Laserfiche WebLink
- 17 - <br />the unorthodox and substandard way the municipal cable <br />will be permitted to be strung. <br />Cablentertainment also alleges that the City's <br />ordinance violate• its First and Fourteenth Amendment <br />rights by authorizing the City to use its govermaental <br />powers and authority to silence the company'r speech. <br />The City has filed an answer denying the company's <br />allegations and has counterclaimed for injunctive and <br />monetary relief against Cablentertalruaert for violations <br />of state and federal antitrust law; for breach of <br />contract; for tortious interference with actual and <br />prospective business relationships; and for unfair <br />competition. <br />Cablentertainment's reply denies all the <br />allegations contained in the City's counterclaim. <br />V. CONCLUSION <br />Both the Cable Act and recent developments ■t <br />the FCC and in the courts have restricted the ability <br />of franchising authorities to enforce obligations designed <br />to make cable operators serve the public interest. <br />Moreover, far from settling the rights and obligations <br />of franchising authorities and cable operators, the <br />passage of the Cable Act coualed with •iar.ious FCC actions <br />seems to have sparkod a Latigaticn fever within the <br />cable industry. Today, more than ever, it is apparent <br />that franchising authorities must keep themselves abreast <br />of these developments and carefully structu a their <br />franchise enforcement and other cable -related activities. <br />This is particularly true with respect to actions taken <br />prior to or in conjunction with franchise renewal. <br />