My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
4.0.b. SWCSR 09-08-2016
ElkRiver
>
City Government
>
Boards and Commissions
>
Sherburne Wright Cable Commission
>
SWC Packets
>
2016
>
09-08-2016
>
4.0.b. SWCSR 09-08-2016
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
10/4/2016 10:00:34 AM
Creation date
10/4/2016 10:00:34 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Government
type
SWCSR
date
9/8/2016
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
5
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
violate Charter's Franchise and Minnesota law. The City also would confer unwarranted <br /> preferential treatment on Frontier at the expense of City residents who have come to expect fair <br /> and universal access to services in the City. <br /> A. The Application is Deficient Because It Fails to Show the Applicant's Legal, <br /> Technical and Financial Qualifications. <br /> Minnesota law requires specific information regarding the legal, financial and technical <br /> qualifications of the applicant.' Among other information, a franchising proposal must contain <br /> (i) a schedule for construction of the entire system; (ii) a schedule for activating the cable system <br /> and two-way capacity; (iii) the terms and conditions for service to governmental and educational <br /> entities;(iv) a schedule of proposed rates; and (v)plans for financing the system. <br /> For instance, Frontier's Application provides almost none of the critical information required by <br /> the Minnesota Cable Act: <br /> (i) A time schedule for construction of the entire system with the time sequence <br /> for wiring various parts of the area requested to be served.2 <br /> Frontier's Application states: <br /> "Frontier is still finalizing its schedule for deployment of cable services throughout the <br /> City of Delano service area. [Emphasis added] <br /> Frontier uses the next five (5) pages of its abbreviated Application to argue why it shouldn't have <br /> to provide service in compliance with Minnesota law. Frontier's response dodges the question <br /> and ignores the statutory mandate to provide service throughout Frontier's telephone service <br /> area,3 which encompasses the vast majority of the City. As such, the City has no legal authority <br /> to act on Frontier's invitation to disregard state law. <br /> (ii) The schedule for activating cable and two-way capacity! <br /> Frontier's Application states: <br /> "While an exact launch date has yet to be determined, Frontier is working diligently to <br /> complete all necessary work and required testing and operational readiness review to <br /> offer service to customers upon successful execution of a Franchise Agreement." <br /> [Emphasis added] <br /> 1 Minn. Stat. 238.081, Subd. 4. <br /> 2 Id. at(a)(6). <br /> 3 Minn. Stat. 238.08 Subd. 1(c). <br /> 4 Minn. Stat. 238.081 Subd. 4(a)(3)(ii). <br /> 2 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.