INFORMATION #4 12-03-2007 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Minnesota law establishes a specific application process including application information that must be submitted. Minn. Stat. § 238.081. Minnesota's process does not establish a timeline for final action. Thus, the timelines established by the Order apply. The Minnesota application process, which requires two weeks' published notice and a public hearing before an application can be acted upon, must be completed within the FCC's tight timelines. The FCC's timelines run from the submission of an application containing certain information including contact information, and the proposed service area, PEG channel capacity and capital support, franchise fee amount, and franchise term. 47 C.F.R. § 76.41(b). Minnesota's application process requires submission of similar information. The Order makes clear that to trigger the "shot clock," an application must also include "any additional information required by applicable state or local laws." Thus, an applicant must comply with Minnesota's application requirements. Service AreaBuild-Out The Order mandates that an LFA cannot impose "unreasonable build-out mandates." Order ¶ 89. The FCC, however, merely provides examples that "seem unreasonable," including the following: ^ Absent other factors, requiring a new entrant to serve everyone in a franchise area before it has begun serving anyone. ^ Requiring incumbent phone companies and other facilities-based entrants to build-out beyond the footprint of their existing facilities before they have even begun providing cable service. ^ Absent other factors, requiring more of a new entrant than an incumbent cable operator (e.g., requiring build-out in less time than originally afforded the incumbent, or requiring service to areas of lower density than the incumbent is required to serve). ^ Requiring a new entrant to build-out to where it cannot obtain access on reasonable terms. ^ Requiring a new entrant to build-out to areas or customers that it cannot reach using standard technical solutions. ^ Requiring a new entrant to build-out to areas where it cannot obtain reasonable access to and use of the public rights of way. However, Minnesota law. requires a competitor's service area obligation to be "no more favorable or less burdensome" than the incumbent's obligation. Minn. Stat. § 238.08, Subd. 1(b). In 2003, the Minnesota Court of Appeals noted in WHLink v. City of Otsego: ... the state statute requires the city, when franchising [a phone company] to provide that service, to do so on terms similar to those included in pre-existing franchises.... [the