Agenda Packets - 1986/05/19 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

The company also seeks a declaration that renewal of its franchise is governed by Section 626 of the Cable Act end that the municipal purchase option in the franchise is void and unenforceable as an unconstitutional condition. Morganton has filed an answer denying Madison's allegations and has counterclaimed for injunctive and monetary relief for state and federal antitrust violations, for breach of contract and for treapasa. On April 7, 1986, the City's motion for an cyder making TCI a party defendant to the counterclaims was granted by the court. The City just filed a motion for swnmery ;udgment in the came. The Philippi, Nest Virginia Case In March 1968, the City of Philippi granted a 25-year franchise to erect and operate a cable system to Telepic, Inc. The franchise was later tranaferrea to 8ettervision Systerr, and subsequently to Cablentertainment of Nest Virginia (hereinafter "Cablentertainment"). In March 1985, the City Council enacted an ordinance providing for the development and operation of a municipal cable avatem. Cablentertainment then filed suit for declaratory and injunct.ve relief, damages, attorneys' fees and costs. Cablentertainment of Nest Vir inia v. City of Philippi, No. 85-0147-E(K) (N.D.N.Va. filed Sept. 25, 1985). The company claims that the ordinance violates federal snd state antitrust law because the municipal system is being constructed for the express purpose of driving it out of bueirazz. C.iiientertainment asserts that the City will accomplish this in two ways: (1) through predatory pricing, by subsidizing its cable operations with monopoly profits from its electric power services; and (2) by using its monopoly control of telephone poles and rights -of -way to force Cablente�tainment out of business either directly by forcing it off the poles or indirectly by imposing on it the substantial cost of relocating cables and by conferring on the City unfair advantages resulting from