Laserfiche WebLink
Offices in 470 U.S.Bank Plaza <br /> Kennedy200 South Sixth Street <br /> Minneapolis Minneapolis,MN 55402 <br /> Saint Paul (612)337-9300 telephone <br /> Graven (612)337-9310 fax <br /> St. Cloud www.kennedy-graven.com <br /> t H A R TERED Affirmative Action,Equal Opportunity Employer <br /> ROBERT J.V.VOSE <br /> Attorney at Law <br /> Direct Dial(612)337-9275 <br /> Email: rvose@kennedy-graven.com <br /> July 27,2015 <br /> VIA U.S.MAIL ANI) E-MAIL <br /> Mr.Adam E.Falk <br /> Senior Vice President, State Government Affairs <br /> Charter Communications,Inc. <br /> 1099 New York Avenue NW, Ste. 650 <br /> Washington,DC 20001 <br /> E-mail: adamfalk-gvt@charter.com <br /> Re: FCC Form 394; July 20th Response to Request for Supplemental Information <br /> Dear Mr. Falk: <br /> This replies to your letter of July 20th. The Sherburne Wright Counties Cable Commission ("LFA") <br /> posed questions regarding the proposed restructuring of Charter Communications, Inc. ("Charter") <br /> described in your FCC Form 394 filing. As explained below, your letter is not responsive to several <br /> questions. <br /> In addition, you incorrectly claim that federal law limits the scope of the LFA's review and the <br /> information that can be requested. In fact, the Cable Act, 47 U.S.C. § 537, establishes procedural <br /> requirements and authorizes the FCC to establish initial filing requirements triggering those review <br /> procedures, but does not otherwise limit the LFA's review. In turn, the FCC established initial filing <br /> requirements via Form 394. However, the applicable rules, 47 C.F.R. § 76.502, specifically contemplate <br /> that additional information may be requested. <br /> Any substantive limits on the LFA's authority are established by state law. Charter Communications v. <br /> County of Santa Cruz, 304 F.3d 927 (9th Cir. 2002). Under Minnesota state law,approval of a Form 394 <br /> request must be in writing and cannot be unreasonably withheld. Minn. Stat. § 238.083, Subds. 2 and 4. <br /> Accordingly, a Form 394 request can be denied or conditionally approved as long as such action is <br /> reasonable. If challenged,the LFA's action will be entitled to significant deference and sustained if fairly <br /> debatable. <br /> Notably,a Form 394 request may be denied or conditioned based on the failure to furnish information that <br /> is reasonably requested. See, Santa Cruz. A request may also be conditioned or denied based on <br /> franchise non-compliance. In fact, the Form 394 itself mandates a certification by the transferee that any <br /> franchise non-compliance matters will be addressed. Requiring correction of franchise non-compliance <br /> matters as a condition of approval is reasonable and thus permissible under state law. ' <br /> Your letter is non-responsive to the LFA's questions as follows: <br /> 465535v1 RJV SH255-12 <br />