|
I — - �Of - ----
<br />Cable-S4xdfic Body Law'-.,
<br />M64is Closer to Being 1W16.
<br />By Lanv is""
<br />WASHINGTX)N—'ne cab],
<br />industry imbed ' in 1987 w
<br />a new body of law specifically
<br />designed for its own regulation
<br />nather than that of newspapers
<br />..d broadcast Islarousno.
<br />CAnalb,imill federal court de&
<br />asocautt-aldeems(seestory. P
<br />" P:d
<br />81 and Pcn.syNsvia . .
<br />apparent the need for the U.S
<br />SuprrmeCourtutdatermined.
<br />constitutionality of the federal
<br />Cable Communications Policy
<br />Act .11984.
<br />Topping a Lin of victories for
<br />the cable industry was the U.S.,
<br />Guart of Appeals' unanimous
<br />decision I. December striking
<br />d,� d. Fedal Conumm' "-
<br />tins- � ummicat's imarimmus�
<br />cartry rules.
<br />The ruling was the second' -
<br />many years in which . fis!".1
<br />roorthsalwid.lontrofthermus-
<br />carry rules to be unconsmuteanal.
<br />U niese the rulaw 6 moteturned M
<br />appeal. -persto. are apparent-
<br />1, free to add or delete broadcast
<br />signals from their systrores m they
<br />wish. 1. addition, up .. W. ill
<br />a. longer hm,c the A/B switch
<br />requirement.
<br />'I x,on,.iog&bwovwcitiW
<br />rights to control franchi9ing WL
<br />OPeratoft Fust Amentims'"
<br />rights were the central issues in
<br />three federal court marat in Cali.
<br />forni. and notho, to Eric, PA.
<br />At stake is whether ammid.
<br />fulitict he,, the eight W requirst
<br />—i—I art'ine; I.Ablie, go�
<br />.,.Ul and ad.,atmmal seers,
<br />,hamtrL. and facilities; a. well as
<br />",me .1 dw. raws will likely
<br />d.,,m,uw.h,jh,,,he.,.woo,f
<br />cable fran,himit, w.11 cummov.
<br />7 FIW* Ratm'-'--'-- � 111r,�"ej Gsmiji
<br />In April. the U.S. District
<br />Cmut. in E , A
<br />franchise I= by =l. c::!
<br />pani.. to municipalities are
<br />conatitutional—a'decision that
<br />directly oxinictswith the Caldor,
<br />me casses. The Erie court also,
<br />upheld the PEG cast .
<br />uutunems.
<br />Th. case 0
<br />American
<br />munications Corp.
<br />Another ATC system in Aus,
<br />tin, TX, lw challenged theright
<br />for the cable company to modify
<br />its franchise agreement. but did
<br />. through . ...bunding bi-
<br />orator, . retinedjudge. T'hajdge
<br />ruled in favo, of the city. and the
<br />two peruses reached a cowpro�
<br />miss in dw fail on PEG require-
<br />m..ts, and an institution.]
<br />network.
<br />After losing the meet recruit
<br />most-catery, raw, the FCC as.'.
<br />will come underjudici.] scrutiny
<br />armedoo.i.1988.1tecith. S.
<br />Supreme Court hear, a case on
<br />wbethcrtheagencyluss
<br />authority to regulate the quality
<br />of broadeast signals transmitted
<br />by cable operawre of 0 that Power
<br />should rest �ith nate and local
<br />gm,ernurems.
<br />The ., whirl the high event
<br />earlier this ..nth agreed to hm.
<br />is crucial because it interpoll, the
<br />Cable Act. TI. cities maimaj.
<br />Congress never intended for the
<br />FCC to bar municipalities from
<br />writing technical gundv4s into
<br />their franchise contracts.
<br />TIsere were -6. three the,
<br />high rourt drei.i... in 1987
<br />-fleeting 1-ble I- March, the
<br />U.S SuIreow Court let stand a
<br />$35.8 million federal appeals
<br />�mn j.dm,.t in Jefferson.
<br />MO, in hrh ith,.rd otblewbe
<br />a Mor-r-A,, and that
<br />Tek-Commimirstion. In, *,
<br />I.Wdl fed ... I antitrust law. in its
<br />fight for an ..dtwi�, franchise.
