Browse
Search
Agenda - 05-03-2005-5j
OrangeCountyNC
>
Board of County Commissioners
>
BOCC Agendas
>
2000's
>
2005
>
Agenda - 05-03-2005
>
Agenda - 05-03-2005-5j
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
9/2/2008 12:03:16 AM
Creation date
8/29/2008 10:19:05 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
BOCC
Date
5/3/2005
Document Type
Agenda
Agenda Item
5j
Document Relationships
RES-2005-036 Adoption of 2005 Rate Order for Cable Services in Unincorporated Orange County
(Linked From)
Path:
\Board of County Commissioners\Resolutions\2000-2009\2005
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
27
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
a~ <br />Perhaps most tellingly, even NATOA (of which Mr. Sepe is a member) itself has <br />recently acknowledged that the FCC rules do not require cable operators to refile <br />Form 1235 each year. See "White Paper on FCC Form 1235" prepared for NATOA <br />by Front Range Consulting, Inc. and filed with the Commission in MB Docket No. <br />02-144 (Oct. 7, 2004). <br />AA fails to cite even a single statement; instruction, or ruling by the FCC that would <br />support its contention that we must recalculate our Form 1235 filings on an annual <br />basis. This silence speaks volumes: if the FCC rules required annual Form 1235 <br />updates, one would expect there to be at least one instance in which the FCC had <br />referred to that requirement. In short, there is not a single statement to support the AA <br />position. There is overwhelming authority illustrating that AA is simply wrong -once <br />again. <br />In conclusion, the FCC's rules and decisions absolutely preclude the County from <br />rejecting our previously-approved Form 1235 network upgrade charge. The FCC has <br />not hesitated to reverse other rate orders where AA has pursued other unsupported <br />positions, including the order at issue in the Durham case cited above.s Experience <br />clearly demonstrates that, if the County follows AA's recommendation, it will be the <br />County's taxpayers and TWC's customers that will bear the cost of the appeal and <br />remand that inevitably will follow. <br />We strongly urge the County to follow the FCC rules and approve our proposed <br />maximum permitted rate calculation for 2005, including the previously-approved Form <br />1235 charge. <br />If there are any questions regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me <br />directly. <br />Very truly yours, <br />Gary R. Matz <br />GRM/ja <br />cc: Brad Phillips -Time Warner Cable, Raleigh Division <br />Paul Baccellieri -Time Warner Cable, Raleigh Division <br />$ Id. <br />e See also Time Warner Cable (Smithfield, NC), 18 FCC Rcd 738 (MB, 2003).. <br />3. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.