Laserfiche WebLink
with an opportunity to speak, and it would give EWEB flexibility in designing telecommunications <br />business arrangements. <br /> <br />Mr. Dyer asked the City Council to authorize placing a ballot measure amending the charter to <br />give EWEB telecommunications authority on the May ballot. Should EWEB be granted the <br />authority, it would not diminish the City's telecommunications authority. He invited questions. <br /> <br />Ms. Nathanson said she strongly supported EWEB's proposal because telecommunications <br />infrastructure was fast becoming a needed utility. She asked if EWEB would seek outside <br />expertise before it negotiated with content providers. She also noted that the provision of <br />content was not excluded in the charter language proposed by EWEB, and asked Mr. Dyer to <br />clarify EWEB's intent. Mr. Dyer said that the board had taken the position that EWEB was not a <br />content provider, and would not be in the cable, Internet, or telephone business. Others would <br />provide content. <br /> <br />Responding to Ms. Nathanson's first question, Ms. Beeson anticipated that the development <br />partner ultimately selected by EWEB would have expertise in the field, and that EWEB would <br />probably hire multiple consultants to work with it on the effort. <br /> <br />Mr. Kelly also supported the proposal as described in the council meeting packet. He questioned <br />why the authority sought by EWEB could not be fine-tuned somewhat to allay his concerns about <br />EWEB as a content provider. He suggested that EWEB add a third sentence to section 44(1) of <br />the charter that read "Services that are not related to energy would be provided by private <br />companies as partners with or subcontractors to EWEB." Mr. Deason observed that technology <br />and services were evolving much faster than the law, and federal and state regulators were <br />playing "catch up" in understanding how those services and technologies fit into regulatory <br />classifications. He said that while there was some distinction in the law between transporting <br />content and providing it, there was no guarantee the distinction would remain valid as technology <br />evolved. Mr. Deason said that he believed that Mr. Kelly's suggested revision, while clarifying <br />some situations, could also lead to challenges regarding what is an actual energy service versus <br />what was a telecommunications service. He had recommended that EWEB seek broad authority <br />to be prepared to take advantage of services and technologies not available yet. Mr. Kelly noted <br />concern on the part of industry regarding the distinction. <br /> <br />City Attorney Glenn Klein believed that the council could include language including the <br />distinction noted by Mr. Kelly in a charter amendment. Mr. Berggren added that the courts would <br />eventually determine the limits of EWEB's authority as the law was defined over the next few <br />years. <br /> <br />Mr. Farr perceived the proposal as a step in providing telecommunications services to all <br />citizens. He asked how the infrastructure being installed by AT&T differed from the infrastructure <br />contemplated by EWEB. Mr. Beeson said that EWEB's system would be an advanced, modern, <br />high-speed band system that would be located as close to the customers as possible. The <br />infrastructure would be owned by the community, and it would have community oversight. Mr. <br />Fart asked to what extent the system competed with AT&T, and if it would be subsidized by other <br />EWEB operations. Mr. Dyer said that the service would not be subsidized, would not subsidize <br />other services, and would be self-sufficient. Mr. Beeson added that the system would be open to <br />multiple interested service providers. <br /> <br />MINUTES--Eugene City Council February 7, 2000 Page 2 <br /> Work Session <br /> <br /> <br />