COMCAST OF CALIFORNIA II, L.L.C.,
Plaintiff,
v.
CITY OF SAN JOSE, CALIFORNIA,
Defendant.

(Adobe Acrobat Document)

Case No. C03-02532RS

MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR A
PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
Date: August 13, 2003

---

Web Streaming Cities

---

 

Local Franchising Authorities with Adelphia
Documents to Request U.S. Trustee to Appoint an Official Committee of Local Agencies - August 2002

"In the links to the documents, below, they reference a September 17, 2002, hearing date on the motion to create a local government committee. The hearing has been postponed until October 9, 2002, at the request of the United States Trustee."

SCAN NATOA and NATOA have jointly developed documents to present to the U.S. Trustee in the Adelphia bankruptcy to request the Trustee's formation of a Trustee-approved bankruptcy committee consisting of local government entities.

Your support is needed in demonstrating to the Trustee that an official committee of local government entities is needed, and that your community supports this action and desires to be represented by any such authorized committee.

Please download the following documents - each has a choice of .pdf or Word

RESOLUTION COVER LETTER - seeking support of the formation of a local government committee by the US Trustee
Resolution Cover Letter - Local Governments - Word Document

Resolution Cover Letter - Local Governments - .pdf

NATOA/SCAN NATOA Letter to Adelphia seeking support.
 Exhibit A  - Adelphia Bankruptcy - Word Document

Exhibit A - Adelphia Bankruptcy - .pdf

Response from Adelphia to NATOA/SCAN NATOA letter.
 Exhibit B  - Adelphia Bankruptcy - Word Document

Exhibit B - Adelphia Bankruptcy - .pdf

Resolution for local governments to adopt in support.
 Exhibit C  - Adelphia Bankruptcy - Word Document

Exhibit C  - Adelphia Bankruptcy - .pdf

U.S. Trustee Letter requesting the formation of a local government committee.
 U.S. Trustee Letter - Word Document

U.S. Trustee Letter - .pdf

ACTION ALERT - Seeking members support for the creation of a local government committee by the United States Trustee.
Action Alert Adelphia - Word Document

Action Alert Adelphia - .pdf

If you have questions, please contact SCAN NATOA President Lori Panzino at 909.387.9600, lpanzino@sdd.sbcounty.gov or NATOA Executive Director Libby Beaty at 703.506.3275, lbeaty@natoa.org.

Please give these documents your timely consideration.

....and please share with all other Adelphia communities.

Thank you.

Michael J. Friedman
Board Member, SCAN NATOA
for Lori Panzino, President SCAN NATOA

---

Summary of July 22, 2002 SCAN NATOA meeting 
with Interim CEO Erland E. (Erkie) Kailbourne
and Vice President of Legal Affairs Randall D. Fisher

click to download in Microsoft Word

---

Handouts from June 20, 2002 Adelphia Meeting in Ontario

---

TV Technology Byliner

---

Matrox Digisuite LE Breathes New Life into Commuity Cable Channel

---

DPS Velocity 7

---

Matrox Makes the Cut

---

Matrox Digisuite Takes Its Harware to the Max

---

Letter From Jane Mago Re: FCC Amicus Brief

you must have Adobe Acrobat to view

---

City of Auburn, City of Des moines,
 City of tacoma,
Plaintiffs-Appellees/
Cross-Appellants-Petitioners,
vs.
  Qwest Corporation, Defendant-Appellant/Cross-Appellee

---

ALTRIO COMMUNICATIONS Enters the Los Angeles Telecommunications Market



October 25, 2000, GLENDALE, CA: Altrio Communications, Inc., today announced the close of its first major round of financing to operate as a full-service broadband communications provider in the Southern California residential market. “Altrio is now poised to become the premier provider of voice,
video, and high speed-data services to Los Angeles area neighborhoods,” said
David Rozzelle, CEO. Initial funding for Altrio was provided by Frontenac
Company, a Chicago-based private equity firm.

