Case Title: Teleprompter Corp. v. Hawkins

Citation: 384 So. 2d 648

Docket Number: 56291

State: florida

Court: Florida Supreme Court

Date: 1980-05-29T00:00:00Z

Document:
384 So. 2d 648 (1980)
TELEPROMPTER CORPORATION et al., Petitioners,
v.
Paula F. HAWKINS et al., Respondents.
No. 56291.

Supreme Court of Florida.
May 29, 1980.
*649 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:
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:
Id. at 119-20. See also, Twin Cities Cable Co. v. Southeastern Tel. Co., 200 So. 2d 857 (Fla. 1st DCA 1967).
Since that decision there has been no relevant change in the commission's statutory grant of jurisdiction. Therefore the reasoning in that decision is still relevant. No reason was given for asserting jurisdiction other than to preempt the FCC from regulating pole attachment agreements. Although we share the concern about federal intervention in an area the state may be better equipped to handle, such concern is not enough to extend the Public Service Commission's jurisdiction. Only the legislature can do that.
We therefore quash the commission's order.
It is so ordered.
ENGLAND, C.J., and OVERTON, SUNDBERG, ALDERMAN and McDONALD, JJ., concur.
ADKINS, J., dissents.