# U ni te d S ta te s Co ur t of A pp ea ls For the Eig hth Circu it

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _
No. 1 6- 36 96

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _
MCC Iowa , LLC, do in g b us in es s as Med ia co m

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Pla in ti

ff - App el la nt

v.

Ci ty of Io wa Ci ty; Im On Co m m un ic at io ns , LLC, form erl y kn own as J B an d S G Co m m un ic at io ns , LLC

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Defe nd

an ts - App el le es

----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----

Ch art er Co m

m un ic at io ns , Inc

.

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l

Amicu s o n Beh al

f o f Ap pe ll an t(s )

Io wa Leag ue of C it ie s

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l

Amicu s o n Beh al

f o f Ap pe ll ee(s )

__ __ __ __ __ __ App eal fro m

Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co ur t fo r th e So ut he rn Dis tri ct of I owa - Dav en po rt

__ __ __ __ __ __
Su bm it te d: Octo be r 19 , 20 17 Fil ed : Ap ril 4, 2 01 8

__ __ __ __ __ __Befo re GRUENDER an d BENTON, Ci rcu it Ju dg es , an d TUNHEIM, Dis tri ct Ju dg e. 1

__ __ __ __ __ __
BENTON, Circu it Ju dg e.

MCC Io wa, LLC, do in g bu s i n e s s as Med ia co m , pr ov id es cab le an d

te le co m m un ic at io ns se rv ic es in Io wa Ci ty. Med ia co m su ed th e Ci ty of Io wa Ci ty an d

Im On Co m

m un ic at io ns , LLC. The di st ric t cou rt gr an te d su m m ary jud gm en t to th e 2

Ci ty an d Im On. Med ia co m ap pe al s. Hav in g juri sd ic ti on un de r 28 U.S.C. § 12 91
, th is

co ur t af fir m s.

I.

Med ia co m

—t he on ly cab le pr ov id er in t h e Ci ty—ha s a fran ch is e ag reem en t
wit h th e Ci ty, as req ui red by f e d e r a l a n d st at e la w. Se e 47 U.S.C. § 54 1( b) ; Io w a Cod e § 47 7A.2 (1 )

. The ag reem en t req ui res Med ia co m to pa y fees an d pr ov id e cab le

se rv ic es to alm os t al l t he Cit y

.

In 20 15
, Im On—

pr ov id er of cab le an d te le co m mu n i c a t i on s in ot he r Io wa ci ti es —p ub li cl y st at ed an in te nt to pr ov id e se rv ic es , in cl ud in g cab le

, in th e Ci ty. The
Ci ty Co unc il pa sse d thr ee res ol ut io ns to faci li ta te Im On’s co ns tru ct io n of a fib er-o pt ic

ne two r k

, in cl ud in g acce ss to pu bl ic rig ht s- of -way

. The ne xt m on th

, Im On be ga n
pr ov id in g i n t e r ne t to Ci ty res id en ts

. The ne xt y ear, it be ga n pr ov id in g te le ph on e

se rv ic e. Im On h as no t p ro vi de d c ab le ser vi ces in th e Ci ty and ha s n ot ap pl ie d for a

The Hon or ab le Jo hn R. Tun he im

, Ch ie f Ju dg e, Uni ted St ates Dis tri ct Co ur t fo r 1 th e Dis tri ct of M in ne so ta , si tt in g b y de si gn at io n.

The Hon or ab le Ch arl es R. W ol le

, Uni te d St at es D ist ri ct Ju dg e fo r th e So ut he rn 2 Dis tri ct of I owa

.
-2

-cab le fran ch is e. It cl ai m s to ha ve ab an do ne d pl an s to pr ov i d e c a bl e se rv ic es in th e

Ci ty.

