Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
2d 1227
54 USLW 2474
I.
The next day, November 13, 1985, Tribune-United brought this action for
declaratory and injunctive relief to prevent the County and Continental from
carrying out the penalty provisions of the franchise agreement until the County
had acted on the pending modification request. The district court immediately
issued a temporary restraining order in favor of Tribune-United. The following
day, Montgomery County moved for reconsideration of the order. The district
court held a hearing and, on November 19, 1985, issued a memorandum and
order vacating the temporary restraining order. The next day, it denied TribuneUnited's motion for a preliminary injunction. Tribune-United appeals from that
judgment.
II.
8
Section 552(b) of the Act grants local authorities the power to enforce customer
service and construction related requirements of franchise agreements "to the
extent not inconsistent with [the Act]." Section 544(c) addresses the
enforcement of existing agreements:
10
In the case of any franchise in effect on the effective date of this subchapter, the
franchising authority may, subject to section 545 of this title, enforce
requirements contained within the franchise for the provision of services,
facilities, and equipment, whether or not related to the establishment or
operation of a cable system. (emphasis added).
11
Section 545 of the Act grants cable operators the right to have certain franchise
requirements modified if the commercial impracticability of those requirements
can be demonstrated.2 Tribune-United's modification request under this section
is pending before Montgomery County officials.3 The sole issue on appeal is
whether the "subject to" language of section 544(c) of the Act subordinating a
local government's enforcement rights to the modification provisions of section
545 requires the County to delay imposing the penalties authorized by the
existing franchise agreement until after it acts on the modification request.
12
The County contends, and the district court held, that the limitation on a local
government's enforcement power imposed by a cable operator's section 545
right to modification applies to and limits only the imposition of those penalties
that accrue after the application for modification. In other words, the County
agrees that, pending the modification determination, penalties could not be
imposed for violations occurring after the application. It contends, however,
that it could impose penalties during the pendency of the modification request
for defaults which had occurred prior to Tribune-United's modification
application. Tribune-United, on the other hand, argues that section 544(c)
prohibits enforcement of the franchise agreement by imposing penalties, even
as to past violations, until the modification proceedings have been concluded.
13
There is little save the language of the statute to guide us on this question. It
would make little sense, however, for Congress to subordinate the County's
enforcement power to the Act's modification procedures but at the same time to
permit the County to enforce the very obligations sought to be modified. By
making a local government's enforcement power "subject to section 545,"
Congress provided the cable operator an opportunity to show that certain
aspects of the franchise agreement are commercially impractical, and, if it is
successful in demonstrating that, it will be relieved entirely from the adverse
aspects of those portions of the agreement.
14
The County accurately asserts that the language of the Act does not explicitly
require that the imposition of penalties be stayed or enjoined pending the
consideration of a modification request. The purposes and thrust of the Act,
however, evince a congressional desire that franchise agreements be applied
and modified so as to obtain a realistic and flexible regulatory framework
recognizing the needs of both local governments and cable operators, but
primarily concerned with providing viable cable systems responsive to the
needs and interests of the local communities they serve.
15
Congress, by including section 545 in the Act, recognized that cable operators
compete in a changing marketplace. H.R.Rep. No. 934, 98th Cong., 2d Sess.
70, reprinted in 1984 U.S.Code Cong. & Ad.News 4655, 4707. It was
sufficiently concerned with the plight of some cable operators, particularly
urban franchisees committed to state-of-the-art systems, to create a federally
protected right to modification of commercially impractical agreements. That
right would mean very little if local franchising authorities were able to burden
it by enforcing massive penalties during the pendency of the modification
proceedings.
16
17
The judgment of the district court is, therefore, reversed in accordance with our
order previously entered.
18
REVERSED.
Under section 545(a)(2), the County's decision must be announced within 120
days of receipt of the modification request, or by March 10, 1985. The County
has decided to conduct the modification proceeding separately from the
previously announced revocation proceedings