Teleprompter Corp. v. Hawkins

• Decision Date: 29 May 1980
• Docket Number: No. 56291,56291
• Citation: 384 So.2d 648
• Parties: TELEPROMPTER CORPORATION et al., Petitioners, v. Paula F. HAWKINS et al., Respondents.
• Court: Florida Supreme Court

Page 648

384 So.2d 648

TELEPROMPTER CORPORATION et al., Petitioners, v. Paula F. HAWKINS et al., Respondents.

No. 56291.

Supreme Court of Florida.

May 29, 1980.

The Law Offices of Hogan & Hartson, Washington, D. C., and William A. Gillen, Edward M. Waller, Jr., and David C. Shobe of Fowler, White, Gillen, Boggs, Villareal & Banker, Tampa, for Teleprompter Corp.

George Maxwell, III, of Rossetter & Maxwell, Melbourne, for American Television and Communications Corp.

Prentice P. Pruitt, Barrett G. Johnson and Norman H. Horton, Jr., Tallahassee, for Florida Public Service Commission.

C. Roger Vinson of Beggs & Lane, Pensacola, for Gulf Power Company, intervenor.

W. Robert Fokes of Mahoney, Hadlow & Adams, Tallahassee, for Florida Cable Television Ass'n, amicus curiae.

Lee L. Willis and James D. Beasley of Ausley, McMullen, McGehee, Carothers & Proctor, Tallahassee, for Tampa Elec. Co., amicus curiae.

BOYD, Justice.

This cause is before us to review an order by the Public Service Commission certifying that it has authority to regulate "pole attachment" agreements. We have jurisdiction. Art. V, § 3(b)(3), Fla.Const.

Pole attachment agreements are lease agreements between utilities and cable television companies which authorize the latter to use the excess space on utility poles for the purpose of providing their customers cable television service. Because the utilities have superior bargaining position by virtue of their ownership and control over utility poles along with the accompanying easements, Congress granted the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) the authority to regulate these agreements except where such matters are regulated by the state. Each such state needed to certify that:

(A) it regulates such rates, terms, and conditions; and

(B) in so regulating such rates, terms, and conditions, the State has the authority to consider and does consider the interests of the subscribers of cable television services, as well as the interests of the consumers of the utility services.

Communications Act Amendments of 1978, Pub.L.No. 95-234, (47 U.S.C. § 224(c) (2)).

In response to this impending federal regulation, the commission sent notice of certification to the FCC. Subsequently, the commission gave notice and called for briefs from interested parties, following which it entered an order declaring that it has the authority to regulate pole attachment agreements. The petitioners claim that the commission does not have authority to regulate the agreements or consider the interests of cable television subscribers. We agree.

Several years ago the commission held that it could not require utilities to enter into pole attachment agreements. Southern Bell Tel. & Tel. Co., 65 PUR 3d 117 (Fla.Pub.Serv.Comm'n.1966). In doing so it reasoned:

In 1913, when the Florida legislature enacted a comprehensive plan for the regulation of telephone and telegraph companies in this state, and conferred upon the commission authority to administer the act and to prescribe rules and regulations appropriate to the exercise of the powers conferred therein, the science of television transmission and the business of operating community antenna television systems were not in existence. The 1913 Florida legislature, therefore, could not have envisioned much less have intended to regulate and control the television transmission facilities and services with which we are concerned. This is exactly the same kind of situation described by the supreme court of...