Laserfiche WebLink
She said that she worked to ensure that the upgrade agreement was addressed in the process, <br />and that compliance with court decisions related to Ordinance 20083 would be accepted by the <br />new corporation, AT&T Comcast. The City has received those commitments from AT&T. <br /> <br />Ms. Berrian identified other major areas of concern related to cable operations and customer <br />service, and indicated they were under discussion with AT&T. <br /> <br /> · AT&T's dispute resolution process for subscribers <br /> · AT&T non-payment of franchise fees associated with revenue received from the <br /> sale of cable modem (Internet) services <br /> · AT&T relationship to affiliates and non-affiliates accessing its cable system <br /> installed in the public rights-of-way <br /> · Compliance with customer service standards outlined in the franchise agreement <br /> <br />Ms. Berrian recommended adoption of the consent resolution with the recommended text as being <br />in the public interest. She said that while AT&T was neither conceding liability nor agreeing with <br />the City's positions, the resolution provides the best chance for solving the problems short of <br />litigation. <br /> <br />Ms. Taylor asked why the council should adopt the resolution before the issues of contention were <br />resolved, and the consequences of not approving the resolution. Ms. Berrian responded that the <br />franchise transfer process time frame was very constrained by federal law and City ordinance and <br />did not lend itself to a resolution of the issues in this transfer process. She pointed out that two of <br />the issues of concern were being addressed by the courts, and the other two would require an <br />investigation that would take longer than the transfer time frame allowed. In the absence of <br />council action within a certain time frame, under federal law the transfer would be deemed <br />unconditionally approved. Ms. Berrian said the council could deny the transfer, and risk that <br />AT&T will deem the denial unlawful and take legal action against the City. She noted that the <br />merger was to be considered by the Federal Communication Commission (FCC) in fall or winter <br />2002. <br /> <br />Mr. Kelly had concerns over the customer service issues, changes to the arbitration process, and <br />delays in the system upgrade. He noted the resolution referenced a letter of agreement <br />committing all parties to work on the four issues, and asked if the letter had been signed by AT&T. <br />Ms. Berrian said yes. If the council approved the consent resolution, she would present it to the <br />City Manager for his signature. <br /> <br />Mr. Kelly cited a memorandum written to the MPC in March 2002 by Mr. Mecham recommending <br />against the transfer approval and suggesting that the corporation was not acting in good faith and <br />might not be qualified to hold the franchise. He asked what had changed since that memorandum <br />was written. Mr. Mecham responded that at that time, the corporation had stated it would not <br />provide any information or hold discussions; since then, discussions had taken place and the <br />corporation had agreed that the local governments had legitimate concerns and wished to resolve <br />them. <br /> <br />Mr. Kelly asked if the City had received a construction schedule for the system upgrade, and if <br />checkpoints had been met. Ms. Berrian said that the checkpoints had been met, and a schedule <br />would be available in June 2002. Customer service representatives would soon be able to <br />respond to callers wishing to know when their neighborhood would be upgraded. Mr. Kelly asked <br /> <br /> MINUTES--Eugene City Council May 22, 2002 Page 3 <br /> Work Session <br /> <br /> <br />