Common use of Matching Provision Clause in Contracts

Matching Provision. (a) In the event that the City grants, renews or renegotiates one or more franchises(s), agreement(s) or similar authorization(s), for the provision of local, high capacity telecommunications services or similar services in the District, and such franchises(s), agreement(s) or authorization(s) contain provisions imposing lesser obligations on the grantee(s) thereof than are imposed by the provisions of this Agreement, the Company may, at any time after the date two years after the Effective Date, petition the City for a modification of this Agreement. (b) The City shall consider any petition for modification pursuant to Section 13.22(a) hereof, and shall grant such prospective modifications to the extent that the City reasonably determines that such modification(s) must be granted in order to ensure fair and equal treatment among the Company and other franchisees, provided that the Company establishes by a preponderance of the evidence each of the following: (i) that the Company is in compliance with this Agreement and the other franchise(s), agreement(s) or authorization(s) were not granted as a result of the Company's failure to comply, on a timely basis, with the provisions of this Agreement; (ii) that the other franchise(s), agreement(s) or authorization(s) allow substantially similar services to those offered by the Company under this Agreement; (iii) that the obligations imposed on the Company under this Agreement, taken as a whole, place the Company at a substantial competitive disadvantage in relation to the obligations imposed on the grantee(s) holders of the other franchises(s), agreement(s) or authorization(s), taken as a whole; and (iv) that the reason for the City's imposition of or failure to act with respect to a lesser obligation under the other franchises(s), agreement(s) or authorization(s) is not due to the differing nature of the City's regulatory authority with respect to the other communications systems or justified by the relative benefits, in whatever form, received by the City due to the operation of other communications systems. (c) For the purposes of this Section 13.22, in order to promote fair comparison, to the extent possible all benefits and burdens shall be quantified monetarily. (d) Notwithstanding the two year waiting period in Section 13.22(a) herein, if any of the other entities (specifically, Cablevision LightPath, Inc., Time Warner AxS of New York City, L.P., and Urban Communications Transport Corp.) for which the FCRC approved local high capacity telecommunications service franchises on December 8, 1993 ultimately enter into franchise agreements with the City that provide for compensation terms which materially differ from those approved by the FCRC on December 8, 1993 in a manner that makes them more favorable to such entities than those provided to Company in this Agreement, then those more favorable compensation terms will also be incorporated into this Agreement.

Matching Provision. (a) In the event that the City grants, renews or renegotiates one or more franchises(sfranchise(s), agreement(s) or similar authorization(s), for the provision of local, high high-capacity telecommunications services or similar services in the DistrictFranchise Area, and such franchises(sfranchise(s), agreement(s) or authorization(s) contain provisions imposing lesser obligations on the grantee(s) thereof than are imposed by the provisions of this Agreement, the Company may, may at any time after the date two years after the Effective Date, petition the City for a modification of this Agreement. (b) The City shall consider any petition for modification pursuant to Section 13.22(a) hereof, and shall grant such prospective modifications modification(s) to the extent that the City reasonably determines that such modification(s) must be granted in order to ensure fair and equal treatment among the Company and other franchiseesfranchises, provided that the Company establishes by a preponderance of the evidence each of the following: (i) that the Company is in compliance with this Agreement and the other franchise(s), agreement(s) or authorization(s) were not granted as a result of the Company's failure to comply, on a timely basis, with the provisions provision of this Agreement; (ii) that the other franchise(s), agreement(s) or authorization(s) allow substantially similar services to those offered by the Company under this Agreement; (iii) that the obligations imposed on the Company under this Agreement, taken as a whole, place the Company at a substantial competitive disadvantage in relation to the obligations imposed on the grantee(s) holders of the other franchises(sfranchise(s), agreement(s) or authorization(s), taken as a whole; and (iv) that the reason for the City's imposition of or failure to act with respect to a lesser obligation under the other franchises(sfranchise(s), agreement(s) or authorization(s) is not due to the differing nature of the City's regulatory authority with respect to the other communications systems or justified by the relative benefits, in whatever form, received by the City due to the operation of other communications systems. (c) For the purposes of this Section 13.22, in order to promote fair comparison, to the extent possible all benefits and burdens shall be quantified monetarily. (d) Notwithstanding the two year waiting period in Section 13.22(a) herein, if any of the other entities (specifically, Cablevision LightPath, Inc., Time Warner AxS of New York City, L.P., and Urban Communications Transport Corp.) for which the FCRC approved local high capacity telecommunications service franchises on December 8, 1993 ultimately enter into franchise agreements with the City that provide for compensation terms which materially differ from those approved by the FCRC on December 8, 1993 in a manner that makes them more favorable to such entities than those provided to Company in this Agreement, then those more favorable compensation terms will also be incorporated into this Agreement.