Laserfiche WebLink
The competitive equity requirements of Minnesota law and Charter's Franchise are clear: any <br /> franchise granted by the City to Frontier must contain substantially similar substantive terms and <br /> conditions as the Charter Franchise. <br /> C. There Are Substantial Pubic Policy Reasons for Competitive Equity. <br /> Beyond the legal and contractual mandates the City must follow, sound public policy reasons <br /> exist for competitive equity among cable service providers. Charter and other providers <br /> currently operate in a very competitive environment. DirecTV (now owned by AT&T) is a <br /> significant competitor, as well as other direct-to-home satellite program distributors like Dish <br /> that transmit video programming, data and other information by satellite to customers receiving <br /> dishes. Other companies currently prvidea wide varietyof services that compete with cable— <br /> Netflix, Amazon, Roku and Apple TV to name a few. Charter expects that it will likely face <br /> additional competition in the future from other competitors using additional spectrum the FCC <br /> has made available for wireless services. <br /> If the City were to hold Frontier to a different standard than Charter or other franchised <br /> competitors, it would confer unwarranted preferential treatment on Frontier in violation of <br /> Charter's Franchise and state law, and at the expense of City residents. This not only would <br /> create "have" and"have-not" classes among City residents, but would sanction an unfair and <br /> anticompetitive situation in contravention of federal, state, and local policies. <br /> Moreover, if Frontier were allowed to "cherry-pick" only the areas of the City it chooses to <br /> serve, it is highly unlikely that other facilities-based providers would consider competing in <br /> Delano. Capital intensive projects like cable systems work economically when they are balanced <br /> across an entire City. If Frontier can ignore the less economically attractive parts of the City and <br /> serve only what it chooses, that makes the market less attractive to the next potential provider. <br /> Given these governing laws and policies, the City should reject the invitation to create a <br /> privileged cable provider unfettered by the significant public accountability and broad service <br /> requirements applicable to its competitors. <br /> If Frontier were to cure these deficiencies in its Application and the City proposed an additional <br /> franchise for Frontier, Charter expects an opportunity to review and comment on whether that <br /> franchise complies with state law and is granted on substantially similar substantive terms and <br /> conditions as Charter's Franchise. <br /> We would be happy to respond to any questions or comments that the City might have. <br /> Sincerely, <br /> Gary Underwood, VP, State Gov't Affairs <br /> cc: City Administrator <br /> Chair, Sherburne/Wright Counties Cable Communications Commission <br /> Robert Vose, Esq. <br /> 5 <br />