U.S. Code » Title 47 » Chapter CHAPTER 5— WIRE OR RADIO COMMUNICATION › Subchapter SUBCHAPTER V–A— CABLE COMMUNICATIONS › Part Part III— Franchising and Regulation

47 U.S.C. § 545

Modification of franchise obligations

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 47 CasesGoogle Scholar
(a) Grounds for modification by franchising authority; public proceeding; time of decision(1) During the period a franchise is in effect, the cable operator may obtain from the franchising authority modifications of the requirements in such franchise—(A) in the case of any such requirement for facilities or equipment, including public, educational, or governmental access facilities or equipment, if the cable operator demonstrates that (i) it is commercially impracticable for the operator to comply with such requirement, and (ii) the proposal by the cable operator for modification of such requirement is appropriate because of commercial impracticability; or(B) in the case of any such requirement for services, if the cable operator demonstrates that the mix, quality, and level of services required by the franchise at the time it was granted will be maintained after such modification.(2) Any final decision by a franchising authority under this subsection shall be made in a public proceeding. Such decision shall be made within 120 days after receipt of such request by the franchising authority, unless such 120 day period is extended by mutual agreement of the cable operator and the franchising authority.(b) Judicial proceedings; grounds for modification by court(1) Any cable operator whose request for modification under subsection (a) has been denied by a final decision of a franchising authority may obtain modification of such franchise requirements pursuant to the provisions of section 555 of this title.(2) In the case of any proposed modification of a requirement for facilities or equipment, the court shall grant such modification only if the cable operator demonstrates to the court that—(A) it is commercially impracticable for the operator to comply with such requirement; and(B) the terms of the modification requested are appropriate because of commercial impracticability.(3) In the case of any proposed modification of a requirement for services, the court shall grant such modification only if the cable operator demonstrates to the court that the mix, quality, and level of services required by the franchise at the time it was granted will be maintained after such modification.(c) Rearrangement, replacement, or removal of serviceNotwithstanding subsections (a) and (b), a cable operator may, upon 30 days’ advance notice to the franchising authority, rearrange, replace, or remove a particular cable service required by the franchise if—(1) such service is no longer available to the operator; or(2) such service is available to the operator only upon the payment of a royalty required under section 801(b)(2) of title 17, which the cable operator can document—(A) is substantially in excess of the amount of such payment required on the date of the operator’s offer to provide such service, and(B) has not been specifically compensated for through a rate increase or other adjustment.(d) Rearrangement of particular services from one service tier to another or other offering of service

Notwithstanding subsections (a) and (b), a cable operator may take such actions to rearrange a particular service from one service tier to another, or otherwise offer the service, if the rates for all of the service tiers involved in such actions are not subject to regulation under section 543 of this title.

(e) Requirements for services relating to public, educational, or governmental access

A cable operator may not obtain modification under this section of any requirement for services relating to public, educational, or governmental access.

(f) “Commercially impracticable” defined

For purposes of this section, the term “commercially impracticable” means, with respect to any requirement applicable to a cable operator, that it is commercially impracticable for the operator to comply with such requirement as a result of a change in conditions which is beyond the control of the operator and the nonoccurrence of which was a basic assumption on which the requirement was based.

(June 19, 1934, ch. 652, title VI, § 625, as added Pub. L. 98–549, § 2, Oct. 30, 1984, 98 Stat. 2790.)Statutory Notes and Related SubsidiariesEffective Date

