o:* af@afmug.com
> *Subject:* [AFMUG] Franchise Agreements with the city
>
> I found a law on the books that says any company selling telecommunication
> services within the city must have a franchise license with the city. None
> of my competitors have ever done this. I thought
I found a law on the books that says any company selling telecommunication
services within the city must have a franchise license with the city. None
of my competitors have ever done this. I thought it must just be on the
books from a time when all telecom was ran in the ROW, and therefore it
do they have an agreement with AT, Verizon, Sprint, T-mobile, Dish,
DirectTV, Hughesnet etc etc?
If not then tell them that if they require one for you they are opening up
themselves for litigation for unfair practices. and as soon as they sign
agreements with all those companies you'll glad
Hey, if the City of Chicago can have a “cloud tax” ...
http://www.theverge.com/2015/7/1/8876817/chicago-cloud-tax-online-streaming-sales-netflix-spotify
From: Jeremy
Sent: Tuesday, November 10, 2015 1:08 PM
To: af@afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Franchise Agreements with the city
I know
Get a good lawyer. There is no such thing as a franchise agreement for
wireless. It's only if you use public lands and the ROW, but the city can make
up their own rules to an extent.
Thank you,
Brett A Mansfield
> On Nov 10, 2015, at 11:08 AM, Jeremy wrote:
>
> I
No, I have never seen a wireless company have to get a franchise.
From: Jeremy
Sent: Tuesday, November 10, 2015 12:08 PM
To: af@afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Franchise Agreements with the city
I know that you've dealt with it Chuck, because you run fiber. Have you ever
heard of a wireless
t:* Tuesday, November 10, 2015 11:08 AM
> *To:* af@afmug.com
> *Subject:* [AFMUG] Franchise Agreements with the city
>
> I found a law on the books that says any company selling telecommunication
> services within the city must have a franchise license with the city. None
> of my
maybe you need to retain my legal guy, lol!
From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Jeremy
Sent: Tuesday, November 10, 2015 12:09 PM
To: af@afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Franchise Agreements with the city
I know that you've dealt with it Chuck, because you run fiber. Have you ever
Really? I thought it was simply a tax to connect to the grid. That’s what SRP
is doing in Phoenix.
Rory
From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Jaime Solorza
Sent: Tuesday, November 10, 2015 12:46 PM
To: Animal Farm
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Franchise Agreements with the city
yep
[mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Adam Moffett
Sent: Wednesday, October 21, 2015 2:06 PM
To: af@afmug.com
Subject: [AFMUG] Franchise agreements
Why does the cable company need a franchise agreement to use the muni's right
of ways where the phone and power companies don't?
Anybody know
Message-
From: Brian Webster
Sent: Wednesday, October 21, 2015 12:47 PM
To: af@afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Franchise agreements
I believe the answer is in the fact that they deliver video services. Not
positive though, if a cable company went to data only I think they would not
need
.
-Original Message- From: Brian Webster
Sent: Wednesday, October 21, 2015 12:47 PM
To: af@afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Franchise agreements
I believe the answer is in the fact that they deliver video services.
Not positive though, if a cable company went to data only I think
Why does the cable company need a franchise agreement to use the muni's
right of ways where the phone and power companies don't?
Anybody know for sure on that one?
13 matches
Mail list logo