Laserfiche WebLink
franchise. After accepting the <br />franchise, <br />Erie Telecommunics- <br />tions, Inc., refused to pay the <br />required <br />franchis♦ fee and <br />filed suit against the City <br />of Erie - <br />claiming that the <br />franchise fee was in excess of <br />the maximum <br />fee allowed under <br />Section 622 of the Cable Act. Under Section 622 of the Act, <br />franchising authorities are given the pover to collect <br />franchise fees from cable operators, however, such fees may not <br />be in excess of SI of the cable operators' gross revenues <br />derived from the operation of the cable system for any 12 month <br />period. Erie Telecommunication's complai:it was filed on July <br />16, 1905. The case is currently still in the discovery phase <br />of litigation. <br />Madison Cablevision, Inc. vs. Citv of Morganton - U.S. <br />' District Court, Western District of North Carolina. This case <br />affords the Court an opportunity to apply and interpret the <br />Cable Act's franchise renewal procedures and buy-back <br />provisions. In this instance, the City of Morganton failed to <br />renew the franchise of Madison Cablevision, Inc., a TCI <br />subsidiary, after 12 years of operation. In addition, the City <br />of Morganton attempted to buy-back the franchise under the <br />existing franchise agreement. Madison Cablevisior, filed suit <br />against the City of Morganton on January 6, 1986. In their <br />complaint, Madison Cablevision, claimed that the City's a:tion <br />- denying renewal of their franchise - violated the renewal <br />procedures laid out in Section 626 of the Cable Act; violated <br />their First Amendment right to operate a cable system and <br />-5- <br />