FCC Reports, Second Series, Volume 104, Number 2, Pages 375 to 719, August 1986 Page: 390
ix, 375-719 p. ; 23 cm.View a full description of this report.
Extracted Text
The following text was automatically extracted from the image on this page using optical character recognition software:
390 Federal Communications Commission Reports
require the Commission to play a role in its implementation or
enforcement. NCTA notes that the Commission went so far as to
adopt special relief provisions for disputes arising out of Section
624, yet it left disputes arising from Section 622 to be resolved by
the courts. NCTA states that if these matters are left to the
courts, there are likely to be disparate and inconsistent rulings
which would frustrate the congressional intent to provide the
industry with the certainty and stability it needs.
10. In opposition, NLC contends that the legislative history
does not provide support for Miami CATV's interpretation of the
applicability of the Section 622(i) exception. It submits that the
requirement for a liberal interpretation of a statute that Miami
CATV cites is applicable primarily in cases in which broad
regulatory programs have been deemed essential for the public
welfare. NLC contends that Miami CATV has made no showing
that a regulatory program for franchise fees is essential for the
public welfare. NLC and NYC point out that Section 622 does not
include provisions which authorize the regulation of franchise fees.
They state that, in fact, Section 622 clearly contemplates enforce-
ment of its provisions by the courts. In this respect, NLC and
NYC observe that Section 622(d) allocates the burden of proof in
court actions involving the pass through of increases in franchise
fees to subscribers.
11. Regarding reinstatement of prior petitions involving fran-
chise fees, Miami contends that there is no justification for
continuing to apply any of the Commission's past policies that
would be inconsistent with the standards of the Cable Act. Miami
further argues that to apply such past policies at this late date
would contravene the Cable Act's fundamental objective of
establishing clear standards to govern the relationships between
franchising authorities and cable operators.
12. We are not persuaded that our decision to eliminate the
franchise fee provisions from our rules should be modified. The
provisions of Section 622 of the Cable Act supersede our franchise
fee rules and, as we noted in the Report and Order, the House
Report states that "[t]he current FCC regulations which restrict
the use of franchise fee revenues to cable-related uses and permit
franchise fees of 5 percent only if a waiver is granted by the FCC
are invalid by the term of this legislation." Additionally, the
Cable Act in Section 621, General Franchise Requirements, and
Section 626, Renewal, provide standards for the local franchising
process. Thus, the Cable Act has displaced Section 76.31 of our104 F.C.C. 2d
Upcoming Pages
Here’s what’s next.
Search Inside
This report can be searched. Note: Results may vary based on the legibility of text within the document.
Tools / Downloads
Get a copy of this page or view the extracted text.
Citing and Sharing
Basic information for referencing this web page. We also provide extended guidance on usage rights, references, copying or embedding.
Reference the current page of this Report.
United States. Federal Communications Commission. FCC Reports, Second Series, Volume 104, Number 2, Pages 375 to 719, August 1986, report, 1986-08~; Washington D.C.. (https://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc306573/m1/28/: accessed July 17, 2024), University of North Texas Libraries, UNT Digital Library, https://digital.library.unt.edu; crediting UNT Libraries Government Documents Department.