Altrio is particularly proud of the distinguished group of equity investors
who have collectively committed $125 Million to this phase of Altrio’s
business plan. The investor group is led by Frontenac Company and Bessemer
Holdings. Other institutional investors include Soros Private Equity
Partners, SSB Capital Partners (the private equity investment fund affiliate
of Salomon Smith Barney), Royal Bank Capital Partners (the private equity
arm of Royal Bank Financial Group), Bank of America Capital Investors (the
private equity investment group of Bank of America), and Grove Street
Advisors (whose largest limited partner is CalPERS). The equity commitment
will be supported by senior debt in an amount up to $150 Million to fully
fund Altrio’s initial phase.

One of the unique characteristics of this company is its focus on Southern
California communities. “Unlike other competitive providers in the market –
who are seeking franchises in dozens of markets in many states – Altrio is
dedicated to developing a regional network in cooperation with local
communities in the Los Angeles area,” said Jim Crawford, a Managing Partner
of Frontenac Company.

Altrio’s other lead investor agreed. “It is the local nature of Altrio’s
business focus that made this competitive broadband opportunity so
interesting,” said Adam Godfrey, a General Partner in Bessemer Holdings. “We
believe the strength of the management team and its familiarity with the Los
Angeles market are advantages that other providers will not have.”

Planning for the Altrio Communications network is underway, and construction
will begin in several months. Altrio’s network is designed to provide
residential customers with an information capacity and reliability that
surpasses existing telephone, data and cable television networks now in
operation, due to its fiber-rich architecture and its extensive redundancy
features.

Altrio’s senior management team includes David Rozzelle, CEO; Ted Liebst,
CFO; and Dave Large, CTO; formerly the principals of Media Connections Group
and all former executives with InterMedia Partners, with a total of 75 years
experience in the cable television industry. They will work with an
experienced team of professionals including Steve Ross, Altrio’s General
Counsel and the former Chief of the Cable Television Branch of the FCC; Bill
Kostka, Altrio’s Vice President of Engineering, who recently supervised
cable modem certification at CableLabs; Brenda Trainor, Altrio’s Vice
President, Public Policy and a former Board Member of the National
Association of Telecommunications Officers and Advisors; and Eric Hart, Vice
President of Outside Plant, who has been in the cable industry for over 20
years and has held technical management positions for the last ten years.

Altrio Communications, Inc., is a Delaware corporation with headquarters in
Glendale, CA.

*******************

Supplemental information regarding the investors, and company background
information is available by calling Nancy Iles at 818-552-4267.

---

County of San Bernardino
Right Of Way Questionnaire.doc

---

*******************
CITYTV ON THE WEB
City Council Meetings Live On-line in Santa Monica
by Keith A. Kurtz and Roslyn Wythe


So, somebody thinks that your municipal television broadcast ought to be on the Web. Once you get past your initial reaction (how are we ever going to do that?), you will probably be thinking about why this service is considered valuable.

After all, how many people in town can there be who have access to the World Wide Web, do not have cable TV, and want to watch your channel? We were thinking just that when two citizens sent unsolicited E-mail asking if we broadcast CityTV on the Internet. Both explained that they did not subscribe to cable TV but would like to watch the City Council meetings without having to come to City Hall (Council meetings have long been broadcast on the local college radio station, KCRW). OK. Point taken. There is demand.

There are, of course, two important groups that do not normally see the cable broadcast. First is anyone who is outside of the City during a Council meeting. This includes interested parties not based in the City, residents traveling that day, and staff who live outside the City. The second group is staff who need to be present for only a portion of the meeting. With the meeting broadcast available on their desktops, these busy people can easily work in their offices until needed in the Council Chamber.


GETTING STARTED

Having decided to move forward, we looked for other cities already offering this service. Nearby Torrance, California is broadcasting full time on the web. Two telephone calls put us in touch with the staffer who set up the server and maintains the service. Torrance, we learned, is running the RealNetworks server on an Intel based computer serving an audio stream optimized for modem users. In simpler terms, they are using a computer similar to the PCs on staff desktops, only more powerful. They purchased software from RealNetworks and chose to provide a signal best suited to users dialing into their Internet Service Provider (ISP) using a modem.

There are two leading software products that will capture an audio/video signal and "stream" it to the Internet, RealNetworks RealSystem G2 and Microsoft Netshow. The RealNetworks product has a number of technical advantages while the Microsoft software is free. Both require that the user download and install a free "plug-in" on their own computer. Note that since RealNetworks has most of the streaming media market share, it is more likely that users will have already installed the RealNetworks software. 

