Notice: Trying to get property of non-object in /home/flemingc/public_html/wp-content/plugins/wordpress-seo/frontend/schema/class-schema-person.php on line 151

Notice: Trying to get property of non-object in /home/flemingc/public_html/wp-content/plugins/wordpress-seo/frontend/schema/class-schema-person.php on line 226

Notice: Trying to get property of non-object in /home/flemingc/public_html/wp-content/plugins/wordpress-seo/frontend/schema/class-schema-person.php on line 232

Cable Operator Agreement

63. Many AFLs are concerned that our decisions are disrupting their homes, which rely on the deductible fees they expect. The protocol does not specify the tax decisions that remain available to the AFL, but in any event, delaying the effects of our decision to address this issue would not be consistent with the legislation. It is in the interest to prevent the damage caused by existing franchise agreements from lasting for years until these contracts expire. In addition, the amendments we are adopting in this document were reasonably predictable, as we largely adopt the interim findings of the Second NFRPM. [64] Finally, we note that the AFL can continue to benefit from its agreements by choosing to continue to receive existing in-kind benefits while reducing cash payments received. [65] In accordance with the law, we therefore apply our decisions to future contributions made by cable operators in accordance with existing franchise agreements. 102. Recognizing that excessive regulation at the local level could limit the potential of cable systems to provide a wide range of services, Congress expressed its intention to “minimize unnecessary regulations that result in an undue economic burden on cable systems” and to “ensure that cable communication provides the public with the widest possible variety of information sources and services and is encouraged to do so”generally , Section 230(b) of the Act expresses Congress` intention to preserve the dynamic and competitive free market that currently exists for the Internet and other interactive computer services, which are unfettered by federal or national regulations.” [111] As a result, the Commission anticipated state and local rules that would conflict with this federal policy of non-regulation of information services.

These long-standing federal policies support our decision in this document to read Title VI so that states, municipalities and franchising authorities prohibit the charging and obligations of cable operators that go beyond those expressly set out in this title. 20. First, we reaffirm our preliminary conclusion that the treatment of in-kind cable benefits as franchise rights would not compromise the provisions of the act that authorize or require the AFL to impose cable obligations on franchisees. For example, z.B Section 611 (b) of the Act allows the AFL to require that pipeline capacity be determined for the use of the PEG and that pipeline capacity be indicated on Networks I for use in education and government. Anne Arundel County et al. argue that the Commission erred in not realizing that the Cable Act “authorizes the AFL to impose cable franchise obligations [in Section 611] and to collect franchise fees [in Section 622] – they do not balance each other.” However, as we found in the second NFDF, the fact that the legislation authorizes the AFL to impose such obligations does not mean that the value of these commitments should be excluded from the 5% cap on franchise fees. We agree with the NCTA and the ACA that there is no basis in the legislation to conclude that the authority under Section 611, point b) influences the definition of franchise rights in Section 622 (g). As explained above, Clause 622 (g) is the key provision that defines what is included in the franchise rights and clause 622 (g) (2) defines only limited exclusions for PEG costs and does not mention exclusions related to the I-Net network.

Since Congress passed the RELATIVES and I-Net provisions at the same time, it added the franchise rights provisions, it could have explicitly excluded all PEG and I-Nets-related fees if it intended not to charge them on the cap. [24] Instead, they excluded only a subset of these costs. In addition, if we were to assume the status so that all costs related to PEG, I-Nets or other Section 611 requirements would be excluded from treatment as franchise rights, since Section 611 (b) provides for ach