• View
• Edit
• History
• Print

FranchiseExtended

Franchise Negotiations Extended... Cont. from Page 1

The initial one-page agreement proposed by Cox has few specifics about what the City or Cox's Fayetteville subscribers might receive in return. However, the extra stipulations added to the agreement by the Board are likely to draw heavily from the City’s own 72-page franchise proposal, which had been largely rejected by Cox in a heavily RedlinedRejection.

Cox's unilateral Washington county channel switch also suggests that Cox will continue with its own game plan for developing regional coverage. However, under the proposed new Cox agreement with the City of Fayetteville, the Telecom Board and the City also will set up a “TaskForce” to explore a region-wide broadband telecommunications network for NWA Arkansas, The scope and operational aspects of the Task Force remain to be determined. (Local citizens interested in serving on the Task Force are asked to contact TelecomBoardChair? Susan Cromwell or Hugh Earnest, ChiefAdministrativeOfficer?.

At stake, aside from rates and programming, are potential Cox services that could strengthen our local and regional television and broadband telecommunications and bring us up to speed with other cities in the region. As outlined in earlier versions of the franchise that the City has proposed with Cox, franchise services from the cable operator could include additional channels for medical and emergency services, education, and related governmental activities. Negotiations also could include major capital improvement funds, as with the $300,000 obtained with the 1991 franchise.

In return for the “renting” the City’s rights of way, Cox now pays a 5% fee on their local gross revenues, which have amounted to well over $450 , 000 yearly to the City and provides funds for the local PEG access television services -- another item up for discussion. (Fayetteville is the only city in Arkansas that takes advantage of the PEG channel franchising provisions available under provisions of the 1996 Telecommunications Act: http://www.fcc.gov/telecom.html. Cox currently pays no fees on its high-speed modem services, although the City has protested that exclusion.

At the August Telecom Board meeting, there was only brief discussion of the Cox rate increase audit that was proposed at a special City Council forum in 2002 and funded by the Council. That audit was never completed due to the City’s inability to gain access to Cox records. An OutsourcedAuditor? was contracted for the audit, which was intended to obtain information that might help Fayetteville subscribers obtain a lower “basic cable rate” or “lifeline service”, which Cox bumped up by 76% in 2001.

However, at the September Board meeting, there was discussion of the possibility of further City-staff audits of Cox’s records to determine the level of compliance with the requirement for Cox’s fee payments. These fees are projected to be well over $500, 000 for 2003. The City has no authority to regulate any of Cox’s rates or programming, except during franchise negotiations.

The Telecommunications Board also reviewed recent revisions made to the Telecommunications Board web site on the City’s facilities. Board Chair Cromwell has agreed to work with the City to streamline the related policy and Board content. A more user friendly address and format has been selected at: http://accessfayetteville.org/city_government/telecommunications_board. The TelecomBoardWebSitePolicy? is now under review.