3 ms·

Do you have a copy of the federal law, by chance?

by extra88 12y ago

rayiner 12y ago
47 U.S.C. 541(a)(1). https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/47/541 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/47/541. Part of the 1992 Cable Act: http://www.lib.niu.edu/1994/im940207.html http://www.lib.niu.edu/1994/im940207.html. "A franchising authority may award, in accordance with the provisions of this subchapter, 1 or more franchises within its jurisdiction; except that a franchising authority may not grant an exclusive franchise and may not unreasonably refuse to award an additional competitive franchise. Any applicant whose application for a second franchise has been denied by a final decision of the franchising authority may appeal such final decision pursuant to the provisions of section 555 of this title for failure to comply with this subsection." Theoretically, a pre-1992 contract negotiated before the law was passed might still be in effect. In practice, these contracts had 5-10 year terms and expired long ago.
- glesica 12y ago
  I have a small amount of experience with this, having observed the negotiations between a city government and Mediacom. The deal, in that case, wasn't technically "exclusive", but it did require that any additional franchisee provide equal or better service. In practice, this meant that the deal with Mediacom was "exclusive" since the market was small enough that no other provider would be willing to roll out the full set of services offered by Mediacom (another provider might have been willing to offer basic services to capture cost-conscious consumers). I'm not sure what the federal law says about this sort of thing.
  - rayiner 12y ago
    I don't think that's been litigated. A few years ago, the Sixth Circuit upheld FCC rules that put an end to some of the more egregious municipal licensing authority requirements, though those rules didn't address the situation you raise: https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=13293837290366870260&q=alliance+for+community+media+v+fcc&hl=en&as_sdt=20006 https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=132938372903668....
- paulornothing 12y ago
  This is interesting. We currently only have Comcast cable available and I just found the contract online. Looks like it was created 2001 and has a 15 term on it. Ok now I'm reading it more and it's a "nonexclusive cable franchise" but I don't know if that means other people can come in here.

Do you have a copy of the federal law, by chance?

by extra88 12y ago

Do you have a copy of the federal law, by chance?

47 U.S.C. 541(a)(1). https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/47/541 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/47/541. Part of the 1992 Cable Act: http://www.lib.niu.edu/1994/im940207.html http://www.lib.niu.edu/1994/im940207.html. "A franchising authority may award, in accordance with the provisions of this subchapter, 1 or more franchises within its jurisdiction; except that a franchising authority may not grant an exclusive franchise and may not unreasonably refuse to award an additional competitive franchise. Any applicant whose application for a second franchise has been denied by a final decision of the franchising authority may appeal such final decision pursuant to the provisions of section 555 of this title for failure to comply with this subsection." Theoretically, a pre-1992 contract negotiated before the law was passed might still be in effect. In practice, these contracts had 5-10 year terms and expired long ago.

glesica 12y ago
I have a small amount of experience with this, having observed the negotiations between a city government and Mediacom. The deal, in that case, wasn't technically "exclusive", but it did require that any additional franchisee provide equal or better service. In practice, this meant that the deal with Mediacom was "exclusive" since the market was small enough that no other provider would be willing to roll out the full set of services offered by Mediacom (another provider might have been willing to offer basic services to capture cost-conscious consumers). I'm not sure what the federal law says about this sort of thing.
- rayiner 12y ago
  I don't think that's been litigated. A few years ago, the Sixth Circuit upheld FCC rules that put an end to some of the more egregious municipal licensing authority requirements, though those rules didn't address the situation you raise: https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=13293837290366870260&q=alliance+for+community+media+v+fcc&hl=en&as_sdt=20006 https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=132938372903668....
paulornothing 12y ago
This is interesting. We currently only have Comcast cable available and I just found the contract online. Looks like it was created 2001 and has a 15 term on it. Ok now I'm reading it more and it's a "nonexclusive cable franchise" but I don't know if that means other people can come in here.