Minutes - 19870601 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

- ° ~_~ Randall Roden, attorney for Carolina Cable, questioned whether or not amending the Ordinance would automatically amends the franchise under which Carolina Cable is operating. He stated that a cable company is not a utility that can be regulated by a County. It is a media of expression. The only .law in North Carolina authorizing counties to control cable television is a provision which permits counties to grant franchises on reasonable terms. There are two parties to a franchise and it can't be changed by one of the parties but must be agreed upon by both parties. If a county amends an ordinance, it does not automatically impose upon Carolina cable whatever changes are made in the franchising ordinance because it has not been,accepted,by the existing operators. He noted that the current franchise requires the payment of 3; on certain revenues as a franchise fee. The current ordinance changes the ~3~ fee to 5~. Roden stated that increasing this fee is unfair and beyond the power of a County to do. Ryden indicated that~the ordinance reflects a major change in the policy regarding cable television for Orange County. The line extension policy was originally limited to areas with 30 homes per mile on an average from the point where the extension would be made. This allowed the cable company to expand as the population increased. He disagreed with the technical requirements as outlined in the Ordinance. This would mean that a new company would nat be required to have two way communication but at the same time does not relieve Carolina Cable from the requirement in their franchise to provide two--way communication. He supports equal terms for all cable providers and the continuation of maintaining the high standards as originally set forth. He-indicated a problem with the definitions as contained in the Ordinance -and asked that these definitions be clarified. In summary, Mr. Roden asked that the problems the Ordinance is designed to address be reviewed before the Ordinance is approved. In answer to a question from Commissioner Hartwell, Mr. Roden stated that the revision in the overbuilt requirement would not be an incentive for Carolina Cable to pay an additional fee. Discussion ensued on the extension of the trunk cables as proposed in. the Ordinance. There is no provision in the ordinance or a timetable for the building of this cable. Commissioner Hartwell assured Mr. Roden that all cable companies in the County would be treated equal. Gledhill expressed disagreement with the statement that the County cannot charge Carolina Cable 5$ and stated that the franchise fee is not critical to the decision to be made at this time. The two-way capability amendment incorporates the recommendation from the Cable Television Advisory Committee. They felt there was little demand for the two-way capability and felt that it should not be required by the County. The two-way communication system was offered by Village in their proposal and was simply accepted by the County. It was not a requirement of the County but the acceptance had. to be incorporated into the franchise ordinance. To treat both companies equally, this requirement could either be deleted from the franchise held by Carolina Cable or added as a requirement in the Ordinance. With regard to the trunk cable, the issue is whether or not the County wants to impose a timetable for the building of this trunk cable. Gledhill stated that the County could grant a franchise to another cable operator in Orange County without requiring that company to have two-way capability. Jim Medlin from Greensboro and representing Alert stated agreement with the proposed Ordinance and urged its adoption. Discussion ensued on the two-way capability requirement. It was decided that several issues need to be addressed. One issue is that the franchise for Alert should have a builtin timetable for trunk cable for ..-~ ~.