12-14-2015 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Search

o A schedule of proposed rates in relation to the services to be provided, and a proposed policy regarding unusual or difficult connection of services. See Exhibit 2 at p. 4 and Exhibit 3 at ¶1123- 27. ¶23- 27. o A statement indicating the applicant's qualifications and experience in the cable communications field, if any. See Exhibit 2 at pp. 4-5 and Exhibit 3 at ¶¶ 6, and 35-36. o An identification of the municipalities in which the applicant either owns or operates a cable communications system, directly or indirectly, or has outstanding franchises for which no system has been built. See Exhibit 2 at p. 4 and Exhibit 3 at ¶ 37. o Plans for financing the proposed system. See Exhibit 6 at p. 5 and Exhibit 3 at If 38. o A statement of ownership detailing the corporate organization of the applicant. See Exhibit 2 at p. 5 and Exhibit 3 at ¶¶ 1-6. As required by the Minnesota Cable Act, CenturyLink provided a notation and explanation of omissions or other variations with respect to the requirements of the proposal. In particular, CenturyLink indicated that it would not provide information relating to the area - served application requirement because it believes Federal law preempts the State law 5 -year build out requirement. See Exhibit 3 at ¶¶28-31 and Testimony of Jim Campbell of CenturyLink.27 There was documentary and testimonial evidence received into the record concerning CenturyLink's build -out of the NMTC. See Exhibit 5. While Comcast expressed concern over the build -out commitment of CenturyLink if awarded a cable franchise by the NMTC, there was no objection to CenturyLink explaining why it omitted build -out information in its cable franchise application. For purposes of complying with the state's application requirements only, CenturyLink has adequately explained why it omitted a time schedule for construction of the entire system with the time sequence for wiring the various parts of the area requested to be served in. Therefore, it has substantially complied with the application filing requirements in state law. This should not be interpreted to mean the NMTC accepts CenturyLink's position. In the event that the NMTC authorizes staff to negotiate a franchise with CenturyLink, acceptable build -out provisions will need to be negotiated consistent with this Report. Finally, the NMTC Competitive Franchising Policies and Procedures indicate that a proposed franchise must be included in a cable franchise application. A proposed franchise was not included in the application. The absence of a proposed franchise does not render the application as substantially incomplete. Since the Parties must negotiate a cable franchise if the NMTC authorizes its staff to negotiate a franchise with the applicant, the inclusion of a proposed franchise was unnecessary. In addition, it was unnecessary for assessing the qualifications of the applicant. 27 Mr. Campbell's testimony on the 5 -Year Build Statute can be found at the 20:30 mark of the Public Hearing. See FN 2 above. 14