1983-07-20 Public Hearings and Regular Meeting

Browse Search

• 0 Page 6 • etc.) provided over cable systems may not be subject to regula- tion (Sec. 607 (g) (2) (A) ) . The cable operator, however, may be required under that provision to file an informational tariff specifying rates, terms, and conditions with a state and may be prohibited from changing those rates, terms, and conditions until a new tariff is filed. The rates for a particular intrastate telecommunications service provided over a telephone system shall be deregulated by a state under section 607(g)(3) when that service is subject to effective competition from another provider such as a cable system. SERVICES Existing franchises. Any provision of an existing franchise or a franchise agreement resulting from an RFP issued prior to October 1, 1982 which requires the provision of particular services (e.g., a particular programming service such as HBO) or partic- ular types of services (e.g., children's programming) is grand - fathered (Sec. 613(f)) regardless of whether the service require- ment was mandated or the result of arm's-length negotiations. New franchises. Any franchise granted after the bill becomes law (except for a franchise resulting from an RFP issued before • October 1, 1982 which may have established particular service requirements as a condition of the franchise) may require the provision of any particular service offered in the operator's proposal. In addition, nothing in the bill precludes the city from specifying in its RFP its preference for particular services or types of services. Particular services, however, may not be unilaterally mandated in the RFP. Significant changes in circumstances. A cable operator may re- move or replace a particular service specified in the franchise under section 613(d)(1) if there has been a significant change in circumstances since the cable operator made its proposal. According to the committee report (S. Rpt. 98-67), a cable opera- tor may remove or replace a particular service when a service is not available (i.e., a particular service goes out of business), the cost of providing a service has increased significantly, the quality of a service has deteriorated, or a service is not viable due to changes in marketplace conditions beyond the operator's control. Section 613(d)(1), however, does not create a right to eliminate access channel requirements, according to the committee report. Moreover, removal of a particular service required by a franchise under section 613(d)(1) without a revision of the franchise agreement should constitute a violation of the franchise, estab- • lishing a basis for the city to deny renewal under section