INFORMATION #4 12-03-2007 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Kennedy 470 US Bank Plaza 200 South Sixth Street Minneapolis MN 55402 Graven (612) 337-9300 telephone (612) 337-9310 fax http://www.kennedy-graven. com (HAR`l'ERED MEMORANDUM TO: Clients FROM: Bob Vose DATE: November 7, 2007 RE: FCC's Second Order; MB Docket No. OS-311 On October 31, 2007, the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC") adopted a Second Report and Order ("Second Order") providing "further guidance" on the local franchising process. The Second Order extends certain regulatory relief to incumbent cable operators. On November 6, 2007, the FCC released the text of the Second Order. Background In December, 2006, the FCC issued an order ("First Order") concluding that local governments have unreasonably impeded franchising of cable competitors. You have previously received memoranda detailing the findings and restrictions imposed in the First Order. In sum, the FCC: ^ imposed 90 or 180 day time limits for processing a competitive franchise application; ^ prohibited imposition of unreasonable build-out requirements on competitors; ^ interpreted the 5% franchise fee cap by defining the fee revenue base and identifying certain fees/charges, payments, support, or contributions that are subject to the franchise fee cap; ^ restricted certain PEG and I-Net support obligations. The First Order was challenged by various parties and is pending before the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals. The decision was not stayed pending completion of this litigation. Second Order--- Summary The First Order did not significantly impact Minnesota's cable franchising regime. The First Order only preempted "local laws, regulations, practices, and requirements ... not specifically authorized by state law." Minnesota law comprehensively governs and authorizes nearly all aspects of local cable franchising. Particularly, the First Order did not preempt Minnesota's