Cable Company`s Local Franchise Agreement

View Our Certificate
NSF

Cable Company`s Local Franchise Agreement

Table 1 and the following two tables illustrate the potential impact of FCC rules on franchising processes in several countries. The FCC`s decision to extend its franchise rule to federal state governments for the first time subjects each of the states mentioned in the first three columns of Table 1 (i.e., those that issue deductibles at the state level in all circumstances or circumstances) to the FCC. In addition, FCC rules will include states that have municipal franchises either through a recommended letter or by state agencies. As a result, the FCC`s franchise rules will affect more video service providers, viewers and local governments than ever before. In August 2019, in response to a federal appeals court ruling, the FCC tightened restrictions on municipal opportunities and, for the first time, on states` ability to regulate video service providers. The Communications Act 1934, as amended, still allows local governments to require video service operators to make public, educational and government channels (PEG) available to their subscribers. However, the FCC`s August 2019 decision imposes new limits on the ability of local governments to levy royalties from operators to support the channels. In addition, the FCC decided that local franchised authorities could not regulate the non-video services of incumbent cable operators, such as broadband Internet services, commercial data services and Internet Call Protocol (VoIP) services. In October 2019, the FCC concluded for the first time that a video streaming service offers “effective competition” to some local cable systems, anticipating the ability of affected municipalities to regulate local rates for basic cable service. 5. The Montgomery County Court also agreed with the AFL that neither the second report nor the review regulation provided a valid legal basis for the Commission`s application of the former Mixed Use decision to incumbent cable operators. [6] Under the mixed-use rule, “AFA liability applies only to the provision of cable services” and “an AFL cannot use its video communication authority to regulate the entire network of a CEA beyond the provision of cable services.” The Tribunal found that the Commission`s decision in the first report and in the order to apply the mixed-use rule to new entrants was acceptable, given that section 602, paragraph 7, point C, of the Act expressly states that air carriers can regulate Title II only to the extent that they provide cable services and that the Commission has found that new entrants are generally carriers of title II.