06-11-2014 Council Agenda - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

May 23, 2014 Page 18 Formal franchise renewal If the member cities approve the NSCC's recommendation to deny Comcast's formal renewal proposal the cities face serious due -process challenges and other legal issues when this renewal proceeds to a judicial process. IV. Other issues affecting the NSCC's recommendation While it was not required to do so, Comcast made several objections to substantive and procedural aspects of the RFRP process when it submitted its proposal. Those objections included problems with the record, violations of the Cable Act and FCC requirements, unlawful requirements over Comcast's chosen technology, and other evidentiary issues with the Staff Report and consultants' reports. Notably, the United States Supreme Court has stated clearly that cable operators are First Amendment speakers, and Comcast explained important objections as to the NSCC's lack of any attempt to justify franchise renewal conditions under First Amendment standards, "lb view these objections, which the NSCC has done nothing to address, Comcast's refers the cities to its proposal and its "Legal Objections" section beginning on page 14. Comcast has made other objections to the NSCC's counsel during the process, and refers to those communications as well. \X/hile this document is not designed, and should not be required, to state all additional objections to this process, Comcast will address a few recent disputes that should further affect the cities' consideration of the NSCC's recommendation: A. Disputes over the role of operational funding Probably sensing the legal difficulty with its actions, the NSCC has lately seemed to act as though a preliminary denial is not about Comcast's refusal to acquiesce to demands for operational funding. Of course, operational funding was the focus of NSCC staff's statements to the public, the focus of the NS(C's public -relations campaign in April (i.e., that Comcast's proposal would stop funding operations and therefore "end" CI'V), and the focus of the Staff Report, RFRP, and Supplemental Staff Reports that were incorporated into the NSCC's recommendation—all of which make clear that Comcast would be required to provide PEG operating support to obtain a renewed franchise. Despite the NSCC's recent effort to recharacterize those actions, and the NSCC's past doublespeak that Comcast "shall voluntarily pay" operational costs, there is no question that the RFRP requires Comcast to pay for PEC operations. Indeed, the R1?RP states the NSCC's unlawful demand in unambiguous terms: "Current levels of capital and operations funding, and in-