10-13-1982 Council Agenda - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

3 suit challenging the right of the city to allow private companies to use homeowners' public utility ease- ments and the authority of the city to grant rights -of- way on public property to private companies. • A rule proposed by the MCCB would assure cable communications systems reasonable access to multi- ple, dwelling units and manufactured home parks. One draft of the rule, rewritten in light of the United States Supreme Court decision in Loretto, contem- plated the property owner being reimbursed for per- mitting the installation of cable communications facilities on or within the property owner's property in an amount not to exceed one percent of the gross subscriber revenues derived from the premises. The hoard. at i is August 13 meeting. voted to delete the one percent language in favor of compensation being negotiated by the landlord and the cable company. The next step is for the proposed rule to be heard by a hearing examiner. • A national conference. entitled Upgrading Cable Systems: Renegotiating. Renewal. Rebuilding or Re- franchising, is scheduled for October 11 -12, 1982, at the Sheraton Inn and Conference Center in Madison, Wisconsin. Additional information may be obtained by contacting Barry Orton. associate professor of telecommunications. 220 Lowell Hall, 610 Langdon Street, Madison, Wisconsin 53706:608- 262 -2394. • The Federal Communications Commission (FCC). in a memorandum opinion and order released August 6. 1982, denied a petition filed by General Electric ' ablevision Corporation of Bartonville. Illinois. and Peoria Heights. Illinois, requesting authorization to pay the respective municipalities a ten- percent fran- chise fee. In denying the petition. the commission cited the company's willingness to pay the fees and the company's statement that the fee would not impair cable operations, but the commission, nevertheles held that no showing had been made by either muniL:- pality that such a fee "is appropriate in light of the planned local regulatory program." • The city of Minot, North Dakota, recently advertised nationally the availability of a request for proposal to provide cable communications service to the city. Cable TV of Minot, a Telecommunications, Inc. subsid- iary. has held the franchise for the past fifteen years. The city sought to avoid possible antitrust actions by advertising nationally for other applicants. The present franchisee, Cable TV of Minot. has already submitted a proposal. • A Pawnee county court. Nebraska. has ruled that a cable communications drop is taxable as personal property. The dispute centered on whether a cable drop should be treated as a fixture and thus taxable as real property to the subscriberoras personal property and taxable to the company. TV Transmission. Inc. has indicated that an appeal will be made. A decision Cable Communications Newsletter /September 1982 from the Nebraska supreme court is not expected for approximately one year. • At itsJune 11, 1982, meeting the MCCB ruled that a Mankato. Minnesota. firm is operating a cable communications system and not a master antenna system as the firm claimed. Mid - America Satellite TV, Inc. has been offering six broadcast stations and five satellite signals to an apartment complex in Mankato. Under MCCB regulations and Minnesota Statutes § 238.02. a master antenna television system is excluded from the definition of a cable communications system. The MCCB's decision emphasized, however, that mas- ter antenna systems are allowed to transmit only broadcast or "non- satellite" signals. It is not clear at this time what the consequences of the MCCB ruling will be. The firm could eliminate the satellite signals and thus conform to the MCCB's interpretation of a master antenna system or the city of Mankato could grant a cable communications franchise to Mid - America. In the meantime, Mid - America is seeking - judicial relief. • The Illinois legislature recently passed a bill de- signed to promote the wiring of condominium com- plexes. H. 2284. 82nd Gen. Assembly, permits cable communications systems to wire condominium com- plexes on a majority vote of the individual condo- minium owners. No compensation provision is in- cluded. The bill was signed into law on August 19, 1982. FRANCHISING TIPS Our community has received three proposals to provide cable communications service to the city. Each proposal contains a variety of interactive services. Some questions have been raised as to whether these services will intrude on the sub- scriber's privacy. What can we, as a city, do to ensure that the subscriber's privacy is respected? A. The issue of the subscriber's right of privacy has become increasingly significant with the emerg- ence of the state -of- the -art interactive systems now being proposed and even constructed. Never before has one entity been in such a position to collect and maintain a rich data base on each subscriber. This information could include what goods we purchase, how we spend our money, and even when we are away from our homes for purposes of security monitoring. There are two significant steps a franchising authority should take to protect this right of privacy. First, the request for proposal or invitation for application should ask the applicant to clearly describe its policy on privacy and to describe in detail what steps. if any. the applicant will take to '!tt