson at the Elkins council meeting last week. See.http://listserv.uark.edu/scripts/wa.exe?A2=ind0501&L=telecomboard-l&F=&S=&P=3562 ; http://listserv.uark.edu/scripts/wa.exe?A2=ind0501&L=telecomboard-l&F=&S=&P=3657 ; http://listserv.uark.edu/scripts/wa.exe?A2=ind0501&L=telecomboard-l&F=&S=&P=4289 The CAT Board and staff have held a series of meetings and special shows to develop a response to Cox's arbitrary channel changes. TelecomWatch is delighted to see that the Elkins City Council is taking a "go-slow" approach with its short-term extension of their franchise before signing a 7-year extension of a badly dated franchise. The gains could be substantial, with zero potential losses to the City. Some Background Washington County took several giant digital steps backward last fall when they simply renewed their 1990 Cox franchise. Unfortunately, TelecomWatch continues to see scant effort being made to combine the telecommunications interests of the local communities and the county in a combined response to Cox's tactics. Readers unfamiliar with the recent channel switching in Washington County should know that Cox Cable has released its CoxChannelLineup2005, which remains difficult to decipher and translate into TV programming on each of their tiers. It is equally difficult to determine the geographical locations where the programming will be carried (See update at CountyCATBump .) As previously bashed by TelecomWatch, the basic tier remains an over-priced collection of cheapo (to Cox) channels, plus the “must carry” broadcast stations. Moreover, ALL Cox subscriber tiers will now restrict coverage of the Fayetteville Government (Ch. 16); Public Access (Ch.18) television channel; and the Education Channel (Ch. 14). These PEG channels will be delivered only to Cox subscribers within the Fayetteville city limits, rather being carried to the County and adjoining communities. However, Cox will now carry the Jones TV programs (Springdale-based) on Channel 22 (a leased channel) throughout Northwest Arkansas. (See OldCoxMap to get an idea of the coverage that will no longer be available to Elkins and other communities in the County.) Cox lists other unspecified educational and government access channels to be carried in other unspecified areas, but provides no schedule. It will be interesting to see what lineups subscribers in other areas are now receiving, as well as the other services offered. Some county leaders are now saying that Cox's new lineup wasn't anticipated when the County voted on their new franchise, which included an additional amendment regarding coverage. TelecomWatch believes that amendment could permit the County to request additional County-wide coverage of the Quorum Court meetings on the Government Channel. However, Cox's plans remain unclear regarding additional coverage of government and educational channels. Back in October 2003, the Fayetteville Telecom Board and City Council began drafting a resolution to reinforce work already underway on the Cox Franchise negotiations.(CouncilRejectsCoxFranchiseversionOctober2004). Another resolution established and provided the charges for the City TTIP Task Force. The resolutions called for completion of both efforts by December 2004. As of this writing (Feb 3,2005) the Council has not reconsidered the lapsed Resolutions. (More below and at SquintEyed; TaskForceFindings,CountyCATBump, Taskforce QuartReport1)' TelecomWatch 2005 'In our town's digital world, slow news is no news, and since most of our Fayetteville's Telecom Board and TTIP Task Force activities remain very much “under construction”, local telecom watchers could have another lean year. But we’ll make a safe prediction that the top telecom stories for 2005 will be driven by ripple effects stemming from actions (and inactions) underlying the City’s key wikiwords for 2004,(SeeUnresolvedResolution2004, WikiIndexfor2004). Our greatest hope -- and challenge to City leaders -- is that our Council will make some major digital waves by quickly addressing the Council resolutions that have guided the Telecom Board’s work with the Cox Franchise renewal, as well as the TTIP Task Force’s broader charges for telecommunications strategy and infrastructure development. We’ll do our digital best to bring you into the process. (How? See WhatsaWiki and AddYourCommentary. We’re going for a more interactive wiki in 2005)' In our view, after looking in TelecomWatch's rearview monitor (SquintEyed), the hardworking volunteer members of the Telecom Board and TTIP Task Force have pushed the limits of what our Fayetteville community can reasonably expect from planning and oversight efforts based on volunteer members -- no matter how well qualified and energetic. Both of these groups of top-notch folks have voluntarily taken on complex technical tasks that in many cities demand large, highly trained staffs, and