47 U.S.C. § 557

Existing franchises

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 47 CasesGoogle Scholar

(a) The provisions of—(1) any franchise in effect on the effective date of this subchapter, including any such provisions which relate to the designation, use, or support for the use of channel capacity for public, educational, or governmental use, and(2) any law of any State (as defined in section 153 of this title) in effect on October 30, 1984, or any regulation promulgated pursuant to such law, which relates to such designation, use or support of such channel capacity,shall remain in effect, subject to the express provisions of this subchapter, and for not longer than the then current remaining term of the franchise as such franchise existed on such effective date.(b) For purposes of subsection (a) and other provisions of this subchapter, a franchise shall be considered in effect on the effective date of this subchapter if such franchise was granted on or before such effective date.(June 19, 1934, ch. 652, title VI, § 637, as added Pub. L. 98–549, § 2, Oct. 30, 1984, 98 Stat. 2800; amended Pub. L. 104–104, § 3(d)(3), Feb. 8, 1996, 110 Stat. 61.)Editorial NotesReferences in Text

For “the effective date of this subchapter” and “such effective date”, referred to in subsecs. (a) and (b), as 60 days after Oct. 30, 1984, except where otherwise expressly provided, see section 9(a) of Pub. L. 98–549, set out as an Effective Date note under section 521 of this title.

Amendments

1996—Subsec. (a)(2). Pub. L. 104–104 substituted “section 153” for “section 153(v)”.

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 6 cases, 1985–1996 · leading case: Housatonic Cable Vision Co. v. Dep't of Pub. Util. Control, 622 F. Supp. 798 (D. Conn. 1985).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Housatonic Cable Vision Co. v. Dep't of Pub. Util. Control, 622 F. Supp. 798 (D. Conn. 1985). · cites it 3× “, 47 U.S.C. §§ 557 (a), 544(c). This combination of preemption and preservation has generated considerable controversy as to the extent of the Cable Act’s preemptive effect.”

Missouri-Kansas-Texas R.R. v. Heritage Cablevision of Dallas, Inc., 783 S.W.2d 273 (Tex. App. 1989). · cites it 2× “” 47 U.S.C.A. § 557 (a). In other words, section 557(a) authorizes the grandfathering of the provisions in a franchise including those relating to public, educational, and governmental use of cable capacity and state laws and regulations relating to channel capacity.”

City of Ellensburg v. King Videocable Co., 912 P.2d 506 (Wash. Ct. App. 1996). “” Also left intact by the 1992 Cable Act is 47 U.S.C. § 557 , which states that franchises in effect on the effective date of the 1984 Cable Act remain in effect subject to the express provisions of the subchapter for its then current remaining term.”

Cox Cable Commc'ns, Inc. v. United States, 699 F. Supp. 917 (M.D. Ga. 1988). “47 U.S.C.A. § 557 (a) (West Supp.1988). Section 626, which governs the renewal of franchises, provides: (a) During the 6-month period which begins with the 36th month before the franchise expiration, the franchising authority may on its own initiative, and shall at the request…”

Town of Norwood v. Adams-Russell Co., 406 Mass. 604 (Mass. 1990). “” 47 U.S.C. § 557 (a). The Cable Act preempts only those franchise provisions which are inconsistent with its terms, and has been so interpreted by other courts which have addressed this issue.”

City of Ottawa v. Sammons Commc'ns, Inc., 836 F. Supp. 555 (N.D. Ill. 1993). “47 U.S.C. § 557 . All the agreements in this case were in effect on December 29, 1984.”

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.