My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Browse
Search
AgdaPkt 2007-01-08
RedwoodCity
>
City Clerk
>
Agenda Packets
>
2000-2009 partial
>
2007
>
AgdaPkt 2007-01-08
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/9/2007 9:55:38 AM
Creation date
1/4/2007 2:25:18 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CC Index
CC Index - Document Type
Agenda Packet
Meeting Type
Joint
Agency Type
City Council & Redevelopment
Date
1/8/2007
Jump to thumbnail
< previous set
next set >
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
291
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
<br />On behalf of its members, SAM CAT has retained Telecommunications <br />Management Corp. (TMC) to evaluate the requested transfer. TMC's evaluation <br />is provided in this report. <br /> <br />The Forms 394 are dated September 20, 2006 and September 21, 2006. <br />It is not clear whether the Forms were received on the dates indicated above, <br />although the letter accompanying each Form states that the documents were <br />hand delivered on the date of the letter (see sample in Appendix A). The receipt <br />date is of some significance, since the 1992 Cable Act requires a local <br />franchising authority to take action on a franchise within 120 days (see Appendix <br />B). Consequently, if September 20,2006 is used as the starting date, the <br />deadline for taking action would be January 18. 2007. <br /> <br />It should also be noted that the 120--day deadline depends on the receipt <br />of "such information as is required in accordance with Commission regulations <br />and bv the franchisinq authority" (emphasis added). Consequently, if a <br />franchising authority requests relevant information regarding the transfer and <br />does not receive it, or the operator fails to provide all franchise-required transfer <br />documentation, the deadline for review may be extended. Many cable operators <br />dispute this position, however, and claim that the 120-day period cannot be <br />"tolled." <br /> <br />In any event, as Appendix B indicates, the deadline can be extended if <br />both parties agree to the extension. <br /> <br />B. Back~round <br /> <br />In 1999 and 2000; the nine agreements were executed bytheRCN <br />communities to introduce competitive with the incumbent cable operator and <br />telephone service provider. RCN currently provides video, voice and data <br />services to subscribers in five of the communities (Burlingame, Daly City, <br />Redwood City, San Mateo and South San Francisco). <br /> <br />The agreements contain the following language (extracted from Section <br />2.5 of the San Carlos agreement): <br /> <br />"Franchise Non-Transferable <br /> <br />(a) Grantee shall not sell, transfer, lease, assign or dispose of, <br />in whole or in part, either by forced or involuntary sale, or by <br />ordinary sale, contract, consolidation or otherwise, the Franchise or <br />any of the rights or privileges herein granted, without the prior <br />consent of the Council, which consent shall not be unreasonably <br />denied, withheld or delayed; provided, however, that the prior <br />written consent of the Council shall not be required for an <br />intracorporate or intracompany transfer from one wholly-owned <br />subsidiary to another wholly-owned subsidiary. Any attempt to sell. <br /> <br />2 <br /> <br />6:30 <br />Page 41 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.