Med ia co m be li ev ed th e Ci ty an d Im On were co ll ud in g to it s di sa dv an ta ge

. In
Io wa, if an ot he r cab le pr ov id er ap pl ie s fo r a f r a n c h is e in a m

un ic ip al it y , th e in cu m be nt pr ov id er (h ere, Med ia co m ) can ap pl y fo r a st at e cert ifi cat e of fran ch is e

au th or it y fo r th at m

un ic ip al it y. Io w a Cod e § 47 7A.2 (6 )

. Thi s gu aran te es th e in cu m be nt pr ov id er the “ sa m e

. . . te rm s and co nd it io ns ” th e ne w pr ov id er get s. Id

.

Med ia co m su ed th e Ci ty, la te r ad di ng Im On as a de fen da nt

. The la wsu it so ug ht
de cl arat io ns th at th e res ol ut io ns were vo id an d th at th e Ci ty co ul d no t p e r mi t a
p o te nt ia l cab le pr ov id er to co ns tru ct a “ cab le syste m ” wit ho ut acq ui rin g a cab le
fran ch is e. Med ia co m al so al le ge d co nt ract vi ol at io ns , t o r t i ou s in te rfer en ce, ci vi l

co ns pi racy, an d Equ al P r ot ect io n vi ol at io ns , a ll de pe nd in g on whe th er Im On co ul d
la wfu ll y bu il d a fib er-o pt ic ne two rk wit ho ut a fran ch is e.

Bo th pa rti e s mo ve d fo r su m m ary jud gm en t. Med ia co m al so m ov ed fo r di sc ov ery. Th e di st ric t co ur t de ni ed th e di sc ov ery m ot io n an d gr an te d su m m ary jud gm en t to th e Ci ty an d Im On. The co ur t ru le d th at “ Im On is no t pr es en tl y req ui red

to see k a cab le fran ch is e” b ecau se it “ is no t n ow d el iv eri ng cab le pro gr am m in g.”

Thi s co ur t rev ie ws de no vo th e di st ric t co ur t’s gr an t of su m m ary jud gm en t.
Tor ge rs on v
. Ci ty of Ro ches te r , 64 3 F.3 d 10 31
, 10 42 (8 th Ci r. 20 11 ) (en ba nc ).
Su m m ary ju d g men t i s p r op er if th e co ur t fin ds “ th ere is no ge nu in e is su e as to an y

m at eri al fact an d th at th e m ov an t is en ti tl ed to jud gm en t as a m at te r of la w.” Fed. R.
Civ . P. 56( a)

.

II.

Tit le VI of th e Co m

m un ic at io ns Act req ui res a fran ch is e on ly be fo re pr ov id in g cab le se rv ic e, no t be fo re co ns tru ct in g th e in fras tru ct ur e to pr ov id e it

. “ [A] c a b l e

-3

-op erat or m ay no t pr ov id e cab le se rv ic e wit ho ut a fran ch is e.” 47 U.S.C. § 54 1( b)(1 )

(em ph as is ad de d)

. Bu t Med ia co m arg ue s th at lo cal fran ch is in g au th or it ie s (LFAs)

m ay req ui re a fran ch is e earl ie r th an fed er a l l a w do es

. And Med ia co m be li ev es th e Ci ty, as an LFA, di d s o i n i ts Cab le Tele vi si on Fran ch is e Ena bl in g Ord in an ce:

No pers on , fir m , com

pa ny, corp or at io n o r as so ci at io n sh al l co ns tr uc t , in st al l,

m ai nt ai n or op erat e wit hi n an y pu bl ic st reet in th e ci ty, or wit hi n a n y o t h e r pu bl ic pr op ert y of th e ci ty, a n y eq ui pme nt or fa ci li ti es fo r th e di st ri bu ti on of

ca bl e se rv ic e ov er a ca bl e te l e v i s i o n s y s te m or an op en vi de o syste m to an y

su bs cri be r un le ss a fr an ch is e au th or iz in g th e us e of th e st re et s or pr op er ti es

or ar ea s ha s fi rs t be en ob ta in ed pu rs ua nt to th e pr ov is io ns of th is ch ap te r, an d

un le ss su ch fran ch is e is in ful l fo rce a nd effe ct

.

