My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
2014_0616_CCpacket
Roseville
>
City Council
>
City Council Meeting Packets
>
2014
>
2014_0616_CCpacket
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/8/2014 1:54:21 PM
Creation date
6/12/2014 2:23:44 PM
Metadata
Jump to thumbnail
< previous set
next set >
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
222
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
Page 19 <br />PUBLIC DOCUMENT-TRADE SECRET DATA HAS BEEN EXCISED <br />Proposal for Formal Franchise Renewal <br />December 20, 2013 <br />C. The Staff Report and RFRP make demands—mostly related to the <br />I-Net and PEG channels and operations — that are unlawful under <br />the Cable Act. <br />In addition to violating First-Amendment standards, many of the <br />substantive demands in the staff report, the consultant reports, and the RFRP <br />are unlawful under the Cable Act. <br />Again, section 621(a) prohibits the NSCC from unreasonably refusing to <br />award a franchise. Section 621(a)(4) of the Cable Act allows an LFA to require <br />"adequate assurance that the cable operator will provide adequate public, <br />educational, and governmental access channel capacity, facilities, or financial <br />support." (Emphasis added.) In its 621 Order, the FCC, interpreting these 2 <br />statutory provisions together, ruled that LFAs may not make unreasonable <br />demands for PEG and I-Net support. The FCC also affirmed that an LFA must <br />"evaluate their current and future PEG needs at the time of an incumbent <br />provider's renewal, and are allowed to request such PEG support from their <br />providers, within the limits of the Act and the Commission's statutory <br />interpretation."33 <br />PEG Channels. Congress sought to protect and further the diversity of <br />video programming when it enacted Section 611 of the Cable Act to permit <br />LFAs to demand PEG channels as a condition of franchise renewa1.34 Congress <br />did not enact Section 611 to give LFAs carte blanche to demand any number of <br />channels desired, nor did it specify the level an operator must provide. Read in <br />light of First Amendment concerns, Section 611 permits an LFA to require the <br />minimum number of PEG channels necessary to provide an "adequate" level of <br />access.35 And indeed the FCC ascribed the word "adequate" its plain <br />33. 621 Order ¶110; Second 621 Order ¶¶12-15. <br />34. See 47 U.S.C. � 531; House Report at 30, reprinted in 1984 U.S.C.C.A.N. at <br />4667 ("Public access channels ... provide groups and individuals who generally <br />have not had access to the electronic media with the opportunity to become <br />sources of information in the electronic marketplace of ideas. PEG channels also <br />contribute to an informed citizenry by bringing local schools into the home, and by <br />showing the public local government at work."). <br />35. 47 U.S.C. � 541(a)(4) (allowing LFAs to require cable operators to provide <br />"adequate assurance that the cable operator will provide adequate public, <br />education, and governmental access channel capacity, facilities, or financial <br />support"). <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.