Laserfiche WebLink
- 9 - <br />The Housatonic Cable Vision Case <br />The state of Connecticut historically has requlated <br />cable television systems like public utilities through <br />Its Department of PuJlic Utility Control (hereinafter <br />"DPUC"). Cable operators are thus required to obtain <br />a certificate of public convenience and necessity from <br />the DPUC before constructing or operating a cable system. <br />The DPUC has statutory authority to issue just one <br />certificate for each geographical area and to regulate <br />cable operators on an ongoing basis. Its regulatory <br />authority had been used to establish or alter line <br />extension requirements. <br />Housatonic Cable Vision (hereinafter "HCV") filed <br />a proposed tariff with DPUC in October 1980 in which <br />it requested a modification of the Department's line <br />extension requirements. DPUC denied its request, and <br />HCV filed suit seeking to enjoin enforcement against <br />it of the line extension regulation and to obtain a <br />declaration that the regulation was preempted by the <br />Cable Act. <br />The United States District Court held tliat the <br />regulation was not preempted. The court first found <br />that Congress had not intended in the Cable Act to <br />displace all state activity in this area. It then <br />concluded that the obligations imposed by the regulation <br />were not substantively inconsistent with the Cable Act, <br />and that enforcement of this regulatlon, which was validly <br />imposed upon HCV prior to the effective date of the <br />Cable Act and was a past of the HCV franchise at the <br />time the Cable Act went into effect, was not procedurally <br />inconsistent with the Cable Act. Based on these findings, <br />it rnncluded that preemption had not been intended. <br />Housatonic Cable Vision Co. v. Department of Public <br />Utility Control, 622 F. Supp. 798 (D. Conn. 1985). <br />This decision has not been appealed. <br />The Tribune -United Cablo Case <br />Tribune -United Cable of Montgomery County <br />(hereinafter "TUC") recently filed suit fpr declaratory <br />and injunctive relief seeking to pisvent Montgomery <br />County, Maryland from enforcing th• penalty provisions <br />Of its existing franchise agreemant pending resolution <br />Of TUC's request for modification :f the agreement <br />