Cox’s action in continuing to collect franchise fees on cable mod...

Cox’s action in continuing to collect franchise fees on cable modem service in jurisdictions outside 9th U.S. Appeals Court, San Francisco, has been challenged in suit by 2 Va. customers in U.S. Dist. Court, Roanoke. MSO has notified communities in 9th Circuit jurisdiction that it will stop collecting franchise fees on high- speed Internet service, citing court ruling classifying cable modem service as telecom offering. Forcing only customers in states outside 9th Circuit to pay franchise fee is “unjust” and “unreasonable,” said plaintiffs Kimberly and William Bova, who are seeking class action status. By exempting subscribers in Ariz., Cal., Ida. and Nev. from franchise fees, Cox gave those customers “unreasonable preference or advantage,” plaintiffs said, and all franchise fees levied by company were unlawful charges, “entitling customers to a refund.” They alleged that Cox previously took position that its service was cable to avoid FCC regulation under Title 2, but reversed its position after 9th Circuit decision. “Cox appears to adopt contradictory positions regarding the classification of cable modem service as part of a relentless effort to avoid any government regulation for its own financial benefit at the expense of its customers,” they said. Although Cox acknowledges that cable modem service is telecom service in certain areas, it refuses to comply with laws protecting customers such as rate filing laws. Question of law and facts raised by plaintiffs include: (1) Whether Cox violated Title 2 of Communications Act. (2) Whether Cox could continue to impose franchise fee on cable modem service in other states after discontinuing it in 9th Circuit jurisdiction. (3) Whether Cox’s monthly subscription rates, which included franchise fee on cable modem service, were just and reasonable.