Section effective 60 days after Oct. 30, 1984, except where otherwise expressly provided, see section 9(a) of Pub. L. 98–549, set out as a note under section 521 of this title.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 18 cases, 1986–2012 · leading case: City of Ellensburg v. King Videocable Co., 912 P.2d 506 (Wash. Ct. App. 1996).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
City of Ellensburg v. King Videocable Co., 912 P.2d 506 (Wash. Ct. App. 1996). · cites it 5× “Before the revocation hearing was held, the cable operator filed a request for modification of the franchise agreement pursuant to 47 U.S.C. § 545 . Ultimately, the matters were before the Cablevision court, where the town contended the operator materially breached its franchise…”
All. for Cmty. Media v. Fed. Commc'ns Comm'n, 529 F.3d 763 (6th Cir. 2008). “47 U.S.C. § 545 . While express durational requirements govern these aspects of the franchising process, the statutory scheme is silent with respect to time limits governing the issuance of new franchises under section 621(a)(1).”
RCN Telecom Servs. of Philadelphia, Inc. v. Newtown Twp., 848 A.2d 1108 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2004). · cites it 3× “RCN maintains that “section 545” of the Cable Act, 13 47 U.S.C. § 545 , grants cable operators the right to have certain franchise requirements modified if the commercial impracticability of those requirements can be demonstrated.”
City Commc'ns, Inc. v. The City of Detroit Barden Cable-Vision & MacLean, 888 F.2d 1081 (6th Cir. 1989). “47 U.S.C. § 545 . Thus, we find no basis for CCI’s raw assertion that in adapting its system to changes driven largely by tech *1091 nological and commercial necessities, the City suppressed CCI’s free speech and otherwise engaged in impermissible and illegal conduct.”
Time Warner Ent. Co., L.P. v. Fed. Commc'ns Comm'n United States of Am., Nynex Corp., Intervenors, 56 F.3d 151 (D.C. Cir. 1995). “They first cite 47 U.S.C. § 545 (d), which provides that cable operators may rearrange programming between tiers “if the rates for all of the service tiers involved in such actions are not subject to regulation under section 543.”
Playboy Enter., Inc. v. Pub. Serv. Comm'n of Puerto Rico, 698 F. Supp. 401 (D.P.R. 1988). · cites it 3× “Section 625 of the Act, 47 U.S.C. § 545 , governs a local franchising authority’s power to modify, or to refrain from modifying, a franchisee’s obligations during the course of a franchise agreement.”
Council v. Dep't of Pub. Util. Control, 788 A.2d 29 (Conn. 2002). “January 14, 1993) (town bylaws requiring appointment of arbitrator when cable operator and local franchising authority are unable to agree on amendment provisions to franchise preempted by 47 U.S.C. §§ 545 [b] and 555 permitting operator to seek judicial review when request for…”
Jones Intercable v. City of Stevens Point, Wis., 729 F. Supp. 642 (W.D. Wis. 1990). · cites it 5× “The commission concluded that the deletion of WWOR and its substitution with TNT violated the franchise agreement, the city’s ordinance and 47 U.S.C. § 545 . Defendant issued similar findings and conclusions regarding the deletion of USA Network.”
Rollins Cablevue, Inc. v. Saienni Enter., 633 F. Supp. 1315 (D. Del. 1986). “Turning to Part III of the Cable Act, Section 625, 47 U.S.C. § 545 , permits modification of franchise obligations, including requirements for public, educational and government access, under certain described circumstances.”
Cablevision Sys. Corp. v. Town of East Hampton, 862 F. Supp. 875 (E.D.N.Y 1994). · cites it 2× “47 U.S.C. § 545 (a)(1)(B). The Act further provides that when such a request has been denied by a “final decision of a franchising authority,” the cable operator may seek modification of the franchise by commencing an action in the district court.”
Liberty Cable Co., Inc. v. City of New York, 893 F. Supp. 191 (S.D.N.Y. 1995). “, 47 U.S.C. § 545 (a)(1) which allows cable operators to displace local franchising requirements relating to educational equipment obligations upon a demonstration of commercial impraeticality), are graduated according to the number of channels delivered by the cable operator (e.”
I-Star Commc'ns Corp. v. City of East Cleveland, 885 F. Supp. 1035 (N.D. Ohio 1995). “” 47 U.S.C. § 545 (b)(1) (emphasis added). Section 546 provides in pertinent part: Any cable operator whose proposal for renewal has been denied by a final decision of a franchising authority made pursuant to this section, or has been adversely affected by a failure of the…”
Show all 18 citing cases →
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.