2014_0616_CCpacket - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

PUBLIC DOCUMENT-TRADE SECRET DATA HAS BEEN EXCISED Comcast of Minnesota Page 18 3. The NSCC Staff's repeated demands regarding Comcast's technical, construction, financial, and legal history and system are not narrowly tailored or necessary to achieve important government interests. The NSCCs "disclosure requirements must be measured against the O'Brien test to determine whether they unduly burden [the cable operator's] First Amendment rights."31 Comcast has operated franchises in the member cities for the past 11 years, and the NSCCs own consultants found that 90 percent of those surveyed are satisfied with Comcast's performance. The NSCC has audited Comcast's technical and financial capabilities, and is familiar with Comcast's management team. Clearly, Comcast is not a stranger to the NSCC and the member cities and has proven that it is legally, financially, and technically qualified to operate a franchise—by doing it successfully for more than a decade. Nevertheless, the RFRP repeatedly seeks extremely detailed information about Comcast's subscriber network and geographic areas, technical system, and construction. Many of the NSCC's demands seek information that the NSCC already has or that is publicly available or that concerns issues that are not in dispute or that are unnecessary to its evaluation of whether Comcast will reasonably meet the member cities' cable needs going forward. One example is that the NSCC seeks detailed and unnecessary financial information when Comcast's financial ability is not in question.32 Insofar as the NSCC will condition Comcast's right to engage in speech on meeting these unnecessary demands, Comcast objects. In addition to not being narrowly tailored, many information demands by the NSCC's RFRP violate the First Amendment because they are unduly burdensome to answer. For example, the NSCC has asked Comcast about thousands of franchises and hundreds of companies, detailed and confidential financial information that is not kept in the ordinary course of business, and detailed and confidential technical information about the manner in which Comcast delivers cable. Collecting and answering these demands—assuming they could even be met—would substantially burden Comcast. The NSCC staff has not justified — as it must, before so burdening a speaker — how all this information is necessary to evaluate the qualifications of a company with which it already is familiar. 31. Group W Cable, Inc. v. Santa Cruz, 669 F. Supp. 954, 971 (N.D. Cal. 1987). 32. See, e.g., Group W, 669 F. Supp. at 971 (an LFA cannot "deny a franchise for the failure to answer questions that are irrelevant to its [cited substantial government] interest in minimizing disruption of the public domain").