The RealNetworks basic server, G2, bundled with Real Producer Pro, is sold on a tiered pricing system depending upon how many streams, or simultaneous users, are required. When we investigated, we learned that the RealNetworks product was free for up to 25 streams, moderately priced for up to 40 streams, and relatively expensive beyond that.

Why pay RealNetworks for software that Microsoft is giving away? RealNetworks technology provides a more efficient and straightforward method for simultaneously broadcasting different quality streams without adding significant administrative effort. This makes it possible to offer streams optimized for both modem and network users with virtually no additional system resources or complexity. Despite the availability of ISDN, cable modems and DSL, most home users are still accessing the Internet using a modem. Many business users and almost everyone in Santa Monica City government has high speed network access to the Internet. The RealNetworks server will actually transmit more data, which provides a better quality picture, on a network optimized stream.

The RealNetworks Server also has the ability to adjust its signal based on network load for each stream. That is, when things get congested, there is a fancy compression that occurs and a slightly degraded signal is transmitted that can wend its way through a crowded network more easily. This is similar to pulling a motorcycle out of your trunk when traffic backs up on the freeway. You can't carry as much stuff, but you don't get slowed down either. Not slowing down is very important during a live broadcast. For all of the above reasons, we elected to purchase the RealNetworks Server with a 40 stream license.


NUTS & BOLTS

RealNetworks recommends that two servers be used, especially if multiple optimizations will be employed. One server needs to be connected directly to the television signal and is used to "capture," or encode the signal into a digital format. The second server is used to stream the signal onto the Internet. While this can all be done with one server, using two computers helps spread the load and assure that there are no service interruptions when usage gets heavy.

Consistent with Santa Monica City policy, we solicited bids for and purchased two Hewlett-Packard servers. Anticipating future growth, both are dual processor capable but contain only one CPU. Both came network ready and generously equipped with RAM and disk storage. The more RAM, the better for video processing!

For the web server, we chose a HP LPR NetServer equipped with the Windows NT operating system and the Microsoft IIS Web Server. The video capture server is the lower cost HP Kayak multimedia workstation. The Kayak comes with an audio capture circuit similar to a Sound Blaster, but we had to purchase a video capture card. RealNetworks recommends some specific video cards, the best of which we thought was the Wavetech TV-PCI product. 

Unfortunately, the Kayak's extensive multimedia capabilities used up all of the interrupt request (IRQ) choices available on the Wavetech card. After three days of trying, we reluctantly decided to try a different card. The Matrox Rainbow Runner video capture card connects directly to the computer's video display card and is working well. We discovered the hard way that it was necessary to disable the Kayak's video power saving mode which automatically shut down our broadcast after 15 minutes. Another complication was that we had to replace Windows NT with Windows 98 on the Kayak to accommodate the video capture card.


We purchased a rack mounted VCR and 13 inch television monitor along with all of the cables needed to connect everything. Century Communications, the local cable franchise, dropped a line into our computer room. We connect the feed from Century directly to the VCR where the signal is split into audio and video. These, in turn, are run to the Kayak for capture. The Kayak puts the digitized stream onto our LAN where it is accessed by the LPR Server and streamed onto the Internet. A composite RF line is run from the antenna output of the VCR to the television to monitor the signal. All equipment is mounted in a 19 inch rack with a shared computer monitor and keyboard.


OPERATION

We are enough concerned about the load on our network that we are "netcasting" only during City Council meetings. The video stream requires considerable network capacity and we felt it necessary to restrict use to the evening hours when internal network usage is at a minimum. Note that Torrance is running their netcast full time with no reported problems. Still, we opted for the more conservative approach. We expect to be able to netcast CityTV full time once a planned network upgrade is completed.

The service is publicized both on CityTV and in City publications. Our development efforts are presently focused on developing programmable controls for the netcast as well as improving the size and quality of the video broadcast. 

Today, nobody asks why we should offer this service. Rather, the public and staff are clamoring for service enhancements. This, we think, is the mark of a successful program. We are reaching an appreciative and attentive audience beyond the city limits. The City of Santa Monica's netcast has proved itself an integral element in the electronic delivery of electronic services and information.