<br />Also in March d. high court
<br />nded 9.0 that the FCC is right to
<br />r,g.l.tethenstsocalble.pesatume
<br />Pay utirtia. to string cable cat
<br />p.W. TIw decision. martmul -
<br />lower circuit court ruling, saved
<br />the industry hundreds 4 millions
<br />of d.liers.
<br />In February. the Supreme
<br />Cmirt also upheld FCC rudes that
<br />prohibit a single company from
<br />owning and operating both a TV
<br />station and cable system in the
<br />surnemarket.ThecoundiSm.
<br />ad the suit, which weebrought by
<br />an Arnsuill.. TX. rurnpawy
<br />without comn'.t.
<br />0. Capitol Hill, he.makers
<br />held a reveled of hearings look-
<br />ing into various "pects of the
<br />cable busineastahbough W final
<br />action was taken.
<br />In February, Sem, Albert Gore
<br />I D-TN I ked " Federal TVs&
<br />Cksomissionwitsokimaptes"
<br />andunuaviolationabyeablepro-
<br />regarding signal
<br />scratublinliarscinuarketatilsothe
<br />honee-di.h market. rw Justice
<br />Deparmeent bad already begutt
<br />similar urveortiastirm.
<br />In N.�emb". the S ... te
<br />a modified version of . bill spon-
<br />.red by Sen. Gore , .. dating
<br />thiod-party denributsor, and her.
<br />ring discrimination between the
<br />distribution of such program -
<br />..a to diattrihmoss for cable
<br />and dish "..
<br />Further .,ti.. .0 S.889 1.
<br />expected this coming tessiun.
<br />On the same Nmember day,
<br />the If... ..beeremitt,r .
<br />Cmt,os. 0" llb�rtsea A the
<br />Ad.inuartai.nof justorlwid.
<br />hearing on a bill that would
<br />da,ify dis� owners' rights to
<br />recesw and ortwork
<br />signal. The legislation was sup-
<br />,,oned by repressimstive, of the
<br />cable. motion pteture. home dish
<br />and saw1ht, carrier industries.
<br />In I . R -I- Shu-
<br />mas ilr
<br />r4yj Z.Cd..d . bill
<br />md 'baseball
<br />their
<br />to
<br />'si�
<br />ME�v
<br />ad
<br />bil w a in
<br />of New
<br />see
<br />!71 =-Moagsi7w -`Nnot
<br />.k.diorotble.N.Imarinirt-cer,
<br />held on if. hante-
<br />in October. Rep. Schomer
<br />announced that he wasecraid"-
<br />ing the Introduction of broad
<br />ami,an, 60slation that would
<br />lom,proMmanerstormiketheir
<br />."i" &�.ilabl. to "WiMM
<br />cable. syntem, including MMDS
<br />and SMATV. Howeer, the bill
<br />we. mr,,, introduced.
<br />Also in October. Rep. John
<br />Bryant W-TV and Rep. Al
<br />Swift ID -WA) introduced . hill
<br />that would How emmicipalk.
<br />to diclaw to cable systems the
<br />channel position 4 bmadeset ots-
<br />tions. T1w bill, which .. b.4 -
<br />ad by the National Aweematio. of
<br />Brossicaseers; sed d- Association
<br />of Independent Tichresion Sts-
<br />tim., he. not yet b". scheduled
<br />to be considered by the House
<br />telecommunications --bc0--
<br />winter.
<br />71. ..bMemniatc,'. chair -
<br />.an, Rep. Edward Markey ID.
<br />MA 1, had scheduled cable �,-
<br />eight hewings in November. but
<br />had to fowj� the. b,.mr of
<br />more pressing congressional
<br />matte. .
<br />W'L a— - P,
<br />Back on the.port. from. Sen.
<br />Art. Specter I R-PA 1. as well as
<br />the J..ti,e Department and
<br />Federal Trade Commission,
<br />..K.uwd intention. to moral -
<br />get, the bidding I TV rights for
<br />National 1.�otball Lce,ae,tmors,
<br />partly in to ESPN .
<br />hwtor,-m.k., lutelaer,
<br />
|