how-to block ads
|
|
Share Topic
 |
 |
|
|
 marigoldsGainfully employed, finallyPremium,MVM
join:2002-05-13
Saint Louis, MO
kudos:1 | reply to fAcEtIOUs
Re: More info on this bill not in newspapers said by fAcEtIOUs:So, in effect, the localities still get to control service levels and safety. They get 5% franchise fee plus a 1% peg fee. It doesn't say that.
It says the state will get a 5% franchise fee and the city, county, and state will each receive a piece of that.
Also notice that while the PEG fee is a facitilies fee only. Facilities fees are difficult to authorize in comparison to equipment fees and operational fees (and can only be used for education and government, not public access), which are the more important fees in PEG support. These parts are typically supported by pass through fees rather than gross revenue percentage fees, and pass through fees are banned by the bill. Any locality without existing percentage fees (i.e. that uses pass-through fees), can not collect such fees.
The definition of "gross revenue" is modified by the bill. "Gross revenue" is defined as the lowest gross revenue earned by any provider in the franchise area, not by the franchise holder.
Notice also that there are no density based buildout requirements in the bill. Instead, providers are required to buildout to 40% of households within 5 years with no requirement to buildout to more than 40% of households (and with an option to extend the deadline if less than 30% of builtout households have subscribed).
The last most important aspect is that despite the assurance that "So, in effect, the localities still get to control service levels and safety," only the state courts have exclusive jurisdiction to enforce provisions on fees, PEG channels, and I-nets and only the PUC and state courts can enforce buildout standards.
And of course the most important part of the bill: it prohibits local emergency service notification requirements.
--
ISCABBS - the oldest and largest BBS on the Internet
telnet://whip.isca.uiowa.edu
Professional Geographer
Geographic Information Science researcher | |
| said by marigolds:said by fAcEtIOUs:So, in effect, the localities still get to control service levels and safety. They get 5% franchise fee plus a 1% peg fee. It doesn't say that. It says the state will get a 5% franchise fee and the city, county, and state will each receive a piece of that. And exactly where does it say that ?, because that is NOT in the analysis of the bill at this link:
»www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/bill/asm/···oor.html
--
--
Join Red Room Forum
BLOG tkjunkmail.blogspot.com
My Web Page | |
 ropeguruPremium
join:2001-01-25
Mechanicsville, VA | said by fAcEtIOUs:said by marigolds:said by fAcEtIOUs:So, in effect, the localities still get to control service levels and safety. They get 5% franchise fee plus a 1% peg fee. It doesn't say that. It says the state will get a 5% franchise fee and the city, county, and state will each receive a piece of that. And exactly where does it say that ?, because that is NOT in the analysis of the bill at this link: » www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/bill/asm/···oor.html It does say that the state will get 5%, but nothing about the localities getting a piece of that.
--
FWD#: 223611 | |
| Requires the holder of a state franchise to pay rent to each
local entity where it provides video service a franchise fee
based on the gross revenue, as defined in the statute, for the
use of the public right-of-way. If there is an incumbent cable
operator in that jurisdiction the fee shall be 5% of the holder's
gross revenue or the percentage applied to the incumbent's gross
revenue, whichever is less. If there is no local franchises or
after all local franchise have expired, the franchise fee will be
5% of gross revenue or a lower level set by the local government
thru ordinance. I'd like to see where you believe you are right. All I saw was you claiming it. No section of law cited.
--
--
Join Red Room Forum
BLOG tkjunkmail.blogspot.com
My Web Page | |
|
