Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Technology Stocks : LAST MILE TECHNOLOGIES - Let's Discuss Them Here -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Frank A. Coluccio who wrote (4048)	6/5/1999 10:57:00 PM
From: Kenneth E. Phillipps	Respond to of 12823

Frank & lml - From the Spokesman Review in Spokane, WA spokane.net:80/news-story-body.asp?Date=060599&ID=s589382&cat= In a statement, AT&T said Friday: ''The actions taken by the officials in Portland and Multnomah County are beyond the legal authority municipalities have to review cable franchise transfers. Clearly we will continue to pursue our legal case.'' AT&T spokeswoman Sarah Duisik said the company's legal routes include appealing the case to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. The issue presented is whether the local officials have the legal power to require open access as a condition of the cable franchise transer. I do not think they would have asserted this power if the franchise had remained with with TCI so why should they have this power because of the franchise transfer. It certainly sounds as though ATT intends to appeal but there may be a motion for reconsideration filed first. Ken

To: Frank A. Coluccio who wrote (4048)	6/6/1999 2:25:00 PM
From: lml	Respond to of 12823

Would you mind posting the urls that you found most substantive, if you deem them to be out of the ordinary [the ones we've all seen here], if it's not a great bother? Frank, You ask the same question I did before I wrote my piece as I too had not seen anything beyond what was covered by the usual wire outlets. Now we see Ken's link to the Spokane Review that confirms my conclusion on T's position -- it will appeal. And with many thanks to Sleeper, we now have the movants' motion for summary judgment in-hand; I just printed it out. My main peeve at this point is the lack of any meaningful analysis by the media. With all the unemployed lawyers -- I mean legal analysts -- they employ, at least someone could have run an in-depth analysis (legal that is) on the merits of issue. All we've seen so far is mindless sensationalism of an issue that is FAR from over. Sleeper: Kudos mucho. Many thanks. I had a feeling that some additional material might be available online -- without a fee. My Web search of Portland & Multnomah sites proved fruitless, as did my search at T's site -- & the FCC & various legal sites, which all led to WestLaw & Nexis. I'll probably get my hand on the judge's ruling this week from one of the several law firms with whom I current work.

To: Frank A. Coluccio who wrote (4048)	6/6/1999 3:38:00 PM
From: lml	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 12823

Frank et al: I just came across an interesting article from the Oregonian that includes the statement "Throughout the litigation and debate, both sides have said the issue is one for the FCC to decide." See oregonlive.com So, it appears that the movants' as well as T both agree that the FCC & not a US District Ct is the proper authority to provide legal remedy to the dispute. Naturally, the District Ct. judge disagreed.