Browse
Search
Agenda - 12-06-2004-9b
OrangeCountyNC
>
Board of County Commissioners
>
BOCC Agendas
>
2000's
>
2004
>
Agenda - 12-06-2004
>
Agenda - 12-06-2004-9b
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
9/1/2008 10:27:06 PM
Creation date
8/29/2008 10:26:52 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
BOCC
Date
12/6/2004
Document Type
Agenda
Agenda Item
9b
Document Relationships
Minutes - 20041206
(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
9 <br />How many access channels will be provided for in the franchise <br />agreement? <br />How many more channels to trigger? <br />What to provide regarding pass-through costs? How to attribute different <br />costs? <br />He then offered the following "vision" for resolving the PEG issue: In the short <br />term, the County government will operate a public access channel and a <br />government access channel, while the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill <br />(UNC) continues to operate cable channel 4 as the educational access channel. <br />The County would secure its rights now through the franchise agreement to make <br />changes to the educational access arrangements for the future. Over the long <br />term, Mr. Patrick envisions a "real" local educational access channel being <br />developed through discussions between the County, Chapel Hill, Carrboro and <br />local educational entities (e.g., UNC, the future Orange County campus of <br />Durham Technological Community College, the two public school systems in the <br />county), Of course, those discussions would have to define the needs of the <br />community, and take the system architecture and costs into consideration, While <br />it does not make sense for the County to operate an educational channel today for <br />only ~,ooo unincorporated subscribers, the County needs the capability to do this <br />in the future. <br />Mr. Phillips pointed out that UNC's control of channel 4 is a "legacy issue" <br />remaining from when Village Cable Companies had the local cable franchise, All <br />four,jurisdictionshavc educational access through channel 4. The channel's <br />current programming includes student government meetings, student-produced <br />shows, and foreign-language news from the non-profit broadcaster SCOLA, If <br />the local governments desired to broadcast specific alternative programming for <br />channel 4, then TWC would pre-empt the UNC programming to do so. "We're <br />.just a conduit," Mr. Phillips said, Mr. Patrick acknowledged that the formation of <br />partnerships in Orange County to address educational access programming is an <br />extra-franchise issue, What's relevant to the franchise is to secure Orange <br />County's right to control the programming, he said, <br />In reply to a question from Ms, Harvey, Mr, Phillips explained that the <br />Cooperating Raleigh College Consortium (NC State, Meredith, others) programs <br />educational access in Walce County, and in Durham County the public school <br />system programs the educational access (currently a bulletin board only). <br />The parties opened discussions on how the capital expenditures related to <br />providing PEG access channels would be paid for, Mr. Patrick said that there <br />might be tradeoffs across the length of the franchise and TWC's options regarding <br />capital expenditures. He asked TWC to propose some options that would meet <br />both Orange County's and TWC's needs. Ms. Harvey added that she would like to <br />see language proposed for passing through some PEG access costs to subscribers, <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.