only one company to provide a range of telecommunications services on public rights of way judge carney greta television's emergency motion in joining the city from taking certain actions and ordering the parties to maintain their the substantial likelihood standard iran i think the status quo has actually been maintained the only thing that has nothing corporal nothing in the real world has changed television has remained in possession of its equipment has continued to operate  and i can point to some cases where this court in somewhat similar circumstances has treated the status quo is maintained even though there had been some intervening things that appeared to affect  and we have to show yes i think we do have to show that i don't think we have to show any heightened standard beyond now in terms of of of the f c c treatment of these cases is more limited view on that issue than the city would like to take they have been fairly clear that when a municipality steps beyond things like when can you rip up the streets what kind of equipment can you use into the those issues it did it in city it did it in next g and said all that congress and tended was to give the city some power to deal with those rights of way she's like you can't drive a truck through two am to in global as you know and and i quote that the law applies only to city property payphones on private property are not subject to cities re you tories schem telecommunications services section two fifty three a provision sweeping breakthrough's main purpose is to force each new telecommunications provider to receive white plains blessing before offering services is invalid as quote that decision touched on several issues one was that white plains was seeking to regulate private property issues but it also said that a provision in the charter in the proposed franchise rather from planes which would have wired franchisees to waive their right to challenge provisions was invalid it also said that the fact that white plains purported to retain the discretion was invalid again because it had the effect of being an area those were independent bases for concluding two fifty three a the twenty thousand r f p proposed the same set of services that are now being offered by the percipient of the franchise city so we we have tried in the past we have in the past with doods permission provided some of these other services we've been keen to update and expand what we do so it goes well beyond that the franchise called for these internet yes i think it will think we've tried to do going back to the first amended twenty is to leave as much discretion the air the city of the city really has to do is put in place authorizing that's correct and we may be able to get money damages from the city under section two fifty three our facilities will have been altered  a yes we agree that if it ceased to exist it wouldn't be able to be able to put it together again but the reason why that doesn't entitle him to the to the relief that it is seeking on this appeal is he has to be through loss of business or it's that's right because the laws of business is not attributable to the relief that it be able to attain on appeal and it's completely divorced from any violation of the federal token many patients act there would be irreparable injury  just in your view they're there not on the merits of title to relief that's right just i mean if you consider it from this is an illustration that might be helpful i him but another another operator who didn't have a prior franchisee was bringing this action and you know that you know that operator needed a stream of revenues during the  that now belongs to the city under these provisions the state is not in place then the city's going to come in and do what you that's right but if the how does that how do they put it back together if at some point relatively near future directing the city to to restart start from scratch invalidate the city bridge franchise and move forward with a scheme with multiple franchisees and if the taliban were to you to win a franchise under that new scheme we would simply revert you know those locations honor because in our view b r c the we are confident in this in the six in the in the six sets on the merits on our hands and we there's an important public interest here because we this is us with his limited knowledge to do something no matter how clearly right it is to do something which is going to kind of in the matter forever rather than letting another panel look at least it's a diff it were to prevail on appeal there's nothing that entitle tulla being to continue a stream of revenues advertising revenues so that it can simply stay in business to pursue its appeal and has nothing to do with that with the claims that it's pursuing under the federal telecommunications act to the extent that they are objecting to the seizure of equipment that's separate from allowing tabi in to operate those or continue advertising on on those structures i mean to the extent that television is this is franchise of an industry that is now based largely on outdated technology and to occupy spots in the city's property that is inalienable it's a city's it's property that cannot be sold it cannot be leas squat on the city streets on public rights  beamer has already submitted a thirty two point one letter proposing a schedule where i believe it would perfect in early october and november fourteenth i'm the only we would just ask that the also it really is in an action at law for that unlawful take it it's it's it's it's already forgive me no it's not i mean not nothing's been done because the taking or the operation of the asset disposition on the old franchise agreement is rather murky but the question of the franchise having been expired self executing and that provision in the old dream it is not something that's been challenged and it's not something that the appellate has said violates the  telecommunications act so the franchise has expired they have no right to be out there the city what they have a right to the appeal is is requires to the asset disposition provisions of their agreement and that's what's been and that's the city has been told redeployed as part of the link the point program but that's and that's exactly what the franchise agreement that they agreed to fifteen years ago contemplates that they made one hundred seventy one million dollars off of as well contemplates and that's what they bargained for and has provisions for an appraiser to come in to determine what the fair market value of those assets are action and action of law and therefore it's not within the agreements well not within the french it's not within the franchise agreement and i do agree that you know section two of the three in the entire t c it doesn't create a private right of action there but we're not talking about the a managing member of city of my client that's correct and as i understand it they said at the time that any single franchisee screen scheme for providing telecommunications services on a city's public rights new franchise it violates your not this is whether or not the city can exercise its right under the old contract with the old franchise agreement and once again not to beat a dead horse but there is a monetary compensation that could be available if believe as you balance the equities that that should also favor denying the injunction we've been injured in our papers point out how much revenue has been lost and revenue continues to be lost because having to work around televisa locations and that's not only affects us the harm to to my client also harms the public interest because remember the public is not paying for this in terms of an expedited appeal are you all in agreement as to the schedule i have not agreed to a schedule you want to have only agreed that the appeal should be expedited and it should be it's impeding the progress of what the city needs a very important public program that federal government and the city governments made at their policy to close this digital divide and this is what we're trying to do and i think that this sort of cloud over the understanding that but in order that we're not imposing on you three sets of folks at a schedule that you otherwise could prepare in the backroom here and give to us  day that agreement says and to do it commissioner can accepted or rejected in her discretion there's no right there this is most definitely about t c a the city has tried  different than what t c a it's clear from its legislative history intended different from what the f c c has interpreted the city a lively assumes its interest is the same as the public interest it's not i would suggest to th paramount interest that should be enforced here is the federal government's interest in t c a to get rid of barriers to competition just like the ones that the city has imposed now and which is chief judge cashman noted bothered mr goldsmith when he had not yet