My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
07-27-1994 Council Agenda
>
City Council Packets
>
1990-1999
>
1994
>
07-27-1994 Council Agenda
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
10/7/2013 2:00:54 PM
Creation date
10/7/2013 1:53:43 PM
Metadata
Jump to thumbnail
< previous set
next set >
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
244
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
MACTA WHITE PAPER <br />Page 5 <br />Upon identification of those public policy concerns, this discussion argues that a <br />regulatory scheme can be developed which is provider neutral and tied directly to the service <br />to be provided. <br />GENERAL CHARACTERISTICS OF REGULATORY SCHEME <br />Any scheme which is developed should be provider neutral. Regulation should not <br />depend on the provider. As long as public easements or rights -of -way are utilized to provide <br />a nonessential communications service, the rules, minimum standards and the level of <br />government enforcement authority should apply to that service. A provider, then, would not <br />be a "utility company" no matter what its business, rather each service would be examined to <br />determine its essential nature. Services become a "utility" or not, depending upon their <br />essential nature. For example, telephone companies and other providers may provide some <br />utility services while offering some services which are not. <br />Utility services would generally be regulated at the state level, with the state assuming <br />most enforcement with a minimum of local involvement, while nonessential services would <br />be regulated pursuant to state (and federal) minimum standards, enforced at the local level. <br />ESTABLISHMENT OF STANDARDS VS. ENFORCEMENT <br />Although arguments may be made that utility services should also be regulated to <br />some extent at the local level, the traditions and existing regulatory schemes associated with <br />utility regulation are too entrenched for municipalities to overcome at this time. Dwindling <br />local resources, coupled with existing regulatory bureaucracies at the Public Utilities <br />Commission and local influence from such organizations as the Suburban Rate Authority, <br />lead to the conclusion that local governments should focus on influencing regulation of <br />non - utility communication services. Existing local avenues for influencing the regulation of <br />utilities would be maintained. <br />Focusing on the regulation of nonessential, non - utility communication services which <br />utilize the public easements and rights -of -way, two major functions must be undertaken: <br />1. Establishment of rules and standards of performance, and <br />2. Enforcement of any rules and standards of performance. <br />A regulatory environment where a majority of the rules and minimum standards of <br />performance (with exceptions noted below) are established at the state and federal level <br />would emerge from this policy framework. <br />Page 6 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.