2007-02-26 Regular - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

February 26, 2007 Both hearings relating to the expansion and rezoning of #1 McKnight Place were continued to the Council session on March 19, 2007, at the request of the developer, Mr. Charlie Deutsch. 3. AT&T Video The Public Hearing was opened at 6:55 p.m. Paul Martin, attorney representing University City in negotiating a contract with AT&T and its coverage. He clarified that he was not present to be an advocate for either side. Mr. Martin said the main purpose of the agreement would be to bring competition for video service in University City. He mentioned that two concerns of the councilmembers about the AT&T agreement were the amount and years of CALOP’s funding and secondly, the video box placements. Mr. Martin said the agreement with AT&T is covered by the State Cable Regulatory Code and what is required of Charter will also be required of AT&T. It is Mr. Martin’s opinion that this agreement does not benefit AT&T more nor burden Charter Communications. He said Charter representatives do not agree and felt their company would be unfairly disadvantaged by this agreement. Charter will have the right to modify their existing franchise agreement with University City if U.City signs the agreement with AT&T. Mr. Martin wanted to make clear that the City has the right to negotiate this placement. The agreement also states that the City is to be notified of the placement on private property and the City has the right to negotiate its placement by preferences listed. Lastly, the Public Educational Government (PEG) access programming and CALOP funding under the AT&T agreement would read the same as what Charter is presently providing. However, AT&T will not provide the connection fee. He said that this fee would be backed-out of University City’s franchise fee or out of CALOP’s funding. Mr. Martin said that this is the price of supplying competition. This CALOP funding is guaranteed for the next three years no matter what the state legislation passes. Ms. Brot asked that if University City signs the agreement with AT&T if that meant the agreement with Charter will automatically be voided. Mr. Martin assured Ms. Brot that this would not be true but Charter could come back to the City and ask for a modification of their franchise agreement with a justifiable reason. Ms. Brot asked about the possibility of AT&T redlining, excluding areas of the City, from receiving this service. Mr. Martin said that there is a non-discrimination provision in the agreement and it will be dependent on how much of the City is covered by AT&T’s DSL service. The Missouri Senate’s bill does not have a 100 percent build-out for video services in the senate bill. Ms. Brot asked about the legality of what prevails if the agreement with AT&T is signed prior to the passage by the state legislature of its bill on cable services; will our adopted legislation be grandfathered in if the state law was passed after U.City adopted its ordinance? Mr. Martin said that he will attach a letter from AT&T of their guarantee to University City for three years. Ms. Ricci asked about the lack of an audit provision in the AT&T agreement. Mr. Martin said that the audit is provided under the State’s Cable Regulatory code. She said that Charter has listed an audit provision and questioned why Charter would include it if it was not necessary to do so. Mr. Martin could not say why 3