2007-02-26 Regular - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

February 26, 2007 said that they take nothing for certain and University City is 100 % DSL ready and is a compact municipality. If the bill passes, AT&T will service areas they have an existing agreement with. Neal Gilb, Charter Communication representative Mr. Gilb stated that there are differences between AT&T’s and Charter’s contracts. AT&T’s agreement is seven pages and Charter’s agreement is twenty pages in addition to a sixty-five page cable regulatory code agreement. He said the Charter’s prices didn’t decrease when competition arrived but rather they were able to reduce prices when packages were bundled together to offer a lower price. Mr. Gilb said that according to the Post Dispatch, AT&T is pushing a service that would not be seen until 2008 or 2009. If AT&T say they are offering equal services, why did they just not take the same agreement and just insert their name in place of Charter? Mr. Gilb distributed photos of AT&T video boxes that have been installed in various areas of St. Louis. He stated that Charter’s educational channels will not go away with State Bill 284 nor will its free connection to schools be cancelled. When the SB284 passes, any video company can opt out of any agreement they are presently in, including AT&T. Mr. Gilb said that Charter will consider opting out of their franchise when a municipality signs a contract with another video supplier. At this point, Charter may opt to wait for the passage of SB284 before they ask to have their franchise amended. Mr. Gilb said that agreements with all video companies should be equal and the market will be driven by value and service. Mayor Adams asked Mr. Gilb what the differences were from SB284 and the present agreement the city is seeking with AT&T. Mr. Gilb said that SB284 will treat all parties equally. Without agreeing to include the state regulatory code, AT&T does not have guidelines to follow. Mr. Martin said the two main differences would be the preferential placement of the video boxes in the right-of-way or the request of easement to private property owners and the subsequent notice to the City as to where AT&T would like to place the video boxes. Secondly, the agreement with AT&T would guarantee at least three years of CALOP funding. Neither Charter nor AT&T favored this funding under SB 284. Mr. Price asked Mr. Martin if there were any provisions for a service agreement under either contract. Mr. Martin said there was but it would take resources that the city might not have or want to use, to fight the issue. Mr. Price asked the City Manager to supply him with the codes enforcing a service agreement. He also wanted information on whether the City has ever enacted any of these provisions. Mr. Sharpe, Jr., inquired about the video box placement from the City’s attorney, Mr. Martin. Mr. Martin said that the Public Right-of-Way is approximately twelve feet from either side of the street. The city would have the right to tell AT&T where they would like the video box to be placed. On private property, AT&T would have to obtain an easement and the City would have to be given notice where the boxes would be placed. The City then has the option to determine if this is the best placement and could go to court to enforce their preference list. Under SB 284 there is no protection for the location of the large video boxes. 5