Orange County NC Website
Browse       Search
~o <br />Brown said that "some say 91% of Orange County's population has access to high speed <br />Internet," but some others question this. It depends in part upon how you define "high <br />speed," he said. In any event, he said, TAC is not interested in addressing the issues <br />being raised tonight. I wish now that I had not even brought it up with them, he said. <br />So who is addressing the communication aspects of cable, Mr. Barker asked, especially <br />the impact of having high speed Internet services in an area? Mr. Boyarsky said that <br />from this discussion it is not clear to him whether a County advisory group is involved in <br />addressing rural citizens' access to high speed intent, but it is clear that CAC should <br />recommend to the Board that such involvement ought to be happening. If it is not <br />happening elsewhere, then maybe this Committee could take it on if the Board desires <br />that we continue to exist.- _ _ _ ._ _. _ _. . -- - .. _ _ . <br />Mr. Patrick said that he would prefer it if a newly farmed, "recast" committee with a <br />broader focus than cable TV take up the high speed Internet issue, but not CAC. Mr. <br />Boyarsky continued: If Commissioner Jacobs seriously is asking a general question <br />about whether the County can better approach technology issues than how the County is <br />currently doing so, then perhaps all these initiatives -- TAC, CAC, EDC's Infrastructure <br />Work Group - need to be evaluated at the same time to determine whether all of the <br />technology issues of concern to the County, including those issues we're raising today, <br />are under someone's scope. <br />Mr. Patrick said that CAC has been the forum in which interested citizens have talked <br />about current events within the telecommunications industry, and how those events are <br />impacting the County.• An effort to grasp comprehensively what different kinds of <br />changes in the industry mean for the County -for example, the implications of <br />telephones having the capacity to receive video - would be different from the efforts of <br />the Economic Development Commission to ensure that infrastructure - <br />telecomrnunications, roads, water/sewer - is sufficient to meet the County's development <br />interests. Mr. Boyarsky agreed, and said that at the very least the Board's 1979 charge to <br />CAC, which focuses on cable TV, needs to be changed to include the wider range of <br />services and technologies that are now available. Mr. Patrick noted that in 1979 County <br />residents did not have cell phones, cable TV, satellite TV, Internet, or email. It's a <br />different world. <br />The facilitator asked if CAC members wanted to recommend to the Board of County <br />Commissioners that all of the items on the list generated by Action Audits be somehow <br />tracked by the County. Mr. Boyarksky said that item (e) should be taken aff the list of <br />recommended activities because it falls under the purview of another committee (TAC), <br />and the technology is driven by users now. There is no need for a committee to <br />encourage it. County employees are anxious to get more access to faster speeds, he said, <br />and better equipment. Ms. Rice added that the I-Net ("institutional network") is an old <br />concept under which the cable company provides a cable to different departments for <br />data transmission. This is still an item in the local franchise, although we all use fiber <br />now. Mr. Boyarsky said that if item (e) is still part of the franchise then someone needs <br />to keep an eye on it. <br />6 <br />