My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
10-11-2000 Council Agenda
>
City Council Packets
>
2000-2009
>
2000
>
10-11-2000 Council Agenda
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/12/2014 1:58:25 PM
Creation date
6/26/2012 2:05:43 PM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
42
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
MediaOne <br />Law & Public Policy Department <br />10 River Park Plaza <br />SL Paul, MN 55107 <br />Telephone: (612) 312-5280 <br />Facsimile: (612) 312 -5288 <br />David G. Seykora <br />Vice President - Law & Public Policy <br />July 18, 2000 <br />Cor Wilson, Administrator <br />North Suburban Cable Commission <br />950 Woodhili Dr <br />Roseville, MN 55113 <br />Dear Ms. Wilson: <br />Media©ne <br />This is Broadband. This is the way. <br />We understand that the Cities of Arden Hills, Roseville, St. Anthony, Mounds View, <br />Lauderdale, Shoreview, North Oaks, New Brighton, Little Canada, and Falcon Heights (the <br />"Cities ") have been approached recently by GLA — Everest, Wide Open West and perhaps <br />others seeking authorization to operate a cable communications system in the Cities. <br />While MediaOne /AT &T welcomes the challenge of increased competition, we <br />believe it is incumbent upon the Cities to ensure a "level playing field" whereby any <br />franchise or authorization granted to any competing cable operator or other provider of <br />similar services does not favor the new operator in terms of franchise benefits or burdens <br />or regulatory rights and obligations. If the Cities were not to assure such a "level playing <br />field," the benefits that could come from increased competition would not be realized. <br />As a threshold matter, we would like to bring to your attention that Minnesota <br />Statutes outline many specific required franchising procedures and considerations. <br />Minnesota Statutes also provide that: <br />(b) No municipality shall grant additional franchise for cable service for an <br />area included in an existing franchise on terms and conditions more <br />favorable or less burdensome than those in the existing franchise pertaining <br />to: (1) the area served; (2) public, educational, or governmental access <br />requirements; or (3) franchise fees. ... Nothing in this paragraph prevents a <br />municipality from imposing additional terms and conditions on any additional <br />franchises. (Minnesota Statutes Section 238.08(1)(b)) <br />In addition, Section 2.2.c of our Franchise provides as follows: <br />This Franchise shall be nonexclusive, and City reserves the right to grant a <br />Franchise to any Person at any time during the period of this Franchise for the <br />provision of Cable Service. The terms and conditions of any such Franchise shall <br />PAGE 1 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.