hefty budgets. And several Council Members, notably Marr, Jordan, Cook and Thiel, have been especially thoughtful leaders in working alongside the volunteers to ensure closer attention to the City’s needs in our 21st Century “Knowledge-based Society”. However, the City staff and financial support anticipated under the Council's Resolutions never materialized in 2004, and the City’s CAO has since resigned. Our City does not yet have a City organizational chart or planning schema for telecommunications staffing, infrastructure, and strategy issues, which were some of the charges for study by the Task Force. Similarly, the Cox Franchise negotiations remain at about the same stage as found by the Council last January (and as found throughout the last eight years of negotiations that began in 1996.) Clearly, the telecom ball remains in the court of the Mayor and City Council to resolve their own 2004 telecom resolution and provide senior City staff support and budgeting to accomplish the charges to the Task Force and Telecom Board. (We’ve heard that some sort of Information Office will replace a few of the CAO functions, but we’d suggest a much broader look at the City’s near non-existent communications organization and operational setup.) ''Watchmaster footnote: ' In some weird way, the City’s continued dearth of Telecom planning and documentation may actually rank as the top telecom story of the year -- and of the last decade. (Thus we may have buried our best lead for our Story-Of-The-Year.) Sadly, however, we are certain that our wimpy website remains the only place in town where you’ll find the background on most of these local telecommunications topics, whether on paper, or in other media or entity. (And if you think TelecomWatch is loosely organized, take a look at some of the City’s web sites.) So TelecomWatch's only sure promise for 2005 is this: If our City ever manages to establish an organizational framework and systematic documentation for local telecom issues, we’ll gladly fade even further into virtual obscurity. In the meantime, we wish our Fayetteville City leaders a productive New Year and hope to see Telecommunications line items more clearly identified and strongly supported in the City’s planning and budgeting for 2005. They’ll be coining some mint-fresh wikiwords for our Story-of-the-Year for 2005, which should put our stale old stories and current wikiwords out of circulation and into that great virtual history wiki in the sky. TTIP Task Force Findings? Earlier in 2004 Telecomwatch played catchup with a “First Quarterly Report” of the TTIF (City Technology and Telecommunications Task Force). We have added little since that time, having depended on the TTIP website for updates on their meeting minutes. However, the Task Force has not met since early December, 2004 and their web site shows little activity. If you are looking for a quick-click summary, we have copied most of the content in a single wikiword -- QuartReport1 has all the major clickable links on these TTIF pages. The Quart report is lifted straight from the Task Force website: http://www.accessfayetteville.org/city_government/city_technology_and_telecommunications_infrastructure_task_force/. It also feature the TTIF archives found at http://listserv.uark.edu/archives/ttip-l.html. Unique Task Force videos are featured in a first-of-kind Task Force listserv: http://theserver.uark.edu/ttip/.' The Task Force added sparodic meeting notes at its web site in 2004, and a report on the local and area business sector has been prepared by Beta Rubicon. That report awaits review by the Task Force, before it is released to the public. There apparently were some concerns about some of the copyright privileges in the report. TelecomWatch is reserving comment until after the Task Force review. However, some of the summary pages and a table of contents can be found at the QuartReport1, which provides a glimpse the lengthy descriptive report (140 pages). (Full Disclosure: In the wake of last year’s widespread breaches of ethics in mainstream media and within government offices in Washington, TelecomWatch is making full disclosure of its financial and donor contributions. Our budget remains the same at $4.95 yearly for our domain name. In addition, we now have out-of-pocket monthly expenses for our newly- acquired SBC broadband internet services, which are prorated within a household budget. Our bottomline shows $0 income and $0 profits to report, and we don’t exist at the IRS. We gratefully acknowledge the enormous donation of support, both virtual and in real-time expertise, from our parent wiki: www.nw-ar.com and its owner/manager. Format Update in February 2005 'Look for a new TelecomWatch reporting format next month, which we’re also building around around recycled themes. We’ll be focusing on four or five major topics and the