Syfert Injury Law Firm

Your Trusted Partner in Personal Injury & Workers' Compensation

Call Now: 904-383-7448
Florida Statute 610.118 | Lawyer Caselaw & Research
Link to State of Florida Official Statute
Statute is currently reporting as:
F.S. 610.118 Case Law from Google Scholar Google Search for Amendments to 610.118

The 2024 Florida Statutes

Title XXXVI
BUSINESS ORGANIZATIONS
Chapter 610
CABLE AND VIDEO SERVICES
View Entire Chapter
F.S. 610.118
610.118 Impairment; court-ordered operations.
(1) If an incumbent cable or video service provider is required to operate under its existing franchise and is legally prevented by a lawfully issued order of a court of competent jurisdiction from exercising its right to terminate its existing franchise pursuant to the terms of s. 610.105, any certificateholder providing cable service or video service in whole or in part within the service area that is the subject of the incumbent cable or video service provider’s franchise shall, for as long as the court order remains in effect, comply with the following franchise terms and conditions as applicable to the incumbent cable or video service provider in the service area:
(a) The certificateholder shall pay to the municipality or county:
1. Any prospective lump-sum or recurring per-subscriber funding obligations to support public, educational, and governmental access channels or other prospective franchise-required monetary grants related to public, educational, or governmental access facilities equipment and capital costs. Prospective lump-sum payments shall be made on an equivalent per-subscriber basis calculated as follows: the amount of the prospective funding obligations divided by the number of subscribers being served by the incumbent cable service provider at the time of payment, divided by the number of months remaining in the incumbent cable or video service provider’s franchise equals the monthly per subscriber amount to be paid by the certificateholder until the expiration or termination of the incumbent cable or video service provider’s franchise; and
2. If the incumbent cable or video service provider is required to make payments for the funding of an institutional network, the certificateholder shall pay an amount equal to the incumbent’s funding obligations but not to exceed 1 percent of the sales price, as defined in s. 202.11(13), for the taxable monthly retail sales of cable or video programming services the certificateholder received from subscribers in the affected municipality or county. All definitions and exemptions under chapter 202 apply in the determination of taxable monthly retail sales of cable or video programming services.
(b) Payments are not due under this subsection until 45 days after the municipality or county notifies the respective providers.
(c) Any certificateholder may designate that portion of that subscriber’s bill attributable to any fee imposed pursuant to this section as a separate item on the bill and recover such amount from the subscriber.
(2) The provisions of subsection (1) do not alter the rights of a cable service or video service provider with respect to service areas designated pursuant to s. 610.104(2)(e)5. Any certificateholder providing cable service or video service in a service area covered by the terms of an existing cable or video service provider’s franchise that is subject to a court or other proceeding challenging the ability of an incumbent cable or video service provider to exercise its legal right to terminate its existing cable franchise pursuant to s. 610.105 has the right to intervene in such proceeding.
History.s. 7, ch. 2007-29.

F.S. 610.118 on Google Scholar

F.S. 610.118 on Casetext

Amendments to 610.118


Arrestable Offenses / Crimes under Fla. Stat. 610.118
Level: Degree
Misdemeanor/Felony: First/Second/Third

Current data shows no reason an arrest or criminal charge should have occurred directly under Florida Statute 610.118.



Annotations, Discussions, Cases:

Cases Citing Statute 610.118

Total Results: 1

Levantin v. Miami Beach First National Bank

Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida | Date Filed: 1966-01-18

Citation: 183 So. 2d 581, 1966 Fla. App. LEXIS 5557

Snippet: its provisions. See Maxim v. Maxim, 203 Misc. 610, 118 N.Y.S.2d 541, 550 (1952). Therefore, the inability