HomeMy WebLinkAbout1998 12 02 Letter Re: CALNO Representative
SEMINOLE COUNTY
PUBLIC SCHOOLS
PAUL J. HAGERTY, Ph.D.
Superintendent
Educational Support Center
400 E. lake Mary Boulevard
Sanford, Florida, 32773-7127
Phone: (407) 320-0002
Fax: (407) 320-0281
Suncom: 351-0002
SCHOOL BOARD
BARBARA KUHN
Chairman
LARRY FURLONG
Vice Chairman
BOB GOFF
Board Member
JEANNE MORRIS
Board Member
SANDY ROBINSON
Board Member
Visit Our Web Site
www.scps.k12.fl.us
December 2, 1998
Ms. Cindy Gennell, CALNO Chairman
City of Winter Springs
1126 East State Road 434
Winter Springs, Florida 32708
SUBJECT:
CALNO REPRESENTATIVE
Dear Cindy:
Just a note to let you know I will no longer be the School Board representative to
CALNO. With the additional duties of Chairman and my travel schedule it would
be too difficult to make the meetings. Diane Bauer will be our representative with
Sandy Robinson as alternate. Andrea has been provided with Diane's mailing
address and phone number.
I did want to thank you for all your hard work on our cable initiative. While we
didn't get what we had hoped for, at least there is a channel we can now use.
There is no doubt in my mind that SGTV would not have come to be without the
CALNO effort. I also thought you might like to see this old memo I found while
cleaning out my garage.
Let me know if I can help keep our cable initiative moving forward.
~g;?2 ~
School Board Chairman
LF/klb
Attachment: As stated
M E M 0 RAN DUM
TO: Ron Rabun, County Manager
THROUGH: Robert A. McMillan, County Attorney
FROM: Harlan Wright, Research Attorney
DATE: August 9, 1994
RE: Local Government Access to Local Cable Television Systems
In a memorandum to you, dated August 4, 1994, Commissioner
Furlong raised the following two matters:
(1) the possibility of rebroadcasting programs about
Seminole County Government to be developed by WEDU,
Channel 24, with the financial assistance of the County,
on local cable television systems (CATV) and
(2) County access to CATV in general.
I will address the second matter initially since it is of more
general concern.
Both the County's Cable Television Franchise Ordinance and the
Federal Cable Act of 1992 give the County the right to have
programming distributed through a "local government access" channel
by local cable services which operate under County franchise.
Section 55.61(a) (1) of the Cable Ordinance reads:
Each Grantee shall make available wit.hout charge unlimit-
ed time on at least one local government access channel,
the allocation and use of which is to be determined by
the County Commission.
This provision of the County's Cable Franchise Ordinance is
reinforced by the 1992 Cable Act. section 47 USC ~ 543 was amended
by the 1992 act to require cable companies to carry, as part of the
"basic service tier", any local government access programming
mandated by a local government franchise authority such as the
County. 1 See 47 USC ~543(B) (7). section 47 USC 541(a) was also
amended to include language which gives local franchise authorities
II should add that under certain circumstances (e. g. an
operator with less than a 50-channel capacity having to carry many
"must carry" stations), the addition of a local government access
channel could. require that cable operator to drop an optional
program offering such as a cable network. Whether any local
operator would face this choice, if the County were to require
local governmental access programming, cannot yet be determined by
staff in light of on-going appeals before federal courts and
questions regarding the necessity for local cable operators to
carry Channel 65 which recently started broadcasting in the Orlando
area.
the right, not only to require cable operators to provide a local
government access channel, but also to provide such a channel with
facilities and financial support. See 47 USC S 541(a) (4) (B).
Regarding the second matter raised by Commissioner Furlong,
whether the County may have programming developed by WEDU, Channel
24, rebroadcast on a local government access channel, this matter
requires an agreement with WEDU to be resolved. The basic issue is
which party, WEDU as program developer or the County as program
financier, would hold the copyright to the programming and/or
rebroadcast rights.
Please let me know if I can be of further assistance.
HW/gn
2