Browse
Search
Agenda - 11-16-2004-9b
OrangeCountyNC
>
Board of County Commissioners
>
BOCC Agendas
>
2000's
>
2004
>
Agenda - 11-16-2004
>
Agenda - 11-16-2004-9b
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
9/2/2008 12:13:18 AM
Creation date
8/29/2008 10:26:13 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
BOCC
Date
11/16/2004
Document Type
Agenda
Agenda Item
9b
Document Relationships
Minutes - 20041116
(Linked To)
Path:
\Board of County Commissioners\Minutes - Approved\2000's\2004
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
22
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
8 <br />storm, TWC credited all customers for five days without anyone needing to <br />request it, and extended additional credit to anyone who contacted them to <br />report even longer outages, A case by case arrangement would also allow TWC to <br />decline credit or refunds where it believes a customer is not entitled to it (e.g,, <br />customer causes the interruption in service). Mr. Patrick noted that the "credit <br />and refund" language in the BOCC-adopted ordinance is used in 22 other <br />jurisdictions in the region, Mr, Phillips said that TWC agreed to such language in <br />earlier agreements because in those times the cable system was less reliable and <br />there were more complaints, Mr, Phillips asked Ms, Harvey and Mr. Patrick if <br />they were aware of complaints from Commissioners or customers regarding <br />repeated outages, credits, or refunds that would lead them to believe that a <br />regulation such as this were necessary; they said they were not aware of such <br />complaints. Mr. Patrick asked TWC to consider the protection that a rule affords <br />subscribers, Without a rule, the determination for when or whether a refund or <br />credit is given is left up to TWC. Mr. Phillips replied that TWC has a market <br />incentive to keep its customers satisfied; it will do whatever t is reasonable to <br />achieve that goah Ms, Harvey asked Mr, Phillips to reflect on the County's need <br />for true protection as well as TWC's needs for flexibility, and to come back with <br />language for a subsection to Section 5 (Refunds and Credits) that reflects Mr. <br />Phillip's best judgment on how to address both parties' needs. Mr. Phillips said <br />he'd try. <br />Late Fee -all agreed to a new subsection to Section 5 that states, "Late fees shall <br />not be assessed earlier than is allowable under North Carolina state law," <br />Appeals -all agreed to delete this item. <br />Sections ~. - ii. No issues were raised regarding these sections. Mr. Phillips <br />asked if these sections are acceptable as they stand, but did not get an explicit <br />reply. Mediator notes that group members should make an explicit and,joint <br />decision that these sections are acceptable, or identify issues needing further <br />discussion. <br />Section 12. Public, Education and Government Access Provisions <br />Also see notes above at "Meeting with Chapel Hill," "Cost Estimates," and `Term <br />of Grant." <br />Ms. Harvey acknowledged receipt from TWC of the promised copies of franchise <br />agreements between TWC and Chapel Hill and TWC and Carrboro. <br />All parties agreed to set aside for now the other options referenced on the <br />mediator's "9/22 To Do" list (cost out four alternative master control locations, <br />cost out and map discrete programming for unincorporated residents) in order to <br />focus attention on the more desirable option being developed with Chapel Hill, <br />Mr. Patrick said that the following issues needing reso]ution: <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.