Laserfiche WebLink
F. 621 Order - PEG and Institutional Networks <br />The 621 Order concludes that "LFAs may not make unreasonable demands of <br />competitive applicants for PEG and I -Net" and that doing so constitutes an unreasonable refusal <br />to award a franchise.17 With regard to PEG channel capacity, the FCC determined that it would <br />be unreasonable "to impose on a new entrant more burdensome PEG carriage obligations that it <br />has imposed on the incumbent cable operator."18 Overall, the FCC found that PEG support must <br />be both "adequate and reasonable."19 Adequacy is defined by the FCC as "satisfactory or <br />sufficient."20 The 621 Order does provide some examples of unreasonable PEG and Institutional <br />Network support obligations,21 including: <br />Completely duplicative PEG and I -Net requirements;22 <br />Payment of the face value of an I -Net that will not be constructed; <br />and <br />Requirements that are in excess of the incumbent cable operator's <br />obligations. <br />According to the FCC, pro rata cost sharing of current (as opposed to future) PEG access <br />obligations is per se reasonable.23 In the event that pro rata cost sharing is utilized, PEG <br />programming providers must permit a new entrant to interconnect with existing PEG video <br />feeds.24 The new entrant must bear the cost of interconnection. <br />G. 621 Order — Local Level Playing Field Requirements <br />Local level playing field requirements are generally preempted by the 621 Order.25 This <br />could mean that level playing field provisions (commonly called "Competitive Equity" in local <br />Comcast franchises) included in existing cable franchise ordinances are preempted. <br />Section 8 <br />State and Local Law <br />A. State Level Playing Field Statute <br />While under federal law, a franchising authority may not unreasonably refuse to award an <br />additional competitive franchise, Minnesota state law further restricts a franchising authority's <br />ability to franchise with a level playing field provision that reads as follows: <br />17 Id. at¶110. <br />18 Id. at¶114. <br />19 Id. at¶115. <br />20 Id. at ¶ 112. <br />21 Id. at¶119. <br />22 The 621 Order does appear to say that duplication is permissible if required for public safety purposes. Id. In <br />addition, the FCC clarified that "an I -Net requirement is not duplicative if it would provide additional capability or <br />functionality, beyond that provided by existing I -Net facilities." Id. <br />23 621 Order at ¶ 120. <br />24 Id. <br />25 Id. at ¶138. <br />9 <br />