|
Wiki Help NW-AR.COM |
TelecomwatchAugustSeptemberAlertAugust-September 2004 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. |