Io w a Ci ty Code § 1 2- 4- 6( A) (em ph as is ad de d)

.

The Ord in an ce m

us t be in te rp reted co ns is te nt wit h fed eral la w. Se e Io w a Cod e § 47 7A.1 1( 1) (“ Thi s ch ap te r is in te nd ed to be co ns is te nt wit h [Tit le VI]

. . . ”); Io w a City Cod e § 12 -4 -2 (ad op ti ng , al m os t wor d- fo r-wo rd

, Tit le VI’s de fin it io n of “ cab le
syste m ” as th e de fin it io n of “ cab le te le vi si on syste m or cab le syste m ”). Med ia co m ’s
in te rp ret at io n— req ui rin g a fran ch is e be fo re co ns tru ct i on of Im On’s fib er-o pt ic

ne two rk —i s i nc on si st en t wi th Tit le VI an d a n F CC o rd er. 3

Co m m on carr ie rs —as rel ev an t he re , co m pa nie s prov id in g te le co m

m un ic at io ns (in te rn et an d ph on e) se rv ic e—a re reg ul at ed un de r Tit l e II of th e Co m m un ic at io ns Act. 47 U.S.C. §§ 20 1- 76

. Cab le pr ov id ers are reg ul at ed un de r Tit le VI of th e Act.

Bec au se Im On was a co m m on carr ie r in Io wa Ci ty whe n it be ga n co ns tru ct io n, 3 Med ia co m ’s in te rp ret at io n is al so fo recl os ed by th e Ord in an ce wi th ou t re fere nc e to fed eral la w. The Ord in an ce (li ke Tit le VI) exp res sl y ex cl ud es fro m it s de fin it io n of cab le syste m s “ a faci li ty of a co m m on carr ie r whi ch is su bjec t, in who le or in pa rt, to th e pr ov is io n of ti tl e I I o f t h e [Co m m un ic at io ns Act], ex cep t

. . . to th e ex te nt th at

su ch faci li ty is us ed in th e tra ns m is si on o f vi de o pr og ram m in g

. . . .” Io w a City Cod e § 12 -4 -2

.

-4

-§§ 52 1- 73

. At on e ti m e, Tit le II an d Tit le VI d i d no t ov erl ap be cau se

te le co m m un ic at io ns an d cab le ha d di ffer en t in fras tru ct ur es

. Se e Nat i o n a l Ca bl e Tele vi si on As s’ n, In c. v. FCC
, 33 F.3 d 66
, 69 (D.C. Ci r. 19 94 ) (d is cu ss in g th e hi st or y of co pp er-wi re, co ax ia l-c ab le

, an d fib er-o pt ic te ch no lo gy). Tod ay , “ m ix ed -u se ”
in fras tru ct ur e—s uc h as fib er-o pt ic ne two rk s— can pr ov id e bo th te le co m m un ic at io ns

an d c ab le

. Se e id

.

Tit le VI gr an ts LFAs fran ch is in g aut ho rit y ov er cab le syste m s. Se e § 54 1( a)

. Bu t th is au th or it y is li m it ed

. As rel ev an t he re, Tit le VI ex em pt s co m m on -car rie r faci li ti es reg ul at ed un de r Tit le II fro m th e de fin it io n of “ cab le syste m ” un le ss th ey are

us ed to pro vi de cab le ser vi ces :

[T]he te rm “ cab le syste m ” m ean s a faci li ty

. . . de si gn ed to pr ov id e cab le

se rv ic e

. . . bu t su ch te rm do es no t in cl ud e

. . . (C) a faci li ty of a co m m on

carr ie r whi ch is su bjec t, i n w h o le or in pa rt, to th e pr ov is io ns of [Tit le II], ex cep t th at su ch faci li ty sh al l be co ns id ered a cab le syste m (o th er th an fo r pu rp os es of se ct io n 54 1( c)(2 ) of t hi s ti tl e) to th e ex te nt su ch faci li t y i s us ed in th e tra ns m is si on of vi de o pr og ram m in g di rect ly to

su bs cri be rs

. . . .

