My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
CCMIN032001
City of Pleasanton
>
CITY CLERK
>
MINUTES
>
2000-2009
>
2001
>
CCMIN032001
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
9/17/2007 10:56:33 AM
Creation date
4/13/2001 5:13:42 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CITY CLERK
CITY CLERK - TYPE
MINUTES
DOCUMENT DATE
3/20/2001
DOCUMENT NO
CCMIN032001
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
30
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
allowed to say it will not fix the service problem, but the only solution is an upgrade. <br />That happened to her on numerous occasions. She felt the ordinance should address that. <br /> <br />Mr. Friedman asked how you would regulate or enforce that. <br /> <br /> Ms. Dennis had no problems with most of the agreement, but felt it was very <br />difficult to monitor customer service violations. <br /> <br /> Mr. Pico felt that if the only way to get acceptable service was to upgrade, then <br />the upgrade should be provided free of charge. <br /> <br /> Ms. Dennis read her suggested wording: "No sales of upgrades, amplifiers, or <br />other equipment would be permitted in response to service requests. If the grantee cannot <br />restore service levels without the upgrade, then the upgrade should be provided free of <br />charge." <br /> <br /> Mr. Friedman said federal law preempts regulation of rates in a certain way. One <br />of the benefits of federal regulations dealing with customer service standards is that cities <br />can adopt customer service standards beyond what is set forth in federal standards. If <br />these standards don't work as anticipated, the city has the fight to revisit this unilaterally. <br />That is in the ordinance at the bottom of page 27. We may want to see how these work <br />before making changes. <br /> <br /> Mr. Fialho suggested that we see how this works for the first year and then come <br />back with a summary of how the new customer service standards worked for the <br />community. <br /> <br /> Ms. Dennis also asked about page 42 which referred to a computer stored record <br />of service calls, interruptions or degradation of service for the previous two years <br />provided that such complaints result in a service call subject to the subscribers fight of <br />privacy. She believed that the service calls she made asking for retransmission of the <br />signal did not count, because there was no service call. Many service problems do not <br />require a truck to come out. She asked them to keep records of calls solved from the <br />central transmitting location as well. <br /> <br /> Ms. Ayala suggested continuing this item for further staff discussion of Ms. <br />Dennis' suggestions. <br /> <br /> Ms. Dennis also had concerns about auditing of customer service. The City <br />should have access to the number of subscribers who call with problems two times in a <br />thirty-day period. The City shouldn't have to submit a request in writing and wait thirty <br />days. <br /> <br />Mr. Friedman said that is on page 43, section 13.1.B. <br /> <br />Pleasanton City Council 28 03/20/01 <br />Minutes <br /> <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.