Attached and below are the copies of the Press Release
issued today by NATOA, NLC, NACo, USCM, ACD and ACM along with the filing of our
brief in the US Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit. If you’d like a
PDF of the brief you can pull it off the NATOA website
at:
http://www.natoa.org/public/articles/Petitioners_Brief_Final_071807.pdf
For Immediate Release
Coalition Blasts FCC for Unlawful,
Arbitrary and Capricious Ruling on Video
Franchising
Washington, DC, July 18, 2007 – In a Brief filed today,
a coalition of local government and non-profit groups asks the United States
Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit to overturn the video franchising Order
issued by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) in March 2007. The
groups argue that the FCC had no statutory authority, acted in an arbitrary and
capricious manner, and violated public notice requirements when it issued its
Order.
“The FCC overrules Congressional intent, sets aside
court jurisdiction, and wants us to ignore community needs,” said Donald J.
Borut, executive director of the National League of Cities (NLC), one of the
organizations filing suit. “The FCC’s action is purely a contrived and
transparent attempt to legislate.”
The Order strips local governments of their authority to
protect the public health, education, welfare and safety of local residents, in
violation of the Cable Act. The purpose of the Cable Act is to ensure the
availability of cable services in the community and that those services serve
the public interest. Franchising protects public and private property from
abuse, and provides for community channels and public safety networks.
Congress recognizes the property rights involved and the importance of these
media outlets within our communities. As a result, Congress has repeatedly
reinforced that local governments are best suited to determine these needs and
interests – not the FCC.
The coalition argues that:
·
The FCC has no statutory
authority to:
o
act as a franchise authority;
o
limit the ability of local
governments to protect their residents’ interests;
o
allow providers to discriminate
within the community.
·
The FCC has no evidence in the
record supporting its actions.
·
The FCC infringes on states’ rights
and preempts laws that ensure fair competition.
·
The FCC violated federal laws
requiring public notice of its actions.
The coalition also argues that the FCC has no authority
to force communities to act by an arbitrary deadline or be forced to accept a
unilaterally imposed franchising agreement which serves only the interests of
the industry and ignores the rights of the community.
In addition, under the terms of the FCC Order, the
coalition is concerned about the potential for new video providers to limit
their services only to higher-income consumers. For instance, as outlined
in the Brief, one major new video provider plans to “focus almost exclusively on
affluent neighborhoods” with its service available to less than 5 percent of
customers in “low-value” neighborhoods.
The organizations, as represented by the firm of Arent
Fox, have also separately asked the Court to block implementation of the Order
until a final determination on the lawsuit. The coalition members are the
For more information or for a copy of the Brief,
contact:
NLC: Sherry Conway Appel, 202-626-3003, Christina
Loftus, 202-626-3173, www.nlc.org
NATOA: Steve Traylor, 703-519-8035, www.natoa.org;
USCM: Elena Temple, 202-861-6719, www.usmayors.org;
ACD: Barbara Popovic, 312-738-1400, www.acd.org;
ACM: Anthony Riddle, 202-393-2650, www.alliancecm.org;
NACo: Jim Philipps, 202-942-4220, www.naco.org