Laserfiche WebLink
FCC benchmark calculations. Can you <br />be more specific than that? Can you <br />say whether your benchmark <br />calculations are less than the FCC <br />benchmarks, or equal to, or more <br />that? <br /> <br />Griffin: <br /> <br />They're equal to. They're the <br />benchmarks that we came up with, <br />1995 was $9 plus $10.95 for the <br />expanded tier, $2 for a converter, <br />and $.40 for a remote control. <br /> <br />Griffiths asked Griffin to provide the calculation that they went <br />through to determine that. <br /> <br />Griffin stated that there is a process that the city goes through <br />to formally request those, which involves certification and a <br />variety of other things. Griffin commented that he would have to <br />check his counsel to see if they would be willing to provide that <br />calculation without going through the formal request. <br /> <br />Sisk wondered about the technological services offered by Scripps <br />Howard in other communities outside the Colorado area. <br /> <br />Griffin: <br /> <br />I would say that technologically <br />this system is more advanced than <br />other Scripps Howard properties and <br />other cable systems throughout the <br />country. <br /> <br />Griffiths commented that Scripps Howard initiated both formal and <br />informal proceeding under the Federal Cable Act to renew their <br />franchise. The hearing process beginning in June, continuing <br />through this meeting, is a part of the requirement of the Federal <br />Cable legislation. She stated that it is her recommendation that <br />this public hearing be continued, rather than closed at this <br />meeting, because once this hearing is closed, Scripps Howard may <br />proceed to file a renewal proposal with the city. A time limit <br />then begins to run on the city's consideration of that proposal. <br />It has four months in which to respond and either deny or go to a <br />formal proceeding, or grant the proposal. Consequently, she felt <br />that there is some value in continuing the hearing until the city <br />is satisfied that all of the information necessary has been <br />received and this process can go forward. The date recommended <br />was November 16, 1993. <br /> <br />Miller stated that another reason mentioned was that the city <br />wanted to have a technical review of the equipment that they have <br />as part of the cable system. Also, they wanted to pull together <br />the information from the previous public hearings in a presentable <br />format. <br /> <br />13 <br /> <br /> <br />