Laserfiche WebLink
Cable Communications Newsletter /September 1982 2 <br />4. prohibit municipalities from regulating rates for <br />satellite - delivered programming and telecommun- <br />ications services, such as institutional network <br />services, two -way interactive services, and security <br />services. <br />5. authorize the FCC to establish a reasonable ceiling <br />for franchise fees paid to a municipality. Franchise - <br />fees would be limited to cover only the cost of local <br />regulation. Franchise fees would not be available <br />for programming support or for general funds. <br />ISSN 0734 -0958 <br />Copyright ©1982 by Mason Publishi ngCotnpany <br />All rights reserved. <br />Cable Communications Newsletteris published <br />monthly by Mason Publishing Company, a mem- <br />ber of the Butterworth Publishing Group. Mailing <br />address: 366 Wacouta Street. St. Paul. Minnesota <br />55101-1989. Subscription price is 575.00 for <br />one year. <br />EDITOR <br />Adrian E. Herbst <br />Herbst & Thue, Ltd. <br />Attorneys at Law <br />CONTRIBUTING EDITORS <br />Gary R. Matz <br />John F. Gibbs <br />Ann C. Viitala <br />Herbst & Thue. Ltd. <br />Attorneys at Law <br />PUBLISHER EDITOR <br />Kathleen A. Prior <br />Mason publications are designed to provide ac- <br />curate and current information with regard to <br />the subject matter covered. They are intended to <br />help attorneys and other professionals maintain <br />their professional competence. Publications are <br />sold with the understanding that Mason is not <br />engaged in rendering legal. accounting, or other <br />professional advice. If legal services or other <br />expert assistance is required, the services of a <br />competent professional should be sought. Attor- <br />neys using Mason publications in dealing with <br />specific legal matters should also research orig- <br />inal sources of authority. <br />6. require automatic franchise renewal provided <br />t hat the company has substantially complied with <br />the material terns of the franchise: provided that <br />there has been no change in t he legal. technical, or <br />financial qualifications ul'the company that would <br />substantially impair the continued service: and <br />provided that the services and facilities provided <br />by the company are reasonable in light of the size. <br />nature. needs, and interests of the community to <br />be served. <br />7. prohibi1 the municipal ownershipofcablesystems, <br />unless the city has acquired the system at fair - <br />market value. <br />Except fur the access channel ceiling. local fran- <br />chises would not be grand fathered from the impact of <br />the bill. Municipalities would have sixty days to bring <br />the existing franchise into compliance. <br />An amendment offered by Senator Howard W. <br />Gannon. D -Nev., would have eliminated all federal, <br />state. and local regulation of cable within five years. <br />This was defeated by the Senate Continent Committee <br />by an 11 to 4 vote. <br />According to Senator I3arry Goldwater's office, R- <br />Ariz., the sponsor of S. 2172. 97th Cong., 2d Sess. <br />(1982), no date has been set for floor action. It is <br />hoped. however. that the Senate will hear the bill after <br />the August recess. <br />REGIONAL BRIEFS <br />► The Minnesota Cable Comtiutnications Board <br />(MCCB) ruled at its March 12. 1982. meeting that <br />existing MCC[3 rules do not prohibit the use of <br />sponsorships or advertisements on the state -man- <br />dated access channels. The use of sponsorships or <br />advertisements on these channels is now at the <br />discretion of the municipality. Some believe that spon- <br />sorships or advertisements offer a new source of <br />revenue for nonprofit access corporations and other <br />entities responsible for access programming. <br />I. The state of Wisconsin recently enacted its first <br />significant privacy legislation for cable communica- <br />tions systems. Wisconsin Statutes § 134.43. among <br />other things. requires a cable communications com- <br />pany to obtain written consent of the subscriber prior <br />to monitoring the subscriber's equipment. prior to <br />releasing any information that may reasonably lead to <br />the disclosure of any aspect of the subscriber's be- <br />havior. and prior to conducting research that requires <br />the response of a subscriber or any member of the <br />subscriber's household. <br />A Cook County Circuit Court has enjoined Omni - <br />com of Illinois from constructing its cable system in <br />Highland Park. Illinois. A local homeowner filed the <br />