Laserfiche WebLink
- 7 - <br />standard. The FCC based its decision to preempt in <br />the Commlins matter not upon that standard, but upon <br />t1s expansive ancillary fedonrthaaitfecttstatarrequlatiote <br />wire communications and upon a effect <br />Memorandum <br />would have on various ^federal -Pi order. In the Matter <br />re <br />Cox ;,D, .,_,�., --- <br />September 5, 1965). <br />A petition for reconsideration of this Order <br />vac filed with the FCC and is eil�C t�dthaconsideration. <br />5tatee <br />The decision has also been app <br />Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. <br />III• FRRA CHISING ANDPMENTS FRANCHISECENF <br />FOACEMENT <br />A. The Preferred Communications Case <br />Last year, the Ninth Circuit held that the First <br />limitmaccessotobats the use of an auction <br />given region of acit}n*oprocess asiingle <br />cable operator, when the public utilities in that region <br />are physically capable of sccommodatinq more than one <br />cable system. City of Loe Angeles v. Preferred <br />Communications Inc., 754 F.2d 1396 19 Becauselthe)matter <br />cart. rg anted, l06 St Ct.enBosilEeo*'a dlsmlesaI for <br />■Vfailure to state a c.a,m, <br />of law, with all material allegations in the plaintift's <br />complaint accepted as true. Those allegations -- which <br />may prove difficult to sustain in the event of • <br />subsequent factual development in -- included <br />this case <br />claims that: <br />(a) there is no physical limitation on the number <br />of cable systems which can attach their <br />facilities to the existing poles; <br />(b) cable is not a natural economic monopoly, <br />and <br />(c) there is no legitimate gov*rns.entAl purpose � <br />for awarding only one cable franchise. <br />Despite the lack of a factual record, the U.S. <br />Supreme Court agreed to review o e�inMgslas and scar*$ <br />Caciei^� Briefs for the City <br />of other cities and organizations supporting Los AngaLes <br />