EWEB City billing agreement - Laserfiche WebLink

New Search

Summary of Telecom Issues for EWEB Advisory Group from Pam Berrian as of ~~r2 New O1 Issue: In May 00, EWEB received electorate authority to operate a telecommunications system and provide services in addition to electricity and water. EWEB planned to seek voter approval in November 2001 on a funding mechanism related to its telecommunications opera- tions, however by summer, after convening two citizen task groups and completing a business plan, EWEB determined a full universal build-out was no longer economically viable. They decided to seek a modified build-out for the first 6 years. EWEB had a work session with the city council on June 25, 2001. Council was not unanimously supportive, despite citizen letters of support. (Although ATT has retained a lobbyist to oppose EWEB's plan). EWEB has developed a modified Joint Resolution re: their plans and funding strategies that EWEB will vote on on Sept 4 and will be taken to the city council on Sept 19. Status of Previous Issues: 1. Public A~ency Access to and Fees for EWEB Network Connectivity Historically, EWEB failed to invite City/public agency input on its policy development and fee rationale for public agencies. The result is that EWEB produced a standardized contract with no differentiation between fees for private for-hire telecom providers, and for public agencies. There should be. Since May:00,:EWEB and several.public agencies (City, County, LCOG, U of O, 4J. 't:: ~ c: v meal h P r or Public Area ha e for t e AN ou ~~P~r~~zl~'~dx..pxx~gi~~d,,.po~ ;s~~) g p Network and are working cooperatively. 2. EWEB prohibiting telecom-related pole attachments from entities that are not FCC-re lu~ated. The FCC only regulates for-hire, commercial private providers. There is no law that requires EWEB to prohibit public agencies from their poles. We were not aware that EWEB is doing this because of any demonstrated pole-management problem..::.::Since::the::PAN, group.:was: formed,:;we.:..:: are not aware that this..problem., currently, exists.,..; T€~ opt t~.e As ~r a~ I mow 4~, ~`or e~le, ~ art a~~~wed t~ afifiach tea W pokes xxeed~ an aerxa~ fiber nxx~, fih hie I~ e~.~h e~x~auet~o~ w~Ih ~.ie ~xty ~a~der ~.e I~xty~W~.~ Maser Pale .~~~e~fi...c:~;c~~~,.; ;B<~ ~ :~t< ~ ~ ~ ~r~ ~ ~ : ~ ~ ~r:> : <;P:~1N: a t:: r>: a~ fax,,,.......Ax....~...,.;~ SOW .~d~..~.E't~B~ ~ze~e~.xe~p~x~d~d. ~q. ~ayar l.~tx.€~x~ ~~.~~s~.~;fi~:t ~~.~ed the 'eie ~A~fi~iz~:t.;A:g> A related problem is lack of communication to the City about this type ofnon-electric pole use. Under the current CII,T (compensation in lieu of fee) arrangement between the City and EWEB, EWEB essentially receives use of the ROW for water and electric purposes. There should be a clear understanding of the conditions (notification to City, a portion of the pole attachment fee, etc.) or at least a discussion of the activity. This was not thought to be a problem before telecom deregulation; with deregulation, an influx of new telecommunication providers are placing facilities in Eugene. It is understandable they want the most efficient and least expensive process for locating their lines; using existing poles makes sense. However, an agreement and coordina- tionbetween EWEB and the City should be in place. While the Franchise Manager is informed when providers use any public rights of way, whether on EWEB poles or not, CILT management staff may want to determine if EWEB should pay to the City a portion of the rental fee it receives for rental of its poles. Franchise Manager has no Page -3-