 

---

Click Here to got to National NATOA's web site for info on
Portland, Pasadena, the FCC and more!

---

CITY OF LOS ANGELES OPEN ACCESS UPDATE

June 18, 1999: The City of Los Angeles releases 53 page staff report recommending that the City not presently order cable operators to unbundle their internet offerings, but further recommending that the marketplace be closely monitored, and made other related recommendations. The entire staff report, in Adobe PDF format, is available when you CLICK HERE. It's interesting to note that as of the same date (June 18) the City's Information Technology Agency Board no long had a quorum to conduct any future meetings due to the 3rd Board Member resignation in 7 days. Keep an eye on the trades.

June 16, 1999: AT&T has (not suprisingly) filed for an expedited treatment of an appeal to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals to overturn Judge Panner's ruling, discussed and linked below. Portland is expected to oppose AT&T's application for expedited treatment.

To hear AT&T's 41 minute audio PR conference call on the appeal CLICK HERE.
(You must have RealAudio Player 5 to hear it, but the download is free. Follow the link.)

To download AT&T executive summary of their appeal CLICK HERE.

To download AT&T's entire appeal CLICK HERE.

Finally, here's the link to the Mt. Hood CRC AT&T/TCI Transfer page.
======================================

MT. HOOD OPEN ACCESS UPDATE

Mt. Hood Cable Regulatory Commission wins big in the AT&T Suit Regarding Open Access

As reported directly to NATOA by David Olson, Judge Owen Panner granted summary judgment on June 3 to the Local Governments on every material issue. The Judge concluded that open access is within the authority of local government to impose to protect competition. He affirmed that Congress has specifically recognized the power of local franchising authorities to preserve competition for cable services. The franchising authoritys power to prohibit a change of control includes the lesser power to impose condition on a transfer.

The open access condition is not a common carrier requirement. The condition does not limit the cable operator's use of subscriber equipment or transmission technology, nor does it impose requirements concerning the content of cable services. There is no free speech violation because AT&T is already carrying all ISPs.

According to Judge Panner, "I conclude that the mandatory access provision is related to AT&T's legal qualifications to assume control of TCI's cable franchises." The Judge said, "I agree with Defendants that the open access requirement does not conflict with the terms of the franchise agreements, and that Plaintiffs have no contractual right under the franchise agreements to exclude competitors from the cable modem platform." Finally, the Judge said, "The franchise agreements do not limit the factors that the City and County may consider in
deciding whether to approve a change in control. Defendants motion for summary judgment is granted."

According to David Olson, "It's a win on all points, going away!"

The entire formatted text of the decision, in PDF format, can be downloaded by clicking here!
Note...this is a 409Kb download, but worth every byte!

If you don't have the Adobe PDF reader...you should! Click on the icon below:



And, if you're wondering about AT&T's take on the ruling, here's a click to their news release. Also, see the June 16th update above!

 

---

OPENNET URGES LOS ANGELES TO REQUIRE COMPETITION IN
HIGH-SPEED CABLE INTERNET
http://www.opennetcoalition.org/news/929992187.shtml
For immediate release 21 June 1999
Contact: Sydney Rubin 202/244-1200

Mayor Supports AT&T Controlling Internet Cable Access in LA, Officials Resign in Protest Over Lack of Competition That Will Harm Consumers

WASHINGTON, D.C. (21 June 1999) -- A report issued Friday by the city's
Information Technology Commission rejected a plan that would have required AT&T to open its cable network to allow competing Internet Service Providers to buy access to cable lines. AT&T and
the cable company it owns are fighting attempts to create an open, competitive
system. News reports say AT&T has enjoyed the support of Los Angeles Mayor Richard Riordan.

The "Broadband Access Report" was to have been voted on today by the Board of Information Technology Commissioners and sent to City Council for review. The meeting was cancelled Friday after the
third resignation by a member of the five-member board in protest over the staff-written
report that failed to require competition. "The city cannot even hold a meeting to vote on this
report because people of conscience would rather quit than vote for a plan that is so blatantly anti-consumer and anti-business," said Greg Simon, co-executive director of the openNET Coalition. OpenNET is
a group of more than 70 Internet Service Providers nationwide battling to keep the
Internet the affordable, dynamic, open medium that consumers now enjoy.

