My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
ERMUSR OTHER BUSINESS 03-18-2003
ElkRiver
>
City Government
>
Boards and Commissions
>
Utilities Commission
>
Packets
>
2003-2013
>
2003
>
03-18-2003
>
ERMUSR OTHER BUSINESS 03-18-2003
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
10/2/2013 3:17:00 PM
Creation date
10/2/2013 3:16:59 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Government
type
ERMUSR
date
3/18/2003
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
18
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
update service,the updated service might be provided without them. City council people <br /> are elected to make decisions for the city,just as state legislators are elected to make <br /> decisions for the state. The referendum requirement is a barrier to entry, given <br /> prohibitions on municipal advocacy on ballot issues. <br /> Joint ventures make sense.Municipal utilities have authority to enter into joint ventures <br /> with other entities for the provision of electric service. It is a logical extension to include <br /> telecommunications under the municipal joint venture authority. Municipal utilities are <br /> perfect partners for local telephone companies in the provision of broadband access in <br /> underserved areas. Cooperation between municipal utilities and telephone companies <br /> could result in a sharp reduction in the costs of making and delivering broadband <br /> services. It's a synergistic situation, where cooperation between the two could attract <br /> more customers for both. <br /> Joint ventures may make sense in many instances,but the fact remains that a city must <br /> have a willing partner to joint venture. Gladly, some independent phone companies <br /> appreciate this fact. According to at least one telecom company executive, municipal <br /> utilities are attractive business partners because: <br /> • Municipal utilities are vitally interested in their communities. <br /> • They have infrastructure that is thoroughly and accurately mapped (which <br /> translates into cost savings). <br /> • They understand construction. <br /> • They have been delivering sales and service functions for years. <br /> • Municipal funding can lower the cost of construction—Municipals can get it <br /> done. <br /> The local service option. In early 1999, US West wrote to city officials in its service <br /> areas advising them the company had decided to sell selected telephone properties in <br /> Minnesota"to assure that all of Minnesota customers have a high quality of <br /> telecommunication service." That sale fell through and many Minnesota customers are <br /> still waiting for high quality service. If the company, now known as Qwest, decides to <br /> reduce its staggering debt burden in part by selling exchanges, it should be required to <br /> offer them individually to local interests, including cities and municipal utilities. <br /> Conclusion. Cities should be able to offer all telecom services without barriers. The <br /> contention that public bodies shouldn't provide a service offered by private enterprise is <br /> disingenuous, as in many areas of the state the private sector is unable or unwilling to <br /> provide these services. In these localities, municipalities may be the only viable means of <br /> introducing such services. Like the small, rural telecos, municipals agree broadband <br /> access is crucial to a city's economic future. <br /> Minnesota Municipal Utilities Association <br /> February 2003 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.