From: DDeBar (spikey@BestWeb.net)
Date: Thu Jun 29 2000 - 07:16:32 EDT
Think it's a great idea, with one important caveat:
The county should put the resources at the disposal of each of the
municipalities, as you suggest; this should not become a situation where
the county displaces the municipalities.
Really late right now, had a closing that lasted 'til 3am this morning!
Wanna chat? 649-6597...
> From: YTdave@AOL.COM
> To: email@example.com
> Subject: Re: WATPA: Taxing the Internet, Quietly
> Date: Wednesday, June 28, 2000 8:12 AM
> Yes, the rationale for franchise fees is that the cable operator (now
> telecomm operator) is using the public rights of way.
> No, there isn't a standard agreement, and you bring up a key point. Now,
> with merger mania hitting the telecomm industry, most municipalities have
> fresh opportunity to look at all issues relating to cable and telecomm.
> suggested to Norm that we approach the County to establish a County
> cable/telecomm coordinator, to be available as a resource to
> Otherwise, most of us are at the mercy of the phalanx of attorneys
> by Big Cable.
> County cable coordinator could collect and compare all the local
> and suggest a model contract for all of us little guys. Each
> could kick in, say 1/2 of 1% of their franchise fees to fund it.
> What do you think?
> Dave Wright
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.2 : Fri May 31 2002 - 23:55:01 EDT