Local Franchise Agreement

48. The ILAs submit that the invocation of the `appropriate` standard in Section 621 is contrary to the standards laid down in Article 626 for franchise renewals, which generally ask whether a proposed extension is appropriate to meet the `needs and interests` of the Community. We do not see that kind of conflict. Section 621 defines the „general franchise requirements“ and there is nothing in Section 626 to indicate that these general limits do not apply in the context of a franchise renewal. As NCTA points out, the finding that franchise extensions are limited only by the Section 626 „Needs and Interest“ examination would mean, inter alia, that deductible extensions would not be limited by the statutory deductible limit in Section 622. 87. The genesis confirms the conclusion that Congress understood that a franchised „cable system“ would carry both cable and non-cable services. The House Report explains, for example, that „the term `cable system` is not limited to a device that offers only cable services including video programs. On the contrary, many cable systems offer a variety of cable and other communication services. An installation would be a cable system if it were designed to cover the provision of cable services (including video programs) as well as non-cable communication services.

“ 106. As some supporters of the LFA have pointed out, the Commission stated in advance that, although a cable operator is not required to pay a franchise fee for revenues from non-cable services, this rule `does not apply to tariff requirements outside the cable franchise, such as.B. legal charges related to the provision of telecommunications services“.` For the reasons set out below, I consider that the assessment of a cable operator by an LFA twice for access to public rights of way (once as a cable operator and, again, as a telecommunications operator) would be unlawful or `competitively neutral and non-discriminatory`. To the extent that our previous statement might suggest a wider application, we reject it on the basis of the protocol before us and the arguments put forward on this point. 13. We reject the argument that franchise considerations are not „imposed“ by a franchising authority because they are negotiated between the parties in an Arms-Length transaction and „are not fixed by force“. The definition of „impose“ is not limited to „as established by force“, but may also mean „establish or use by authority“. Furthermore, according to that restrictive interpretation of the concept, benefits in cash or in kind cannot be interpreted as franchise costs if they are negotiated by the parties as conditions of the franchise agreement. As NCTA points out, „even a franchise agreement, which provides that the cable operator pays 5% of gross revenues to the franchised authority, would not include a franchise fee, given that the 5% royalty was included in a negotiated document and was not imposed by Fiat.“ 98.  As already mentioned, pursuant to section 621(a)(2), `[a]ny Franchise shall be construed as permitting the construction of a wiring system through public rights of way.` Since the `construction of a cable system` involves the installation of devices and equipment necessary for the provision of cable and non.B wired services, such as.B. wireless broadband and Wi-Fi services, the grant of a Title VI franchise confers the right to place equipment and equipment in rights of way to provide such services. In 2018, the FCC responded to the Tribunal`s guidelines and again proposed rules for franchising established cables.91 On 1 92 The FCC said its rules would ensure a level playing field between new entrants and incumbent cable companies93 and accelerate the development of „advanced telecommunications capabilities“ by anticipating local rules that „constitute a disproportionate economic burden“ for video services.

94 Finally, although the FCC found that competition between video program broadcasting services eliminated the need for tariff regulation at the basic level of cable services, Maine passed a law that allows consumers to pay only for the video programs they choose, instead of bundling channels. . . .