Laserfiche WebLink
^imCabkAct <br />^VPOs«dly stripped <br />■r.'•a# <br />cfmostoflheu <br />powwovar <br />0^ But recent <br />f-r'fotMt derisions. <br />':ir <br />f - ;:,t: <br />some careful <br />Pmamthn (or ft\ <br />'/-i',' <br />*^nnewals.are <br />drem new <br />dout. <br />vilfluttofA* <br />•••••A ^vtriuuiici, Umunicipal overbuild, a short <br />review, franchise fees...," <br />8®ys John Mansel, a senior <br />analyst with Paul Kagan <br />Associates. “In absence of <br />rate control they are looking <br />to generate as much control <br />as possible." <br />*T^is is nothing new," <br />says Steve Efliros, president <br />CATA, the Community <br />nna Television Associa ­ <br />tion. *They have always done <br />what Uiey are doing now in <br />the renewal process. This is <br />just the second time around.” <br />. ..c/ItI always had provisionsfor a city to deny its operator <br />True, the tools the cities <br />have are the same ones <br />theyVe always used to lever­ <br />age concessions from cable <br />®®**V*mes. But recent court <br />dedaions have rendered <br />those tools more effective <br />than ever before. Threats of <br />denied renewal and munici­ <br />pal overbuilds, to name two, <br /><moewe%hedaboutasheav- <br />11)^ M a 12 ounce hammer in <br />the hands of franchise <br />authorities. Now that ham ­ <br />mer has become a lOoound <br />sledge. <br />ft is also a critical time for <br />w • . <br />MrUafiht <br />»hn<witautis,«,,,iK, <br />ii.1tiM franchises were granted. <br />Cities now hove a window of <br />rtunity to, •.» • * <br />How did the cities bulk up <br />thdr powers? They have been <br />husfry working out in court. <br />^ a«^ v|pcraior <br />renewal, but the presumption of <br />renewal was so strong, and the <br />denial procedure so labyrinthine. <br />It seemed as though any incum­ <br />bent system was in for life. Not <br />anymore. <br />The City of Rolla, Missouri <br />denied Rolla Cable System Inc. <br />renewal on three of four possible <br />provisions under The Act— <br />specifically that the cable system <br />had not complied with its con ­ <br />tract, the quality of service was <br />poor, and that the operator did <br />not have the ability to provide ser- <br />V" - promised in its proposal. It <br />went to court and in the end, the <br />city of Rolla wore the hurel <br />wreath. <br />That was a pretty sobering <br />decision, that one city took an <br />operator through the process <br />and won,“ says Frank Lloyd <br />attorney at Waahkigtoo law firm <br />Mintz. Levin. Cohn, Ferris, <br />Glovsky and Popeo. "Somebody <br />got through this procedural mme <br />field and knocked out a cable <br />operator." <br />Even Eflros, who notes none <br />of fi»e>e negotiating methods are <br />new,saidintheCATAnewilet- <br />f*^|*What the case did prove ... <br />renewal process under the <br />19W Act does indeed have <br />**^th—and you had better heed <br />the warning." <br />'Hie case is now on sppeaL but <br />its impact is already being felt <br />The Rolla dedafon has ceit^ <br />chanavH tfw>------» -■___ <br />l.b- <br />BY ROY FURCHGOTT <br /><Aitivmaa • jst? i, n,, 21