2006.04.17 EDA Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

and informed the City that it viewed the imposition of the requirement as effectively denying its franchise application. WHL then appealed the City's decision to the Minnesota Court of Appeals for certiorari review. The Court of Appeals concluded that the City was correct in its interpretation that Minnesota Statutes Chapter 238 required WHL to obtain a cable franchise for its OVS. The court further held that Minnesota's cable franchise requirement as applied to OVS does not conflict with federal law and that the state level playing field statute, in particular the service area requirement, is not preempted by federal law. Accordingly, the court affirmed the City's decision to require WHL to obtain a cable franchise which included a service area requirement as a condition of the grant of a franchise.4 The City of Otsego simply followed state law in processing WHL's franchise request. To suggest that Otsego was a barrier to entry is false and the State Court of Appeals decision supports the City's action. CONCLUSION LFAs in Minnesota are enthusiastic about the benefits that competing cable operators may offer to our constituents. Policies which the Commission may set forth should insure a regulatory regime that is the same for providers of video services where the cable operator, and not the consumer, control the video content offering. The LFAs encourage the Commission to promote fairness for consumers in local communities by insuring that the playing field remains level for cable providers regardless of the particular technology utilized to provide video content. The LFAs embrace the concept that franchise terms and conditions should be fair and reasonable for all cable providers so that no one provider is given an unfair competitive advantage. The 4 WH Link,LLC v. City of Otsego,664 N.W.2d 390(Minn.App.2003,cert.den'd). 7