Laserfiche WebLink
- 3 - <br />Commission decision was being circulated, but it was <br />unclear when a proposed decision would be placed on <br />the Commission's agenda. <br />At the same time, over forty parties are now <br />participating in an appeal of the rate regulations (and <br />other regulations) contained in the RSA. Th"t "Ri1al <br />is pending before the United States Court of App <br />for the District of Columbia Circuit. American Civil <br />.Liberties e� Union v. FCC, No. 85-1666 (D.C. Cir. h Afiledprill0, <br />May 3, 1985). The Court has granted, <br />1986, the FCC's motion to hold the case in abeyance, <br />pending the agency's disposition of the related matters <br />before it. <br />B. Regulation of Technical Standards. <br />Section 624 of the Cable Act permits franchising <br />authorities to regulate <br />the seo ices, facilitito the es and <br />e <br />equipment provided by P <br />consistent with the Cable Act` `In*Sectiont624(e)s the <br />FCC is authorized to eatab•• ..s- nt of cable systems <br />' relating to the facilities and equip in a franchise. <br />which a franchising authority may require <br />Under t1'.e aegis of Section 624(e), the FCC has <br />decided to retain its existing signal quality levels <br />as "firm guidelines" and to preempt any state or local <br />technical regulations exceeding the federal standards. <br />Report and Order In the Matter of Review of Technical <br />and operational Requirements of Part 7yCable Television, <br />Rik Docket 85-38, F.C.C. 85.581 (releazed December 17, <br />1985) (hereinafter "R&O on Technical Standarls"). <br />The City of New York immediately filed a Petition <br />for Review of the Rho on Technical Standards-. r. <br />filed <br />of New York v FCC, Docket No. 85-1841 (D.0 Ci. <br />Dec. 26, 1985). The National League of Cities, the <br />U.S. Confere:.:e of Mayors, and several loca, governments <br />have joined -� that appeal. <br />The c:ties hope to persuade the Court of Appeals <br />that, among ther things, the FCC's action was <br />inconsistent with Sections 624(b) and 626 <br />c)(1)(B)rants + <br />of the Cable Act. Section 624(b) p y <br />franchising +uthorities the right to emeab,"ssnd their <br />"raquiremen': for facilities and equipment is serioualy <br />capacity to esponsibly exercise that rig.• <br />impaired if hey are unable to establish r aningful <br />standards g erning how such fan lit.es a: equipment <br />