Laserfiche WebLink
NH Moisiaaxa)tVO919fD ¥)U« 3)IV1 <br />SliVU «9^lNN3r <br />1 69^U0000 M3 <br />INSIDE <br />Pfimt Nttmark, <br />Sp9rttCkannd kit <br />QVCLMkt <br />ViF( <br />Aft^ivn dtownW <br />miit takt JCPtnnty’% <br />A«m»/3 <br />kmk in <br />lkmmvkttM/2§ <br />Nr <br />34^ <br />m Mte Hock /17 <br />CaWMnia Operators <br />EMbraHed in Battle <br />Aninst Cable Taxes <br />^ALIPOWU C a BLC OmtATtHtS are (hrealen- <br />W inf to rally the etate'e 5.5 million cable <br />anbecribere ^nat a propoerd lelecnmmu <br />nicatioaa tax unleea the cash-strapped state <br />IrglsIaTiirr becks down on its plan to slap a 6 <br />percent excise tax on telecommunications <br />The tax, srhich srould be levied on tele- <br />phone service. lofigHiMtafice car^ and ca ­ <br />ble service, srould pul some Caliiornia oper <br />atom' total tax bunJens In the 25-to-30 per <br />cent range, said Dennis Mangers, senior <br />vice president of the California Cable Televi- <br />5r« TM «H p«|v J9 <br />TMTOUAHIST <br />STAMIAI .1 <br />A' <br />Technical Standards <br />Proposal May Force <br />Rebuilds, Upgrades <br />■y Carl Wetnachonti <br />tk f'Kovi^inn in the Federal Communk'slions <br />Me ommission's proposed rule making on <br />lechnical standards, due out at the end of June, <br />coukl require sweeping upgrades or rebuilds of <br />mwh ol the nation's cable plant. <br />According to two sources, the proposal <br />would force operators to provide a 6 deribei per <br />millivoli signal at the subsciiber's television. But <br />the nation's cable infrastructure was created to <br />satisfy a need lor 0 dBmV — a comparative mea­ <br />sure equal <0 1.000 mtcrosmlts (1 millivolt) — <br />only half the signal strength of the »« dBmV <br />mra e said to be contained in the proposal. <br />That's a starclier Thai's very demanding.* <br />,Ser rCC ifn pag* Ifi <br />OvarbuHd la Florida: <br />Sapromt Coart Rafocts <br />Waraar McavMt C mo <br />N A Binw to cabtr operators fartng mumcipal <br />loverbwkh. the Supra me Court on June 17 re­ <br />fused to consider Warner Cable C nmmuaira- <br />twns Ur s luments that ito FWxl Amendment <br />rights would be viofaned by a nwanipal aver <br />budd in Nirevige. Fla. <br />The court reieewd without comment Warn ­ <br />er's srgum enta that Urn overbitild would drive <br />its sys tem out of bsMtaewk thns MHufinf oa it* <br />free s peech rtfhts. Tbe court's decishm uot la <br />hear the case iHs aland a aeriro «l Iswer caurt <br />decisisns ruing that Ike efry't <br />Isle Warner's First AmendmeW <br />'tWe are extremely pleaseit with ihr ruinf <br />i we antriaale bcM w the cmir TV busF