Laserfiche WebLink
MAY 51992 <br />get the complete picture is to look at total income and total <br />costs, and the ordinance is not worded that way. <br />Mr. Crosby felt this would cause a conflict because the <br />federal government says you cannot control pay cable, and if all <br />this is lumped together and the county determines they must lower <br />the rates, the county is indirectly controlling the premium <br />channels. <br />After further discussion, it was generally agreed to insert <br />the word "basic" in Paragraph A, Section 13B, as suggested by <br />Attorney Brandenburg. <br />(5) Section 18B - Attorney Brandenburg differed with Attorney <br />Cooksey's statement that a four hour response time to service <br />complaints is totally unfeasible. <br />Commissioner Wodtke stated that he did not have any problem <br />with a 24 hour response time. <br />Discussion followed as to the Board's feeling that the time <br />period is aimed mainly at contacting the complainant and <br />acknowledging his complaint, rather than requiring that the <br />complaint be corrected within that time. <br />Mr. Crosby reported that he operates so that when his people <br />get there, they fix the problem. He noted that when they get a <br />service call, they tag it and the tag is not removed until the <br />problem is corrected. <br />Discussion continued as to responding in this time period <br />when hundreds of people call in because there is a major <br />breakdown, and Attorney Brandenburg felt this could be handled by <br />having a tape recording that would merely inform the customer <br />that there is a major break and they are, taking steps to remedy <br />it as quickly as possible. <br />The Board agreed that a 24 hour response time would be <br />sufficient. <br />Also under Section 18B, Attorney Brandenburg reported that <br />he had provided that the subscriber would be given a rebate if <br />