Laserfiche WebLink
AR\OLD Eft PORTER <br />a[. �.a•Or0" .200 NEW N[MVSNIAE AVENUE. N. W. <br />.[co-'M Moal 11, pto WASMINGTON, O. C. 2003e <br />19,9. a, t)tl <br />4021 P2-4100 <br />April 1986 <br />RECENT DEVELOPMENTS AFFECTING FRANCHISE <br />ENFORCEMENT a PERFORMANCE EVALUATION <br />By: Norman M. Sinel, Eso. <br />Patrick J. Grant, Esq. <br />Barbara J. Delaney, Esq. <br />INTRODUCTION <br />1100 pat t• <br />ot"vta. W.oa.o0 60101 <br />non ap-coo <br />Legislative and regulatory developments at the <br />federal level during the past year have tended to restrict <br />the ability of franchising authorities to enforce cable <br />operators' obligations tc serve the public interest. <br />In particular, the Cable Communications Policy Act of <br />1984 (hereinafter the "Cable Act") and various actions <br />taken by the courts and the Federal Communications <br />Commission ("FCC"), both before and after passage of <br />the Cable Act, have diminished the scc?e of franchising <br />%uthorities' powers regarding rate regulation, the types <br />of services carriod over a cable system, the technical <br />performance and slgr,al quality of cable systems and <br />the conditions governing renewal of cable franchises. <br />A comprehensive discussion of the impact of the <br />Cable Act, and prior FCC and Judicial actions, on the <br />powers of franchising authorities, is contained in Cable <br />Franchising and Regulation -- A Local Government Guide <br />To The New Law (thee G�which was published by <br />the National League of Cities and the U.S. Conference <br />of Mayors in March 1985. The purpose of this outline <br />is to provide an update on the key FCC and judicial <br />developments occurring since publication of the Guide. <br />II. RECENT FCC DEVELOFMENTS <br />A. Rate Regulation <br />In its Report 6 Ord <br />7F1 <br />1 Policy Act of 1964, 58 R R.2d 1 (released April <br />1985) (hereinafter "R&O") the FCC responded to <br />