§ 5 22 (7 )

.

The FCC h as st at ed :

W e cl ari fy th at LFAs’ juri sd ic ti on ap pl ie s on ly to th e pr ov is io n of cab le

se rv ic es ov er ca bl e syst em s . . . [A] n LFA h as no au th or it y to in si st on

an en ti ty o bt a i n in g a se pa rat e cab le fran ch is e in or de r to up gr ad e no ncab le faci li ti es

. Fo r ex am

pl e, as su m in g an en ti ty (e.g

., a LEC[ ]) al read y 4

po ss es se s au th or it y to acce ss th e pu bl ic rig ht s- of -way , an LFA m ay no t
req ui re th e LEC to ob ta in a fran ch is e so le ly fo r th e pu rp os e of up gr ad in g

A “ LEC”—“ lo cal ex ch an ge carri er”— is , as re le va nt he re, a co m m on carr ie r 4

pr ov id in g t el ep ho ne ser vi ce. Se e 47 U.S.C. § 15 3( 32 )

.

-5

-it s ne two rk .[] So lo ng as th ere is a no n- cab le p u r p o s e as so ci at ed wit h

th e ne two rk up gr ad e, th e LEC is no t req ui red to ob ta in a fran ch is e un ti l

an d un le ss it pr op os es to of fer cab le se rv ic es

. Fo r ex am pl e, if a LEC de pl oys fib er op ti c cab le th at can be us e d f or cab le an d no n- cab le

se rv ic es , th is de pl oym en t al on e do es no t tri gg er th e ob li ga ti on to ob ta in a cab le fran ch is e.

In re Implementa tio n of Sect io n 62 1( a) (1 ) of the Cab le Comm uni ca tio ns Pol ic y Act of 19 84
, 2 2 F

. C

. C

. R

. 51 01
, 51 55 (2 00 7) (h erei na fte r FCC or der ). Se e al so Il li no is Bel l Tel. Co. v. V

il la ge of It as ca , 50 3 F. Su pp

. 2d 92 8, 93 7 (N.D. Ill

. 20 07 ) (h ol di ng th at a co m

pa ny up gr ad in g it s te le co m m un ic at io ns ne two rk to fib er-o pt ic “ is

no t a ‘cabl e op erat or ’ un de r th e te rm s of [Tit le VI] b e c a u s e i t is no t pr ov id in g th e

tra ns m is si on of vi de o pr og ram m in g. Ri gh t no w i t i s si m pl y co ns tru ct in g a lo cal
di st rib ut io n syste m cap ab le of de li ve rin g vi de o pr og ram m in g. ”). Se e ge ne ra ll y Co m pe ti ti ve Tele co m m c’ns As s’ n v
. F C C
, 11 7 F.3 d 10 68
, 10 71 (8 th Ci r. 19 97 ) (d efer en ce to FCC or de r in te rp ret in g Tit le II), ci ti ng Chev ro n USA In c. v. Nat ur al

Res . Def. Co unci l, I

nc. , 46 7 U.S. 8 37 , 84 3- 44 (19 84 ).