stories that spin from them. Although we will continue to highlight Telecom Board activities, we’ll also address specific local concerns revealed in the TTIP TaskForceFindings. (We’ve always thought of the Task Force as sort of a Telecom Board subcommittee on steroids, and the charges they have addressed are covered within the mandate of the recently revised CityTelecommunicationsOrdinance2003?.) We’ll be pushing beyond our previous coverage of cable television to look more deeply into other telecommunications and broadband providers, including wireless and telephone services. Most of these are touched upon in the Task Force charges, so their findings will serve as our initial key guidelines. FLASH Back to 2004! . Unanimous (8-0) City Council Watchmaster Note: City Council members apparently found the proposed Cox franchise renewal resolution and franchise unready for consideration at their November 16,2004 meeting. They cited a range of issues that require further clarification, including those brought forward by Telecom Board Chair Susan Cromwell(see below.) No details were discussed regarding future negotiation plans. (With the recent resignation of CAO Hugh Earnest, the City loses its chief negotiator, a thankless task that will now be assigned to an as yet unannounced City staff person. Telecom Watch will post the Council minutes when available. 'Telecom Board Chair Susan Cromwell's carefully crafted letter to the Council drew a line in the sand with the Board's conditional recommendations to the City Council. (See Board letter to Council at BoardVSBullyboy.) The letter's clear reasoning proved difficult for the Council to dismiss. And the long list of Board items examined over the last 8 ears appears to contradict CAO Earnest's lone unsupported negative recommendation that accompanied the resolution and franchise. See Cable Clarity story below.' The resolution and proposed Cox franchise are on the City's web. Additional Board comment on the Board letter is at:http://listserv.uark.edu/scripts/wa.exe?S2=telecomboard-l&D=0&H=0&O=T&T=1&q=franchise&s=Franchise&f=&a=January+2004&b=December+2004 CountyCourtReEnters20thCentury ; Watchmaster note: The Washington County Quorum Court voted 13-0 Thursday night to extend their old 1994 Cox contract for 7 more years. With no public discussion and showing little awareness of Information Age technological and legal requirements for cable providers, the Court chose to extend the same set of outmoded 1994 services into the county until 2011. They apparently have only a provisonal letter of agreement with Cox to mark any substantive changes in the contract. The letter of agreement allows Cox to bypass federal (FCC) provisions for use of the County's rights-of-way and make "donations" instead. (See revised County franchise and letter of agreement at County-CoxFranchise2004) TelecomWatch had urged the County Court to revoke the Emergency clause and allow more public input and consideration of the City's TTIP Task Force findings. The Task Force is putting together a strategy that would team up county, city, and regional groups in developing a collaborative telecommunications strategy. Unfortunately, the County's "emergency" extension of the old contract will close that window aligning a city/county/regional team. Background: Cox Cable "postponed" its decision to switch Fayetteville’s PEG access channels for some of its Washington County subscribers last fall. At the Telecommunications Board's October 16 2003 meeting, Cox representatives outlined the company’s customer support services and indicated that their channel lineup would remain unchanged from the pre-Oct 21 schedule for an unspecified time. Their are no provisions in the extended franchise to prevent similar arbitrary channels switching. (See ChannelSwitch.) BACK OFF! Bullyboy Payback Time Watchmaster's letter-to-the-editor(to Times November 5)calls for Council clout to counter bullyboy tactics. (See BackOffBullyboy) CableClarity(?)?? The Times' headline writer must have left a question mark off Thursday's (October 29) front-page "Cable Clarity(?) " story. After stonewalling for weeks, City CAO Earnest pieced together yet another revision of the Cox franchise for the City Council, which arrived too late for the Telecom Board's Thursday meeting. This version is at: http://listserv.uark.edu/scripts/wa.exe?A2=ind0410&L=telecomboard-l&F=&S=&P=3539, but was to be released to Telecom Board members ONLY. There has been no direct written communication between Earnest and the Board relative to the Thursday franchise, at least none publicly available. (See FOIARequestsToCity)We've also added a Telecomwatch catch-all at: FOIAGrabBag and CoxFranchiseOct28AndCounting. These include the CAO's random HedgedFOIAResponses to FOIA requests made to his office and to theMayor. (To date, November 10, we have no FOIA response