| reply to marigolds
Re: More info on this bill not in newspapers 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 |
|
