Laserfiche WebLink
future, is not expected to resolve the dispute surrounding the <br />Commission's definition of 'effective competition'. <br />City of New York vs. FCC - U.S. Court of Appeals, D.C. <br />Circuit. This involves an appeal of a Commission order, which <br />prohibited state and local technical regulations for class 1 <br />(broadcast) channels on a cable system that are inconsistent <br />with those adopted by the Commission. The Order also preempted <br />any state or local technical regulation for non -class 1 <br />01aonel5. The City of New York and otner petitionerâ–  claim, <br />that under the Cable Act the Commission lacks authority to pre- <br />empt non-federal technical regulation of cable systems, In* <br />final brief is due to be filed on May 27, 1986, with oral arqu- <br />ments to follow. <br />Florida Power Corporation vs. FCC - On appeal to the U.S. <br />Supreme Court. in this case a utility company challenged an <br />order of the FCC - authorizing certa,n cable television <br />companies to maintain pole attachments at a rate significantly <br />less than that specified in prior pole attachment contracts <br />between the parties. These lower rates, the Commission found, <br />were guaranteed the cable company, under the provisions of the <br />Pole Attachment Act. of 1978. The Eleventh Circuit Court of <br />Appeals decided that the FCC Order, guarantying the cable Com- <br />pany a pole attachment rate lower than the previous contract <br />rate, was a taking of the utility company's property without <br />just compensation and thereby was a violation of the Fifth <br />3 <br />