Tit le VI
, by it se lf, sa y s th at a co m m on carr ie r’s m ix ed -u se faci li ty is a cab le
syste m on ce th e “ faci li t y i s us ed ” to pr ov id e cab le se rv ic es

. Se e § 52 2( 7) (C) ; Med ia One Grp ., In c. v. Co unt y of Hen ri co , 2 5 7 F

. 3d 35 6, 36 4 (4 th Ci r. 20 01 ) (“ [Tit le VI] th eref

or e co nt em

pl at es th at m

ul ti -p ur po se faci li ti es wil l rece iv e di ffer en t

reg ul at or y

cla ss ifi cat io n a nd tre at m en t d ep en di ng on th e se rv ic e th ey are p ro vi di ng

at a g i ve n ti m e.” (ci ti ng § 52 2( 7) (C) )). As th e FCC or de r sa y s, LFAs m us t ha ve fran ch is e au th or it y be fo re act ua l us e, i.e.
, wh e n a co m pa ny “ pr op os es ” to pr ov id e cab le se rv ic es

. Se e FCC or der
, 22 F.C.C.R. at 51 55

. Tog et he r, Tit le VI an d th e FCC

or de r es ta bl is h th at LFAs m ay reg ul at e a c o mm on carr ie r’s m ix ed -u se faci li ti es

co ns is te nt wit h Tit le VI on ly whe n th e op erat or pr ov id es or pr op os es to pr ov id e cab le

s e r vi ces

. Bec au se Im On ha s no t pr ov id ed or pr op os ed to pr ov id e cab le se r v i c e s , de pl oym en t of it s m ix ed -u se , fib er-o pt ic ne two rk do es no t req ui re it to ob ta in a cab le
fran ch is e.

-6

-III.

M e d ia co m arg ue s th at ne it he r § 52 2( 7) (C) no r th e FCC or de r ap pl ie s h e r e , whe re a co m

m on carr ie r co ns tru ct in g a m ix ed -u se , fib er-o pt ic ne two rk was no t th en
pr ov id in g te le co m

m un ic at io ns in th e area

. Bu t § 52 2( 7) (C) an d th e FCC or de r ap pl y
to a co m m on carr ie r’s faci li ti es “ su bjec t

. . . to ” Tit le II, reg ard le ss whe th er th ey ha ve

y et be en us ed to pr ov id e te le co m m un ic at io ns se rv ic es

. Se e § 52 2( 7) (C) ; FCC or der

at 51 55 (“ [D]epl oym en t [o f m ix ed -u se faci li ti es ] al on e do es no t tri gg er th e ob li ga ti on
to ob ta in a cab le fran ch is e.”). Med ia co m ’s arg um en t co nf li ct s wit h th e FCC or de r’s

st at ed ob jecti ve o f al le vi at in g th e “ un reas on ab le ba rri er to en try [cau se d by th e
pr ev io us fran ch ising pr oc es s] th at im pe de s th e ach ie ve m en t of th e in te rrel at ed fed eral

go al s of en ha nc ed cab le co m pe ti ti on an d acce le rat ed br oa db an d de pl oym en t.” FCC

or der , 2 2 F.C.C.R. at 51 02

. Se e al so id

. at 51 03 (“ W e b el ie ve th is co m pe ti ti on fo r de li ve ry of bu nd le d se rv ic es wil l b e n e f i t co ns um ers by dr iv in g do wn pr ic es an d
im pr ov in g th e qu al it y of se rv ic e of feri ng s. W e are co nc ern ed

, ho wev e r , th at [co m pe ti to r s ] s eek in g to en te r th e vi de o m ark et face un reas on ab le reg ul at or y ob st acl es , to th e de tri m en t of co m pe ti ti on ge ne ral ly a n d c a b l e su bs cri be rs in

pa rti cu la r.”). Thi s ob

jecti ve im pl em en ts Tit le II an d Tit le VI. Se e 47 U.S.C. § 25 3( a) (“ No St at e or lo cal st at ut e or reg ul at io n

. . . m ay pr oh ib i t o r h a v e t h e effe ct of

pr oh ib it in g th e ab il it y of an y e n ti ty to pr ov id e an y in te rs ta te or in tra st at e

te le co m m u n ic at io ns se rv ic e.”); § 54 1( b)(3 )(B) (“ A fran ch is in g au th or it y m ay no t
im po se an y req ui rem en t un de r th is su bc ha pt er th at ha s th e pu rp os e or effe ct of

p r o h i b i t i n g , l i mi t i n g , r e s t r i c t i n g , o r c o n d i t i o n i n g t h e p r o v i s i o n o f a
te le co m m un ic at io ns ser vi ce b y

a cab le op erat or

. . . .”).