from the Mayor's office.) Watchmaster: The FOIAGrabBag is not for the faint of modem speed. Do not tackle this mix of files that total over 50 mb of imaged files with a dial-up modem, as a single file dowload would take hours. Even for those with a high-speed modem, it's a virtual scrap heap of un-indexed and unsorted FOIA non-responses that we've received from the City in October and November 2004. (We had to upgrade to a highspeed modem just for these files.)) We piled the files on FOIAGrabBag because, as crude as it is, the jumble of information isn't available anywhere else. As a whole, they also clearly reveal the lack of coherency in the City's franchise negotiations over the past 8 years.) So why all the fuss and FOIA requests?? (Watchmaster: Because all of Fayetteville is getting a raw deal in the proposed Cox franchise, a document originated by Cox and based on a boiler-plate document used in Fort Smith. But we won't know what the City will present for a resolution or final agreement until we get a definitive answer from the City CAO (or from whomever will bring the agenda item before the City Council. See the latest October 2004 undate on franchise renewals by BrianGrogan, our former hired attorney, whose strong (and costly) renewal document(prepared previously with the help of our City Attorneys (see RedlinedRejection and EarlierNegotiations. These long-standing negotiations have now been ignored by Cox and the City, including a $40,000 stipulation in the current franchise that requires Cox to reimburse some of the City's costs for the negotiations.) The good news is that Telecom-Board-member Steve Smith has insisted that the Board have a public hearing for our community so the Board can hear our thoughts about the latest patchwork franchise agreement, which was simply lifted from the Ft Smith franchise. (Public Hearing now to be held by CAT Board, see CATHearing) And Board Chair Susan Cromwell is writing a detailed letter (see BoardVSBullyboy) to the Council to restate the Board's conditional recommendations. Another good-news item was a quote from City Attorney Kit Williams. The Times tells us that he will seek the addition of a stipulation similar to the $40,000 in the current (1989) franchise (but maybe more), which is to be paid by the cable provider to reimburse the City for attorneys and technical expertise required for negotiations. (Our current (1989) contract is a much stronger franchise than the boiler plate proposed by Cox. According to the version revised Thursday, Earnest has now changed the contract to provide a five-year term, which was one of the key Telecom Board recommendations in September. (Actually, the Board recommended "no more than five year years and no less than three." This latest version also spells out the "return lines" that Cox will provide to connect the Quorum Court, University and School District , among others points, which were provided in earlier agreements made years ago, but were left out of the version drafted by Cox and Earnest earlier in October. He had no firm figures for the amount of money that the City has spent that might be reimbursed from the $40,000, although he said estimates were in the $30,000-40,000 range. But there's still no clear path for the Telecom Board's recommendations to reach the City Council. Nor is there any assurance that their recommendations will be included with the "final" franchise agreement to be sent to the Council, since no version has been formally approved by either the Board or Cox. ( Although the Board reports to the Council, rather than to the CAO, Earnest now serves as liaison for preparing the agenda request , as well as lead negotiator in the franchise negotiations. These twin roles have allowed him to simply bypass the Board in the negation process, although the Times story says he feels that is an unfair characterization. (Theoretically, the CAO is also responsible for seeing that Cox reimburses the City for negotiaton expenses, per the current contract.) Adding to the lack of "clarity" in the 5-year path taken by the franchise negotiations, the CAO apparently checked with Cox for their approval before sending the latest slight revisions to the City Attorney for formatting into Thursday's draft. According to the Times, Cox insisted on a seven-year contract before they would added three more return lines recommended by the Board in September. Unfortunately, much of the above information was not available to the Telecom Board when it met Thursday. More information will be posted to www.telecomwatch.us as it is released. but we still haven't had the courtesy of a formal reply from our FOIA requests to both the CAO and the Mayor But that lack of response seems to fit the no-comment pattern of recent months. A copy of the FOIA request is at: http://nw-ar.com/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/TelecomWatch/FOIARequestEarnestOct7 (Everybody clear now? Or maybe you'd vote with me for a "no smoke" ordinance to snuff out City smokescreens?) Watchmaster's Wikily Reader: (related story above) 'Each of us in Fayetteville has been ignored by Cox and the City's CAO in this latest attempted bypass of the Telecommunications Board. Our ordinance is is clear about the Board's role, but much fuzzier about how the Board's recommendations are to be brought before the Council in a quick and accurate resolution and agreement. Locally, of course, each of us owns a chunk of the City's rights of way that are rented to Cox. We are entitled to fair market value for that rent, which has skyrocketed in value along with digital technology and our growth. Cox's rates have doubled since the negotiations began, but we receive no additional compensation from Cox. In fact, the new contract is nowhere near as strong as the one signed in 1989. As importantly, by law, we each own a portion of the nation's airwaves, which we also "rent" to Cox via the franchise. Our part of this new digital spectrum that is managed by the FCC also has a higher dollar value that should be shared with each of us. Today Cox and other telecom services have fiberoptics that can carry television, plus the Internet, World Wide Web, telephone and data services. The dollar returns from these services should also have a mounting value for each of us. And, in past City negotiations, we have received payments in kind through our federally- mandated use of the local PEG channels (government, education, and public access (CAT), as well as substantial cash payments and services provided by the cable provider. Such negotiation terms are common throughout the nation. But, setting aside the dollar value, the much more crucial obligation to us is that we retain a clear legal right to electronic public forums and news sources that are free of bias and monopoly control by any telecom or cable service provider. Our nation's media are now owned by a handful of conglomerate, near-monopolies, which are becoming more powerful with their near-daily mergers. The good news is that, as a result of the Thursday Telecom Board meeting, each of us also will soon have a chance at a public hearing to voice our protests. We can speak out and let our leaders know how we feel about being bullied and stonewalled by Cox and the City in the negotiations process, as was so well described in a NWA Times editorial recently. In the meantime, we'll try to carry the latest telecom updates on www.telecomwatch.us, although so far our FOIA requests to the CAO and Mayor's office have been ignored.' CityQuarterbackCallsEndRun; Fumbles Franchise; Flags Down; Officials Huddle If the City's franchise negotiations with Cox Cable were a Razorback game, we would be in triple overtime and the announcers would be looking for the referee's signals. (Sorry folks, we can't seem to kick the football metaphor. More details coming up at www.telecomwatch.us , when play resumes) Instant Replay: In last month's play from scrimmage(BoardMinutesSeptember30), the Telecom Board instructed City CAO Earnest to prepare a revised City Council resolution and Cox franchise agreement -- as they had conditionally amended and approved, However, the Council resolution and franchise agreement then prepared for the Council by Earnest in early October (SeeBootletResolutionandFranchise) omits those key amended items, raising flags downfield. Key unanswered questions were: Will the Telecom Board recommendations go to the Council? And who will send them and when? Have any separate agreements been made with Cox, outside the Franchise? By whom and when? In September, the Board voted 3-to-2 to approve an amended franchise agreement. However, back in August, they had been thrown for a loss and had rejected a similar agreement proposed by Earnest and the Cox representatives. (See MinutesAugust19TelecomBoard). In earlier play, the August version of the contract was "plagiarized" (Earnest's words at the June Board meeting) from the Ft.Smith franchise, rather than drawing from the City's playbook taken from 8 tedious years of franchise renewal negotiations. Surprisingly, the CAO presented only a a slightly revised agreement in September, which the Board approved conditionally -- but their amendments were supposed to be added before going to the Council. It's not clear whether the later fumble occurred in a City huddle or on the field, but the patchwork resolution now prepared for the Council simply dismisses the City's previous negotiations and disregards amendments recommended by the Board. The file sent to the City Attorney by Cox was prepared by Cox, according to the information on the file used. (See Properties on the drop-down menu of: CoxdocumentSentToCityAttorneyOctober04)(If you're into the football metaphor, it's