10-13-1982 Council Agenda - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Cable Communications Newsletter /September 1982 4 protect against privacy violations. Some cable communications companies have a code of privacy. Warner -Amex, for example. has a code of privacy by which it attempts to operate. Likewise. the New York State Cable Television Association has volun- tarily adopted and agreed to follow a code of privacy in order to protect the interests of the subscribers. Next. the franchise ordinance or franchise agreement should contain specific privacy provi- sions. These provisions should: (a) require sub- scriber authorization before the company may monitor household viewing, except for billing purposes and protecting system integrity; (b) prohibit the company from collecting or using personal information about a subscriber without that subscriber's written authorization, again except for billing purposes and monitoring pur- poses: (c) Limit the information that may be col- lected and maintained to only that information necessary to provide the services requested by the subscriber: (d) prohibit the disclosure of such information without prior authorization by the subscriber: (e) offer the subscriber the right of access to review the information.maintained on that subscriber: (f) require that where a subscriber contests the accuracy of that information, the company promptly reinvestigate and correct any disputed information: (g) require that any sub- scriber authorization be contained in a separate document with a prominent statement of consent: (h) limit any authorization to a period of not more than one year, revocable at any time by the subscriber without a penalty. Beyond these two steps. the need for privacy legislation at the state level should be considered. Minnesota, Illinois, and Wisconsin, for example. already have privacy legislatio n. Sim ilar legislation is pending in New York and California. While legislation at the state level may offer some protec- tion, municipalities should always be open to means of affording even greater privacy protec- tions. NATIONAL BRIEFS ► The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) voted in July to repeal a long - standing restriction on commercial broadcast networks owning cable systems. The FCC, on a unanimous vote, proposed to adopt a new rule permitting CBS. NBC, and ABC to own cable systems without any restrictions. Action on the pro- posed rule is not expected for some time. I. The FCC has ended a ten -year -old inquiry into ownership concentration in the cable communications industry. The commission concluded that the industry is not concentrated at this time. I. The United States Supreme Court ruled in July that a landlord Hurst be provided -just compensation" if the landlord is required to permit a cable company to install cable equipment on the property. At issue in Loretto e. Teleprompter Corp. of Manhat(un was a New York law which guaranteed cable companies reasonable access to multiple - dwelling units in return for one dollar. The New York landlord. Jean Loretto. argued that the company could not take her property without paying a fair fee. While the court upheld the state's power to mandate the installation of cable equipment. Justice Thurgood Marshall said he New York statute constituted a taking of property for which the landlord is duel ust compensation. The case has been remanded to the Lower courts for a deter- mination of what constitutes just compensation. to Senator Arlen Spector. R -Pa.. is sponsoring S. 1938, 97th Cong.. 1st Scss. (1982), which would remove any ceiling on franchise lees. Acompanion hill has yet to he introduced in the House. ► The New York State Cable Association and two of its members have filed suit against the New York State Commission on Cable Television seeking to overturn the commission's recently adopted mandatory access rules. The complaint alleges. among other things. that the rules violate the first amendment rights of the cable operators. constitutes a taking of private property without just compensation, and violates the suprem- acy clause of the United States Constitution because cable operators are compelled to become conunon carriers. ► Catalina Cablevision has filed suit charging the city of Tucson, Arizona, with violating federal antitrust laws after the city denied a second franchise bid from Catalina. Tucson awarded a cable franchise to Cox Cable Communications in December. 1981. Catalina. which operates a system just outside of Tucson, was one of ten companies competing for the initial fran- chise. The suit represents the first filed against a home -rule city since the United States Supreme Court's Boulder decision that home -rule status does not grant cities antitrust immunity without specific authority and active supervision from the state gov- ernment. Under Arizona law, cities can franchise or license cable systems under the authority of state/law. The law. however. is quiet about limiting competition. Catalina Cablevision is owned in part by TCID of Arizona, Inc., which is a wholly owned subsidiary of TeleCommunications, Inc. (TCI). TCI also owns the company which sued the city of Boulder. i n u