Med ia co m arg ue s th at Im On “ pr op os ed ” to pr ov id e cab le se rv ic e w he n it s CEO

“ pu bl ic ly c o n ve y ed Im On’s in te nt to of fer cab le TV se rv ic es in Io wa Ci ty.” Bu t
Med ia co m co nf

la te s “ pr o p o se s” wit h “ in te nd s.” Co mpa re “ pr op os e,” Web st er ’s
Dict io na ry 18 19 (u na br id ge d 3d ed

. 19 61 ) (“ to of fer fo r c o ns id erat io n, di sc us si on ,

acce pt an ce, or ad op ti on ”), wi th “ in te nd ,” Web st er ’s Dict io na ry 11 75 (u na br id ge d 3d

-7

-ed

. 19 61 ) (“ to h a v e i n m in d as a de si gn or pu rp os e”). In th e FCC or de r, th e te rm

“ pr op os e” m ean s “ ap pl y fo r a cab le fran ch is e.” Se e FCC or der
, 22 F.C.C.R. at 51 39 (“ [I]f an LFA ha s no t m ad e a fin al de ci si on wit hi n th e ti m e li m it s

. . . th e LFA wil l be
de e m ed to ha ve gr an te d th e ap pl ic an t an in te rim fran ch is e ba se d on th e te rm s

pr op os ed in th e ap pl ic at io n.” (em ph as is ad de d) ); id

. at 51 38 (cab le fran ch i s e
ap pl ic at io ns must co nt ai n in fo rm at io n in cl ud in g “ th e ge og rap hi c area th at th e
ap pl ic an t pr op os es to se rv e,” an d “ th e ap pl ic an t’s pr op os ed PEG ch an ne l capa ci ty” (em ph as is ad de d) ). W hi le Im On st at ed an in te nt to pr ov id e cab le se rv ic e in th e Ci ty,
it ne ve r pr op os ed to do so

.

Med ia co m al so be li ev es th at th e Ci ty, be fo re gr an ti ng acce ss to pu bl ic rig ht sof -way , sh ou ld be req ui red to as k ho w e n t i ti es in te nd to us e th em

. If th e en ti ty
in te nd s, as Im On st at ed

, to us e th em fo r cab le se rv ic es , Med ia co m arg ue s, th e en ti ty

m us t o bt ai n a cab le fran ch is e.

Med ia co m rel ie s on Sa n Jua n Cab le LLC v . Tel eco mmun ic at io ns Regu la to ry Boa rd of Pue rt o Rico

. The re, a co m pa ny ha d ap pl ie d fo r a cab le fran ch is e, bu t be fo re th e ap pr ov al of it s ap pl ic at io n, wan te d to co ns tru ct an d op erat e (m ix ed -u se ) faci li ti es in a “ tri al ph as e.” 59 8 F. Su pp

. 2d 23 3, 23 4- 35 (D.P.R. 20 09 ). The co m pa ny, ci ti ng th e FCC or de r, arg ue d th at th e fran ch is e req ui rem en t was no t tri gg ered be cau se it ha d

no t “ pr op os e[d ] to off

er ca bl e se rv ic es .” Id

. at 23 6. Th e d is tri ct co ur t d is ag reed :

[The FCC] di d no t ho ld

. . . th at jus t be cau se a te le ph on e co m pa ny us es th e sa m e cab le syste m fo r a di ffer en t act iv it y , it sh ou ld be ex em pt fro m

co m pl y in g wit h [Tit le VI]’ s fran ch is e req ui r e men t whe re, as in th e pr es en t ca s e , s uc h co m

pa ny in te nd s to up gr ad e ex is ti ng faci li ti es in

or de r to m ak e th e p ro vi si on of c ab le ser vi ces vi ab le

.

