FCC Reports, Second Series, Volume 104, Number 2, Pages 375 to 719, August 1986 Page: 455
This report is part of the collection entitled: Federal Communications Reports and was provided to UNT Digital Library by the UNT Libraries Government Documents Department.
Extracted Text
The following text was automatically extracted from the image on this page using optical character recognition software:
Comark Cable Fund III
had ordered until September 30, 1985 as well.5 Counsel for the
parties subsequently met with Bureau staff in further efforts to
negotiate a satisfactory interim trust agreement. However, such
efforts were finally abandoned on September 20, 1985 when
counsel for Northwest Cable advised the Enforcement Division
staff that there was little, if any, likelihood, that a trust
agreement satisfactory to his client could be negotiated.
Defendants' Petition for Stay
7. In support of their Petition for stay of our Order, Defen-
dants contend: 1) that they need not show that they will prevail
on the merits of their appeal; 2) that Northwest Cable will suffer
irreparable harm if the requested stay is not granted; 3) that no
harm will result to other interested parties if the stay is granted;
and 4) that the public interest would be served by issuance of the
stay in order to preserve a continuity of cable television service to
approximately 1,300 residences. In arguing that they are likely to
obtain a reversal of our Order, Defendants contend, inter alia:
1) that our cross-ownership rules are overbroad; 2) that we
engaged in unlawful summary fact-finding; and 3) that we in-
voked our Rules inconsistently.
8. On the other hand, CCI maintained that the Petition must
be denied because, under applicable Commission and court deci-
sions, Defendants have not justified the stay which they have
requested.6 In particular, CCI argued that the public interest is
disserved every day that Northwest Cable continues to operate
since Defendants will continue to profit from their anticompetitive
behavior. It further argued that Defendants' chance of success on
appeal is extremely remote. Finally, CCI contended that, during
this two-year old proceeding, Defendats have shown no deference
to our jurisdiction or mandate and have not been dealing with the
Commission in good faith. Accordingly, CCI argued that Defen-
dants cannot be trusted, have "unclean hands", and are not
worthy of special equitable relief.7
5 Memorandum Opinion and Order, released September 18, 1985, unreported. The
September 30 deadlines were further extended by the Bureau to preserve the
status quo pending our action on the instant Petition and action by the Court
upon the Emergency Motion. Letter to Russel D. Lukas and David L. Nace
from Chief, Common Carrier Bureau, dated September 24, 1985.
6 CCI requested leave to file its Opposition three days late due to confusion
over the impact on Commission action of the Emergency Motion before the
U.S. Court of Appeals. Defendants did not oppose such request.
7 Opposition at 14-19.104 F.C.C. 2d
455
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/m1/93/?rotate=90: accessed July 17, 2024), University of North Texas Libraries, UNT Digital Library, https://digital.library.unt.edu; crediting UNT Libraries Government Documents Department.