Laserfiche WebLink
Argument: The PEG funding in this area is much higher than other areas of the Twin <br />Cities. <br />Response: The important point is not what others have but what the needs of the NSCC <br />franchise area are. Notably absent from Comcast's list were the neighboring member cities of <br />the Ramsey/Washington Cable Commission. The PEG funding in those 13 communities are <br />actually higher than the current funding levels here. <br />Argument: There is no "information showing current usage, expected needs, or any <br />community interest in the [-Net." <br />Response: The need for the 1 -Net is outlined in detail in both the Staff Report and the <br />Report prepared by CBG Communications, Inc. <br />Argument: The NSCC used "advocacy efforts" prior to the April 17, 2014, Public <br />Hearing. <br />Response: The NSCC provided notice to the public of Comcast's proposal. Other than <br />making the public aware of the proposal and public hearing on the proposal, 1 am not aware of <br />any so-called advocacy efforts employed by the NSCC. The NSAC, which is a separate <br />organization from the NSCC, also notified the public of the public hearing. Apparently, the <br />source of Comcast's complaint related to the use of clip art on a web page. That is hardly <br />evidence of advocacy or bias. Further, no objection was made at the public hearing by Comcast. <br />Such an allegation by Comcast suggesting bias by the NSCC after the hearing appears to be <br />without merit. <br />Argument: The public comments made at the April 17, 2014, hearing cannot be used as <br />a basis for denial because the needs ascertainment was complete before the NSCC released its <br />RFRP. <br />7 <br />