the negotiation equivalent of a desperation "Hail Mary", bootleg, and double-reverse play. The community negotiators need a healthy Matt Jones.) Slow Motion Analysis: Telecomwatch made formal a FOIA request (FOIARequestEarnestOct7) to CAO Earnest on Oct. 7, but received only a jumble of papers in response. (If you have a fast modem, click on http://nw-ar.com/pmwiki/uploads/TelecomWatch/FOIAAmberOct19pdf6mb.pdf) to view the 6 mb of those unsorted and un-referenced materials that were scanned "as-is" from the CAO's office. We're still trying to read through the imaged mix of unsorted documents and incoherent email messages, along with un-indexed or omitted attachments, which cannot be searched electronically. We are awaiting more appropriate digital responses the week of October 25. Playbook Changes -- $40,000 Sleeper: The City also discovered in early October that the current (1989) City franchise (FranchiseFundsFound)has a stipulation for $40,000 to be reimbursed by the cable provider to cover costs of lawyers, consultants, and studies that are required for renewal negotiations. However, our FOIA request to the Accounting office indicates that none of these funds has beenused to pay for such services over the past 15 years, thus they remain available to the City. The City Attorney's office, which had not entered in the negotiation process since the CAO took over in 2001, is now reviewing the legal aspects of how these funds might still be used. (If the proposed bare-bones resolution is passed, however, it seems that the City would likely lose the $40,000, along with most of the contested franchise terms sought by the Telecom Board.) TelecomwatchAugustSeptemberAlert : Of the major agreement provisions that remained on Cox Franchise negotiation table in August, little was changed in the new revised September30Proposal or in the October "bootlegged" version, or in the version delivered after the October 28 Board meeting. (See earlier rejected proposed franchise agreement at July2004CoxFranchise.)' Attorney Mac Norton and CAO Earnest had reported a "laundry list still on table" at an earlier Telecom Board March meeting. However,the joint August 19 review by Telecom Board and Telecom Task Force versions apparently left most of their list still be on table. The items suggested for return to the table included: I-Net (Information Network),Terms of contract, Channel slam budget, Capital improvement funds Program listing, Percentage of digital capacity available to City,Tree and shrub trimming, Restoration of public ways, Extended terms, Transfer of franchise. Minutes of the August 19 meeting are at:MinutesAugust19TelecomBoard. (See "Standby Alert below, and EarlierNegotiations, for the current (1995) Franchise (CoxFranchiseAgreement1995), which was due for termination in 2000. You'll find additional information about the RedlinedRejection -- the earlier version rejected by Cox -- as well as a complete file (Attach:NeedsAndInterests1999.zip) of the original Needs And Interests study. Also, see Summer 2004 Updates below and if you're really a wonk on franchise services, take a look at RecentFranchiseRenewals, which outlines provisions of franchises in other cities. Watchmaster Footnote: The City's hired Attorney Mac Norton and CAO Hugh Earnest reported no further formal response to questions raised earlier by the Board and City in the City's January inquiry. However, Earnest had assured the Board that Cox would attend the April Board meeting, and that he expected "intense" negotiations with Cox in May and June. Norton carefully outlined the City's limited options in dealing with the cable company, and in response to Board questions, he indicated that Cox's "attitude" might be considered in weighing renewal of their franchise. Norton added that the Board might want to consider the "cumulative" effects of Cox's lack of responsiveness to the City's inquiries. Following extensive discussion, Board Member Nance was asked to explore the feasibility of other broadband options for exploration by the City, with a report back to the Board in April. BACKGROUND: Cox Cable dumped a 108-page report and curt letter back to the City in response to the City's NoticeOfConcern regarding Cox's recent rate and programming changes - a reply that was labeled "disappointing" and "uncooperative" by members of the Telecommunications Board at its Feb. 19 meeting. (See CoxNonResponse cover letter to CAO Hugh Earnest.) Watchmaster note: The Board had little time to review the unresponsive Cox cover letter and report, but requested that Attorney Mac Norton, who has extensive experience in telecommunications law and negotiations, be asked to attend the March Board meeting. The Board has suggested that Norton review the Cox documents and outline future steps that might be taken by the city as a follow-up to the City's NoticeOfConcern.
