Laserfiche WebLink
- 6 - <br />(d) promotion of minority and fe.msls employsae; <br />(a) encouragement of minority and female <br />entrepensurs; and <br />(f) ongoing evaluations o1 EEO prog:ame. <br />these regulations should not significantly affect <br />local EEO efforts, since Section 634(1)(1) of the Cable <br />Act efpressly preserves the authority of states and <br />franchising authorities to establish or enforce consistent <br />EEO requirements; to establish or enforce requirements <br />regarding the use by ■ cable operator of minority and <br />local businesses; and to enforce any EEO :equirement <br />in a franchise in effect on or before the effective <br />date of the Cable Act, which was December 29, 1984. <br />Cities should, however, consult the EEO Order to fully <br />understand the new federal regulations. <br />State Regulation of Non-Cabl,4 Services <br />-- the Cox Cable/Commline Order <br />The Nebraska Public Service Commission (hereinafter <br />"NPSC") ordered Co ,mline of Omaha, Inc. (hereinafter <br />"Commline") to cease and desist providing "institutional" <br />high speed digital transmission services, including <br />video teleconferencing, electronic mail and high-speed <br />facsimile, until it obtained a certificate of public <br />convenience and necessity from the NPSC. <br />Cox Cable, which wholly owns Commiine, filed <br />s petition with the FCC seeking a declaratory ruling <br />that the Commission had preempted state and local <br />regulation of facilities located entirely within one <br />state end used to originate, distribute or terminate <br />interstate communications, Including facilities which <br />also distribute intrastate communications. <br />The FCC first found that Commline was not a common <br />carrier within the meaning of the Communications Art. <br />It then held that state regulation of facilities like <br />Commline's was preempted because of the effect such <br />regulation would have on interstate communications and <br />on federal law and policy. The FCC AictinyQisned this <br />result from the holding in National Ass'n cf Regulatory <br />Utility Commissioners v. FCC, 533 F.2d 601 (D.C. Cir. <br />1976), saying that decision should only be cited for <br />the proposition that the FCC's decision to preempt <br />exceeded its juriadictiu4 under the ancillary to broadcast <br />