My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Agenda Packets - 1996/09/23
MoundsView
>
Commissions
>
City Council
>
Agenda Packets
>
1990-1999
>
1996
>
Agenda Packets - 1996/09/23
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/28/2025 4:50:07 PM
Creation date
6/18/2018 2:38:17 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
MV Commission Documents
Commission Name
City Council
Commission Doc Type
Agenda Packets
MEETINGDATE
9/23/1996
Supplemental fields
City Council Document Type
City Council Packets
Date
9/23/1996
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
126
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).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
MEMORANDUM <br /> August 9, 1996 • <br /> Page 10 <br /> All of these issues are addressed later in this report. <br /> The cable systems will continue to be operated by the existing subsidiaries, and the <br /> franchise holders will not change. <br /> A chart showing current ownership/control structure of the entities is attached hereto as <br /> Exhibit 3. A post-merger chart is attached hereto as Exhibit 4. <br /> 4. LEGAL QUALIFICATIONS. <br /> The legal qualifications standard relates primarily to an analysis of whether US West or <br /> its subsidiary is duly organized and authorized to own the cable systems. It should be noted that <br /> current federal law has shifted dramatically regarding the ownership of cable systems. US West <br /> maynotpurchaseand <br /> own these cable systems (except Hudson/North Hudson) because the cable <br /> systems are located in US West telephone service territory. <br /> US West has filed a Petition for Special Relief requesting an 18 month temporary waiver <br /> to own the Minnesota systems. The comment period runs through August 20, 1996, and this <br /> office is responding on behalf of the Authorities. It will be argued that the Telecommunications <br /> Act of 1996 requires approval by the the Authority of any Request for Waiver on behalf of US <br /> West. <br /> Counsel for US West proposed that any consent to FCC 394 could be considered a consent <br /> to the ownership waiver. That argument is specifically rejected by this analysis and any resolution <br /> adopted to consent to this transfer should specifically state that it is not a consent to a waiver. <br /> S <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.