Laserfiche WebLink
CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PLEASANTON <br /> <br />ALAMEDA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA <br /> <br />RESOLUTION NO. 83- 341 <br /> <br />A RESOLUTION CONCERNING FEDERAL CABLE TELEVISION <br />LEGISLATION. <br /> <br />WHEREAS, <br /> <br />cable television is an important communication and information <br />technology for the Nation's cities and citizens, and it will <br />likely enjoy exclusivity within a con~nunity and will be <br />the only telecommunication medium with a direct link to the <br />homes of citizens with its facilities traversing the public's <br />property; and <br /> <br />WHEREAS, <br /> <br />local governments have had the responsibility for franchising <br />cable television systems in their cities and for effectively <br />overseeing the implementation of those franchises once awarded, <br />and have demonstrated the effectiveness of local control over <br />local concerns; and <br /> <br />WHEREAS, <br /> <br />major Federal cable television legislation has passed the <br />United States Senate and is pending House of Representatives <br />approval. <br /> <br />NOW, <br /> <br />THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of <br /> Pleasanton, that it is opposed to legislation which restricts <br /> the traditional responsibilities which have been exercised <br /> by local government in this area. <br /> <br />BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that our City urges members of the House of <br /> Representatives to ensure that if Federal cable television <br /> legislation continues as a possibility that the legislation <br /> provide for the following: <br /> <br />Section 1. <br /> <br />That Federal cable legislation not limit the option of <br />local governments to regulate the rates charged by <br />cable television companies for basic service. <br /> <br />Section 2. <br /> <br />That Federal cable legislation not limit the option of <br />local governments to define by negotiation with cable <br />television companies the definition of basic service. <br /> <br />Section 3. <br /> <br />That Federal cable legislation provide maximum competition <br />in the renewal process with no presumption or expectancy of <br />renewal on the part of the cable company holding the <br />franchise. <br /> <br />Section 4. <br /> <br />That Federal cable legislation "grandfather" all existing <br />franchises and their terms and conditions and all <br />franchises processes in which a Request for Proposal has <br />been issued; and that Federal legislation not apply <br />to renegotiated franchise agreements, signed within six <br />months of enactment. <br /> <br /> <br />