Laserfiche WebLink
r <br />i. <br />NCAh. J- •HAP iAO <br />•auc a . acANic*• <br />TMOMAft o.CftciaMroN <br />•THA u SI* <br />tCOrT A. urtON <br />PAUL J. OUAtr* <br />• . TOGO MAPP*« <br />• USAN OICACL MiNSacnO <br />TMCPCftA M.AOPfPttMl <br />BERWICK AN'D LIFSON <br />A pwort SSlONAC AS50C iAT i*^N <br />attorneys at law <br />SU'TE »200 COLOmna OE <br />S500 WArZATA 0OULEVAPO <br />MINNEAPOLIS. MINNESOTA 55-416 <br />I0I2* 5A6-I20C <br />facsimile !6i21 5-A6- 003 <br />*u**-*^CO '*• <br />;«•» »*CO •OBI.'C •CCOu»»rA»«» <br />• ■(Ak. aao 'CA** S#CC AkiB* <br />**«0 C t»CC'Ai..BT <br />■» <br />M<K»NCfOP4 BT a TK •*<! association <br />August 13, l'-91 <br />Of COiiNBCL <br />•0«l»T C <br />aa Tmu A ^ Oca SB*a <br />PAMA vCOA v <br />CvAX S'A m!««s <br />Ms. Jsnnifer Watts <br />Cabls Administrator <br />Laks Minnatonka Cable Conununications Commission <br />443 Oak Street <br />Excelsior, MM 55331 <br />Re: Triax Cable Vision's charge for non-cable service calls <br />Dear Ms. Watts: <br />As per your request, I have reviewed the informat, on you have <br />provided me regarding Triax Cablevision's charge for non-cable <br />service calls. It is my understanding that a Twenty Five dollar <br />fee is charged or proposed to be charged by the company for any <br />service call during which a company employee does not find a <br />problem with company^provided equipment or service. <br />I have also reviewed the legal opinion from Timothy J. O'Rourke, <br />Dow, Lohnes and Albertson, counsel for Triax Cablevision. <br />I do not agree with the statement of counsel for Triax that the <br />Act precludes regulation of charges for customer service calls. <br />In support of its argument counsel for Triax sites 47 u.S.C. <br />Section 543 (a) . This states in relevant part "any franchising <br />authority nay regulate the rates for the provision of cable <br />service, or any other communications service provided over a <br />cable system to cable subscribers, but only to the extent <br />provided unde this section." (emphasis added). <br />The intent of the Federal legislation regarding the deregulation <br />of rates related to attempting to establish a national policy of <br />imposing mark" forces on the amount that cable companies would <br />charge for programming they "provided over a cable system". The <br />legislative history is replete with references to the fact that <br />cable companies receive programming via satellite and are in <br />effect engaged in interstate commerce. The legislature <br />apparently believed that it would be an untenable situation to <br />have nationally delivered cable programming subject to local, <br />unreasonable and uneven rate regulation. This situation, of <br />course, does not apply to a local company sending a truck out to <br />check on someone's cable service.