Orange County NC Website
Browse       Search
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 T'WC. 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 goal. 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 ~. - u. 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 1a. 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 resolution: <br />