06-11-2014 Council Agenda - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

May 23, 2014 Page 4 Formal franchise renewal report on amendments to the Cable Act—"to establish a process which protects the cable operator against an unfair denial of renewal" and "encourage investment by the cable operator at the time of the initial franchise."1 The Cable Act, according to the I-Iouse, "ensure[s] such investment will not be jeopardized at franchise expiration without actions on the part of the operator justifying such a loss of business.. Here, none of the actions of Comcast, as explained below, justify a loss of its business. Section 626 of the Cable Act (47 U.S.C. 5 546) divides the formal - renewal process into multiple stages. The process begins with the LEA's "ascertainment" of community needs and a review of the cable operator's performance, both of which are conducted through what is supposed to be a public process. Following ascertainment, an LFA issues a request for renewal proposal (RFRP) based on that review. The operator responds with a proposal for renewal, and then the LFA makes a preliminary decision on that proposal. If it preliminarily denies renewal, the LF\ must hold an administrative hearing where evidence is gathered and presented, at the end of which the 12A must deny or accept the renewal proposal based on four limited factors, summarized as follows: (a) whether the operator substantially complied with the existing franchise, (b) the quality of the operator's service, (c) the operator's financial, legal and technical ability, and (d) whether the operator's proposal reasonably meets future cable - related needs and interests, taking costs into account. If the I,Ff1 denies renewal following this procedure, the .Act provides for review of the record and decision by a federal court. That court will determine whether the denial is supported by a "preponderance of the evidence" and otherwise accords with applicable law.3 Formally renewing a franchise is a "quasi-judicial" function:i'I'hus the City must also comply with 11.R. Rep No. 98-934, at 72 reprinted in 1984 U,S.C.C..r1.N. 4711. Id, 47 U.S.C. § 546. Iii re Dakota "Je/ecom,m uicatious Group, 590 N.W2d 644 (Minn. App. 1994).