LFA Order Preemption of Non-Cable Regulation Poorly Explained, Petitioners Tell 6th Circuit
The FCC's cable local franchise authority order, putting a fee cap atop statutory limits on authorized cable-related requirements, means more restrictions on cable-related franchise requirements Congress authorized than on non-cable-related franchise requirements. That's according to petitioners in their 6th U.S.…
Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article
Timely, relevant coverage of court proceedings and agency rulings involving tariffs, classification, valuation, origin and antidumping and countervailing duties. Each day, Trade Law Daily subscribers receive a daily headline email, in-depth PDF edition and access to all relevant documents via our trade law source document library and website.
Circuit Court of Appeals opening brief Friday (in Pacer, docket 19-4161) in a consolidated challenge of the 2019 LFA order (see 1909120028). They said the order's preemption of state and local regulation of cable operators' non-cable services, citing authority other than the Cable Act, wasn't in the NPRM nor explained well in the order. They said the FCC's in-kind contribution ruling is contrary to the Cable Act because non-monetary cable franchise requirements allowed by the law aren't subject to the franchise fee cap. The commission didn't comment. Petitioners are localities including Eugene, Oregon, and San Francisco and allies including the Conference of Mayors and Alliance for Community Media.