03-23-1992 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

K ■ W:- Cable Set Back With Reversal in Georgi Access Cr p By RACHEL W. THOMPSON - |M evening an important tower BC court dectskm. the 11 th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that un der the Cable Act a cable company aeeking access to the interior of a muItipleKlweiting unit may not pig- gybndc a private easement. a separate section in the Cable Act which would have en.sured a cable operator's ability to wire an apart ment at a tenant's request. Recalling the 3rd Circuit's lan guage on this point, the panel wrote that rejection of that provision was a strong indication that Congress The decision, in Cob/e Holdings did not intend that cable companies of Georgia Inc. v. McNeil Reed Es- could compel (he owner of a multi unit dwelling to permit them to use the owner ’s private property to pro vide cable service to apartment Isle fknd, is a setback for the cable I TV Indurtry and a victory for prop- ^ erty owners and owners of private eaMeqnttetn8.il is consistent with dwellen." a 1989 decision by the 3rd Circuit According to Or. Court M Appedls in Cable Invest- ; irtenttK MIMky. Frank Lloyd, of the Washington, ^ D.C law linn Mintz. Levin. Cohn. Ferris, Olovaky ft Popeo, P.C, said requuing a "dedicated easem...i in the tech nical. rather than the common law sense, the decision condones some thing else Congress surely did not Intend: different rules for access in it means that provision of the Ca- different states. That is because Me Act that has been quite useful federal law does not address what Ifor franchised cable operators) Is „ aoloi«cr»ii9dUinl1crid(i.Ga>r. ^ gia and Alabama because they have c y«iy strictly defined it." The district court ruling over- constitutes a “dedicated” easement, he said. "From a business standpoint.” said Lloyd, “it means (hat private landlords and SMATV opemlots are turned by the panel, he said, "was going to be able to continue to hold one of the strongest we had ever „p ^3^1^ operators for substanii.V had." Howard Graff, of the New York Qty law firm Baer. Marks ft Up- ham and counsel for the lasing par ty, Cable'Holdings, said his client <—refared to in the rtiling as Smyr na OMe—will ask for a review by the entire court payments in order to get access to private apartment buildings." The cable industry is currently awaiting a decision in a similar case in the 4th Circuit (Virginia) known as Media General Cable v. Sequoy ah Condominium Council. ^ said that Cable Act Sec. 621(aX2). which provides a cable operator ac- V cess "through easements... which ^ have been dedicated for compatible caiTiia^ uses," did not guarantee access to private, nondedkaied easements. Two earlier 1 llh Circuit deci- slons, in Cental Cable Television ' Company v. Adnural's Cove Asso- datesUd. (1988) and Cental Cable Television Company v. Thos. J. White Development Corp. (1990). involved not private easements but easements dedicated by a real estate developer to general ut^ty uses, (he pmelsaid. The court rejected Smyrna Ca ble's contenti on that by granting ac cess to "a telephone company, an ^ electric omipany and a competing video programming services 1 provider, McNeil had 'dedicated' I compatible easements.” ^ • ft ft the wrong direction in cable's view,” said Lloyd, "and if the 4th Circuit jumps aboard you can truly System Tells Customers: 'If You Have Problems, Call Execs at Home’ By Barnett Parker Pew System Managers or executives ■ would invite subscribers to phone them at home with complaints or sugges tions, but (hat’s just what the chairman of the board and the general manager of Buckeye Cablevision Inc. in Toledo. Ohio, have done over the past two years. Three times the system has sent let ters to subscribers, asking them to phone chairman Allan Block and general manag er David Huey at work or at home If cus tomer service problems aren’t resolved through “the norm.al channels of our cus tomer relations department" Block has gotten about 10 calls per let ter at work and a total of four calls at home. Huey has gotten a'bit more than twice that number. Block said. Tltat light volume would back up Buckeye Cabicvi- sion's assertion that it has exceeded the NCTA’s customer service standards for several years. The numbers are also significant, con sidering that Buckeye Cablevision in Toledo has 115,000 subscribers and gets 6(X),000 calls per year. “The purpose is very clear." Block said. “We want to make our subscribers like us. We want to make sure no one can say we’re arrogant We want to be very concerned about our subscribers." System changes The calls, most of which have dealt with specific problems such as network non-duplication complaints, have prompt ed the system to change some of (he ways it docs business. "Top management has found out some valuable things," Block said. "There has been some valuable feedback. If a cus tomer tells a CSR that there is a problem, we hope our CSRs and middle managers will communicate. "But you just can't be sure the infor mation will filter up to a decision-making level." Block was prepared to have his life disrupted for six months when the first letter was sent in June 1990, and he thought he’d have to install an answering machine at home to field all (he calls. But a year and a half later, Block still has no answering machine. ‘I think the reason is because we are doing a good job and because people are respectful," Block said. They aren’t go ing to call me unless they really have a problem."