Last week, Information Technology Commissioners Alan  Arkatov, Joyce Emerson and Robert Duggan resigned. Arkatov and Emerson had served as president and vice-president of the Board, appointed by
the mayor. The Los Angeles Times reported that Riordan's support for AT&T forced the resignations.

Arktov and Emerson left without commenting on their resignations, but Duggan resigned in a scathing letter that challenged the mayor's position which fails to protect consumers and will lead to high prices and poor service. "The city should not . . . kowtow to the wishes of an industry seeking monopoly power at the expense of all Angelenos," Duggan wrote.

"In the future, cable will most likely become the most important electronic conduit to homes. We have an opportunity to protect consumers  by keeping this important conduit open," he wrote.
The report recommends that the city do nothing while AT&T builds its cable system into one that not only offers traditional television services but also takes monopoly control of the next generation of
Internet service. Consumers will depend on high-speed cable access lines for telephone, entertainment and a full range of other services.

OpenNET coalition member Bob Adkins of DigiLink Internet Services in Marina del Rey, California, said, "AT&T's plans will hurt small business and hurt consumers. There are more than 5,000 ISPs
competing in the United States today and this competition has led to lower prices and
more innovative services. An AT&T monopoly threatens all of this."

Adkins noted that prices have fallen dramatically in the competitive Internet marketplace over the last few years. Meanwhile, cable companies that hold monopoly franchises in most American cities have
increased cable rates 22 percent over the last three years. "What is happening in Los Angeles is happening in all the cities where AT&T is buying cable franchises and seeking to avoid competition. People throughout the country should be concerned because if the cable monopoly controls high-speed Internet access it will dictate what you pay, how you get online, and the Web sites you see," said Marc Jacobson of Prodigy Internet. "Consumer choice will be history."

With its purchase of cable companies such as TCI and MediaOne, AT&T will have full or partial control of more than 60 percent of all cable service into American homes, including homes in Los Angeles. Billions of
dollars and the future of the Internet hang on the decisions being made by cities whether to require the AT&T-owned local cable company to sell competing Internet Service Providers access to the cable network.

Last week, the CEO of AT&T's Broadband and Internet Services, Leo Hindery, told Wall Street analysts in a private briefing that AT&T's deals to consolidate and control the cable industry would fundamentally
change the nature of the Internet. Hindery said AT&T's recent activities  in cities like Los Angeles would lead to regional monopolies that would mark "the end of an industry as I know it. I'm about six weeks away from
doing what I want to do," USA Today reported.

"We've seen what Mr. Hindery has to say about how AT&T will monopolize the cable industry and the cable Internet," said openNET's Simon. "That's what scares us, and it should worry consumers as well."

---

SCAN NATOA Newsletter Article from January 1999

The Latest Access Question

by Paul Janis and Bob Jystad

A new ally has entered the old fight to break open cable systems. Alongside local broadcasters and unaffiliated cable programmers now stand the Internet Service Providers (ISPs). Clad in the garb of nondiscrimination, competition and consumer choice, ISPs would thrust the spear of "open access" into the wounds left by leased access, program access and must carry. It is an open question whether or not this bravado will benefit local governments and consumers - a question we won't even try to answer here.

What is the issue? Is the goal of "open access" a cable modem architecture that permits multiple providers simultaneously to provide services over the platform? Or, is the goal of "open access" to unbundle Internet access from content so that consumers do not pay twice to use a preferred ISP over the cable system?

However the issue is framed, it arises in the context of a global Internet greedily in search of bandwidth. The conventional dial-up narrowband Internet access service provided through the twisted-pair telephone line is simply no match for the high speed broadband service now being provided by many cable companies under such trade names as @Home, Roadrunner, Pipeline, and MediaOne Express.

Despite the apparent dissimilarity between video programming and Internet access service, cable companies are eager to characterize their Internet access products as cable services in order to avoid the regulatory requirements of Title II of the Communications Act of 1934. Cable administrators everywhere should be flattered that, given their choices, cable operators prefer their regulators to be local franchising authorities (LFAs) rather than the FCC or a state PUC. Until the FCC or a court rules otherwise, cable administrators need to be prepared to protect the interests of consumers of cable-based Internet access services.

