Laserfiche WebLink
Me= <br />F. The Erie, Pennsylvania Case <br />Erie Telecommunications, Inc. (hereinafter "ETI"), <br />the cable franchisee for the City of Erie, suspended <br />payment of its quarterly franchise fee and public access <br />payments to the City because of a dispute over <br />compensation for prepaid franchise fse?. When the <br />franchise was awarded in late 1980, ETI prepaid <br />$2.7 million, with the understanding that it would reccver <br />this sum through annual deductions from its five percent <br />franchise fee as long as the City received tt least <br />$100,000 yearly from such fees. <br />Although the City has complied with this <br />arrang.ment, ETI claims that two developments necessitate <br />the suspension of payments: (1) since the system's <br />revenues have been lower than projected, the sum prepaid <br />has been recovered more slowly than expected; and (2) the <br />Cable Act now mandates that the "time value of money" <br />of such prepaid fees must be considered. The company <br />asserts that it suspended the access payments as well <br />as the franchise fee payments because it was not clear <br />that they were being used for access. <br />In response, the Erie City Council voted to fine <br />ETI $1,000 per day, retroactive to the date the first <br />payment was skipped, for violating the franchise by <br />suspending its franchise fee and access p^,irent s. <br />ETI t:ien filed suit seeking declarative and <br />injunctive relief, attorneys' fees and costs. The company <br />alleges that Erie's "scheme of regulation" violates <br />Ica First and Fourteenth Amendment rights; infringes <br />its state constitutional rights of free speech and free <br />press; violates 42 U.S.C. ! 1983; and violates the scheme <br />for the payment of franchise fees set forth in the Cable <br />Act. Erie Telecommunications, Inc. v. City of Erie <br />No. CA BS-185 Eria (w.D. Pa. filed July 16, 1985). <br />Erie's answer denies ETI's allegations. It <br />contains a counterclaim that ETI made misrepresentations <br />to the City which caused it to win the franchise and <br />requests that ETI be ordered to pay all sums owing. " <br />• <br />Discovery is proceeding. As of mia-March 1986, <br />the case was expected to So to trial in the summer. <br />However, at that time, the court granted a motion by <br />ETI to disqualify the lawyers for the City, one because <br />he could have list,; ;&-id u - .. ...��• In <br />inw <br />