Print Page  Close Window

SEC Filings

S-4/A
RENAISSANCE MEDIA GROUP LLC filed this Form S-4/A on 08/06/1998
Entire Document
 
<PAGE>
 
acquires ownership of the system or effects a transfer of the system to
another person, such franchise authority or other person must pay the operator
either: (i) the "fair market value" (without value assigned to the franchise)
for the system if the franchise was granted after the effective date of the
1984 Cable Act (December 1984) or the franchise was pre-existing but the
franchise agreement did not provide a buyout or (ii) the price set in
franchise agreements predating the 1984 Cable Act. In addition, the 1984 Cable
Act established comprehensive renewal procedures which require that an
incumbent franchisee's renewal application be assessed on its own merits and
not as part of a comparative process with competing applications. See
"Legislation and Regulation."
 
  The 1984 Cable Act also establishes buyout rates in the event the franchise
is terminated "for cause" and the franchise authority desires to acquire the
system. For franchises which post-date the existence of the 1984 Cable Act or
pre-date the 1984 Cable Act but do not specify buyout terms, the franchise
authority must pay the operator an "equitable" price. To date, none of the
System's franchises has been terminated.
 
  The 1992 Cable Act prohibits the award of exclusive franchises, prohibits
franchising authorities from unreasonably refusing to award additional
franchises and permits them to operate cable systems themselves without
franchises. The 1996 Telecom Act provides that no state or local laws or
regulations may prohibit or have the effect of prohibiting any entity from
providing any interstate or intrastate telecommunications service. State and
local authorities retain authority to manage the public rights of way and
"competitively neutral" requirements concerning right of way fees, universal
service, public safety and welfare, service quality and consumer protection
are permitted with respect to telecommunications services. See "Risk Factors--
Non-Exclusive Franchises; Non-Renewal or Termination of Franchises" and
"Legislation and Regulation."
 
COMPETITION
 
  Cable television systems face competition from alternative methods of
receiving and distributing television signals and from other sources of news,
information and entertainment such as off-air television broadcast
programming, newspapers, movie theaters, live sporting events, interactive
online computer services and home video products, including videotape cassette
recorders. The extent to which a cable communications system is competitive
depends, in part, upon the cable system's ability to provide, at a reasonable
price to customers, a greater variety of programming and other communications
services than those which are available off-air or through other alternative
delivery sources and upon superior technical performance and customer service.
 
  Cable television systems generally operate pursuant to franchises granted on
a nonexclusive basis. The 1992 Cable Act prohibits franchising authorities
from unreasonably denying requests for additional franchises and permits
franchising authorities to operate cable television systems. See "Legislation
and Regulation." It is possible that a franchising authority might grant a
franchise to another company containing terms and conditions more favorable
than those afforded the Company. Well-financed businesses from outside the
cable industry (such as the public utilities that own the poles to which cable
is attached) may become competitors for franchises or providers of competing
services. See "Legislation and Regulation." Currently, the Systems' principal
competitors for receiving and distributing television signals in the areas
they serve are off-air television broadcast programming, home satellite dish
earth stations ("HSDS") and DBS, although other cable television systems
operate in other non-overlapping areas of the Company's franchise areas. See
"Risk Factors--Significant Competition in the Cable Television Industry."
 
  The 1992 Cable Act contains provisions, which the FCC implemented with
regulations, to enhance the ability of cable competitors to purchase and make
available to HSDS owners certain satellite-delivered cable programming at
competitive costs. The 1996 Telecom Act prohibits certain local restrictions
that impair a viewer's ability to receive video programming services using
HSDS and over-the-air antennae, and the FCC adopted regulations implementing
this provision that preempt certain local restrictions on satellite and over-
the-air antenna reception of video programming services, including zoning,
land-use or building regulations, or any private covenant, homeowners'
association rule or similar restriction on property within the exclusive use
or control of the antenna user.
 
 
                                      53