One way to frame the issue is to focus on the cable operators' uniform practice of bundling high speed data service with Internet content. In the dial-up world, the user provides his or her own modem and, through a conventional telephone line, links to an ISP who provides access to the Internet. Typically, but not always, the ISP also provides a content service which may or may not be bundled with access to the Internet. If the user purchases Internet access without a bundled content service, the user must obtain a content service from a separate provider. The user is free to contract with various providers for each of these elements separately.

In the cable modem world, the cable company provides the modem, the link to the Internet, and content laden home page. All of the Internet service elements provided by the cable operator are bundled and available only at a bundled rate.

Because of the bundled nature of cable modem services, a cable subscriber using a cable modem is required to subscribe to the content service provided by the cable operator or an affiliate (e.g., @Home, Roadrunner, etc.). The user is free to purchase another, unaffiliated content service (e.g., America Online, Mindspring, etc.), but this involves a second payment for that content service. The superior market position of the affiliated content provider is apparent.

The technical and market superiority of broadband is not lost on the providers of Internet content who are unaffiliated with cable companies. Some commentators in the industry fear the affiliated content providers will eventually dominate the market in precisely the same manner that Microsoft's bundled Internet browser software threatens to dominate the browser market.

This description of the issue assumes that it is properly characterized as "unbundling." Cable modem providers prefer this characterization because they think it molds the issue as a Title II issue and lets them rest on the defense that LFAs cannot treat cable systems as common carriers. It is fairly easy to counter this analysis even if you choose to characterize the issue as one of unbundling. Title VI contains numerous access-type provisions that, simply because they tend to produce more "open" cable systems, do not transform cable operators into common carriers.

ISPs have tended to avoid this analysis. Rather, they frame the issue as an issue of Aopen access.@ They describe the cable modem platform as it is currently constructed as a closed platform that is only accessible by the cable modem provider. In their analysis, there are no technical impediments to opening the platform. Subscribers could select unaffiliated ISPs which, through the use of additional equipment housed at the cable system's headend, could provide their own high speed Internet access service to those users.

Should LFAs be concerned about the issue, however framed? If so, what actions should LFAs be considering? The answers ultimately depend on (1) whether Internet access really is a cable service, as represented by the cable operators, (2) how broadly one construes the market for Internet access services, and (3) whether the LFA wishes to regulate the market for Internet access services in the hope of maintaining a level playing field.

In December, 1998 the Mt. Hood (Oregon) Cable Regulatory Commission, the City of Portland, and Multnomah County all ordered TCI to provide ISPs with open, nondiscriminatory access to its cable modem platform as a condition of approval of transfer of local cable franchises to the control of AT&T. A number of provisions of federal law have been used to justify such an action, for example:

Section 612 of the Cable Act requires cable operators to set aside up to 15 percent of their channel capacity for commercial use by persons unaffiliated with the cable operator. The argument is that ISPs could legitimately offer a commercial service over bandwidth reserved for leased access programmers without disrupting the cable system or diminishing the amount of capacity exclusively reserved to the operator. Note that "commercial use" is defined in 612 as "the provision of video programming." Accordingly, the strength of this argument hinges on an assumption that Internet service as a cable service constitutes a kind of video programming.

Section 613 of the Cable Act permits LFAs to consider the anticompetitive effects of the ownership or control of a franchise in approving a transfer. If, not to name names, @Home's relationship with TCI/AT&T is such that its presence in the franchise effectively would wipe out competitor ISPs, the LFA arguably could base a decision not to approve a transfer on that possibility. Despite the strength of this argument, which is appealing, the devil is in the details. First, an LFA must have a factual basis by which it determines that competition is threatened. Second, that basis should be linked to competition in the franchise at issue and not to competition in the national market.

Section 636's version of a "savings clause" goes to the heart of the debate. This section preserves all franchising authority "to the extent consistent with this title." Because Internet service over cable is not clearly addressed by the Cable Act, the savings clause reserves the LFA's authority to place permissible conditions on the provision of cable modem services such as open access to the cable modem platform.

