Laserfiche WebLink
<br />}. <br /> <br />Minnesota Cable Communications Association <br /> <br />;".1001 \1\11..1.. ~\l' "'"lh . f(1I11111 : , <br /> <br />!\111l1l1..IJI"I" ,,"'" I5S".n <br />. ...' <br /> <br />fo1.!.'U,1.llhh <br /> <br />Oecembe r 22, 1982 <br /> <br />Terry 0' Connell <br />AssIstant Operations Manager <br />Group W Cable <br />3725 North Dunlap <br />Arden Hills, Minnesota 55112 <br /> <br />Oear Terry. <br /> <br />There have been a number of actions taken In Washington recently which will <br /> <br />affect the copyright liability of all cable. systems. These changes are the latest <br /> <br /> <br />In~a long and complex process of determining what distant signals cable systems <br /> <br />are permitfea to use. I think It would be helpful to brIefly review the regula- <br /> <br />tory history of this situation to better understand the current dllemna caused by <br /> <br />new copyright fees. <br /> <br />In 1972 the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) lifted a four year ban on <br /> <br />cable televIsion development In the major markets. In lifting this ban the FCC <br /> <br />set up rules defining signal carriage, public access, technical 'standards and <br /> <br />federal/state/local gevernment relationships to cable franchises. In their 1972 <br /> <br />Report and Order, the FCC fixed the number of signals that could be carried based <br /> <br />on market size and Imposed network and syndicated program exclusIvity. <br /> <br />Since that rulIng Congress.. the Courts and the FCC have taken actions which <br /> <br />have amended these rules. <br /> <br />First, In 1976, Congress created the Copyright Royalty Tribunal (CRT). This <br /> <br />new agency was charged to collect fees from cable systems which Import distant <br /> <br />signals. Rather than allowing purely market forces to determine signal carriage <br />