Id

. at 23 7.

-8

-Sa n Ju an Ca bl e do es no t su pp or t Med ia co m ’s in ve st ig at e-i nt en t req ui rem en t.

Fi rs t, the co m

pa ny th ere h ad alr ead y

ap pl ie d fo r a fra nc hi se an d was at te m pt in g “ to

pe rfec t [it s] cab le syste m be fo re ap pr o v a l of th e fran ch is e.” Id

. at 23 8. Thu s, th e

co m pa ny ha d pr op os ed to pr ov id e cab le se rv ic es

. Se e id

. at 23 7 (“ [The co m

pa ny]

wou ld ha ve th is co ur t be li ev e th at it do es no t ‘pro po se to of fer cab le se rv ic es ,’ whe n it is pr eci se ly fo r th at reas on th at it wis h e s t o co nd uc t a be ta -te st in g tri al of it s syste m .”). Seco nd

, th e di st ric t co ur t fo un d th at th e co m pa ny’ s “ tri al ph as e” was “ th e
pr ov is io n of cab le se rv ic es ” un de r Tit le VI. Se e id

. at 23 7 n .2 (“ W ha t i s be fo re th e

co ur t is a pe ti ti on

. . . to ba r th e Reg ul at or y Bo ard fro m al lo win g [th e co m pa ny] to us e

su ch faci li ti es fo r th e pr ov is io n of c a b l e se rv ic es if an d un ti l it acq ui res a fran ch is e

as req ui red by fed eral la w, no th in g m or e.”); id

. at 23 6 (“ [T]he co ur t fin ds th at [th e

co m pa n y] is in de ed of

feri ng a ‘cabl e se rv ic e,’ as de fin ed in [Tit le VI], th ro ug h th e im pl em en ta ti on of it s li m it ed te st tri al .”). Here, Im on ha s no t pr op os ed a tri al ph as e

or to pro vi de cab le ser vi ces wit ho ut a fran ch is e.

In th e al te rn at iv e, Med ia co m arg ue s th at th e Ci ty gr an te d Im On a de fact o cab le
fran ch is e th at fai le d to co m pl y wit h th e fran ch is e req ui rem en ts of Tit le VI an d Io wa la w. Se e, e.g

. , Io w a Cod e § 36 4.2 (4 )(g ) (“ If a ci ty gr an ts m or e th an on e cab le

t e l ev is io n fran ch is e, th e m at eri al te rm s an d co nd it io ns of an y ad di ti on al fran ch is e sh al l no t gi ve un du e pr efer en ce or ad va nt ag e to th e ne w fran ch is ee.”)

. Acco rd in g to
Med ia co m , be cau se th e Ci ty kn ew Im On’s in te nt to pr ov id e cab le se rv ic es an d is su ed

res ol ut io ns al lo win g co ns tru ct i o n of m ix ed -u se eq ui pm en t, th e res ol ut io ns were a cab le fran ch is e.

Bu t th is is no t tru e as a m at te r of st at e o r f e d e r a l la w. Ci ti es in Io wa ha ve

ge ne ral au th or it y ov er rig ht s- of -way , su bjec t to st at e an d fed eral li m it s. Se e Io w a Cod e § 3 6 4

. 1 ( “A ci ty m ay ,” ex cep t as pr ov id ed in Io wa la w, “ ex erci se an y po wer

an d pe rfo rm an y fu nc ti on it de em s ap pr op ria te

. . . .”); Ci ty of Ha wa rd en v. US Wes t
Co m m c’ns , In c. , 59 0 N.W .2d 50 4, 50 6 ( I o wa 19 99 ) (ci ti es ha ve “ th e au th or it y to

