Laserfiche WebLink
<br />'1Y/UJ/9~ 14:47 <br /> <br />'5'541 682 4099 <br /> <br />LCOG PSB <br /> <br />I4J 004 <br /> <br />Milo Mecham <br />November 25~ 1998 <br /> <br />done so as to have no impact on cable rates in the Lane County, Eugene, or Springfield <br />systems. Finally, AT&T and TCI can confirm that TCI Cablevision of Oregon, Inc. will not <br />be an obligor for any debt that may be incurred to meet this cash funding requirement and no <br />assets of the cable systems in Lane County, Eugene, or Springfield will be encumbered as a <br />result of any such financing. <br /> <br />5. The disclosure documents revealed that TCI and Falcon have engaged in negotiations <br />leading to the transfer of franchises from Tel to a Falcon partnership. Have there been any <br />discussions with Falcon, or are any discussions contemplated that would involve an exchange <br />of subscribers in the Eugene, Springfield and Lane County area? <br /> <br />Answer: There "areiio-pHms"60i11enlpliitihglhinsrefof1lliy franchISeS inllie bugene~-' <br />Springfield, or Lane County area at this time. <br /> <br />6. In the summary statements originally provided after the announced merger, TCI and <br />AT&T indicated a willingness to comply with all local, state and federal laws. TCI of Oregon <br />and AT&T have chosen to not comply with a lawfully enacted ordinance of the City of <br />Eugene while that ordinance is being challenged in court. Will the proposed new controlling <br />entity alter that policy in any way? Are there examples from other areas where the proposed <br />controlling entity has complied with lawfully enacted ordinance or laws despite a policy <br />disagreement concerning such laws? <br /> <br />Answer: AT&T and TCI have always confirmed that they will comply with all <br />applicable and lawfullocaI, state and federal laws. With regard to the Eugene ordinance in <br />questio~ we respectfully do not agree that it was lawfully enacted. AT&T and Tel have not <br />ignored this ordinance, but have instead filed lawsuits asking the court to declare its invalidity. <br />The lawsuits are a result of our conviction that the City's ordinance is illegal and invalid under <br />federal and state laws and the federal and state constitutions, and is void ab initio. We <br />respectfully state that this is not a "policy disagreement." Of course, we will abide by any <br />final and nonappealable judicial resolution. <br /> <br />I trust the preceding is responsive to your request. Your primary contact regarding all <br />franchise matters remains Mike White, (541) 431-3500. Should you have further questions <br />for me, please feel free to call, at (303) 298-6495. <br /> <br />.~ nl <br />/ \~ l ~ <br /> <br />Richard E. Thayer <br /> <br /> <br />cc: Gloria Crayton <br />Mike White <br />Debbie Luppold <br /> <br />l <br />3 <br />