This argument requires you to defeat every argument brought by the cable operators that, in fact, the Cable Act does address Internet service, albeit indirectly, and bars LFAs from imposing virtually any condition, let alone open access. Along these lines, they will refer to open access as "unbundling" and will cite Section 621 which forbids treatment of cable systems as common carriers and Section 624 which prohibits LFAs from establishing requirements for video programming or information services. As you might imagine, these arguments also subject their proponents to a variety of pitfalls.

However you frame it, the issue is important and, undoubtedly, will take us well into the new millenium.

1) Singsen v. Television Signal Corporation

On June 24, 1998, Division 2 of the First District Court of Appeals in
California ruled that subscribers have a state law unfair business
practices claim against cable operators for failing to provide free
cable service to public building as required by its franchise even
though the city released the obligation. The court rejected contract
and third-party beneficiary claims by the plaintiffs. The plaintiff's
attorney appears to be chasing an $80,000 attorney fee claim, rejection
of which was reversed in the 2-1 opinion reported at 64 Cal. App. 4th
1437 (1998) . Interesting case.

 

---

On 9/3/98 the FCC's Office of Plans and Policy released a 118 page report on regulatory issues connected to Internet over Cable. That report highlights regulatory issues and directions the Commission might consider and take. MUST READING. Here is a quote from the news release:

"After describing features and functions of the Internet and the communications capabilities it makes possible, the paper addresses the existing regulatory framework for wireline communications services under Titles I, II and VI of the Communications Act. The paper concludes that the FCC could find that certain cable-provided Internet services come within the revised definition of cable services under Title VI the Act, while Internet access services provided by telecommunications carriers over common carrier facilities are treated differently under existing statutory and FCC requirements. It concludes with a discussion of the broader policy issues arising from this new communications medium, and identifies some potential regulatory alternatives for addressing these issues."

Here is the link to the FCC's News Release on the paper.

From there you can link directly to the Adobe PDF of the document.

Thanks to NATOAN Fred Polner, Esq. for the heads-up.

---

Board of Directors Member Brenda Trainor wrote an op-ed piece for Multichannel News in their August 24, 1998 edition. CLICK HERE to read her "Forum" article titled, "Municipal Networks: An Interesting Option" Reprinted with Permission, Multichannel News, August 24, 1998

---

FCC/Local and State Government Advisory Committee and CTIA Settlement on Zoning Moratoria "Give Peace A Chance" -CTIA

On August 5th, at a Washington D.C. press conference, the Chairman of the FCC announced a settlement with the wireless industry over the CTIA's petition to preempt all zoning moratoria relating to wireless telecommunications facilities. As a result of the settlement the CTIA is WITHDRAWING its preemption petition. The FCC's local government web page has the Chairman's statement, Ken Fellman's statement, and the text of the agreement.

(www.fcc.gov/statelocal) (CTIA Press Release)

---

DAVID KORTE OF ETROK (KNOWN FOR HIS MUST-HAVE CABLE TV LAW MANAGER
CDROM's)  PRODUCED THE FIRST EVER CDROM OF NATOA CONFERENCE
PROCEEDINGS FROM THE 1998 SAN DIEGO CONFERENCE, CONSISTING OF MOST OR EVERY PAPER PRESENTED AT THE CONFERENCE, PLUS SELECTED SOUND AND VISUAL HIGHLIGHTS.

If you are a NATOA member, you can place an on-line order for the CD-ROM at $75 per
copy using a credit card or government P.O. Non-members can purchase a copy using our on-line order form for $125 a copy. Requires a CD-ROM, Windows 95, 98 or NT, Internet Explorer 4 (included on the disk), and a rye sense of humor (not included on disk).

Click here to have Webbie Jonathan Kramer give you a special virtual tour of the CD-ROM!

Click here to jump to the on-line order form

---

Now available from the FCC is their digital TV fact sheet on tower siting. CLICK HERE to go to that page. Thanks to Ken Fellman, Chair of the FCC's State & Local Advisory Committee, for announcing the link, then just a few hours old, to the attendees of NATOA's Denver Regional Conference during his Keynote speech.

---

FCC MO&O Regarding Franchise Fee Pass-Through On Line:
Click here for the text version