We don't pretend to know the legal ins and outs, but from the City's perspective, the practical purpose of an audit would be to get a glimpse of how Cox is doing business in Fayetteville and across NWA.... not just a challenge to the programming and rates. The NoticeOfConcern clearly spells out the major issues. Cox has 90 or so franchises in all of Arkansas, and in nearly every community and county in NWA. But Cox figures everything on a regional scale already, so Fayetteville data is buried in with the other subscribers in several counties. (Fayetteville’s subscribers, as well as in other communities --about 67,000 plus subscribers total -- are a demographic product to market, rather than individual communities to serve. See also RatesYoYoing, WhatIsYourMarchBill, and WhatisYourFebruaryBill?.) [++ Washington County "Emergency" Franchise rescheduled for review by full County Quorum Court in November. ''Watchmaster note: Review of the County franchise that is now revised for a 7-year renewal was postponed again at the October Quorum Court meeting so as to include the full Quorum Court in the vote. (See revised County franchise and letter of agreement at CountyEmergencyFranchise2004, CountySeparateAgreement2004. Also CountyFranchise1994)' Background: Cox Cable "postponed" its decision to switch Fayetteville’s PEG access channels for some of its Washington County subscribers last fall. At the Telecommunications Board's October 16 2003 meeting, Cox representatives outlined the company’s customer support services and indicated that their channel lineup would remain unchanged from the pre-Oct 21 schedule for an unspecified time. They made no comment about the length of the postponement, but indicated that they would advise the Board later. (MORE ... at Watchmaster commentary on ChannelSwitch'''
'The report is lifted straight from the Task Force website: http://www.accessfayetteville.org/city_government/city_technology_and_telecommunications_infrastructure_task_force/. It also feature the TTIF archives found at http://listserv.uark.edu/archives/ttip-l.html. Unique Task Force videos are featured in a first-of-kind Task Force listserv: http://theserver.uark.edu/ttip/.'
Our City's web site policies and digital information exchange procedures and policies were examined and detailed recommendations developed by the Telecom Board Web Site subcommittee on Feb 27. Members recommended that community input be sought at a Government Channel Round Table and via a separate interactive web site planned for development in March. As Telecom Watch understood the round- table discussion last week, the subcommittee still hasn't been given a ruling by any City entity as to whether the Telecom Board ordinance gives the Board the same authority to administer and recommend web site policy, as it clearly does for the PEG channels. As we see it, that authority and/or duty simply hasn't been established for the Board in web site policy oversight, as legally interpreted from the revised July 2003 Telecom Board ordinance. We also cannot find a City organizational chart or policy making document (or web page) that relates to the City's overall administrative guidelines for web site use and other City telecommunications issues. In our view, if the Board doesn't have the legal authority to deal with City web-site policy issues, per the July 2003 ordinance, any discussion by the Board becomes relatively academic, except in terms of advising and recommending guidelines.
See also: DowntownTelecommunicationsInfrastructure.
Watchmaster -- Competition's heating up for a shot at bringing Fayetteville new local hybrid television and telephone services. The SBCAndEchostar combo services promise additional access for area viewers ...and add another twist in regulatory oversight. Check it out at SBCAndEchostar
And WhatIsYourFebruaryBill? Were you notified of cable rate or channel changes? Do you know your current program lineup and which channels you are paying for? See RatesYoYoing...Let us know what Cox tells you. ESPN lovers see NEW LINK: CoxFansSoapbox. Or drill directly to KeyResources and IndexWikiWordsAll links for key documents.
Front Page:Washington County Cox Cable “Postpones” Decision to Switch Cox Cable "postponed" its decision to switch Fayetteville’s PEG access channels for some of its Washington County subscribers, according to Cox officials James Anderson and Nelson Mower. At the Telecommunications Board, October 16 meeting, the Cox representatives outlined the company’s customer support services and indicated that their channel lineup would remain unchanged from the pre-Oct 21 schedule for an unspecified time. They made no comment about the length of the postponement, but indicated that they would advise the Board later. (MORE ... at Watchmaster commentary on ChannelSwitch''' Front Page:Northwest Arkansas Region (SOON!) About TelecomWatch: ' TelecomWatch recycles news and background information about Fayetteville's electronic media, generating fresh insights from your comments. We consider the whole site as a do-it-yourself "opinion-editorial" page, with everyone in the community free to add their own commentary. Our primary goal is to help ensure community-wide electronic participation that can help shape local government and civic events. Thus our key topics include television, Internet, telephone and other telecommunications issues in Fayetteville and Northwest Arkansas (MORE ...at AboutTelecomWatch.) +[See AddYourCommentary, WashingtonCountyCableSwitch, BrainstormingOutsidetheBox, TaskForceCommentary, CityWebsitePolicies, TelcomBoardMeetingPackets, CoxCableRateAudit, RegionalBroadband.+] |