-9

-reg ul at e a ut il it y ’s us e o f st reet s, h ig hwa y s, ri gh ts -o f-way and ot he r pu bl ic gro un ds

wit hi n t he cit y

li m it s t o th e ex te nt no t in co ns is te nt wit h fed eral co m m un ic at io n l aw

or [Io wa la w] ”). The fed eral an d s t a t e li m it s th at Med ia co m ci te s ap pl y to ca bl e

“ fran ch is es ,” de fin ed as:

an in it ia l au th or iz at io n

. . . is su ed by a fran c h i s i n g au th or it y , whe th er

su c h au th or iz at io n is de si gn at ed as a fran ch is e, pe rm it

, li cen se , res ol ut io n, co nt ract , cert ifi cat e, ag reem en t, or ot he rwis e, whi ch

au th or iz es th e co ns tru ct io n o r op erat io n o f a ca bl e sy st em

.

47 U.S.C. § 52 2( 9) (em

ph as is ad de d) ; se e al

so Io w a Cod e § 47 7A.1 (7 ) (n earl y id en ti cal ).

As di sc us se d, Im On’s fib er-o pt ic ne two rk is n o t a “ cab le syste m ,” be cau se
Im On ha s no t pr ov id ed or pr op os ed to pr ov id e cab le se rv ic es

. Thu s, th e ag reem en ts

au th or iz in g Im On’s c o n s t r u ct io n of a fib er-o pt ic ne two rk are no t a de fact o cab le
fran ch is e.

IV.

In it s Equ al Pro te ct io n cl ai m , Med ia co m arg ue s it is si m il arl y si tu at ed to Im On.

M e d i aco m ci te s Ti me W

ar ne r Ca bl e, In c. v. Hud so n , 66 7 F.3 d 63 0, 63 9 (5 th Ci r

. 20 12 ), whe re a la w f

a v o red ne w cab le pr ov id ers ov er a “ sm al l an d id en ti fia bl e

nu m be r of [in cu m

be nt ] cab le pr ov id ers .” The co ns ti tu ti on al in jury st em m ed fro m th e d i f f eri ng tre at m en t of si m il arl y si tu at ed ca bl e pr ov id er s

. Here, th e di st ric t c o u r t

pr op erl y co nc lu de d th at Im On an d Med ia co m are no t si m il arl y si tu at ed be cau se on ly
Med ia co m

is a cab le pro vi de r in th e Ci ty.

Fi na ll y , Med ia co m as se rts th at th e di st ric t co ur t a b u s e d i ts di sc ret io n in
de nyin g M ed ia co m ’s m ot io n fo r di sc ov ery. Se e Tob en v. Br id ge st on e Ret

ai l Op s.,

-1 0-LLC

, 75 1 F.3 d 88 8, 89 4 (8 th Ci r. 20 14 ) (d en ia l of a di sc ov ery m ot io n is rev ie wed fo r ab us e of di sc ret io n)

. Med ia co m al le ge s th ere are di sp ut ed fact is su es req ui rin g di sc ov ery, in c l u di ng : whe th er Im On in te nd ed to pr ov id e cab le se rv ic es de sp it e it s
pu bl ic ret ract io n; whe th er Im On was of feri ng te le co m

m un ic at ion s se rv ic es in the Ci ty
be fo re en te rin g th e ag reem en ts wit h th e Ci ty; an d whe th er Im On’s syste m is f u l ly
cab le -rea dy. Bec au se th is co ur t ha s as su m ed al l fact s fav or a b l y t o M e di aco m , th e di st ric t co ur t di d no t ab us e it s di sc ret io n in de nyin g fu rth er di sc ov ery an d gr an ti ng

su m m ary jud gm en t fo r Im On an d t he Cit y

.

** ** ** *

The jud gm en t i s af

fir m ed

.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __

-1 1-